Thank you. Commissioner's Court for Tuesday, March 10, 2009 is the end session. This morning, an invocation will begin by Dr. Bing Burton, Director of the Denton County Health Department, and our pledges will be led by Jody Gonzalez, Director of Emergency Management. Will you please stand? Would you pray with me please? We praise you, O God. We acknowledge you to be the Lord. We thank you for this day, a day that you have made. We pray you're blessing upon this commissioner's court. We pray that all that is said and done here today would be pleasing to you. We ask you're blessing upon our county and our state and upon our nation and all who serve it both at home and abroad. We ask your special blessing upon those who stand in harm's way. Give your holy angels charge over them that no harm would come to them. All those we ask in Jesus' name. Amen. Do you want me to play it? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, in indivisible liberty and justice for all. On a Texas flag, a pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God,'t know God. One in invisible. Item one is for input on items not listen on the agenda. If there's any member of the public that would like to address commissioners court on any item not posted on the agenda, we ask that you please complete a public comment form We'd be glad to hear from you also want to remind everyone at this time to please turn off your cell phones and pages Under item one we have one public comment and that is from Beth Fleming and we'll call on her now Good morning judging commissioners. I'd like to just make an announcement that the Denton County purchasingurchasing Department and the City of Denton Purchasing Department are hosting a supplier form this evening at 6 o'clock here in the Commissioner's courtroom. And we are encouraging any suppliers out there who want to know how to do business with either the city or the county to come and we will welcome through that information. Thank you. Trying to be considered a people's time here that have joined us this morning. Let's go first to item 13 F. 13 F is approval of the three-way contract between Thomas S. Burns, City of Denton and Denton County for the construction of certain public improvement described as waterline extension and site improvements associated with Moore Street from Luke 288 to Kimberly Drive is recommended by public facilities and public engineering. Kim, do you want to give a little overview of what's going on? We think that with the signing of the document we did last week for the city and this document, once everything gets back down to the city in a format with the other documents that they require, that this should actually give us the go to get permits. That's our hope. Okay, are there any questions from members of the court? Or do we have a motion for approval? A motion from Commissioner Eanes, Chair, will second, is there any discussion? Hearing none all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Motion does carry unanimously. Thank you, gentlemen, for say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, any? Motion does carry unanimously. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning. And let's see here. Item 8A is approval of one of the petition for an H1B visa for a Schron new go to authorize Kevin Carr director of information services to sign on necessary forms and three issuance of payments for the petition fees. We have a new commissioner. You're having a little computer trouble this morning, okay. Do we have any questions from members of the court? Proof. Yeah, a motion for approval by Commissioner Marchandt. Chair, we'll second. Hearing no questions, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion does, Carrie. Chair, we'll second hearing no questions. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion does, Carrie. Along that line, I just think it's wonderful, the news that we got last week from human resources about Gustavo, and I just want to put it on record that congratulations. That's wonderful. Amy, why don't you tell everybody what he's talking about? If I could, about 10 years ago, I think this commissioner's court approved its first H1BV stuff for Gustavo Hernandez. And we kind of stumbled through that process. And since that time, Gustavo has stayed in our department, excelled in our department, got married, had children, studied for his citizenship test, which he passed last week. And that's what the commission was talking about. We're very proud of him. And he is waiting for a letter to tell him when he can take the oath. That's exciting. We congratulate him. Okay. Okay. It's good item two which is a consent agenda members are there. It is on the consent agenda that you need to pull for consideration or discussion. Or do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Eans. Hearing no questions. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, senene. Motion does carry. Consent agenda today consists of two a which is approval of the order making appointments. We have a new hire and vehicle maintenance and a demotion in the sheriff's department to be as approval intro departmental transfers to see as approval for renewal of contract for printing. This is bid number 0307184 to Cooper's copies and printing. 2-D is approval of specifications and authority to advertise for bid number 0309-1957, Connaca, Minolton, MS6000, MKE2 scanner. 2-D is approval for renewal of security guard services, RFP 0207182-0 to Ruez Protective Services Incorporated. And 2F is acceptance of Commissioner Education's certificate of completion. Certifying that Commissioner Ron Marchand has successfully completed the continuing education provisions of Article 81.0025 of the Texas Law of the Texas local government code for 2008. Three A is approval of a proclamation naming the week of March 15 through 21,, is Poison Prevention Week in Denton County. The population reads where as our society is becoming increasingly dependent on household chemicals to perform labor saving, time saving miracles, and on medicine to provide health-giving life-sustaining benefits. Whereas these products, when not used as intended or directed, maybe hazardous, particularly if children gain access to them. And whereas over the past 47 years, the nation has been observing poison prevention week to call attention to these hazards and how proper handling and disposable disposal of these substances with proper use of safety packaging can help eliminate them. Whereas the efforts of our community organizations completed by the efforts of the Nortexas Poison Center have reduced childhood poisoning in Denton County, whereas the Nortexas Poison Center, a regional poison center, located at Parkland Health and Hospital System provides the ultimate in human service programming, immediate accessible emergency information to save lives of victims of poison-related emergencies and whereas these programs must continue, as long as even one child's while as a household product or medicine by mistake. Now therefore be it resolved the Denton County Commission's Court, do who by hereby proclaim the week of March 15 through 21 2009, is Poison Prevention Week in this Denton County. Further we direct their appropriate agencies in our local government to continue the cooperation with concerning citizens and community organizations, including our schools to develop programs that will alert people to the continued danger of misusing medicines and household products and to promote effective safe guards against accidental poisoning among our children. The chair will move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Marchin, the general poise needs among our children. The chair will move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Marchin. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. The post-synning. Motion does carry. Three, I'm sorry, five, a is approved of the bill report. Payments from CSCD, Community Corrections, T-A-I-P, Shares, Training Shares, Forfeiture, V-I-T, Interest, D-A Check-Fee and DA4 for sure funds are all presented for recording purposes only. Good morning, James Wells. When Judge Commissioners asked the Court to prove the bill report with the five deletions that are listed on separate page, three of those are general fund, one is adult probation on public health, all have various problems with with those. They'll either be reprocessed correctly or not paid at all. Also, I'd ask for two additions, both from the general fund, for one is just a return of unclaimed funds. Whether it's a purchase for the museum, both need to be expedited. That's all corrections I have. Thank you. Do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Chair, we'll second. Do we have any questions? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion does carry. 2B is approval of Denton County's 2009 unreinversed healthcare expenditure report. Again, McCollum, James Wells. As you can see, this is an annual report that state law requires, and we have no reason not to file out of the lawsuit the state of Texas had against various tobacco companies. Part of the had against various tobacco companies. Part of the settlement was that $1.8 billion of that settlement would be set aside into a permanent trust fund to offer partial reimbursement from the earnings of that $1.8 billion to units of local government and hospital districts that provide unreinversed health care to the citizens of the state. This report is our filing that qualifies us to receive our pro-radish share of this reimbursement. The Texas Department of State Health Services has formulated rules on what types of expenditures are qualified for us. And again, they all have to be unreimbursed health services. They break down into large categories of county, in-adjent health care, which we run a program in, unreimbursed jail health care, which we certainly run a program, and also other personal health services of a variety of natures that really are found throughout our budget, such as our contract with social service providers, our MHMR, expenditures, probate court, court-roader medical services. So this is our, in the agenda document, is our report as we've filed it. I would ask, I'm email the court and send a new cover sheet. Dr. Burton did mention reviewing the report. He noticed that we had not claimed our construction costs. So actual, I would ask the court to approve a report that is changed on item D from 8.405 million to 8.894 million. And our total unreimbursed expenditures that we're claiming will actually the final total is 10 million 229,000 turn 32 dollars It's interesting to point out that this is a quiet total when we are People are telling legislature. We don't really pay our fair share and we actually do 10 points or nearly 10.3 million dollars We don't really pay our share and we actually do 10. So nearly 10.3 million dollars. This report once approved by the court will be submitted to the state immediately. And then the along with all other reports from across the state. Our pro-rata distribution will be based on the income from the trust that is available to be distributed plus all the expenditures of other qualifying entities. Last year we received $403,000 previous year, $376,000. We have budgeted about $400,000 again this year. So that's the approval of this report and authority authorization for the county judge to certify this. And for us to submit it or answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Are there any questions from members of court? We have a motion by Commissioner Margin. I said I get back in the commissioner's eans hearing no questions. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name motion is carried. I'm sorry. The record chronicle isn't here to get all those details, but keep them handy. We'll make sure they get them. Thank you, James. Six A is approval from of exemption from bidding for a traffic signal poll. Mass arms and base from the city of Denton Municipal Electric according to the provisions of section 26.024A9C of the local government code Pretty self-explanatory, but if that's available if anybody has any questions This purchase is for the upgrade required by the City of Denton for more street and Luke 288 intersection and this will save us about six months in delivery time by buying from their stock. Chair, I move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Margin. Are there any questions? Any none on favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name. Motion does carry a 7A as approval of Budget Amendment request 100800 for pre-employment services for non-departmental in the amount of $2,000 Motion by commission marchin seconded by commissioner eeds other questions You're none on favor please say aye. I oppose and in motion does carry will come back to 10 a motion does carry. We'll come back to 10 a. 12 a is approval of law enforcement services agreement between US Army Corps of Engineers and Denton County for 2009 summer patrol services. Like a motion to approve? Motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Marchandr, other questions? On favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposing. Aye. Motion does carry. So the 13b, which is approval of disaster declaration and executive order as a mitigation effort to reduce the threat of wildfires due to drought conditions. We'll call on Julie Gonzalez. Morning Judge. The commissioners looks like we're hopefully looking good for the rest of this week. I hope to see a lot of rain, how you made it to use something to get us over the hump. At this point it would be my request that we specifically go ahead and allow the burn band to expire at the end of today. And then that would go ahead and allow outdoor burning Wednesday on so that way we don't have to change it in the middle of the day right after court today. So if we could continue the burn band through this afternoon or this evening and then starting tomorrow would be sufficient to allow outdoor burn. I think if the fire started, can my free once it starts raining, it's worth it to get a day loose. All right. Have any questions for Judy? Very none. I'll move for approval. Second. Second by Commissioner Eads. Hearing no questions, hall in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to any any motion does carry. Scow the 13 a which is approval of legislative policy statements and resolutions in discussion or approval of other matters related to the 81st legislative session. Members the first bill to be considered is House Bill 490. And what I'm proposing is that Denton County opposed House Bill 490 which is I'm proposing is that Denton County opposed House Bill 490 which is related to indigent health care. I don't think I have seen anything that would work in our favor, Judge. Exactly. But just so that anybody watching or listening kind of understands why we're opposing this, if you can kind of bottom line it for us Well it appears that I think you're speaking of the bill that for 90 that would allow either Dallas County or Terrent County This is on the in-gen health care. Elgibility disputes takes that any of herbage related to residency and doesn't really change eligibility. Dispute and residency is a dispute and eligibility. Sorry, I was working on something else. Okay. Okay Okay, right here it says 490 increases eligibility from 21% of property to 25% of properties That would that wasn't the one that would be a fiscal impact in that regard is difficult to estimate the amount of impact It might in might be in the neighborhood of $600,000 per year That's kind of a ballpark, but it would increase eligibility from 21% to 25%. That's the primary dispute. Yes. Well, the chair is going to move for approval of the order which states that didn't county opposes House Bill 490 relating to indigent health care. Seconded by Commissioner Eans. Other questions? Hearing none all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Sainine? Motion does carry. And while you're up here, we have. And there's House Bill 1033 relating to designating English as the official language of the state. Well, I'm in favor of that. I'll take pleasure in making the motion on that one. Okay. Second by Commissioner Eads. If for no other reason, which there certainly are other reasons, but if for no other reason, the amount of dollars that would save didn't come in just comparing ballots for all the elections. Just look at the dollar amount that it would save. It's fantastic. So are there any comments? Hearing none, I'll in favor of the motion. Please say aye. Aye. e motion does carry and then lastly House bill 1184 and this is relating to determining population for the certain creation of civil service systems in certain counties, so that's really more an e-me thing Got an email from e-me here. I'll just read it e-me pretty well explains everything more an Amy thing. Kind of an email from Amy here. I'll just read it. Amy, the pretty well explains everything. Under the current law, Dint and County will be eligible to have Sheriff's Civil Service after the 2010 federal census. This bill would make us eligible as soon as it becomes effective. And in the Sheriff's Office, fall under civil service for requires some preparation, depending on how the commission is set up and may require additional funding also The defeat of this bill would not take away any rights that employees currently have it would only provide the expedited time for the county to prepare for civil service administration in this area And it should be noted that And it should be noted that Sheriff Parky does agree with Amy on this and he says we need time to develop a plan and this would force us to move faster than necessary. I feel we should oppose this bill. Are there questions or comments from members of court? Do I make a motion? Thank you. We have a motion and a second to propose. House Bill 1184. Hearing no questions, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion is carried. Go ahead. Just for clarification on these specific bills. I know there's hundreds of bills that somewhere or another might touch the county and affect the county. I was at lunch yesterday with the representatives from NTTA and they were telling me about a Senate bill that was being carried by Senator Corona that would make an impact on the way that our JP course, specifically three of them, would do business in relationship to NTTA. And essentially the offices that would be regularly filed in those courts because of the jurisdiction are venue, excuse me, would be a fair to pay toll. And we have been hearing, you heard from me when I was a JP and you've been hearing from other JP's in the last couple of years since I've been Commissioner, how it affects the personnel that they have and how it affects the way they do this as well as the constables. asking the legislature to give power to NTTA to administrative their own adjudication of those of that complaint. And that that complaint would come before it administrative for the lack of a better term judge within their organization to adjudicate that complaint whether it's called adjudication or not, because it's not a it's not a court of law to try to keep it out of the court system. And if the members out as soon as she sends that to me a Senate bill I'll forward it on to you guys and let you 82, 882 and once she does that I'll send it to you. You take a stab at it. I'd like to get Frank to put it on as one of our legislators to either oppose it and I guess I'm asking direction. It's that to kind of bills that you guys would like to see that would have a direct impact on revenue first of all For the county and second of all procedures as well as personnel within those courts and with those cost of his office well on the same line We have to be careful about hosting What we're gonna talk about on legislative issues. And in the past, we've tried to do a generic enough posting that the house bills and senate bills we know specifically, we're going to talk about obviously we identify them and there's all kinds of backup information in the agenda. But especially as we get towards the end of the session, sometimes these things change, evolve, something you used to be opposed to, you know, they do enough to it that now you're okay with it. So it needs some more discussion, but we no longer have a latitude of, you know, five minutes before court starts adding another House Bill or Senate bill for discussion. So as much as possible, we try to get these on the agenda with sufficient backup materials. Everybody knows what we're talking about. And why we think we should be in favor of or opposed to and to take a position on it. And it's important to get that information to our reps and senators because it helps them a lot to know how we feel about these different things. But if you will get that information to Frank and he can put it together for the next agenda, but I just wanted to point out that. And I haven't looked at the bill. It was in a briefing that we had and there may be some things that were left out that take care of it or whatever but immediately your red flag went up where you mean. Well you know as they go through committee these things can change dramatically too so something you're initially opposed to can evolve enough that you're okay with it later inside. Well this was part of a bill that did a lot of administrative cleanup within TTA and it was going to be carried by By Corona is carried by Corona who's a bulldog in transportation this session, and so I just Okay, well, we'll get that posted next time so we can have Copy the bill and hopefully a thorough understanding of what it is they're trying to do. Okay, we'll go on to item 13C, which is approval of grant adjustment notice for 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program close out emergency services. We have Jody here, if there's any questions, any member of court have questions on this issue or do we have a motion for approval? So moved. Motion by Commissioner Marchin. I'll second. Second by Commissioner Coleman. Here are no questions. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Motion does carry. 13D is approval to use $950000, 34 cents of excess funds from the colony tax office remodel project. Within the 2005, it's certificates of obligation fund. This is not fund number 7376249040 for a geotechnical testing. This is put on by Danny Burmley. Do we have questions from members of the court? Do we have approval? Motion for approval. Motion by Commissioner Marchin. any brumley. Do we have questions from members of the court or do we have approval? Motion for approval. Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Chair will second. Are there any questions? Hearing none. Did you have a question? I'll in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sitting. Motion does carry. 13E is approval to change the capital replacement fund remodel project from excuse me at the San Diego government center from tax office remodel to justice of the peace remodel and front entrance remodel for tax office and we have any brunette here come on in the evening morning judge commissioners what what we're looking at doing here is doing some remodeling within the J.P.'s office to incorporate the juvenile area that is moving out this Thursday, Friday, I believe, which what this does, it gives them more space for their clerks to work and also puts a little store front for the eminent. We're also adding a store front for the tax office so that they can close the area off and not have to use that old roll down. I call it a chain link fence, but it looks like. Members, this original amount was budgeted towards the tax office for a extensive remodel project within that office because of the passing of the bond election part of a capital part of that was one day an expansion of the current Sandy Jacobs, I didn't feel it was prudent at this time to use that money to change that. If we were going to do any major changes like that, we would do that within a new building. Talk with Steve Mossman, Steve Mossman understood and understands what we're doing here. And so there was around $130,000 within that fund. We're trying to do some other cleanup within that facility to utilize that fund. Thank you. Are there questions or members of the corridor that we have a motion approval? Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Eans. Here are no questions. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Seen in. Motion is carried. Thank you, Danny. 14A is approval of the interlocal cooperation agreements between Dyncan and Texas and the city of Salana for ambulance and fire protection services. It is recommended by the Director of Emergency Services. Chair will move for approval. Seconded. Seconded by Commissioner Marchant. Hearing no questions, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed aye. Motion does carry. 14v is approval of one rescinding corridor 08-0387 for the utility relocation agreement between Denton County Texas and Boliver Water Supply Corporation approved on June 13, 2008, and two approval of the revised Utility Relocation Agreement between Dan Cunney, Texas and Bolliver Water Supply Corporation for relocation of approximately 1,890 linear feed of six inch waterline on lowest road east in the amount of $89,980 with funding to come from Commissioner precinct one. The SRP, Lois Road Project Funds, Auditor Number 63, 73, 9010, with all costs to be reimbursed by Walmart under the terms of the Second Amendment to inducement and development agreement between DIMC, County, Texas, and Walmart, stores east incorporated. Move for approval. Second. Motion by commissioner Coleman seconded by commissioner March and other questions. On favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion is carried. Okay. I believe other than 10 a we've concluded our business. Let's go now to item 10 a which is workshop and request to set a public hearing in March 24, 2009 and revising the lot-size requirements in the subdivision rules and regulations. We have been at Kyle here. Let me talk first. Morning, Bennett. Good morning. Thank you, Judge. Thank you, commissioners. This issue has come about when the court requested the legal department to send a proposed revised OSF regulations to TCQ for approval, which set the minimum lot size requirements if you remember to a half acre for a septic system with a public water supply and one acre with a septic system with private water supply and one acre with a septic system of private water supply. These proposed lot sizes conflict with the subdivision rules and regulations which state the minimum lot sizes one acre. We have a couple options we can do. One is not change the subdivision rules and have the developer come in and request a variance if he wants to develop anything less than one acre. If the court chooses this option then the OSSF proposed regulation will have a language saying that that will have to come in for a variance. If they want to develop less than one acre. Second option is to change the subdivision rules to match the OSSF regulation. If the court chooses this option then a public hearing will have to be required for the subdivision rules and this agenda has a proposed public hearing date of March 24. The third option would remove the lot sizes altogether from the subdivision rules. The one acre lot size in the subdivision rules is not tied to anything else in the subdivision rules. It was just a one-centred statement saying the lot size. It was probably put in there to coincide with the septic rules. One thing to keep in mind is if the court chooses to leave the subdivision rules, the way it is and requires a developer to request a variance, that gives the court the ultimate flexibility and discussing that project with the developer. Variances will then turn into a negotiation between the court and the developer. Any questions? Thank you, Bennett. I'm gonna put this on the request of this to be put on the agenda simply because I think it's important that our subdivision rules and regulations hassle our developers the least amount possible. And I think it needs to clearly state basically what our intentions are. And I think we need to move forward with the public hearing to get the subdivision rules changed. And we're already going through the process with TCQ, but that's going to take a little while. Instead of inconveniencing these developments, it's coming to court every single time on something that it seems pretty obvious what we're going to do. I think it's much cleaner to take option two now, Bennett, for clarification. And go ahead and post the public hearing for changing the subdivision rules and regulations, getting clearly stated in there. It also to not do this is not only inconveniencing the developers, but it's delaying their project by another week. So my suggestion, and ultimately what I'll be making an emotion on is to take option to and schedule the public hearing in the suggested date is March 24th. So first of all here from Commissioner Coleman and then McGon, Commissioner Coleman. I'm Bennett. Would it be possible in the subdivision rules and regulations? I know we require a public hearing anyway, but you said regarding them having to come to the court. Would it be possible to change the subdivision rules and regulations to say you can get a variance depending on them submitting a soil test? or that you could have it approved on the staff level based on the soil testing where it would be appropriate to go to a half acre as opposed to a full acre. To me, I think that's a healthy compromise. We can do that, but we just change the subdivision rules. It would still take changes. No, I understand. subdivision rules, we can. Yeah. I just think it would be a good idea for us to consider the soil when we had a lot of discussion regarding this. And I guess we have a moderate difference of opinion regarding the one acre lots versus half acre lots. I think a healthy compromise would be not necessarily requiring them to make a mission court for a variance every time, but for them to submit soil testing to determine whether half acre loss would be appropriate. We can do that. Mr. Eads. I agree with you, Commissioner Coleman, about the soil testing that refreshed my memory, Bennett, didn't we? I thought part of our, the caveat to having the half acre was the, that they submit to us a soil test early on at the beginning. Where was that in the process? Was that the beginning when they start the, the planning process or where were we? That was the intent was for them to submit the OSSF report during the plating process Which would include a soil sample for each lot at the beginning at the beginning That's already part of the OSSF report I think it'd be appropriate. I'm sorry. Yeah, I mean I wrote this for you guys I think we're in agreement. I'm just trying to figure out where we're at at the I think we somewhat Cross that bridge. I can't remember. I just think it would be appropriate to have it in the subdivision rules and regulations and let it be done on the staff level where basically it defaults at one acre and then if they just get at one acre just if they comply but if they want to go to half acre then they have to submit soil testing and let it be made at a staff level to determine whether or not it's an appropriate for half acre. I know it's still a requirement, you know, hearing for the subdivision. So, leave it at an acre. So would you say leave it at an acre? And that if, that if, as a default, as a default, and if it could technically meet the muster for half acre, then it would prove at a staff level. Yeah. And just not have it come to the commission for unless they disagree with staff regarding the soil. Commissioner Marchin. Let me ask a minute. It's the only consideration for a half-acre lot or the size of the lot, the soil testing. Is that the only consideration whether you approve it or not? It's the, there's a, soil testing, there's also setbacks from other wells and property bound. There's a whole host of different things. So. But usually the soil types are the ones that are going to dictate have the most issues as far as lot sizing. So we have already changed the subdivision rules and rules and regs to require before the final plan. Is that correct? Or are you just have to help me my terminology. What we previously approved in the subdivision rules didn't have anything to do with the septic systems. No it didn't but it had to do with the, but the plat didn't it? Right it was the preliminary plat approval goes before commissioners court initially and the final plat always went before commissioners. But the preliminary plaque comes before but it has to have the soil testing of every lot. Is that correct? It has to have it but it's not in the subdivision rules. It's in the OSF rules. And that's fine. Proposing that we have the public hearing to change the subdivision rules. Right. Part of reason. Commissioner Ian. So Bennett, what are we going to do at that public hearing? Add the language to have that, to amend our subdivision rules and regulations to have the soil testing done at the beginning of the process. What else? What are we gonna do? That would make it the most clear. What we could do is leave the one acre in there and then have a caveat in there saying that if the soil testing and everything works, then the developer can request a staff variance to go to half acre. I do that now. Sorry. Can you can you do that now? Can they request if based upon our standards now, which is one acre, can they come before the commissioners court and ask for a variance now for half acre? I don't believe so because I- Processing even in there. Because the OSSF is dictated by the state and that's how our permit with the state reads is the one acre and two acre lot sizes. Now if they have public water and public sewer like a freshwater supply district does, then they can come in and ask for a plan development from the right now. They can ask it from the court to go any lot size they so chewed at the court degrees. If we change the subdivision rules and regs, like option number two, it would automatically put their opportunity to submit a preliminary plan based upon half acre lot sizes with public water. Is that correct? With no variance. Providing that the state approves the new, Right. Which they will since the state minimums. So, and that's in a line with what we've had conversation about before, from moving from Denton County standard that has been set to a state standard. Correct. So number two would put that in the rules and reg subdivision rules and regs so that we would make a seamless Change from that one to half is that correct correct What by doing as Commissioner Coleman has said what what step are we we're defaulting on one which is currently what we're at now Is that correct we're defaulting on one which is currently what we're at now. Is that correct? We're defaulting on one and they can ask for a variance from the one to a half as long as setbacks have been met as long as other conditions has been met as well as the soil condition report has been met. That is true once TCQ approves the OSSF change. Right now our minimum lots are one and two acres simply because our OSSF regulations have not been approved by TCQ. Once that gets approved and the court finalizes that court order, then the lot size would then be dictated by the subdivision rules currently because we have one acre minimum in the subdivision rules. I'm just trying to figure out a way. I mean, I'm trying to figure out why what conditions would be there to deny. The same conditions would be there to deny a half acre development. A lot. If we didn't have the variance, is that correct? a lot If we didn't have the variance is that correct? Right. In other words if they're coming in and we changed the subdivision rules and allow for the half They cannot get the half if they don't meet the soil standards the setback standards They don't they can't get it anyway, but if they don't meet The standards that you're setting up there. That's correct. Now, it might benefit the county to make sure in the subdivision rules that we state that the soils have to be sampled for each lot, just so that it's very clear because sometimes the developer doesn't have anything to do with the septic systems. That ends up being the builder. And so, developers, many times, don't pay any attention to the septic system rules. They just default to the subdivision rules because the subdivision rules say one acre, they'll develop their lot up, you know, as one acre lots and then when the builder comes in, then he's got to make it work. Many times the developer and builder are the same people but many times are not. Mr. Marshall. I would add that I think it's a good idea to have it the variances granted at staff level because I don't think it'd be appropriate for us to be baiting, you know, black clay versus sand versus, you know, you know what I I'm going to call on Kim and then I'm sorry. You done? Yes, ma'am. A call on Kim and then we'll call on Commissioner Eads. One of the things I recall and then I'll say what I was going to originally say was there was some discussion about it could be platted this year and not built on for six years and is your soil test going to be a good deal? I'm going to call on was there was some discussion about it could be platted this year and not built on for six years and is your soil test going to be, I mean, Wendy really needs your soil test done. So that was one of the issues. My concern was simply that always in the past the OSSF regulation and the subdivision rules and regulations read the same. And I don't know which was the driving force, like the chicken or the egg, but they were the same. And so my concern was writing for this approval from TCEQ, which we know they'll give. But then there being, again, like who's on first, is which one controls controls because the subdivision rules and regs still require the acre. So I was going to write the TCEQ regs, not according to state standards, if you will. We would have the half acre like state standard is, but we would have to add this only applies if you've gotten a variance under the subdivision rules and regs, just so that it's clear. Does that make sense? And then when I was talking to Bennett, I was like, I'm not sure in all the discussions that we had with all the builders and me just me watching everything that the builders, I'm not convinced they weren't thinking that that's what y'all were doing was giving them the right to develop or build or get Plats at half acre. You know there was lots of talk here about all the reasons that they need to be able to develop half-acre and so that's why I Express this concern that I just wanted to be sure the court Gave me the right direction because I didn't want to write the OSSF rules incorrectly or I just the fewer times we have to go back to them the better. So that's that was part of my concern. Mr. Ease is asked to speak next and then I'll call Commissioner Coleman. the speaker next and then I'll call Commissioner Collin. I don't think we need to have the whole public hearing this morning because we're just sake of Commissioner Mitchell who's going to be here. She's out of town on county business, but I would just like to say, when you come back in a couple weeks and we have this meeting, could you provide the court more details about the soil sampling and that process. And also, I was under the notion that it would be per lot, each lot. And I would take, or I don't know how if you had a hunter acre parcel, how do they, how do they, and that's the way it's laid out in the rules. But, you know, many times the developer doesn't pay any attention to the OSSF regulations. Because many times they're not, that's not part of their. So it would fall upon staff out of an envision where you had a parcel coming in and they're going to plat it. And then we would look at the sole samples and make sure that unless there was a soil change Halfway or some portion of the property that then then we would fit into lots of it We would see if those lots were in compliance with what correct but if we Put a statement in the subdivision rules saying The OSS effort port has to be submitted at time of planning It would just make it that much more clear. Sure. So the developer knows right then and does it so all the sampling then. I don't have a problem with that. Commissioner Coleman. I just wanted to say that after a couple of meetings ago, I did take the opportunity to talk to additional real estate agents and various people. You know, they were really not, there was not really a clear statement from what, when I talked to them. Some people thought there was, you know, one acre lots was a good idea. Some people thought that half acre lots were a good idea. Some people were afraid if we went to half acre lots, we'd get an influx of mobile homes in the county. But when I mentioned to them that we have a test of making it where the soil would be appropriate based on whether it be half acre or one acre they all seem to think that was a healthy comp. That's why I brought up the suggestion of having a minimum you know one acre and at staff level basically you can come in and get a half acre and it gives the staff the ability to debate with them whether this whole is appropriate rather than us. I see. Okay. Okay, so. Here's that we want to have the public here. Yes. I'm going to make a motion that we set a public hearing in March 24, 2009. I'm this issue of motion that we set a public hearing on March 24, 2009. I'm this issue of revising the lot size requirements in the subdivision rules and regulations. We needed to set the time to, Barbara, do we have any other public hearings that day? We do not. Okay. 905. That's my motion. Thank you. Back in the back of the commission. Is there further discussion? The clarification. This does not include amending the subdivision rules and regs on making it mandatory that when they file their plat that they have tests soil testing for each individual plat. This will not do that. We'll have to come back and do that again. I would recommend that we make the public hearing pretty broad to handle everything it wants. And then let legal tell me I can't do it. So that would mean that discussion as well? Yes. Does that have to be listed as part of the discussion? We can. And Ron, would you rather have it at the plating stage or at the building stage? I'd rather have it at the plating stage and it's already required. And in our required at the building stage? Yes. They either rely on the building stage. Yes. They either rely on the developer's test. Do they do that? Or do they have to go out and get a new one? They can rely on the developer's test if the site doesn't change. See, where I think the failure in this whole thing has not to do with the developer, has nothing to do with the builder, has to do with somebody coming and putting them. Other contractors that put a pool in or putting the other out building or something that disturbs the integrity of the plant that was filed initially or the building permit that was given initially or whatever. But I want to make sure that this is covered in that public hearing and not have to go out again and for that subdivision change. I guess the answer is we can do that. We'll just work with Bennett and get the wording brought enough to cover all of the things we need to do. All your topics. I don't want to believe at the point but Bennett clarify this for me. It was my understanding that you can plot and build on half acre lots regardless of the soil based on the direction we gave to Kim to go off to the TCEQ. Is that correct? No, it all still hinge down making the site met the state requirements as far as lot sizes and met the that a septic system could fit on a half acre based on site conditions. The TCKU has a list of criteria on whether it's a drip irrigation system or aerobic system or just a standard septic system. Each one of those has soil type requirements and it's a matrix. It looks plain to me then, so you could come in with a plot that had half acres right and submit it for preliminary and plurable to you, correct? And you could say this won't work because septic won't fit on this. Currently no because currently we still require one acre on to the proposed provision. Correct. They could propose a half acre development providing that the OSSF report stated that whatever septic type system they're proposing for those half acre lots would actually work But that bind the subsequent builder Yes What happens if so who would be applying for the permit the developer or the Builder builder would apply for the septic permit and He would be required to apply for the septic permit. And he would be required to apply for the permit that had been approved in the plat. That's going to be notated on the plat. Correct. Okay. We have a motion to second on the floor. Any further discussion? I'd just like to say just to remember it's not the state standards that we keep referring to it, but it's the state minimum standards. Right. You need to clarify that. Right. Hearing no further comments, hall and favour, the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, C. N. Motion to scary. I believe we've concluded a lot of business, ladies and gentlemen. One other thing. Up to us. Commissioner Eads has got something. Today's a big day for the county. We in about an hour we're going to be having a ribbon cutting and dedicating our lantern occurve, the segment of 407 bypassing Bartonville from lantern attrail up to razor ranch. So it's a significant milestone for the development of 407 so we're going to be having that in an hour in the public's welcome to attend. Thank you. With that we're adjourned everybody public's welcome to attend. Thank you. With that, we're adjourned. Everybody have a great day. Thank you.