Thank you for your time. Our dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for this beautiful day. We thank you for the change of the seasons that you've given us, the relief from winter, the promise of spring, the promise of new life that you bring to us. We pause on this Saint Patrick's Day and give you also thanks for not only Saint Patrick, but for the other saints that you've brought to the world, saints that we know by name and saints that we only know by deed. We thank you so much that each of us is affected and blessed by the saints. You've given us, watch over this court and those in attendance today. Give the court wisdom, do your will, give all of us protection from sin and harm and heal those that are suffering from illness, bring us back safely again next week. Cross name we pay, amen. We have our pledges led by Everett and Addison Eads. And I'll tell you, these are very well-behaved children. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic where we stand one nation under God and he was born for the King of Germany's throne. I'm only there to say I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state and they are two on an individual. We have any public info for items not listed on the agenda. Cheryl, have anything been brought before us? Nope. Oki-Dokia, at this time I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce the mayor of Littlem. I believe he's here. Thank you for coming today and the City Manager for the City of a Little M. I've in line for it. Thank you for coming. Let's go ahead and go to the... Let me see. Let's go ahead and go to item 4G. Adopting the resolution, I approve the agreement to participate in the tax increment Reef Investment Zone, number two between the City of Louisville and Ditton County as recommended by Commissioner Precinct 3 and any appropriate action. That's 14G, Ron. Commissioner. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Commissioner Coleman, for this item. Well, take us to this item this early, so we do have people in the audience to speak on this item and serve my client for Mooseville is gonna come and give us a short presentation to on this item and serve my client for the most real is going to come and give us a short presentation on the side of. Okay. Can everybody hear me? All right. Is that good? All right. Thank you commissioners for your time. I'm going to be really brief before I introduce our consultant who has more in-depth information on the financials of our zone. In September of 2008, the commissioners court did hold a public hearing to discuss our intent to create Louisville's second tax increment reinvestment zone. The purpose of the zone just quickly is for assistance for public improvements to a transit oriented development that will be a mixed use development located near the Hebron DCTA station. It's currently in a flood plain so the public improvements are quite costly for that reason. On October 20th, the City of Louisville City Council has an ordinance establishing the zone which basically defined its location, the purpose of the zone and the length of the term of the zone. This item on the agenda is for consideration for you of an agreement between the city of Louisville and Denton County to participate in the zone. A couple of brief highlights of the agreement. Both the city and county participation in the agreement is 80% of the ad valorum real-tech property collection on the capture to praise value The agreement also establishes the duration of the zone which is from January 1, 2009 to December 31st of 2038 or whenever the project plan has been fully implemented and has been fully implemented and all costs have been paid at full. Now of course it will not last longer than December 31st of 2038. That is the term limit. It also goes over the limits of obligations of the county. The administration of the zone is no obligation of the county to administer the zone. That's solely for the city to do. And you're also protected against any delinquent taxes, having to track those and put those into the fund. So those are some protections for you that are in the agreement. Those are just some highlights of the agreement. I'm gonna turn it over to Bill Calderone, who is our consultant, who will go over some of the financials. Before you start, Sarah. The Louisville Independent School District, since they cannot do terrors, they're just listed on here as the other tax immunity break. And I'm sure that you have them as one voted member, and the county is one, and I'd like to look at the county's to two sure I don't see a problem with that We've are we've already discussed that in house and we we'd said that a few guys would like to Okay representatives we'd be happy to amend the agreement so that it would state that okay, okay, Kim is that a problem this morning Okay, thank you Morning, are you Thank you. Morning. How are you? Pleasure to be back. Thank you for having us here. I'm here on behalf of my business partner, David Haas, who has really been the lead from our firm on this project. I know he's visited with you, Commissioner Mitchell, a couple of times on this project. I know he's visited with you Commissioner Mitchell a couple of times on this project. But I have had the pleasure of being involved in that I was here with you back in September where we laid out the preliminary project plan at that time and it was one of the statutory requirements that has the applicant city coming before both the county and the school district for comments to the proposed reinvestment zone. And at that time we presented the proposed map of the zone as well as the budget. I'm happy to report that the documents that were circulated at that time have pretty much maintained their consistency. There haven't been any changes at all to my knowledge in terms of the budget that was circulated at that time or any of the proposed terms that were set forth for participation and funding a project caused in that project plan. The subsequent tour coming before the commission, the city did hold its hearing. And shortly thereafter, adopted an ordinance creating the reinvestment zone. And so the purpose for coming before the court today is to request consideration for the approval of that interlocal agreement that Sarah spoke to just a minute ago that would set forth the terms for the county's participation with the city and funding the project cost in this zone. I think Sarah did a good job of giving you the highlights of what that agreement does. It would have the county involved in funding at an 80% level. Looking at the build out cost and the project plan, we estimated conservatively that over the life of the reinvestment zone that there would be slightly more than $17 million worth of revenue that would be generated by the county's current tax rate, assuming that didn't change. And with a 80% participation, the retained revenues by the county would be just under $5 million total. We calculated it. retained revenues by the county would be just under $5 million total. We calculated it. Actually, I'm sorry, $4.2 million of retained revenues over the life of the re-investment zone. The zone project costs currently for those of you that have a copy of the plan in front of you. On page 14, have a developer funded cost of $12.5 million. City funded cost of 18.6 million and total, total between the two of $31.2 million. As far as the projects themselves are concerned, it's fairly standard fare as far as reinvestment zones go. There isn't anything in this plan that I would consider extraordinary. You do have water, sewer, paving in roads and sidewalks. So all of the required underground utilities, basically, that would render property available. And there is a parking structure that's proposed to help support some of the commercial development as well as you'll note some boardwalk and trail improvements. Fair amount of reclamation to render some of the land that is in the floodplain developable and there are mobility costs in the form of train station improvements estimated today at about a million dollars. So assuming everything would hold, we'd be looking at about a $31.2 million project cost burden for the reinvestment zone. At this point in time, there is no contemplated expansion of this list of costs, although that would be something that certainly could be considered by the city at a future date. These plans are subject to amendment as are the boundaries. But the agreement that you would approve this morning would only limit your participation to the cost set forth in this plan as currently defined. Should any changes to this plan occur that would be initiated by the city or by the county for that matter if the county where to come to the city and request a change. To the extent that that change would increase the proposed burden on the county, it would require that we come back and revisit the terms and conditions of the interlocal agreement that you're considering this morning to ensure that the county is on board with any changes that would be made to the extent that you would elect as a commission Not to approve any future changes to the plan then those those project costs a set forth in this current plan would be Only those cost that the county would be subject to There is no bond in debt this Post for this plan for this I'm sorry I'm dead bond debt proposed for the zone? Is there no? The way it's structured right now is contemplated as a pay as you go. But the agreement for the developer hasn't completed its negotiation with the city. And commissioner to the extent that there might be an included interest carry in that agreement, it might financially make more sense to do a bond at a future date but that would be the subject of an independent action. And that concludes my comments and let's you have questions. Thank you. This project is located in the floodplain in the city of Lucille and I personally as I said before that I think this is a good project is on roll land and land that would not be developed unless we did come to a corporation with the with the developer the city and the county to make it available for commercial and multifamily units and to increase the tax dollars that comes into the county and as well as the city. With that motion, I mean, with that comment, I'll move approval. Does anybody, I have some comments I'd like to make. Does anybody else have any comments? Okay. Yes. Excuse me. Could I just tell you too that in addition to the change that Commissioner Mitchell just asked for on the number of voting members. After meeting with James Wells, we have also deleted some of the delinquent tax language making the county obligated for that. So there will be a change there as well. It just strengthens up our position a little bit. We have a motion in a second. I have some comments or questions I'd like to make. Mr. Calderon. You stated that one of the benefits of this plan is that you'd be able to take some flood playing land and make it available. Is that correct? OK. How is that similar to the little ion plan that was presented, I believe, in December? And there are two plans in the case of little ion that we have been involved with. One of the two reinvestments on number one does have property in it that is in a flood zone and would require to the extent that it wouldn't be converted into green space would require some mitigation in order to develop because otherwise you'd be in the water. And also except for the I guess the existence as a church and a restaurant pretty much on the land in Little Elm it was also all undeveloped raw land isn't it in that correct as well. Both reinvestment zones over 95% of the land in the zones in zone number one is raw land and zone number two 100% of the land is raw. Would you consider those two plans to be fairly similar? There are similarities between probably more similarities between plan number one and this particular plan and that there is the mitigation issue. But probably the greatest similarity between all three is the fact that without TURRS assistance they can't develop because there are no underground utilities or roadway infrastructure. And I didn't see any of your presentation packet, but did you all have any kind of a destination on the creation of new value of the plan that was going to be done? Did y'all put that in there? I met Mr. You want the new? The creation of new value. Yes, sir. There is a You're in the back of Okay, I met Mr. Do you know what that was yes if you give me just one second I'll tell you exactly what we estimate it to be assuming a 2 2.5% growth in value after full build out we had estimated conservatively that the value at the end of the Reinvestment Zone life would be $487.9 million Growing from what is basically 28 million? It was roughly between 40 and 50 million dollars is what you would It was roughly between $40 and $50 million is what you would calculate. Is that your estimate? In growth? Yes. It goes from $28 to over $400 million. $400 million? Yes. $487, forgive me. And again, that's not a typical for rein-investment zones that have a fairly developed strategy for the development of the acreage. They worked very well in increasing value. Thank you, Mr. Calderone. I appreciate your comments. Certainly. Ms. Gillis, I'd briefly asked you about the county's tax evasement policy that was adopted by the court January 8th of 2008 and I was wondering in your opinion I mean I'm not sure if this applies I guess that's debatable even though under that policy it would be indicative that the reinvestment zone would qualify it's defined in portion X of the policy and you know I would agree it's defined in portion X of the policy. And I would agree it's not particularly clear, but I would think that they would have the definition as applicable to it, particularly chapter 311 of the tax code unless they minute to apply. I wasn't here when this policy was adopted, obviously. But have you had the chance to review that? Are you speaking of the $1,000 fee? No, I don't think that's an issue here. Frankly, I know the $1,000 fee may or may not be charitable in this instance. I was just wondering if these were, in your opinion, applicable to this? And I'm sorry, Commissioner. If what were applicable to the entire policy? Well, yeah. I mean, we've had some discussions about following policy in the past and I was just wondering if this policy would be applicable. I think this is my opinion from working with this group. This last time the policy was put in place that it's really addressing tax abatements and it was for many years addressing economic development agreements, excuse me, under 381. And the establishment of the TIRCs, I don't know that this policy, I kind of grouped you, I don't know that it was clearly written for the advent of the TIRCs coming before the court. Does the court have jurisdiction to deal with them, of course? But I would say that having seen where the policy was before and the changes we've made this time was really designed to clean up. A lot of that questions are areas about tax abatements itself under 312. And say this isn't a 380 or a 381 agreement. No, no sir, absolutely not. And in fact, part of the new, part of the policy that they passed in January was to discontinue doing those and to just do the abatements. I will tell you in the intro to it, it says the policy mentions the policy regarding it says taxes regarding things authorized under chapter 311 and 312. Right. And if I'm correct, this abatement falls under that chapter, is that correct? Yeah, IRZ is definitely a product of the chapter 311 and 311 of the tax code. Yes. I mean, just a simple reading, it would indicate that perhaps this policy may have been meant to. Why did that? Yes? I agree with that. And I guess I'd have to look at specific and I was going to pull up if you had something under X and I don't remember off the top of my head what that looked at. I think it's defined under section two X where it defines a Reinvestment zone as a geographical area of the county that meets the criteria of chapter 311 or 3 Property tax code, but it's not still not a tax abatement They're different right I know commissioner Mitchell. I was just saying I think it's clear. I didn't say I thought it went fell one way or the other. You know, I was just thinking maybe we should adopt a policy that applies to these. But and I probably if this policy doesn't apply, I think it's a good idea to maybe adopt a policy. I would like to see that all the additional, all the proposals kind of be evaluated on an objective criteria. You know, instead of on an objective criteria, you know, instead of on an ad hoc basis. I think the consensus of this court has not to do many terrorist nor evapment. I understand. This is what was already in the works before the economy turned to rain on. And so I think the consensus of the court is not to do Terrier because of the many the amount of cities that we do have in Den County But you're correct we can do the policy on I was just concerned that you know in the past that we've had staff Say that policy wasn't being properly followed and I was concerned that today we may be not following policy and I believe it's unclear So I'll disagree with the we may be not following policy and I believe it's unclear. So I'll disagree with the own answer because the policy that we have here for the tax abatement is for tax abatement and it's not for the tears so we'll have to disagree on that. I understand. I mean if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, you know, it may not be a duck. I'm a stickler for following policy. I understand. I have no for filing policy. I understand. I have no problem. Following policy. Mr. Calderon, I did some simple math on here. And I believe that this is a 30 year abatement. It's not an abatement. It's a 30 year investment zone. Yes. And was the little L1 also a 30 year tears? Both of those at the town of the LLM have created our 30-year reinvestment zones. Let me ask you this. Have you done any calculations based on your projections and schedule B as to what the recoupment would be to the county, with the time after the 30 years that it would take for us to pay for the development to pay the county back? Recoupment of the revenue after the 30 years? Yes. For the amount of the revenue? It would come online at the final year's collection rate, which basically is 130, 1,150,000 estimated a year. I was just trying to figure out the amount of what we had, what the amount we didn't collect during the 30 years, you know, extrapolated out to the future, what it would cost, you know, how long would it take for us to recoup those discounts we granted through the tours have you thought about I just did some rough math and without interest I thought it would be it would be a roughly between 15 and 17 years that's roughly what 45 years with that that's without interest with a 4.5% interest it would be 30 years plus 25 years so roughly 55 years before the county saw a net increase in taxes. At this time we're not collecting anything and I understand. In Commissioner Coleman you're advocating and it's obvious that you're advocating that the terms for little album be proved and so that would be the same situation that you have in Louisville so you're on one hand, you're saying, this is a problem with the City of Luizville, but with the other hand, you're saying, let's compare Lil' Elm and let's do Lil' Elm. So you represent both of those cities, so you need to make up your mind. Do you want to support it or not support it? And if you don't want to support it, vote no. Commissioner Mitchell, I'm just asking questions. I haven't stated whether I support it one or the other It's very obvious what you're doing Commissioner Coleman very obvious Commissioner Mershant. Yeah Let me let me ask you Mr. Calderon. Just clarification for me What you're asking the Teres creates a The TERS creates the ability to reinvest tax dollars into the infrastructure. Is that correct? Correct. It does not reinvest tax dollars into the construction of house tops, does it? No, sir. It funds a baseline infrastructure. So any house tops that are created within this single-family residence, multi-family, any commercial development, industrial development, whatever the footprint is within this development, those house tops are roof tops themselves create property taxes for the county. Is that correct? That is correct. So there is no within the turrets. We're only talking about the current raw land that's there and what it takes to develop the infrastructure, not considering what potential tax revenues would be on any structures that are built there. Are we? That's correct. So if you were if you're going to look at the overall tax liability, I mean we could safely say that if it's raw land now they build a thousand homes. The tax revenue for the county on those built homes is going to increase within a five-year period if it takes five years to build a thousand house. Absolutely. I'm going to amend my motion to include the corrections that Ms. Gillis. Commissioner Mitchell, I just wanted to clarify that I was just requiring asking for information I wasn't here when they made their initial presentation I actually went back in September the past year and watched their initial presentation and after watching the December I think 16th presentation by Little Elm the questions asked by actually you and Commissioner Eats That's where I derived my questions Commissioner Eats met with the developer in the city of Louisville, to bring some of that. I was just, I basically watched the little Elm video and saw what. You know, little Elm is not on the agenda today. Commissioner Cullen, the Louisville Terrors is on the agenda. And they found it standard. You know, we don't even need to discuss the little Elm Terrors because it is not on the agenda. And I don't know if we're breaking along discussing it. I don't believe so. My point was, I do want to caution the court that it is not on the agenda. I was wanting to do that a little bit earlier, um, didn't want to interrupt. So it is not on the agenda today, as we all know. My point, Commissioner Mitchell's, I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I was just basically saying I'd watch the videos and learn from you all regarding your questions on the other tip terms. Mr. Macolan, you don't learn from anyone. So anyway, I guess we have a motion in a second. I guess we'll call the question. All in favor? Aye. Aye vote aye. The motion passes. Thank you. City of Louisville, Lilliam, and for being here this morning. Thank you all. Have a nice day Let's now move to item 3a We have the presentation of the quarterly port of the Denton County alternative to speed resolution program and any appropriate action Morning commissioners First of all, unfortunately, I have us we found a slight typo on this on the very first page. When we said October 08 to September of 09, we're not trying to be able to see into the future. This is actually October 08 to December of 08. This is our first quarter of this first contract year. As you'll see that D. Cap is still performing well above the 200 a year mark. We are presently planning a training session for the County and District Clerks and court administrators on the 22nd of this month and 29th of this month. The reason for that was obviously discussed during our contract year, but it was to bring the clerks up to speed on the paperwork, the background, and actually some of the basics of mediations so that they can help the judges and help the courts work more efficiently. And I believe we're going forward to that quite nicely. And I'll pass myself for questions. And good morning. How you doing, sir? Good morning. I didn't believe that questions. And good morning. How are you doing, sir? Good morning. I don't believe that. And there are negotiations. We did talk about training. And have you... Is this the first training that you're going to be doing with the clerks and the courts? Yes, it is. We've been working on it for a couple of months, developing a program to put through with the men. And it's interesting because I think when we were originally talking, we were talking about maybe at the JP level and now we're actually working with the county courts and district courts. I'd be interested after those training sessions at what your attendance is going to be. I would hope that the district clerks as clerk as well as the county clerk would send their people to this training as well as the judges themselves. Because like you said, we discussed it not only at that level but JP level if we went that way because I think it helps your program and helps the county overall in implementation of this program to be even more successful than it is. I think you're very correct. There's so many pieces that are getting from the individual who needs it to the final product and if it's a smooth transition and there's no glitches, it obviously is quicker cheaper. So the next time I see, I'd like to know what the participation of the county was in that training. I can give you that information at that time and the other thing that I'm looking forward to see is what the response from the clerks is as far as what they picked up versus what they're over here too. So. Will you have an evaluation tool at all? Yeah, we're going to ask them at the end of it and we're developing a sheet pass out to To get their input Right, thank you Yes, sir anybody else have any comments commissioner Mitchell okay, all right. Thank you very much mr. Brushor have a nice day I'm sure, have a nice day. I guess we just thought it was a presentation, but we can move to accept it. All right, I'll second. Call the question. All in favor? All right. The motion passes unanimously. All right, let's go into the consent agenda. Does any member of the court wish to remove an item from the agenda to be considered separately? All the questions? All members in favor say aye. Okay, the motion passes unanimously. Let's go to the item 3B, approval of resolution, proclaiming the week of April 20th through April 24th, 2009 to the Denton County Crime Victims Rights Week, honoring crime victims and those that serve them during this week and throughout the year in any appropriate action. Oh, okay. We'll recognize a member of the DA's office. Okay. All right. Good morning. And my name is Veronica Brunner. I am the Director of Victim Services with the DA's office. I just want to let you note that today I am here representing the Ditton County Crime Victims Coalition. The Coalition is comprised of various organizations including the DA's office, Mothers Against Drug Driving of North Texas, CAUSA, Friends of the Family, the UNT, TWU, excuse me, Police Department as well as the City of Ditton, Los Wilfersco, the sheriff's office, and other various law enforcement agencies in Denton County. And together we work together with crime victims and in support of them to bring awareness to victims' rights. I am here asking for the Court to help us do this by proclaiming the week of April 20th through the 24th as Denton County Crime Victims Ripes Week. This year we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Victims of Crime Act and the theme is 25 years of rebuilding lives celebrating the Victims of Crime Act. The coalition will be hosting an award ceremony and reception on Thursday April 23rd at 6 p.m. at the Denton County Quartz Building and on behalf of the Denton County Crime Victims Commission, we invite you to help us honor a landmark commitment to victims of crime. Thanks. Thank you for coming. We appreciate it. Is there a motion on the table? Commissioner Mitchell? I moved. You moved? You said it. Okay. Let's call the question. Hall in favor. Say aye. Aye. The motion passes unanimously. O. Kidoke. Mr. Wells, the auditor's report. Item 5A. Morning commissioners. I'd ask the court to prove the bill report as presented with the one deleted bill from June probation fund that's not properly authorized. And the one additions actually scheduled debt service for our 2007 tax notes that need to be paid timely. That's all corrections I have. Thank you. All right. We have a motion in a second on the table. All in favor say aye. That's all corrections I have. Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second on the table. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. All right. 7A approval of budget amendment request. Number 100820 for part time salary slash benefits, including the transfer of funds from non-departmental unappropriated regular contingency to Constable precincts and the amount of $3,659 and any appropriate action. Is there a motion to approve? We have a second. I'll second but I've got a question for. Second for purposes. Discussion? Okay. Is there anybody here to answer your question? Yes, Mr. Stewart is here. Does he not have anybody in his budget to? We actually processed in a minute, a few weeks ago to help them with some furnishings and their office. I did locate partial funding in their budget for that. I really don't see where they have enough money to come up with this extra 10 hours. Just as a reminder, this is the only constable that we have. It has 1.5 employees. All the others have to. And I do know they'll be requesting that that position go full-time during the budget process. And their statistics kind of show at this point that they should have two positions as well. But for in the meantime, he's just requesting an additional 10 hours per week for the rest of this fiscal year. They've received some work back from precinct two. Was it the ones? Yes, it's my understanding that all the warrants were being sent and some of the other papers were being sent to precinct two for service and with the prior administration and when the new constable took office he took all that paperwork back under his umbrella and they're all serving their own papers now. verification what what happened was when I was still in office, we had about 1800 to 2000 DPS warrants that came from NTTA through the George Bush Toaway DPS then came back and dumped them back in our lap and said we're not going to serve these at that time. We're not going to serve these. At that time, Constable Davis said he didn't want them. So Constable Truett, actually it was Constable Floyd, but in subsequent to that, Constable Truett said, we'll take him, we'll work him. That happened up until the end of Davis's term and then Ron Smith says, no, we'll work him it and it's brought him back into his office. New ones, not the old ones, but new ones, will not go out to anybody else except Constable Six. No problem. All right. We'll call the question. All in favor? Hi. Ocean passes unanimously. OK. Item 10a, approval of the preliminary acceptance Motion passes unanimously. Okay. Item 10A, approval of the preliminary acceptance of the high Trinity Registrate subdivisions and inappropriate action. The chair will move for approval. Call for the question. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. The unanimous. Tenant is standing there to choose. Tenant, you have to come here. I'll answer questions. All right. Welcome. Next to you. Thank you. Approval of preliminary acceptance, mountain view, culvert project, precinct one, and any appropriate action. Bennett, do you have any comments you'd like to make? No, this is one of the flood damage control projects that started last year and we're wrapping them up. So I'll probably be bringing a few more to you. Precinct. The chair will move for approval. Okay, second by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Motion passes unanimous. 10C approval of plenary pre-liminary acceptance. Slash, Willow Glaid, Culvert Project, precinct one in any appropriate action. The chair will move for approval. Second by Commissioner Marchant. All those in favor say aye. Aye. I'm sorry. Mr. Eads. All right, the motion passes unanimously. Right. 13A, other departments. Approval of a legislative policy statement for Senate Bill 882 and House Bill 2334 pending in the 81st legislative session in any appropriate action. County Judge. Mr. Man. Yes. Mr. Mershant. Members, I thank you for letting me put this on. If you recall, I had to ask you to put this on for last week to put it on for today. This is actually their Senate bill, number82 and House bill 2334 or companion bills filed on behalf of the North Texas Toeway Authority. The bills themselves contain three issues that they're wanting to take to legislature. The issue that I found, I had an issue with was the second of the three and that had to do with the NTTA putting together their own administrative hearing body within the organizations to handle the offense of fear to pay toll. one of the big ejections that I had was that if this process did happen, the order that came out of NTTA administrative hearing had to be enforced would be enforced by the justice of the peace or a county court at law. I have problems with the whole administrative hearing, but that's not for us to solve those problems by this discussion today. But I will tell you the process that they are putting forward in these bills came out of Harris County and they modeled it out after Harris County because of that some of the language within the bill themselves itself was germane to Harris County and not germane to an authority that had four other counties within its jurisdiction. So working with NTTA, working with, not really, working with Corona's office, but indirectly, we got some language changed to where any appeal that came out of this process, if it's approved, originally they was appeals had to take place in the county where the administrative offices of NTTI, NTTA lie and that was in Colin County. So any revenue of fines and fees that would be applicable would only go to Colin County of all offenses that were filed in any precinct within their authority. And so they've got to, they changed that. They promised me they would change that. It goes before committee tomorrow to where it would be applicable to the precinct where the offense originated and not the administrative offices. And so I was very, very concerned because they've been telling us for the last three or four years to gear up for these offices at the opening of 121, Toa Way, the George Bush Toa Way. And so we have three precinct, JP precinct offices and Costwell's office have been gearing up for that. And now they're wanting to pull all those potential revenues of fines and fees away from the court and put it in one county and I thought that was objectionable and hopefully on the behalf of the county we got that taken care of. So, yes. Thank you for working on that commission March. Commissioner Mershant, I guess you had stated that basically you wanted to basically have it immediately go to J.P. Court instead of an administrative hearing. That's what your preference was. Well, the administrative hearing, I thought, you know, here's an authority that's a pseudo-governmental authority who the legislature gives the right to have an offense created a fair to pay toll and that same authority was a pseudo-governmental understand pseudo-governmental not like a county or a state and they were prosecuting they're really not prosecuting but they were adjudicating if you would. That's an execution. Yeah, it's an execution. All the same building. Yeah, it's an execution. All the same building and I, that's an execution. All the same building. And I just had a problem with that. And then after they enter their orders, the problem I had was they were looking to the county to enforce the orders. And so I voiced my opinion to them. I don't think we can. They won't go for us just having it go straight to JP. They won't go for us just having it go straight to JP. Yeah, they won't do that. Well, they're not willing to negotiate that right now. It goes to committee tomorrow. I've voiced my opinion on it. The problem is that to have a resolution that supports or doesn't support this legislation, it's three parts to it and the other two are important parts that we don't want to disapprove or not support or aren't to support. So that's why I'm asking that we withdraw any action on it today. Okay well I commend your efforts. That's a very smart thinking. So no action? That's what I'm recommending but I think there's discussion. Yeah so do we have a motion on the table? I can't remember. Commissioner Ead's, did you make a motion to approve? I can't. No, there wasn't any action on the table. I would like to thank Commissioner Marching for working on this. We both met with the NTTA within the last week and talked about a variety of issues. This is one of them. Ron, are you wanting to hold off for them to clarify this bill or amend it or what? They have. Because I would like to oppose it. They are giving to the committee, what you call the supplemental bill, that would include the language that I believe was appropriate to where the appeals would go. This is the statistics they gave me. I hate that word. Anyway, they said that there's 10,000 violations. There's 10,000 violations of fair to pay toll a day. The 10,000 violations they choose to prosecute 100 of them. Now that's in four counties. Of the 100 that they choose to prosecute, they will probably collect 50% of those right up front. They currently do that by the DPS issuing a probable cause affidavit to the court that for them to file a complaint. The complaint is filed. The court turns around whatever the court is and they'll either issue them a letter to come and take care of this or they'll issue a warrant for their arrest to take care of it. One issue that the NTTA has always had in that process, when they go that process, statutorily, they're able to collect the fee. I'm going to say the toll itself, which is a dollar, whatever it is. When you have a violation, it's a dollar for the fee and then the toll itself. Then it's a $25 administrative fee. Then you have the fine on top of that, which could be up to $250 per offense. When you have that and when it goes to court and you adjudicated in court we have no vehicle. We'd be in the county through the JP courts to collect the one dollar. We had are the administrative fee. The statutory we had to vehicle but we have the procedure we don't have the procedural vehicle to do that. They're trying to recover those costs through the Ministry of hearings. And they are taking, this is what they told me, that they are only going to administrative through that process big time offenders, which are the problem isn't as I told them I said you don't understand you are you are putting a generic law in place with no specifics asking judges all over your jurisdiction to interpret what you mean by that. And if you have 30 JP courts that are in your jurisdiction, they're interpreted in 30 different ways, exactly what the law means. And I ask them to be more specific on that whole procedure in there. I call a Corona's office. They mean. You know know that kind of thing but worries me. Yeah did I told you when is this going to go to a hearing tomorrow and I told them that at the language we need to go ahead and oppose it just for for I told them if it the language that they promised me and the clarification that wasn't didn't come out of the hearing in that form that we I would bring it back up to this court. To consider opposition or to support it. We leave the item on for next week, maybe, Commissioner Mershaw. I think we're having a hearing tomorrow. I think it would be, I mean, it's improved, and you've done good work on to improve it. I'm willing to vote to oppose it right now, but if Commissioner Mershaw thinks it's better, we put it off. Well, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, I think we should. Yeah. You know, let's put it this way. faith negotiations. They wanted to be here today in discussion of this. I told them that my ultimate, what I want to say, objection to it, if they put the language in there had been met and that I would table this consideration today to make sure that it is put within a supplemental bill tomorrow. And if it wasn't, then I would put it back on the agenda for the following week and talk about the opposition to it. Okay. position to it. Remember if we opposed both of these that were opposing also two other elements. They have to do with the authority and a bonding authority as well. And so they have... I suppose a portion of it? I don't know. A little down maybe. What do you think, Commissioner Ease? I was thinking we can only oppose a portion of it. Maybe we could whittle down the resolution a little, instead of just a blanket opposition. I just know how good faith things are with the NTTA just like last week. We were the only stakeholder to make a position on the name of the Toeway and the NTTA voted to rename it. I just know how they operate. I was actually down there at that meeting. I was kind of shocked. Yeah, we were the only stakeholder to make a position on that name and then they went right against it in County. We're the only one who voiced it. And nobody, it was the wildest thing. No other entity had even sent in a recommendation. Right. Commissaries, you know, that's a separate issue. I'm just talking about how I operate. I do. And you know, it's the first time of a reading in the committee. And so I- We want to, I'm going to defer to you since you've dealt with it more. I'm here to make a comment on it. And I guarantee if it doesn't read that way and I will give their governmental affairs person a call right after this to tell them about this discussion and the direction it was going and to ensure that the language that... I trust you, Ron. And I'm comfortable with this in there. If it's not, then I, Frank, we'll put it on there for the agenda item for next week to discuss it. We just told it over anyway. Just, just because. Pay more. Just to substitute the language. Okay. Do that. Yeah. No problem. Reposted. Pay more for next week. Okay. Thank you. Members. Okay. 13B approval of disaster declaration and executive order as a mitigation effort to reduce the threat of wildfires due to drought conditions. Yes sir emergency service. Morning commission. No action requested and we can go ahead and probably pull that off the agenda at this point. That's within the agenda at this point. That's if that's within the court decision. Yes. Now just a weed control. Yes. Now a mowing starts. No action. Okay, no action requested. All right, 14A approval of a change order number one to the contract between Denton County, Texas and an LH Lacey construction at limited for the Lake Lewisville Bridge quarter section three project in the amount of 52,862 in 21 cents. With funds to be transferred to Commissioner precinct 1, Cama, Trip 04 Lake Louisville-Corder Front, Auditor number 76-7401-90, dash 10, share, remove for approval. Thank you. A second by Commissioner Mershant, all in favor? The motion passes unanimously. Item 4B, approval of the agreement between alpha testing in Denton County for geotechnical and construction material testing at the Denton County Administrative Complex, phase 1, construction site as recommended by the director of public facilities and any appropriate action. facilities and any appropriate action. The Chair will second. All in favor? Motion passes unanimously. Improveable of one contract for purchase of right away by Denton County, Texas from Mike W. Meadows and wife wife Mary E Meadows for parcel 41 of the shelter road, old stone road and Smithmone road improvement project to grant authorization to proceed with closing and approval for the Denton County judge to sign all necessary closing documents to purchase the right away and three direct the county auditor to issue a warrant in the amount of $200 plus any applicable fees for the purchase of the right away with funding to come from Commissioner preccinct 4, Trip 04, Hilltop Road Funds, Auditor Number 76-7397-90-10 Commissioner Precinct 4. Approval. We have a motion in a second. All those in favor? Say aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Ditton County, Texas and the town of Double Oak, Texas for the Peppercourt Lane Improvement Project located entirely within the town of Double Oak, Texas and the Ditton County Commissioner of Precinct IV at the total estimated cost of 86,839 dollars and 36 cents with funding to come from Commissioner precinct number four HMAC funds Auditor number 20-4615-85-40 I'm just reprising for the chair will second All those in approval say aye. Aye. Assusinan. Approval of the interlocal cooperation agreements between the Ditten County, between Ditten County, Texas and the city of Pala Point and its volunteer fire department for ambulance and fire protection services as recommended by the Director of Emergency Services and any appropriate action. The chair will move for approval. The second by Commissioner Bobby Mitchell, all those in favor say aye. The motion passes unanimously. Item 14F, approval of an interlocal agreement between Denton County, Texas and the city of Sanger, Texas for the sale of an asphalt zippers slash trailer, Commissioner precinct one. The chair will move for approval. There's a second all those in favor. Please say aye. Okay. All right. I didn't hear y'all. All right. The emotion passes unanimously. All right. Yes, ma'am. I mean, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. It's all right. Evidently, NTTA are watching us today. Okay. I had a text message. Uh-oh The new 82 language was sent to Corona exclamation mark I just got a text message right Okay, I wish they were more attentive to our other request but they're watching they had their mind made up Okay, I wish they were more attentive to our other request. They're watching. They had their mind made up. Hey, Clark's office. Did I miss any items? Okay. I guess the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. You