This morning ladies and gentlemen, Denton County Commission's Court for Tuesday, March 24th, 2009 is now in session. This morning, an invocation will be given by James Wells, our county auditor, and our pledges will be led by Bennett Hall, our county engineer. Will you please stand? I do have any follow-up. We thank you. This is the first time we've been to this city. We have a meeting with the mayor of the county. We have a meeting with the mayor of the county. I do have any follow we thank you this day for allowing us to gather here for allows the freedom of assembly and for allowing us to conduct your business in an open forum we ask you to be with our commissioners and county judge today. Ask you to grant them wisdom to do make decisions that are wise for the county and wise for the citizens and they within your will. We ask you to look over each one present here today. Protect us. brings back safely next week and Christ's name we pay. Amen. with their attention to justice for all. On the basis of that, I pledge allegiance to the head of justice. On the stage, underdog. One in the pistol. Thank you, gentlemen. Item one is for public input. For items not posted on the agenda, if there's any member of the public that would like to address commissioners court. We ask that you please complete a public comment form available from the aid to the court on the side table here. We'd be glad to hear from you. We'd like to remind everyone to please turn off your cell phones and pages. In Gillis chief of our civil division. Here she comes now. She got stuck in traffic. Good morning, Kim. Glad you made it. But it looks like we pretty well shut down the wheels of justice in Denton County. So in the interest of all the citizens of Denton County that may need to take something through court today or have consultation with their attorneys. I think it would be in the best interest for us to go to item 3B immediately. 3B is approval of a resolution supporting Senate Bill 88 and House Bill 1527 to create a civil law, family, law preference district court for Denton County. We'll call on Hugh Coleman. Thank you, Judge. In June of 2007, a study was done and ordered by the state legislature. It was called Measuring Current Judicial Workload in Texas. And it was done by the National Center for State Courts. And from what I understand, this was done to take the politics out of creating courts in the state of Texas and to provide some objective data and support for either providing courts or just not determining whether or not they needed courts. Based on that survey, it was determined that we roughly needed one almost two new district courts in our county. Based on that, I think our district courts have judges have asked for my background over in Senator Nelson to introduce a bill for one court. I think that's the judicious thing to do. Even though we could probably use two courts, I think it would be the best and the interest of the county and the economic interest to go for one. If you see the financial impact, I'm recommending that we have a civil family law court, which is roughly less than $600,000 as opposed to I think the financial impact statement that you had put together with the DA's office, which was almost 1.6. The other thing I'm recommending is that we ask the our legislatures to enact this bill or have the bill enacted or it become into effect in January of 2011 that would allow for us to budget for this. I think that would be prudent, physically on our behalf and allow us to plan for the implementation of the new court. And I think if there's any members of the audience who might want to ask them and put, I'd welcome that too. Be glad to hear from. I have a question. If this becomes effective January 2011, the position would be filled by appointment or election. I believe it'd be filled by election. And hold the election in 2010 for a court that isn't created yet, can you? I guess there would be a probably appointment. Are you opposed to one being appointed? My opposition is to the court, not to the appointment process. Okay. Any other member of court that would like to address this issue at this time or would you like here for members of them? Let me just say, we say 2011 but we're going to have to make sure that we have the funds to cover that. That's correct. We'd be planning for that in 2010. And I just, I recommended it go that far out just to allow us to have time to plan for it. I thought that was excuse starting day, January 1. Commissioner Eanes. Yes, and I guess this is for Commissioner Coleman or any of the judges in the audience about no the answer to this. But if we went ahead and requested that he create a general jurisdiction court, could we still operate that? Go ahead and have the creation of that, and then go ahead and internally operate it under as a family, a civil and family law. While we're doing it, just go ahead and get the general jurisdiction. So we don't have to go back and change that at a future date and go ahead and do it right at the first time or is that impractical? Excellent. Correct me if I'm wrong, Judge Gabriel, but I believe that if we create a general jurisdiction, they by administrative rule can just have it assigned civil and family law court cases. And then if they wish to expand it to criminal law jurisdiction in the future, I think the judges by agreement could do that. Is that correct, Judge? That is correct. We have agreed and we would absolutely make it a family and civil law court. Yes, to start with and if the need ever develops or we need to assign it criminal cases, we would have that opportunity if it is created as a general jurisdiction court. And to go back and answer your question, I believe that the court can be created so that it is first filled by election because that's been done in the past. It may have to be in the bill that way, but I'm not 100% certain of that, but I'm almost 100%. I just thought it was a good time to bring up the question. But would there be a special election that we'd have to have? No, it would be the general election 2010. 2010? Okay. And I could be wrong about that. The reason I say that is because I know in the past there have been courts created like that and the governor actually vetoed it because he didn't get the appointment. That's why I'm... Well there's also an issue of during the budget process, the budget for this court wouldn't be approved until some time in September. So that wouldn't work really either because we wouldn't know that it was funded until the budget process was done in 2010. Am I thinking correctly, Dumb? We can certainly plan for it to be effective in January and and and prorate all the expenses and salaries. But still if you're going to have that on the ballot in 2010, that ballot has to be prepared so many days in advance of the election and go through the Department of Justice and all that sort of stuff. Don't always end it was here. Am I not correct on that the ballot paper? I think that's on the bill. If you'll come to the microphone, please. I believe if it's in the bill that the judge would be elected in the 2010 election cycle and would not take office until January 1 of 2011 that would be the same cycle as the rest of the candidates that are on that ballot and the filing period would be after the bill is enacted and the court could be created from there but I think you could put it on the ballot for the primary and it would be on the ballot for the general election. Okay, but still my point is that that... I haven't read that bill. Okay, but the budget would not be approved and be effective until October 1. Of 2010 and the judge would not take office until January 1 of 2000. What happens during the budget process is we don't see that there's a way to fund it on January 1. You've had an election elected a judge and that judge doesn't have a funded court and just bringing up points to think about here. Commissioner March, isn't yes. So if we at the end of our budget process, which I don't have. Budget here starts up October 1. 9809 is our public meeting to adopt budget and tax rate. At that point is when we would adopt the budget. Is that correct? That's correct, but this would be the following budget process. Right, but so by that date we'll know if we're able to fund this court on January 1st of 2011. I think her question is, is there enough time within the election code to get that process going for there to be an election for a judge by that November? Is there enough time between the time we adopt a budget and the filing and the appropriate documentation to even have an election. Is there another one? What if we came up to September and we decided to do it? Is there enough time for us to get an election, a them on the ballot, and what if we came up to 908 and said we couldn't? I mean, if we have to start the process before 908 and we bump up and we say we can't afford it, then we've already started the process and maybe even the filing for that position. It's my understanding that if you want to feel this office by election in 2011, the filing period would be in the December of 2000 and primary. Because they would have to go and file and be on the primary ballot. You just couldn't arbitrarily go and put this position on the general election ballot without running it through the primary process. So you have to make a decision by December of 2009, no 2010, 2009 in order to put it on the 2010 ballot. And that person would have to be elected for 2011. So you know that I don't think so. We're running. So you have to know this budget year. I have to know next but did you? 2010. So you have to be in a primary. You'd have to know. You'd have to know by December of 2009. if you were going to put it on the ballot for the 2010 election cycle with that person to take office in January of 2011. I don't think we're going to have enough. Oh, you haven't done enough. You haven't done enough. I don't think we're going to have enough. Oh, you haven't done enough. I don't think we're going to have enough. Oh, you haven't done enough. I don't think we're going to Maybe it would be better just as a suggestion to create the court if that's Bill's desire and not put a date on it so that it's immediately created and even when this body sees that they confronted they it. They do so, and initially it would be an appointment. Just something for you to consider. That'd be fine with me. I don't think there's a way to do that. There has to be a start date. There has to be a start date. It has to be a start date. We need you to come to the microphone please because not everybody can hear. The state also has costs if they have to plan for a new budget and there has to be a start date. They're not just going to create a court and we've gone as far out as we can go. I mean January 1st, 2011 is as far out as we can possibly go if we're going to ask for it in this legislative session. Mr. Marchin. So does that mean judge that they want enough time to fund it in their 2000 trying to think when they would fund it because they don't meet for two years after this legislative session. Would they appropriate the monies for it based upon our resolution or our request? Yes. I mean they would, you know, originally it was asked that it start September of this year. I mean it's not as if they're saying no we're not going to do it until January 1st of 2011 because we need the time to to get our funding together. I mean that's what we're trying to do for this court its purposes. So that's not something that they're asking for. They I think would do it if they're going to do it September of 2009. All right, but we're not going to do it. Commissioner Coleman, your light's flashing here. Did you want to add something else? Yes, ma'am. I believe the resolution that we have before us is a commitment to the legislature that if we are granted a new court that we will fund it. I think we are being prudent by asking it to be done in the future for allow us to plan for it and not this budget but the next budget. We do that on all sorts of items. We plan for the future. The study said we needed almost two courts. If we do not create a court now, we will be way behind the eight ball two years from now. The financial impact for us not taking these measures now will be a lot on our budget in the future. Instead of taking one huge bite of an apple three years from now, we do one court now see how it works out with our population increase, and then possibly ask for another one in the next legislature. I think if we do not create one now, we will be having a severe crisis in the future. The problem is, is I have to be flippant or, you know, spout a cliche, but justice delayed is justice denied. And if we avoid our duties to fund these courts, we are going to be denying justice to a lot of people. Just for clarification, Commissioner Coleman, are you saying that this resolution here commits us to funding the court in 2011? I believe it is a firm commitment to the legislature that we will be planning to fund this court. There are no absolutes. That's correct, but I think we're promising that. I think we're making every effort to do this. That's correct, Commissioner Mitchell. But I mean, they want to know, are we willing to fund the court in the future? It's inevitable. Denton County is growing. I think I read in USA today that the three fastest counties in Texas that are growing are Texas or Fort Bend Denton and Colin County and Regardless of what we do about it. We're going to be growing right now. We have the highest population per district court in the whole state. I think it would be just like any other budget item that we have and each one is presented at the budget season. If you have money to do it, you do which and if you don't, you don't. It's a budgetary item. We'll have to budget like we do every item that we do every day. Mr. Marching. Please, you do want to speak? First, the machine is not working. But go ahead, not defer to you, sir. How I'll move for approval of the resolution with these changes under the caption, remove, and a civil law, family law preference. Bratching on the last whereas with the stipulation that it is on the civil is therefore resolved and then put a period after a new district court and then delete the remaining part of the sentence. Why don't you want it to be a civil? I would prefer it be a general jurisdiction and that administratively handle it with the civil like we talked about earlier they handle it with just civil cases of preference to begin with. And then they could do a criminal later. I'll second for purposes of discussion. Thank you Commissioner Coleman. Commissioner Eads so basically you're saying that we've got a commitment from our district court judges that administratively they will only assign it family and civil cases. Therefore we will only really need to fund this at the level of $600,000 as opposed to the one and a half million dollar funding. That's right. Commissioner Gabriel, I mean Judge Gabriel, you're the administrative law judge right now, is that correct? Okay, and we have an understanding that you want to only, that y'all will only assign this family and civil cases at the beginning. Absolutely. All right, well then I'll just go ahead and second it. We have a motion and a second on the floor is a further discussion Commissioners Commissioner Marchin just for discussion. Let me let me I understand what your motion is I understand what you're trying to do is you're pulled you're pulling back any stipulations within the resolution itself On the specifics of what that court's going to be. Are you doing that in fear that if you don't do that, they won't respond by, in other words, there may be too much stipulation within the resolution for them to even sign us a court? No, I was just thinking while we're doing it, go ahead and give it the broadest jurisdiction possible and then allow them to, and we only staff it. So, for the civil side, and then we don't know what 2011 or 12 or 13 is going to handle. We can have an influx of criminal activity versus civil and give them the broadest discretion and then. You have to pay more when it's civil. I'm saying we have a commitment that they're going to. They're going to. I. Alicate. Mr. Merchant. Yeah, my understanding I may be wrong after doing a lot of due diligence in talking with the legislative offices and the judges and then doing my own homework that they will not, if they create a court, it is a general jurisdiction court anyway. There is not a specific saying that it will be a civil court or a criminal court. It will be for a general jurisdiction court period. I don't know that they, and somebody needs to jump in here that may know that positively, but I believe that the court is created, it is a, created as a general jurisdictional court, maybe the wrong words, but and then it's the at the discretion of the district judges within the county to say what type of law is going to be a Am I right, wrong or? Yes, shorter. I don't believe that I haven't seen any courts created in the recent past that were just civil or just criminal. Even the 390 third has a preference for family law. It doesn't mean that he can't hear criminal cases. He can. So really what you're doing here is, is what is a distinction without a difference. I mean, it's, even if it was created with a preference for civil and family, it still is general jurisdiction and we could still assign it criminal case. I just wanted y'all to have the flexibility. But I think what we were doing is because you are in our discussion, you all had said that you would do just civiling it. We quit, we quit. And I think that's what this resolution is alluding to is that we only do civil in it. So it will cost less money at the time to get the co-it going. We are committed to do that, whether it's called general jurisdiction or has a preference for civil and family. We are committed to you to do that. No matter how it's created, I understand what Commissioner Eages is trying to do. And really, I think that's what the legislature wants to do. They want to create a moral general jurisdiction and then let the county itself make those administrative decisions. Well, if it's redundant, by removing this language, I'll withdraw my motion. But it's. Actually commissioner, I think what you suggested is what I preferred. I included the language in this as kind of a compromise to signify to the commission's court that this was meant to be a civil family law court. I would rather prefer have that stricken as you suggested. Well, I think it's important to kind of echo what Commissioner Mitchell was saying earlier that this is a budgetary item. And we don't know what our values are going to come in this year. We don't know what next year is going to hold. It is a budgetary expense. And although I think we, we would be our end by passing this it would be an expression of our intent to fund this court. There's no promises through the budget cycle. We don't know, we don't know what our values are coming in this year or next year. I know that our population has continued to climb as Commissioner Coleman it said earlier. But housing starts are down all over the country and it didn't count. So I don't know about our, I don't know if the case load is going to be with increase in, with at households or population, I don't know what that's actually going to dictate. Tough financial times, creates criminal activity and marital stress and all that. So there's a byproduct there as far as the overall population. I don't know what it's going to increase, but I do want to echo the fact that, again, this is a but we can, I guess legislature could create ten of these that as necessarily mean didn't county's going to fund them. I mean, because it's a budgetary item. I'd like to ask Ken Gillis a question and it's my understanding there's a bill in place to Remove the family law preference from the 393rd is that correct? My Mike's not work. Well, maybe it is now. Mr. Wells and I had discussed the financial impact of Section of the on button bill that's doing a cleanup of all the courts across Texas. And I don't remember the number of the bill. Say it again. Senate bill 992. Senate bill 992 is what we're thinking it is. And it has in there for Denton County to remove the preference from the 393rd and just to make it clear that it's already a general jurisdiction court. But one of the recommendations from that committee and that sponsor is to remove that language. So we went through and analyzed whether or not there would be any financial impact for that being removed and had also talked with Judge Gabriel. The courts here have no intention if I'm speaking correctly, Judge, to change that court to criminal if that language is removed. And so it looks to me like there's a recommendation going across the state to take out any specific language. I don't remember who the sponsor of that bill is, but I just want to make you aware of that as well. So if that bill is successful, if 99.92 is successful, and it increases- Duncan, I'm talking about- Your restriction with that not being increased costed in County if that court's searching criminal cases. We're not gonna assign criminal cases to that court either. I mean, we could right now. We could have since it was created and we haven't. I mean, that shows you, you know, historically what we intend to do with that court and what we intend to do in the future with that court. But I think your amendment to the resolution is in line with what Senator Duncan is trying to do and that is make all the courts across the state the same. You know, not have, you know, one county have one thing and one county have another. Your amendment is in line with that and with the understanding that we are still committed to keep 3.93rd the way it is and we would assign family and civil only to the newly created court. But that commitment I'm okay. Commissioner Marching. And I would, if the court will indulge me as well as Judge Shipman, I had asked specifically Judge Shipman to come this morning because in some discussions that I had with him, there was always things that are out there. I will tell you, some of my research I was trying to do was to try to understand, understand exactly caseload, what those caseloads meant, what did the study itself take into consideration? Did the study take in consideration that if 15,000 cases were filed in all district courts within one year, how many of those would actually be adjudicated all the way through trial? How many of those would be dismissed prior to going to trial? How many of those would be mediated? You know, what did the study look at and how did the study, I mean mean Frank Lack read through the study and it was a boring study. I didn't quite understand but you put it in a very easy term for me to understand. If you can do that then you could probably talk to just about anybody. So if you don't mind sir. I don't mind a bit and I will tell you that in talking to you yesterday, a light went off of my head and said, reminded me of that old movie line, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Because of the different perspectives or perceptions that the judges have to compare to the commissioners, I can see why there's been some confusion about this resolution in the new court. From your perspective, you get a report and it talks about the shape of judicial districts and how some of them overlap in counties and what they do in Corpus Christi and all over the state and at the end it says that in county needs 1.6 and it just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense or give you the information you need for a new court. From the judges' perspective, we know what went into the court and the history behind it, into the report. And so when you say, well, we need some hard numbers and objective numbers, we say, well, the report, of course. And you all say, well, that really doesn't say much. And how that came about is, as Commissioner Coleman mentioned two sessions ago, the legislature was frustrated just like Yallar, except it's multiplied times 250 because they have to decide Corpus Christi and Mayor and El Paso and not just Ditton County Courts. So what they did is they gave a directive to the Office of Court Administration to hire somebody independent of Texas politics, that has some expertise in the area to do a statewide study and let them know who needs courts and who gutted. Black and white based on numbers, no politics. They did not fund it, so it didn't get done in that two-year period. The next session, they funded a little and there's some grant money and they finally got it done. They hired the office of the State Courts, National Center for State Courts to do it because they had experience in a dozen other states doing similar studies. And from the district judges perspective, we know the detail and effort that went into that. You know four years, the planning, who years to do it. Every district judge at the stage participated in the process almost every district judge kept detailed records about their case load, how long it cooked them to do each little detailed thing on their doctor. And what the study did is it categorized cases into different groups. For example, in criminal, they had first, green, second, green felonies, third-degree and state jail felonies, motions to revoke, discovery motions and motions to suppress. And for each of those categories, based upon this detailed timekeeping record, they determined what an average judge around the state, how much time it took them to do, one of those tasks. A first or second degree felony, emotional revoke, whatever. They took that time, added it up, and said, okay, it just judge has this much time in a year. They took your incoming case load and divided it up into that same group of categories, multiplied it by the time that it takes to do that category. And said, this is how many judges you're going to have to have to do this caseload. When they did that, Denton County ended up that we were doing the work for 7.6 district courts. And that was as of last September, September of 2008. Excuse me, September of 2007. And you all know the growth that we've had since then. But in any event, so the district judges, from our perspective, we say we need a new district court. Here's the report. And it shows we're doing the work of 7.6 judges. And y'all say, well, I don't know. But we are not sure if it's something to think about. We don't really understand this. So to us, that seems pretty bad on Y'all's part. To y'all, that seems pretty bad on our part. Because y'all want some hard and fast numbers. And we're giving you some report that is boring and best and probably more confusing than boring. So that's how I think that we have a little bit of a difference in perspective and how that maybe got us a little crosswise when we shouldn't have been. Any questions? Thank you, Judge. All right, Thank you. Does anyone else that would like to address commission? We thank you all for being here today. I went down to Austin. Well, actually not just Judge Jim and all of you. I went down to Austin and I visited with Senator Wentworth's office. He's chair of jurisprudence in the Senate. And I talked about this report because my commission march and said it's boring at best. I had some problems with it. As they did too, this study process, when it first started, was based pretty heavily on just population. And then a couple years ago, that report went much more in depth like you just explained. But it's still a work in progress. They're still working on ways to perfect it, and I appreciate that. We did have some conversation about possible ways to improve it, other things to look at. For that reason, I'll just simply say that I was on 100% sold that 1.6 was accurate. I would be more in favor of, and I'm probably going to go down on a full one vote here, but that's all right. Wouldn't be the first time. I'd be more in favor of taking a look at a new and improved study next time and address this in 2011. And I know I'm in the minority here on that opinion, but that's okay. So if there's anybody else that would like to address court on this issue, you know, now would be the time time to do it and then we'll call great hit. Just through the record if you'll identify yourself please. My name is Mike Gregory. I'm an attorney in Denton. And I do family logs, specifically for 32 plus years. And despite what the report says, let's talk about the tires hitting the road. Last December I filed a suit, a pro bono for a lady who could not afford a lawyer, and she was not eligible for legal aid. Husband had moved out, she had a child, she had a part-time job as a child care worker, and it was over, it was about three and a half weeks before we could get a hearing date to get temporary orders for temporary support. That's not any of our courts fault or our judges fault. It's just matter of caseload. And despite boring reports, it wasn't written to be a John Gresham novel, but the reality is that there are real people in them who are in need, who are having to wait too long to get relief, to get an order, to get their spouse to pay them support. And we need it and we need it desperately. Thank you. That would have been in the 393rd family law court? No, I don't believe it was. In other words, the family law cases are end up in all six courts. More of them end up in the 393rd. And I frankly, I do not remember which court that particular case landed in. I mean, when I go to the court house, I have to the file, I'll see which court I'm going to. No, but there is a desperate need. Thank you. Appreciate your opinion. Is anybody else who would like to address commissioners court on this issue before we call for the vote? I should clarify what the line is going to be. Eads since it was your motion if you've given the clarification please. It was to approve the resolution, striking the language and the caption that says, and the civil family law preference. And then, on the last whereas, deleting with the stipulation of the assigned civil family law cases. And on the therefore below, putting a period after January 1, 2011, I do this record period and then deleting remaining sentence. This is again with the understanding and agreement from the administrative judges that we're going to sign it. Civil. Civil. We have that committee. Renewed my second as to the. All right. Anybody else need anything else stated or clarification? All right. On paper with the motion. Please say aye. Aye. I will say nay. Nay. Motion carries four in favor. One opposed. We thank you, everybody. Now you'll better get back to work. Justice and Denton County is at a standstill. I love her. We're gonna wait just a minute and let the courtroom clear. Aren't you proud of me? I love it. You were, but how's that? How's that? Brody, what are you doing here? I'm not sure how you were but how much? How much? Brody, what are you doing here? You were but I loved you. It was a classic. Thank you. Bye. You couldn't resist. I loved this. I know it was. As James says, I felt the fire. Her. You supposed to have happened to you. You get burned. I'm saying that's not the time says I felt the fire. Her. You supposed to have a hand to you. Okay. We're a little late for a public hearing but trying to be considered of everybody's time here. Let's go immediately to item 4A which is public hearing approval of changes to the different kind of subdivision rules and regulations regarding half acre and one acre minimum lot size and so of testing requirements. First we need a motion to go into our public hearing motion by Commissioner Eid seconded by Commissioner Marchand on favor please say I'm going to be working on this and I'm going to be working on this and I'm going to be working on this and I'm going to be working on this and I'm going to be working on this and I'm going to be working on this and I'm going to be working on this and I'm going to be working on this and I'm going to be working on this and I'm going to be working on this and I'm going to be working on this and lawyers are noisy bunch aren't they? Well, Bennett it's not up on your screen but it's up on our computer here so Bobby's got to wake up Here it goes I'm in okay here we go Thank you judge thank you commissioners As we stated before, this particular public hearing is to determine if we're going to change the lot sizes in the subdivision rules. Previously on February 17th, the commissioners court gave directive to the staff to revise the OSF regulations to match the state minimum on lot size. March the 4th the commissioners court set today as the public hearing to discuss a lot size requirements in the subdivision rules. The subdivision rules currently have a minimum lot size of one acre. This lot size is not tied to any other requirement in the subdivision rules. It may have been added in to match the current OSSF regulations. We have a couple of different options the court can choose. One is do not change the minimum lot size in the subdivision regulations. If you go down this path and the applicant would have to request a variance from the subdivision rules, if he wants to develop lights less than one acre in size, then county's OSF regulations would have to include language stating that a variance from the subdivision rules is required for any development of lights less than one acre. Another option would be to revise the minimum lot size requirements to match the lot size requirements in the OSSF regulations. And a third option is to remove the minimum lot size requirements from the subdivision rules altogether. If the court chooses the variance route, staff would bring the variance requests before the commissioner's court with recommendation from the development support committee. The advantage to this option would be to provide the commissioner's court an opportunity to provide comment on a subdivision project that could potentially have long lasting impact on the county. The disadvantage, the review and variance process, would add a couple of weeks to the review process. If we revise the minimum lot size to match the OSF regulations, the advantage here is both regulations would have the same minimum lot size requirements. The disadvantage, the developer may not properly evaluate the soil and leave the property owner with less than optimal choice of the OSF system. Current minimum lot size requirements in the OSF regulations provide a large margin of safety. Remember currently we still have one and two acres as our minimum lot size requirements because the court order hasn't been sent down TCQ for review. And it's so this slide is if you reduce, if you reduce it to half acre and don't have a variance process, what is this? Correct. That would be to have the subdivision rules minimum lot size requirements match the OSSF regulations. The disadvantage is that we'll get into a little bit more, but state law requires the soil samples to be collected after the lot has been final graded. be collected after the lot has been final graded. And they can't do the final grading until the preliminary plot is approved. And the reason for that is the state wants the soil samples to be collected between two and five feet from the finished surface. If they collect it before they do the preliminary plot and end up having to cut out five feet of fill or ground Fill then the actual soil samples wouldn't be valid and they would have to go back and resample So if we require the developers to submit OSSF reports prior to or during the preliminary plat process then The homeowner would have to go back in and resample it for the actual permit. So it'd be two samples. The- Mr. Merchant has a question. Let me ask you something. Let me ask you something. If we require them to come in and seek a variance, and they meet the requirements of that variance that we are requesting, and we're asking them under certain stipulations you can have that variance. They cannot be denied, is that correct? That's my understanding. In other words, that's a right or a legal, somebody that may know that more than me, I'm trying to figure out what was, someone stopped me the last time we're here and gave me that. They did again? If they come in and ask for variance, they can't do tonight. In the subdivision regulations, there's a specific criteria to meet any variances, whether it's on this or any other variance from the subdivision regulations. And if they meet all those criteria, it's my understanding that the court has to grant. The ministerial act. That's what it is. Okay. Yeah. understanding that the court has to grant. Steerial act. In a serial act. That's what it is, okay. Yeah. There's approximately 10 items they have to meet in any variance. So then the advantage of coming in seeking a variance would be that the court has the opportunity to place items on. Yeah, in other words, they have to meet certain criteria before that before the variance was given to him. Is that correct? I mean, but we can't deny it. It's kind of like an SUP for private club ordinance within. can't deny. It's kind of like an SUP for private club ordinance within. He's a criteria. Right. If you meet the criteria. Or man, that's what I had in. Been just to clarify and I think this is what we're what I would like to do is reach some for the health and compromise but clarify this for me. What you what you just basically said was they could do a half acre law. They could do a one acre law. But then if they wanted to do a half acre, they would have to meet the criteria for a variance. Right? They met the criteria for a variance. We would pretty much have to grant it. Is that correct? Correct. And then, and with the top of that variance, they would also have to meet the requirements of the OSSF regulations. And that's what I was my next question is, and we're going to have objective criteria regarding the OSSF regulations. Correct. Okay. And then staff will recommend whether they meet it, because as we've talked about, my concern is, and I'm not as worried about it going to a half acre a lot, but my concern is, is that you have a half acre or a house built on a half acre lot with this moving pool and some sort of out building that doesn't have the type of soil that would match up for the septic tank that they needed. And you know we would have people complaining after the purchase of a lot. Look I've got a house and I can't get any sewer which would be a tragedy situation. That is correct. During the final plating process, they would have to apply for building permits. And as part of that building permit would be the environmental permit for the septic system. I want you to go ahead and then I'd like to hear from the people that have asked to speak. Okay. Then basically what the staff recommends is not revising the subdivision rules. Leave the minimum lot size as one acre and provide the variance request from the developer, which this ultimately provides the commissioners court with the ability to provide checks and balances to make sure the development is in the best interest of the county. Okay, can we, could we not stipulate that in our subdivision rules regulations? Yes, the minimum. Lawsize is one acre and less Not sure how the Burbage would be Granted a variance by commissioners court Depended on ABCD the this set of criteria I mean because you the way you've stated it here See what I'm saying, it basically says that all they can do is one acre. If you could get a bearer and say can do more than one acre. Okay, me too. But I just wanted the way it stated in the subdivision rules, regulations. We can add that in regulations. Make it very clear in the subdivision rules that if they want to develop less than one acre, they have to go to the criteria. You need to meet and how to do it. OK. What's the disadvantage of that? There's not. The disadvantage to the variance process is it would add a couple of weeks to the development. I'm not going to spend that. What she said in my question is, if we go ahead and put a mental lot size of half, and in our subdivision rules and regulations, we place what we serve the criteria on them to have that half. I'm going through the variance process. I mean, if we placed it within our office. It's exactly like accomplishes the same thing. What would we be discussing in the variance process? What would we add that there wouldn't be a variance process then. It would need one. If we didn't do what I just suggested and we went with the variance process, what would we do in that process that we couldn't do at all? By stipulating those regulations. with the minimum of signs and half-acre view, have to, nested in subdivision rules, what would we do in that variance process if they had to go through variance process, that would be different than when we would put the subdivision rules on rent? Nothing to another than giving you an opportunity to ask specific questions to the developer. But then, did any of the pension updates on the cost period as well as the relief that I asked you to address your policy? Hey, that's pretty cool. I never saw that. Sorry. It's a little mess, please turn on your microphone. What is the difference? In other words, just another process to look at it? Other than it gives you the opportunity as the commission's court to ask questions of the developer. OK, but isn't it? I mean, if we set out that criteria in the subdivision rules and regulations, we've stipulated that this is the way it has to be in order to have the half acre. And just like other things, it becomes staff's responsibility to see that they've met ABCD. And if they do, they have to have a heard if they don't. They don't. Correct. We've got the same check and balance in there. It's just one way we're developing or we're asking the developer to wait two weeks to get gone. And by having it stipulated in the subdivision rules and regulations, we still have the same protections in there because we've stipulated what the same thing we would have stipulated with the variance. Okay, I'm Van. I'm from the White Tent Working here in Commissioner Marche and Coleman. I don't never works. I'm not sure who's for solo list. I would defer to Andy. Andy hadn't had a 10 to speak. Okay, Mr. Eam. Why not let him. I'm trying to pass it around, but this is not working. Mr. Eam. Bennett, what is it? Can you provide us some examples of what that criteria would be off the top of your head? The criteria basically is the sole types. If you've got clay, sand, pet back requirements. If there's how close the septic field, if you go that route can be to private water wealth, to property lines, to public water, like ditches, creeks, lakes, that sort of thing. There's a whole series and table 10 of TCK rules that have setback requirements. It has to be met no matter what the court says. Because it's state law. Bobby. So it would, I mean, the scenario that the judge and Commissioner March and May would be the same thing as the Acre. So if you require the Acre, they come in with the variance. So there's not any disadvantages to that either other than time. We have the same check in the area. Yeah. Either way if you put it in. So why would you not go with the acre and get the variance? There's not any disadvantage to either one of them you're telling me? Well, the advantage is to develop it because it extends their process by a week, a couple weeks, we actually put it on the commuter cordons and so it's not any commuter system, it's a commuter, and for accomplishing the same thing, I will do that process. I wish you're calm. Well, I would like, and I would would recommend and I would vote for us continuing with taking the staff recommendations. And I think the main reason that we would like to have the variance provisions is being a former county employee. I can tell you at some point there may be a disagreement between the development developer and the county employees and It's going to be put the employees in a difficult spot and they can be accused of being arbitrary You know they people can argue over facts and I think that's why it's a good idea that if there's a disagreement Between staff and the developer as to what is reasonable or how the role should be interpreted that they should be allowed to, if there's a disagreement, you know, come to the commissioners court. And I think that's it's proposed. I mean, that's why I think it's it's proposed. And that's why I think it's a good idea to have, you know, it's going to be, when it comes to us, I mean, it should be a mere ministerial act, okay, when it comes to us, it should be a mere ministerial act. When it comes to us for the variance, no, no, no. But let's say they have an argument over whether they think these OCEF particular rules for this type of soil should apply. Or stuff like that, I think that it would be to the benefit of staff to allow them to have the additional outlet to commissioners' court. It's going to be tough because our legal counsels connected remind us constantly look this is only ministerial act and we have very little discretion however it would be a good outlet for us to have to be able to have them any disagreement go to the commissioner's court that's why I'd recommend we take staff's recommendation that speaker though I have my speaker on on. I thought we've got speakers that need to speak. I want to speak. Okay, let's do that and then I'm not sure which one signed up. I better get my microphone on. I'm sorry. I'm not sure which one signed up first, but we have Everett Nulen here. That is asked to speak. Even with us before, we appreciate your coming back. Yes ma'am in the sake of time I won't go back through my statement that I've made the other two or three times we've been here about the logical part and the efficiency of the land use. A couple of things I would like to address that was stated with Benich presentation which I've been discussing is it's not necessarily the developer that gets hurt. The developer never engages into the process. That's why I've had so few platoes actually come through Denton County compared to the growth in our incorporated areas. It's because they will look at our rules and they don't want to go through the time or the politics or the heartache of asking for variances. I appreciate the logic that Commissioner Mitchell had about well one way or the other what's the difference. The difference is if it's not stated in the rules that you're allowed to do half-acres, the developers just brush by. They won't look at it as a viable option. On finer details they will come and ask for variance but when my experiences are broken the last 12 years that they will look at that. And if their performance don't work, it's the landowner that gets hurt because the developer never engages. He just passes on just another county or they shut down, they shut down business. Another disadvantage that was stated on the PowerPoint was that the developer may not properly evaluate the soils. Developers are not evaluating the soils. Engineers are. So that's not the burden of the developer. The developer writes the check for the engineer, but I don't see how that's logically a disadvantage if it's going to be done by an engineer and not the developer. I agree with Commissioner Marchant on why I have the variance if we can set forth in the ordinance how it is supposed to be. I appreciate the logic you had Commissioner Coleman on if there is a rubber discrepancy between staff and the developer that it would come back here. But if we go with that logic, then everything should go to a variance. Would be my opinion. I think we set rules forth, and that's the ones we play by instead of coming and adding time to the process, hurting the landowner and the developer, and basically bringing more politics, time, and money for everybody into the process. One thing that was new information to me that Bennett brought up was that if you, and it's a great point, if you move more, remove more than five feet of the soil, that the soil type may change. And I think in the ordinance, compromise, if you will, or a smart thing to add into that would be that on any grading permit, you take more than five feet of soil. Then I think you should have to ask for a variance at that point. That seems more in line with what the state, the spirit of the state law would be. That would be the only time I would say it should come to a variance if you take more than five feet of soil. Because that does drastically change, you get out of the organic matter column and to a totally different level of permeability and infiltration. So do you have any questions for me? Any questions, members? Thank you. Thank you. And the other party that asked to speak is, Brand, that Andrews? Andrews? Brad Andrews, thank you. I also appreciate the, you know, the discussion here, and it sounds like we're all maybe trying to work towards the same, accomplish the same means. My concern with the variance is, I mean, as soon as I heard the word, I kind of cringed because it's ever just said, you know, that just brings in a lot of possible problems for the developers and they typically tend to shy away from even trying to get that variance. And what I found most often to be the case is although we're saying that there would be a certain set of criteria that if met it's almost you have to give it to them. Nothing gets staffed but often staff recommends denial of variances. And they'll come up with, and again, I'm not trying to point out staff here, but it's just been my experience as I've requested variances in other municipalities and areas that they're, they often go unsuccessful for various reasons that they seem to never quite meet the criteria or you just bring in a lot of politics at that point. There's been on the development that I didn't the county, I didn't quite agree with, even I didn't even agree with my engineer and the engineer that took it that reviewed it, the city or the county on drainage requirements for subdivision, you know, is that the type of thing you wanna start looking at for variances as well, if staff and everybody can't get on the same page, I mean, I just don't, I don't know that that's a good reason for using variances just because they can't agree on some things. I guess my, my I guess my question is when in this process, and maybe this is kind of backing up a couple of steps, when in this process are these reports and these studies to be done. I need a little clarification on what is proposed on the OSSF reports. When is that, when are y'all considering that to be required? Just that initial application or during the engineering of the subdivision? That will dictate. Let's wait just a minute. We got a little competition here. Just something to think about and maybe discuss, maybe already have in mind but I haven't been clear through our previous meetings when exactly that's going to be required. That obviously has a bearing on what direction the subdivision goes, what request is made. I'm not sure if it's got maybe something in mind there when that when that should be presented. You're talking about the OSF requirements, the soil requirements for each lot. Correct. We had I think we initially talked about that being on the very front end of it. Front end, okay. That right, Bennett? I mean, yes, that's what I understood. One of the discussions was to have it on the front end, but state law for the OSSF report requires the sole samples to be collected after the site final grading has been completed. So if we have them submitted during the preliminary plant process, then they would have to go back and resample after they did the final grading to make that a legal soil sample for the OSSF report. We have believed the situation where we have them plated as a half acre yet it doesn't qualify because that's an excellent point. We wouldn't want them to plant it as a half acre and then have it not qualify for. So we just want to do it at the beginning I guess then. Yeah, but then they don't have then they would I guess they would have to do the final grading during the plating process And if the plating process isn't approved they don't know where to do the final grading It's a catch 22 on the half acre Is it see where we had same catch on the one acre now on the one acre out as a smallest lot we have right now There's a there's a larger margin for error or larger safety factor in designing the system. Just about any system and any configuration with swimming pools and out buildings and that kind of thing will fit on a one acre piece property, generally. So there's a larger margin of error compared to a half acre lot. Our last check and balance would be for the OSSF permit where they would actually submit the report to the Environmental Health Department for approval for that system. But there could be a case to where a particular homeowner may be limited on what type of system they can put on a half acre lot depending on how that lot is arranged with swimming pools, out buildings, and so forth. But that is the risk that any homeowner or any other person investing, how do you eliminate that risk altogether? I don't. There's always, you have to design your development to the property, matter what it is, whether it's a drainage situation, water situation, sewer situation. Can we have a situation where they do their preliminary plot with half acre blocks and then it winds up where the septic systems don't qualify. Basically because you did it at the very end. What? It's possible. It's probably rare, but it's possible it could happen. No, that's not what I'm interested in. Yeah, the OS is that report, the SOAR report, okay? Basically tells the homeowner what type of system they could put on that law. Is that correct? Whether it's an air-ation system or whatever the old kind of system. So it won't come up. Will the report ever come up and say, you can't even put a septic system on this lot? ever come up and say, you can't even put a septic system on this lot. Is there anything where they have that test will say you can't put a system on it? It may not say that you have to put a system that you not necessarily want to put on that lot. That's correct. But it won't deny, the question is, would it ever deny that lot useless by not allowing a person to put a septic system on it? Probably not. If I say yes then there will probably be some outlying piece of property that won't work. So the OSF report basically is just saying what type of system you can put on it rather than a criteria whether you can put it. I mean, whether you have it has a good lottery. Correct. Of course it's that. Do we all. Environmental health does. Take into account this women pooled in out buildings? If it's on the plan and when the homeowner after the fact wants to put in an out building or some in pool and they come in for a permit, a development permit, my department gives that development permit to the environmental health department to review so that they can tell the homeowner whether or not their proposed plan will work with their current septic system. And we also try to tell them where their existing septic system is. Because sometimes the tanks and stuff to the old standard septic system is right where they want to put this one up for. Ever had something else you wanted to have? Go ahead. A couple things. I wasn't going to rehash some of our old stuff but we were kind of gotten a few things aren't being brought up that we had just previously discussed. Number one, on this new plat was to have a building envelope. Remember we had plenty of buffer from the side and there was only so much of your 20,000 square feet, roughly what you'd have, and a half acre that you could actually build on, leaving plenty of room. One of the concerns is on the final grade, I understand, but when someone goes and builds on a half acre lot, if you'll final grade and re-encelect, fill where your houses are going to go, but you don't do a final grade on where your septic system is going. That soil doesn't change outside of that building envelope. There's not going to be any grading because there's not going to be any buildings on there. So whatever is done at the preliminary plight, that soil is not going to change in that 60, 90 days, one year, 5,000 years from now, the soil may change. But it's not going to have that building envelope. That was one of the protection things that we had brainstormed and discussed, putting in place to make sure we don't run into some roadblocks like final grading, changing soil, drift from aerobic systems or over building a half acre lot. I just wanted to bring those those points back up. We have other questions or comments from maybe the court. I have a clear understanding about the process of, and maybe I just need to sit down with Bennett, get a better clarification about what happens when, because I don't think that's made abundantly clear. I'm going to go to the committee. Okay. So you want to table it to mix? Do you all you all? Well, you need to complete a public hearing today. And I'll move to close. I'll move to close hearing. Before we close, Commissioner Marchin. Let me tell you how I understand it. And this may invent it if you could help with this, if we are going to table it and bring it back. I would like to see if we took the lot size down to half without the variance, What type of criteria would you place in the process to assure that anything that would have come up in the variance would be covered by it? Part of what I want to see. In other words, technically I'm not talking, I don't like the color of the trees that you're planning in there, that type to that degree. You know, in municipalities they have staff, they have planning and zoning commission. They vet all that out and planning zoning, then it goes to a public hearing before the city council to approve a lot or subdivision or whatever. I would like to see what that model would look like. In other words, what criteria if we reduce the lot size and said that we have half acre lots, here are the criteria that we upfront you need to meet and to go forward with this project. I would like to look at that because and what you would see that model look at look like from staff perspective, not from my perspective but from what you would have to have from them to feel comfortable with approving that and going forward. Okay. And I'm not going to argue that at now the variance or the non, I would just like to see that model. I would too. Okay. We can do that. But just a reminder to the court, we are still haven't submitted the OSSF court order to TCQ for approval. It was pending today's court action. But just wanted to remind you just so that we can keep that on the table. Let me ask you this. We could still go ahead, I believe there's an intent I'm picking up from listening to court for the half acre. So we could go ahead and authorize TCEQ to go ahead and start that process regardless of how we get to half acre, whether it's by variance or by right through our subdivision rules rate. We could, you know, if we're going to get there one way or the other, we could still go ahead and do that at my right, Kim or no. I have a concern about that and that's why I brought this up to begin with and here's why. I feel like the TCEQ has to specifically approve our specific language in our in our order. And I need to tell them we're just going to the state minimum, which is half acre. Or I need to tell them we're going to the state minimum, which is half acre. But only if the variance process has been made. Okay. And I just, I was hesitant to leave or to put wording in there not knowing that and not referencing the other, having maybe conflicting, if you will, rules and regs and not making it clear to somebody that just read the TCEQ regs that there was another set of hopes they had to go through, which I think they would know they have to go through the planning process. But I feel like the TCQ should be aware that we've not just gone to half acre. Period. Period. If that was the court's intention, and if it was that intention, then that's the purpose of this discussion today. So the TCQ has been very, very cooperative and easy to work with and I feel like we would get a quick turnaround time from them once we know what we're doing and as soon as you all make a decision on the TCEQ stuff next week, week after, whenever I will immediately know I pretty have, we'll have my stuff done except for dropping in this specific bit of language. I came just for clarification. We have fulfilled the requirement of public hearing today. We can close the public hearing with the understanding that we'll take action on it next week. Yes. I mean our public hearing process is done. Correct. We've fulfilled our necessary requirements. You would just have to post it again like you would any agenda item and you know give notice on your not advertised. Yeah, not advertised. Okay, then Bennett if you will do that, like Commissioner Marchen asked for and have that for next week. Is there anybody else that wants to add to the public hearing and then we'll close our public hearing? I just want a certain comfort level. I don't think we have a comfort level any direction on moon four without it being what it how if we do the half-hacker and set up a criteria exactly what that would look like. If we did it on a variance, what would that look like? What were the issues that we would look at through a variance process that the court would have to answer? We do that. You want to list it as a work-top and to take action? Or... Yes. Anybody else? Okay, we need a motion to close the public hearing Motion by Commissioner Marchin seconded by Commissioner Eads all in favor. Please say aye I oppose to name motion does carry unanimously and we'll take no action on that today and hopefully well next week Thank you for being here again. We do appreciate your input. It helps us a lot Thank you for being here again. We do appreciate your input. It helps us a lot. Okay, we're all the way to agenda item number two, which is the consent agenda. Members, do you have items on the consent agenda that you need to pull for consideration or discussion? Do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Yeeds. I'll in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? And aye. Motion does carry. Item 2A is approval of the order making appointments which today consists of a re-hire for a road and bridge east. This is Pracings 3 and 4. To be is approval of the Intra Departmental Transfers. To see is approval of building use request by Mary Werner for the Commission's Court on Saturday, April 18th, from 9 to 10 a.m. for the purpose of wedding, and to D as approval of building use seats request by K. T. Norman for the use of courtroom for the purpose of an organization meeting of the North Texas Willow Society on Saturday, May 23rd, 2009 from 1230 PM to 230 PM. Then we're going to go to item 3A, which is approval of a resolution regarding the naming of 121 Tauway, specifically asking the North Texas Tauway authority to reconsider their action of naming the 121-to-way as the same reverent to away. He stepped out. Okay. Well, I'll read the resolution and then I believe Commissioner, well, let's do this. Let's wait a minute for Commissioner Eads to come back. We're going to go the auditors report on 5A, which is a bill, approval of the bill report payments from CSCD Community Corrections T.A.I. approval. The bill report payments from CSCD, Community Corrections, TAIP, Shares Training, Shares forfeiture, VIT, Interest, DHA, Check fee, and DA forfeiture funds are presented for according purposes only. Good morning, James Wells. Again. The commissioners asked the bill report to be approved with the one addition, which is a small general fund payment for post office box rent. It's the only correction to have. Do you have any members of the court that have questions for our auditor? Do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Sen. Motion just carry unanimously. Okay, now we'll go back to 3A, which is the resolution concerning the naming of 121. Commissioner Eans. Yes, Judge. Thank you. This morning we're a presented resolution whereby we're asking that the North Texas Toa way authority to reconsider their decision to name the 121, how we want 21, the Sam Rayburn Toeway. And as a resolution states, didn't the county was only stakeholder in the region that was requested to provide input, to provide input. And we did and we requested remained 121 Tauwe and so you know as our representative Dave Denison eloquently expressed to the members of the Tauwe authority that there's several different segments and different projects of the Tauwe authority throughout the Metroplex and didn't county does not have a desire to name those projects in Tarrant County and other places throughout the region. And we would ask that the members of the NTTA Board of Directors that they would respect our wishes and name it what we desire since the majority of it is through Ditton County. And it's going to be a considerable funding source throughout the Metroplex. And also one of the Collin County representatives, which the 121 does go through Collin County as well. One of the representatives agreed with our two members on the board, and the NTTA continued to devote with Sam Rayburn. And I know I appreciate Speaker Rayburn's contributions to Texas and to the United States of America. This is not diminishing his contributions in any way, but he has been acknowledged on a stamp, on a congressional office building, and other projects throughout the United States, but it was the unanimous opinion of this court at that time to name it 121-to-1 way and I would like for them to reconsider. Just in addition to that, same reverend I agree with your comments completely. There's a reverend building in Austin. I believe there's structures that is alma mater, A&M, named after same rivers. So appropriately so and correctly so he has been doly recognized and that's only accurate and a good thing to do. But totally in support of your resolution today, I found it very interesting that the Chairman Wageman and the Dallas-Wonnie News, right after this came out, made the comment that although they got input from us on this issue, that ultimately he was of the opinion that they boarded had to do what was in the best interest of NTTAA and I would like somebody explain to me how how was in the best interest of NTTA to name the toll road after same labor and I'm something that I have to explain that one to me. So anyway is anybody else that would like to comment or let's read the resolution and move on? Anybody else? Okay. The resolution of the county of Denton, Texas against the naming of the 121 Toaway is the same Rayburn Toaway, where the majority of 121 Toaway runs to Denton County and whereas in our Texas Toaway Authority and TTA, ask for stakeholders to inform them of their choices for needs of the 121 Toaway from a list of three names and whereas Denton County and Commissioner, by Commissioner Court Order, recommended the name of 121 Toaway and whereas Denton County Commissioner, by Commissioner Court Order, recommended the name of 120 and 12 way. And whereas Denton County was the only stakeholder to respond to the request, and whereas the row way has been known as 121 for several decades. And whereas Denton County and its NTTA board members have no intended desire to name another NTTA project, such as Highway 161, our Southwest Parkway, Denton County would appreciate the same courtesy extended in the naming of the 121-12 way. Now therefore, it resolved by the County of Denton, Texas that Denton County Commission's court hereby expresses its opposition to the naming of the 121-12 way as the same Raiber and Toeway. And additionally, as the North Texas Toeway authority to reconsider keeping the 121 Toe Way designation. No move. Motion by Commissioner Ead, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion to scare unanimously. Thank you. That listened, it's time. Somehow I have my doubts, but I'm glad we're making the... Yes, sir. Why the NTTTA works if the chair has to put everything on the agenda if you do truly want them to reconsider it. You're going to have to get Mr. Nal's or Mr. Denison to because two members of the board can override the chair about putting it on. Right. Both sides. So we need to ask the one. And I'm going to suggest that this be faxed immediately to our two representatives to the NTTA board with the request that it be put on the next agenda of whatever meeting they're holding next. Sometimes they hold special meetings. Sometimes they have regular scheduled meetings. Whatever meeting is up next next I ask that our Representatives request for this to be on the agenda Okay Item 6a which is approval exemption from bidding for a sole source replacement upgrade of Intercom system from loan starporated as the authorized distributor for Raglan Borg Corporation according to the provisions of section 262.024A7A of the local government code. Do we have questions or do we need explanation from Beth Leningen? Thank you. We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Mitchell. Seconded by Commissioner Marchin or other questions. Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion carries 6A. I'm sorry, 6B is approval of revisions to the vehicle assessment committee policy and proposed appointments. We had had in the past one member of the road and bridge that used to rotate. And so now we're asking that we have a member from Road and Bridge East and Road and Bridge Westby permanent members so they won't have to rotate in and out. And that's the changes that we're making. And making them voting members instead of just consulting. I will move approval with that unless there's any other. I'll second. I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner Eads. Are there any questions or comments? Judge, if I may, we also need to clarify the position where we're changing a road and bridge appointment to a Commissioner's Court staff member to see other change that's on there. Great. Any other additions? Corrections, discussion. Any none all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, discussion. Any none all in favor of the motion? Please say aye. Aye. Aye opposed any motion does carry unanimously. Seven a is approval of budget amendment request 100830. For building maintenance for Lee Walker Government Center in the amount of $1,000 approval. Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Other questions or comments? Any none all in favor please say aye. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Other questions or comments? Very none. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion is carried. 12A is approved. The Sheriff's Office Cops hiring recovery program grant application. We have Lee Howell here to give us some information on this. Good morning, Lee. Thank you for waiting. Morning Judge Warren, commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you this morning and seek your approval to apply for another grant opportunity. The Department of Justice made an announcement of a grant opening which opened up last week and we have an April 14 deadline for this application submission. This is under the Cops Hiring Recovery Program, which is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. And it would supply the salary and benefits for patrol deputies engaged in crime prevention and community policing efforts for a period of three years. There are a few things I need to touch on just to make sure that you can make an educated decision on this. Again, it only pays salary and benefits for the three years. It does not cover the costs of vehicles or equipment or MMO. So there is what I would consider a fairly significant budget impact to the county in the initial year. And then one of the stipulations of the grant is that we have to retain these positions at least for the fourth year. So there's another impact or significant impact in the fourth year of the grant period to pick up the salaries of those salaries and benefits of those individuals. We have a large need for petroleum deputies. And let me acknowledge upfront that I've been paying attention when we've talked about the budget process and the state of the economy and the county. But the need still exists and we don't feel like it's prudent to let this grant opportunity pass us up. Last year we submitted in our initial request for three troll deputies and those were not able to be funded. This year we were planning to submit for three additional Petrol deputies again. And our plan is to deploy these Petrol deputies in the districts where the highest population density and co-load is and that's primarily the areas of the freshwater districts on E380, the Huffines communities, and also in the Lantana area. We're committing a significant amount of trail resources in those areas due to the population density in the Collode, and we're actually having to kind of short some of the other areas, more rural areas, do that and our response times are kind of going up. So, you know, there is areas. So we'd like to bring a balance back to that. A few months ago, I asked our patrol command staff to initiate a comprehensive analysis of our patrol division, which I've seen draft copy of that just yesterday. And it clearly shows it to adequately cover the county and the entire county. We need several more deputies and they're recommending somewhere around at least nine. I don't think that that's obviously not possible in this grant year, but this is a way to cut the cost of at least three of those virtually in half in the first year. And then have a. And carry on for at least a three year period. I'm not going to be a person. I'm not going to be a person. I'm not going to be a person. I'm not going to be a person. I'm not going to be a person. I'm not going to be a person. I'm not going to be a person. I'm not going to be a person. I'm not going to be a person. I'm not going to be a person. I'm not going to be auties. I guess my hesitation was we have to retain them the fourth year. I have a problem with that. But in addition to that, you said you were going to request three deputies in the budget session for this year. Yes, ma'am. We were planning on going ahead and doing that, even though we know that it's a lean year. But will these three take the place of the three that you're gonna request? Yes, we were gonna be satisfied with three if we could get that one way or another. So if we don't get to apply for this grant or we- We're gonna request those three. But if you get to apply for this grant, you're not gonna request the three. That's correct. Okay. If we get to apply and we're awarded the funding. Right. On these districts, these fresh water supply districts, have we looked into trying to get some compensation for reimbursement for providing deputies in that area? Yes. Yes. We have in fact in the Huffhands communities, we do have a current contract and have for several years for two deputies that's fully funded by them. But we don't land town. No, we don't currently. I just met with the Land Tannin Board last week or week four last and there's some discussion about that and they are going to examine that in their budget process this year that's a potential contract and I'd like to be sure we pursue that. I would like to I'd like to thank Mr. Hal because he has gone out with me to public meetings at their freshwater supply district board and he's met with them subsequently as I have to. And their board is planning on presenting to their board later. And I guess in May or June, a budget item for them to have a debt. They don't currently have a dedicated officer. The hubfinds communities do have dedicated officer that they pay for. Two, in Lantana, shares an officer through a large district, I guess you would call a patrol district, a beat that the sheriff's office has. And so they currently don't have a dedicated one, but with some increased activity out there they're looking to have that and this would be just to provide an extra shift I believe. Yes. Other questions, Commissioner Coleman? Chief Hal. First of all I'd like to commend you for seeking additional ways to fund the increased patrol services. Having been y'all's attorney for a long time, I'm intimately aware of the demand for patrol services. We've had a tremendous growth in those freshwater supply districts. Y'all know that they're in the county, they're not going to be incorporated at any time soon until the, as you all well know, like a county, those special districts are entities of limited authority. I think there's a current bill pending where they're asking for police powers, but they do not have any. So basically, regardless of what happens, we're still required to provide police services for these people. It's problematic because they're living in a municipal or an urban environment, but in our department it's used to doing urban or rural policing, but it's a reality that we're going to have to come to grips with. Those districts are out there, the people are living there, and we're going to have to provide services for. That's one of the things that I'm fixing to go down to Austin is discuss the creation of more special districts that are going to be coming out in the north part of the county. It's going to be a tremendous strain on our police department and our sheriff's department and we're going to have to figure out how to deal with it. So I commend you Chief Hal for finding a way to provide additional officers to provide services to those residents. It's an obligation that we're going to have to pick up. It's generally an unfunded mandate from all those special districts, but it's just something we're going to have to do. So thank you for your efforts. It's when you're going in, when you're creating these districts, you, a lot of times, we, uh, cities, I know, um, get that in the the contract that they have to provide. They pay for the police and far services and I think that's some of the things that we're going to have to start looking at if we're going to continue to do them. That's one of the things I recommended when I was in Austin the other day was typically correct me if I'm wrong chief how, but usually when I have one officer per thousand residents, particularly when it's enclosed like that at one point with the sheriff's department we only had four deputies on patrol at any one time covering the whole county and there's about 20,000 residents alone in those fresh water supply districts I believe more or less I mean don't hold me to it but we only really only have two deputies serving that area specifically and they're not on duty 24 hours and I'm sure you all know crime doesn't just happen between eight and five during the day. Is there any restriction at all by the law when we create these freshwater districts of entering into any interlocal agreement with them with our law enforcement for them to pay like the Huffins there's no restrictions at all. There is in generally but one of the things I asked Representative Parker because they like the Huffins originally they didn't have the ability to hire police and then they went in and got that where they could hire police officers. One of the things I asked Representative Parker with these wickets that are going in out at no point and they wanted to, they actually wanted to get internal road authority, which I think is a bad idea, but I'd like for them to put an amendment that says, look, instead of just require them to hire police and fire, I want them to say in the act that they are required to hire at least one person for thousand residents and instead of because you know you can have a 25,000 person community and satisfy your requirements by only hiring one person right? Well 25,000 people don't need just one person So we need to them to be able to staff the Sheriff's Department at an adequate level and we need to have that written into the legislation. That's one of the suggestions I had proposed. I know they're going to take it or not. Right, exactly. I could tell you this that myself personally knowing this information, having this information gives me I would be more prone to look at a freshwater district being formed with with their knowledge that I will be looking or the court may be looking as a whole that the only way that that will be possible to even look at it is that they reimburse or they Enter into an interlocal agreement with not only law enforcement Currently we do that I believe but with fire and ambulance Yes, that serves and and I don't know that's why I ask is there any law that restricts us from doing that because Well, that's why I ask, is there any law that restricts us from doing that? Because of those that have been in the past that don't have those. And what you're telling me to invest in your knowledge, there's nothing that would restrict us from entering to those kind of agreements like with Huffines to reimburse us if we put any officers out there. I can tell you from my experience of drafting those in our local contracts. There's no requirement that they contract with us, but remember as an entity of limited authority, you have to have explicit states authority to do it. They got a provision that allowed them to do it, but doesn't require them to do it. So if they wanted to, they could just say, we're not contracting with you anymore anymore and we would still have to provide the law enforcement services. Even the ones that are present will have to approve even the freshwater district. Well that was one of the things as I was trying to influence some of the legislatures down there and I was talking I actually talked to Judge Horne about a certain person from a law firm that I've been dealing with and I thought it was unusual because I told them that I was I wasn't in favor of this and they said well if I stopped the legislative process that they would go ahead and get it through TCEQ without our approval or without our they basically said they're getting it they're getting it no matter what I if I want input I have to basically help our legislator get it through. Otherwise, they'll get it through the TCEQ without our input. And that was, I didn't particularly care for that. But I think our legislature might have some input with TCEQ at that point too, hopefully. But, but just to make clear the, the existing fresh water supply districts that have contracted with us. There's nothing to say that at some point they go, you know what? We're not going to do this anymore. And what Commissioner Coleman says, they're not required to. I would like to see them be required at the level Commissioner Coleman recommends that one officer per thousand residents and to maintain that, you know, that they be required to do it for the life of the freshwater supply district. But that needs to be stipulated in law. And right now it's grinding them authority to contract, but there's no teeth in law that says, and how do up. You may not, shall. Exactly. Big word that word, shall, isn't it? How do you define one per thousand? Is that generally that? You might want to ask you. On patrols, is it one on duty? Sworn officers on patrol, generally. And that's the regional average in the North Texas area is one per 1,000 in a few. On patrol? Yes, or in a fewemoiselle. Police officers circling at, lantern at one time. Not at one time. That would be over 24 hour period. So it'd be. That's to provide 24 hour. That's why I said he's not pleased that I'm duty on patrol. Yeah, not not at one time. Just that's total sworn peace officers. There's the rural average in rural settings is less than that. It's about 0.5, but again, because of the design and the density of those areas, they have service demands more closely related to city settings and rural settings. At the same time, the counties receiving more money by heart from those districts than they would. One acre lots or half acre or some of our all these property out here that's ag that has all these exemptions on it. You know you get I mean you got to balance it out when you look at those districts and what the districts are contributing to the tax base. You know, and they are going to have an increase in service. There's no doubt about that. But is there an increase in the ad volume to the county? Absolutely. You know, you got to look at, you got to look at that too versus there's a higher density. You got to weigh it out, make sure the county is on the plus side. But there's a higher density there. So to weigh it out and make sure the county's on the plus side. But there's a higher density there so we're having to regenerate more revenue. Yeah, there's more service calls. I want to agree with Andy. There's a I mean, there's a time and a place for the districts. I was just coming regarding the need for services. I think the residents out there get quite a bang for their buck for the 24 cents that they pay to the county, you know, maybe, you know, I've, have a lot of them come in anecdotally complain regarding the dollar per hundred that they get charged for the freshwater supply district without receiving law enforcement or fire. Can I make a motion to approve? Oh, wait, Adam are you on? Oh, yeah, the next one. Who's on first? It's 12 a second. Motion to approve 12. All right. Motion by Commissioner Marchant, seconded by Commissioner Eads. Here you know further discussion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to say aye. Motion to carry. It's new chief. How probably didn't want to hear the politics of freshwater districts. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not about to read all of these precinct changes but I'm going to read the initial part here. 13A is approval and acceptance of the corrections and clarifications to the reorganization of county election precincts in accordance with section 42.006, 42.001, 42.031 in 42.033, the Texas election code approved by Commissioners Court in April 24, 2007. This is Court Order No. 070241 and will call on Donald Exander. Good morning, Judge. Members of Court. Before I get into explanation, let me just apologize for having to bring this back to court. And I went back and reviewed where I was on April 24th of 2007 and we were doing a hastily called constitutional amendment election along with cities and school elections. And so I apologize for having to bring this back to you but what this court order does is it goes back and it details out the changes that this court made in April of 2007 and it provides an audit trail for those precincts. It doesn't change any of the precinct maps that you were given and it doesn't change any of the precinct detail sheets that you were given. And all this does is with recommendation from the DA civil that we changed the format of this order and we specifically itemize out each change that's made and that's what we've done in this order there was a typo in there precinct 320 was recognized this precinct 32 it's corrected in this and so I recommend that you prove this order and I know this is long and lengthy but Kim, Gilles and I requested and I certainly agreed that instead of just going back and correcting this and correcting that and having a piece meal, it would be better to have all one complete package. And let me say that this is the format we'll use from now on. If you go back and you look at the format that I used in previous changes that we made it, the order read to approve adjustment of boundary county lines for so and so on and so on. And they were just itemized out. This one specifically details out exactly what we're doing to each specific precinct. And none of the boundaries are changing from what we already did and what we already used on the last day. We're correcting court orders. There's no there is absolutely no change in any boundaries or definitions from what you've proved in 2007. Are there any other questions or comments? I have a motion by Commissioner Coleman. Seconded by Commissioner Marchin. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye opposed to name. Motion does carry thank you. Thank you. Okay. 13C I'm going to pull that has to do with the creation of the district court and we don't need to have that discussion again. So there be no action on 13c. 14a is approval of the first amendment. You probably have additional. I beg your pardon. 13b is what I'm pulling and there'll be no action on 13b. 13c we've already taken action on. Yeah, they table it last week to get information from from me whether in TTA lived up to what we're not talking about in the TTA we're talking about. Oh, number C, House Bill 882 and 2, 3, 3, 4. Judge, that's the deal. Pardon? In TTA and I got too many marks going here. Anyway, that was that was we tabled that from last week with the anticipation of NTTA doing what they said in the language that I talked with them and I believe I forward that language to everybody. Yes, it did. And they did. In fact, I got some transcripts from the hearing that even happened till 7 p.m. that night on Wednesday and Wageman did put the language that I forward to you in that supplemental bill. So it is going forward with the language that I thought was appropriate. And I do too and I thank you for following up on that and certainly for catching it. That could have had a huge financial impact today Yes I know y'all are specifically looking at the adjudicative issues associated with other issues on it, which is the bonding and The last one that I think is the most critical and it has a it has language that changes the transportation code that removes counties authority to be able to create their own toll agencies within their counties. Now Denton County currently has that authority when the entity was originally established in 1997. The perimeter counties of Dallas and Tarrant County, which included Colin and Denton, will get granted the authority to create their own toilet authorities. That's exactly what Colin County's acting on now. Nobody thinks it's a good idea for the counties to have individual toilet authorities, but it does. It does give us a little bit of a flexibility to deal with, I don't know, naming of toll roads or revenue generation off those same facilities. So, to me, the Judicom is a cost issue, but NTTA did not seek anybody's input from the perimeter counties, whether or not they wanted to lose the authority to be able to create toll roads themselves. So that's the portion that I think we really need to... Right. And I called John about that and asked him about that because I thought that was a limiting power that we already had. They were limiting to us. And then I talked to NTTA about it, Rick Herrington and their assistant government sergeers about that. And basically their response was that we were doing this to throttle any attempt by Colin County to upset the basket in regards to the future alignment. And I mean that was their first response to me. And I mean, I don't know if it if by a solution those powers helps us in the long run and the other but The reality is is the Colin County has no intention of actually Implementing a tow road in Colin County. They're using that leverage with ntta to get what they want Ntta doesn't like anybody having leverage on NTTA. And my point is, I don't believe that anybody from NTTA solicited input from Ditton County as to whether or not they were interested in losing that authority. And so I'm talking not just the intent, but the fact that the process wasn't followed to seek your input. And my question would be, and I love Dave Dinnison of my now's, but why didn't they tip us to that? It's a big issue. It's going to impact. I know the region's not interested in splinter cells popping up, but if you understand, didn't county transportation authority, the DCTA has put us in the position to be able to put a train on the ground by 2010. Had we gone into Dart we would have had to back pay everything we owed for 20 years and we'd still be waiting on a train. And so that's the same kind of authority we have now that they're seeking to remove. Going out there I hope I'm not going too far but that could limit possibly in the future Denton County working with other entities like I-35 corridor or whatever to. The reality is that there's the only toll road left in Denton County other than the extension of the DNT is the outer loop and the outer loop is going to be decided about a lot of folks with a higher pay grade than us. I mean, that's a statewide gun battle that's going to occur in what the NTTA is going to do is remove the ability for anybody other than them to act in this four county area. And I'm saying it, I just, I don't think that's necessarily, I don't want to use it, but I always want to have that tool I think you only that as well To affect policy You want privacy again, don't they? They want ultra uber uber's privacy There's a lot bad the things that we're going to see. There's a lot of bad in that bill other than just the judicum questions that were brought up. I was part of the bill and the specific proposition is. Yes, and I think it's article or section. It was it was page four line 14 through 21 and what it is by remembers. Just weren't they last week having a hearing the next day after court? At it last. How did that go? That's sweet. And I didn't know the outcome of it. Ash Wings team. That's Wings team. Why don't we? I was there. What did they say? All right. Are you saying the NTTA meeting or the? No, not the NTTA. They had a hearing loss. I think we. Well I'm for opposing it right now the whole thing but we can dissect it if you want to. We should dissect it because I think it's important to we know the. The stipulations in there that commissioner March and right so hard to get in. Don't throw the baby out. Yeah, I don't do. I can I can give you the specific way. We've got a copy of the bill right here and in UR correct on its page four, well actually in our agenda book it's page 190 and of the bill it's page four of the bill starts on line 14 and it goes through 24 John I don't make sure exactly how far it goes but it starts in 14 that whole section talking Does all that whole section there needs to be opposed because it it limits the county's ability to negotiate. Yeah, it just limits us in every way. Why don't we just why don't we act like we're in favor of sub on that page five, the administrative adjudication hearing procedure? Why don't we stop that and oppose the remaining? I would say there's another one that has to do with the bonding which is in the very front of this bill. I would say there's another one that has to do with the bonding, which is in the very front of it. It's in that right. It's that any authority may not provide financial security for the performances. Services that provides the authority determines that's new language. And what that language is for is that the NTTAs got in the law, the fact that when North Tarn Express is awarded to a concessioner, that NTTA is the operator. And what the state wanted NTTA to do was to provide a bond. Because what happens is, NTTAs, the first person who touches the money, and the last person that touches the money, and they have to send it to the concessioner and the concessioner is going, what happens if NTTA just decides to delay a pay in us? We want some bond assurance that some surety that we will get our money in a timely manner and so the state's answer that was we put up a bond and the NTK saying we don't think we should have to do that so now they're getting it to where they can't do it. It's just the standard practice. I mean... I know there was a hearing on it in transportation. And I know of course, Colin County Judge was down there to speak in opposition. But I don't know that outcome of that hearing. Left pending. Thank you. But they'll probably be taking action on it this week. We're in a agreement with Colin County. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. I think it needs to be vigorously opposed. Both ends of that. Yes, sir. But then how about if we say this? I just have one question. If the legislation passes, would it get rid of the Colin County Tollway Authority? Our since it's already been created. Well, it's already created. It would eliminate their ability to follow through on it. I mean, just to put it in perspective, those county toll authorities have to be toll facilities wholly within the county. So on the outer loop, what Colin County's done is they've modified their thoroughfare to eliminate the outer loop between the Dallas, North, Tolroad and the Denton County line. So it's wholly within their county now. I'm not suggesting anything Colin County's doing is right. But what they're doing is they're positioning themselves to get what they think they deserve from the NTTA. And I'm suggesting to you that whether you believe what they're doing is right, they should have that right to do it. Because you know, Chairman Waysman always talks about how we're one-fourth owners of the NTTA. But if everybody knows that nobody has any control, we never seem to have any sway. If you can't get your board to act, you should have some stick that says, okay, if you don't want to play with us, we don't want to play with you. They're removing that stick. That's what the intent of that legislation is. I can't see that you all would ever want to head aches of running your own toll roads. But in TTA, didn't even ask you your opinion on the matter. It's like less toll roads, generally. Frankly. And keep in mind, the only one left in Denton County is the Outer Loop. That's the only thing left in the regional Thurfer Plan, the local Thurfer Plan, the only toll road left that will ever be built in Denton County is the Outer Loop and it's on a different level than what we do. Who's the author of this bill? Rona and Karen. They're their co- John Cronin. I'm thinking that we should contact Corona's office either in the formal resolution here or whatever, but to specifically thank him for being receptive to the change that you suggested, but that we are basically in opposition to the rest of the bill. I'd be happy to call it court. Court me, the ladies and ladies and gentlemen. I think we need to have some type of action opposing the support of the administrative adjudication hearing procedure. Hi, no, I don't want to be. Can we first talk to the government affairs person for the NTTA about this before we take a position? May have just been in oversight. No, it was. No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. I'm reading it clearly. It was delivered. Oh, yeah. And they. I mean, I visited with their government affairs person last week. They never, they never went in great detail. They went in great detail about the adjudication process and never mentioned that they were limiting our powers. I agree. I mean, that was an hour meeting. Discussion with her. That was an hour meeting. I'm just worried. I mean, I haven't talking to them and working with them on ensuring the NTA, the NTTA going up the county line. And I know that during my discourse with them, they are not real happy with Colin County right now, particularly with them taking those aggressive actions. And I've told them basically, you know, we did our resolution in support of the county line, you know, we're people of our word. We keep our agreements. Colin County has decided to withdraw their resolution and create their own tollway authority. I think based on Colin County's actions, they're sympathetic with us. I even wrote them a letter saying I asked them to, I don't know if you all read about it in the paper, but I basically asked them to expand the environmental assessment westward that if it was necessary to have a westward departure of the NTTA if we can agree to some compromise but I don't know the catch more, you know, bees with honey honey you know what I mean. I'm going to get. I don't know when they're next hearing is going to be if we want to wait till next week. Tomorrow. tomorrow? Tomorrow? Wednesdays. It should probably be tomorrow. I haven't checked the Transportation Committee hearing agenda for tomorrow. It will probably be tomorrow. I think we need to take a position of expressing appreciation to Senator Corono to be receptive to making the change that Commissioner Marchant recommended. But we have very strong feelings about the rest of the bill and that would be we're opposed to it. In lack of a we don't have a formal resolution here but could we send a letter that's drafted that you sign judge or that we all sign off on it just as we oppose the Senate bill 882 matter of the provision that we took action in commissioners court to do just like I stated and it was agreed upon hopefully unanimous we by commissioners court. Don't we don't want to say that we like the provisions that Ron more Sean that's what I'm saying that well I mean I'm going to be excluding the administrative hearing procedure. I want to be specific that your appreciative of his receptiveness to the proposed changes as Commissioner Marchant made because it what's the okay what's the subject to the commissioner for shots review you are card on it you need to get a look at what's the title of the day have the title it's at the very top in the beginning when it starts to talk about it here I did the hours and duties of regional tollway authority including the establishment of an administrative adjudication hearing procedure creating an offense that's it okay and so the title leads you to believe that it's just about a adjudicative manner but there's two other very big issues in there and so what I'm you to believe that it's just about a adjudicative manner, but there's two other very big issues in there. And so what I'm suggesting to you is the intent was to be obtuse about what they were doing on the other two issues. I don't know how to say that more politely. So it's the two portions that have nothing to do with the intent of the bill that have everything to do with our our position. I would suggest that you request that they remove those non-germain items from that bill and that way you get your adjudicative remedies but you don't give up the baby with a bathwash. It was designed not to be caught. I mean obviously how bills are written. Those two sections were designed not to be picked up on the radar until after the fact. Maybe some state and the letter to Senator Krona that we agree with our original intent of the bill as it relates to. I think they've got section numbers and you can just. Yes they do. Should be spelled out. Rather than do resolution, are we in agreement that I'll send a letter and hopefully say correctly that the court unanimously wishes to remove those two sections but still be supportive of what Commissioner Marchen brought forward. I'm not sure just how that will be stated yet but we'll get it. But I'm okay with what Ron wants. So you review it, Ron. I'll find out. And my initial conversation with them, I led with those two concerns. I mean, I did. I mean, I called John. I said, John, if you looked at this, what does this do to us? That was my initial concern of it and my initial response. My initial conversation with Carrie Rogers was including those. Okay, so the motion will be then that the letter will come from the kind of judges' office. And like I said, hopefully this will be a unanimous decision. And I think it will. Staying just what I said before, is there any clarification needed? OK, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion does carry. Put them down as an aye. He was in the room when we called for the vote. And he didn't say any right. Okay moving right along. 14A is approval of the first amendment to the interlocal cooperation agreement between Dink County Texas and the city of Louisville Texas for expansion and improvements to the spings road from Duncan Lane to Edmunds Lane and the Valley Parkway from FM 3040 to state Highway 121. An additional amount of $1,430,000 with funds to come to be transferred from Commissioner Prusing III, triple four garden ridge full of our Losfels to Commissioner Prusing III, Spinks Road, Losfels Auditor number 7673909010. I move approval and thanks to the Civil Division for all your work on that. I realize we didn't have all that information to you in time, but you got it on. Thank you. I'm most of her approval by Commissioner Mitchell. Second. Second by Commissioner Marche and other questions. Any none on favor please say aye. Aye. Aye opposed to the need. Thanks to John. He was on vacation and he got that information from toe to toe. 14b is approval of interlocal cooperation agreeing between Denny County Texas and the town of North Lake Texas for the acquisition of right away from Thompson Green and cattle incorporated for the FM 407 and fought road improvement project located and entirely within the town of North like Texas and didn't county commissioner precinct four at a total cost of $9,750 with funding comes from commissioner precinct four surveys, titles and testing funds, other than numbers 208505395 commissioner precinct four. This project has been in the works for over 20 years and I'm glad to see it. Check this off the sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I Opposed to the name? Motion to carry. 14C is approval of the Identite Tax Maintenance Agreement Addendum 2009 between Denton County and L1 Identity Solutions. This is Identite Tax for Juvenile Electronic Fingerprinting at the CharityJee Coal Building Jewel Probation Department is recommended by the Juvenile Probation Department. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner Marchandt. Are there questions? Any none? In favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sen. Motion is carried. 14D is approval of acceptance of conveyance of firefighting equipment by a city of cocktail to dent in county emergency services and subsequent conveyance to the city of Salina under local government code 352.002b is recommended by the director of emergency services Chera move for approval Back in a stereo here Seconded by commissioner marchin other questions You're none on favor please say aye aye opposed in aim Motion carries. 14E is approval of contract agreement between then-Cunney, Texas and Reynolds S. Well, construction company for the Fish Trap Road and Proof-Mins project from FM 1385 to Navajo Road in the amount of $1,469,417.50. So it's funding the Commission for Prucing 1, triple 4, FM 423. This is audited number 7673589010 Motion by Commissioner Coleman secondly by Commissioner Marchant other questions Very none all in favor please say aye aye opposed in aim motion does carry 14 F is approved to renew the contract for the 2009 dync Employees Service Award event Between DIN County Texas and sunset trails incorporated. This is doing business as circle our ranch or Western skies is recommended by the director of purchasing Motion by Commissioner Mitchell's seconded by Commissioner Marchand other questions You're none on favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion carries. Foreign favor one opposed. 14G is local project advanced funding agreement between Denk County, Texas and the state of Texas acting through the Texas Department of Transportation for right away acquisition. For the state highway 1114 project from 0.45 miles west of FM 156 to 0.22 miles east of New State Highway 35W. This is right away CSJ 03530 to 0666 in the amount and it says $100,000 that needs to be corrected. We missed the zero there. It should be $1 million. Make a motion to approve. We have a motion by commissioner Marchin. Do you want a second to your motion? Second. Okay is there discussion or clarification needed here? Well time thank you for waiting so long to get to this item. Well, and I appreciate it, Judge, because I enjoy watching County Government at work. And this morning has been pretty instructive on that. And in NTTA, well, we could have a talk about that. Yes, we certainly could. Well, they're not. They actually have the presence of a government affairs person, but maybe that's a discussion for a different day. This might appear to be a relative with small item on your agenda. I can tell you, I'm from- $1 billion is never small time. I'm Tom Cromford's, by the way, and our represent champion circle development that's across the street from TMS. But Judge and Commissioner's Court, I've been doing this for about eight years, so it's not like this is one of your projects that's been there for 20 years, but this is a significant milestone because without Commissioner Marchant working with Andy to make sure those funds were moved so we could start right away on that project. We have faced yet another delay. So there is actually a lot at the end of the tunnel. I think everybody on this commission is caught at one time or another has pitched in on on Highway 114. Commissioner Coleman not you yet, but when you vote for this you will give it your opportunity. And it's just something that's really important to that part of the county, to the development over there. And just thanks to everybody. It really hurts me to say this, but Don Pulsar has been pretty important on this stuff. But thanks a lot and thanks to Commissioner Eads and especially Commissioner Marching for sharing your funds with us. And I want to second what Tom's comments. And I want to thank you, Ron, for helping us. You know, the right of ways, a critical path here and until we sell these bonds that we need, that we, that we're voter approved back in the fall. You know, we don't have the money to proceed without your participation. I really want to thank your team spirits. We could keep this project moving. 114 is one of the most highly traveled highways in the state of Texas. And half of the traffic is off of trucks. 18 wheelers. And so because of that, if there's an accident out there, you're looking at a fatality. And so not only is this for economic development an expansion, but it's also just a real life safety issue So and I want to thank Tom for all his his efforts on it too All right, we have a motion the second is a further discussion On favor please say aye aye Opposed to name motion is carried All right 14 H is approval supplemental agreement number three to the professional services contract between Dink County Texas and Tignal and Perkins and Corp. I did for loop 28 East plan specifications and estimates in the amount of $20,000 with funds to be transferred from Commissioner precinct one triple four discretionary funds to Commissioner precinct one triple four loop 28 East funds Auditor number 7673619010. Hopefully we can get to the program now. I've done taken hour. Motion by Commissioner Coleman. I'll second the motion. Other questions or comments? On the comments section, I just wanted to thank Commissioner Coleman for this, because historically the participation on this project has been split between Precinct 1 and Precinct 4 and if what's your call? I was going to split it with Commissioner Eige, I was going to have to bar it from Commissioner Marchance. I appreciate your call, but I agree, just to fund all of it. Thank you Commissioner Fondler. That was only 4-0's less than that. Yeah. Do we have any questions? Here none all in favor of the motion. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion does carry. OK. We did. We do it. I think we did it. All right. Wait a minute. email from John Felt that says that Denton County is only paying 10% of the million on 14G. And a second, John Postor is coming to the microphone. And so it should say, we're talking about 14G. Yes, by the end of the day, they will have the proper LPA because the guy that actually drafted the LPA didn't understand the agreement from his boss. We actually owe $5.3 million to TechStyle for $53 million with the right away. They've agreed to take a million dollars of it now so they can get started on their Y-Ray. Assuming we'll give them the rest of it later. So what I'm saying is that what the LPA will be when she gets it will say 10 million, 10% of which is one million. One million. Rather than one million, 10% of which you're at. Okay, and that's where I guess our information was very correct as well. Which is correct. In the contract that goes with the court order it has to be corrected from. And you'll have to cut that this morning. I called text out. I said get it to me today. And next up it would. So the order on 14G should in fact say 1 million. Okay. I just needed to clarify. Thank you. All right. I believe we've concluded our business. Everybody have a great day and we're adjourned. Okay. We are reconvened to take up item 13c for clarification and my motion is rather than take position, ye nay, on the bill that is before us is for the county judge to send a letter to Senator John Corona concerning this bill specifically stipulating that we appreciate his cooperation in amending the bill concerning the adjudication of the offenses but that the rest of the bill we are highly opposed to and actually Feel that the two items should be separated. It should be two different bills actually. But essentially what I'm saying is the rest of the bill we're opposed to. So the second to that motion is by Commissioner Marchand. Second. Here no further discussion. All on favor please say aye aye opposed Inean motion does carry unanimously. Thank you.