Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, Denton County Commissioner's Court for Tuesday, February 24, 2009 is now in session this morning. Our pledge, I'm sorry, our prayer will be given by James Wells, our county auditor and our pledges will be led by Kathy L. Horn, the manager of planning. Will you please stand? If you'd pray with me, I do have a lot of people who come before you today praising you for your power, praising you for your glory. We acknowledge and very humbly that you're the creator of the universe and that you have power not only over the universe but over each of us in our daily lives. We thank you so much that you have concern for us and that you love us enough to be interested in us as individuals. Ask you to watch over our elected officials today, guide them, give them your wisdom, have them to serve you as they serve this county and this state. We ask you to watch over each of us. Protect us from sin and bring us back safely next week. Christ name, amen. Please join me in the pledges. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the Republic for which it stands when nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. A pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. I think we finally got that pledge down. I think we finally got that pledge down. We have a public hearing this morning that we're going to go to first. It is item 4A on the agenda. Public hearing to approve changes. Sure. Prochanges and amendments to the Lake River Roberts Land Use Ordnance and Comprehensive Land Use Map is recommended by the Lake River Roberts Planning and Zoning Commission and Denton County Planning Department. First we need a motion to go into our public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell. Seconded by Commissioner Eads. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Hene oppose any motion does carry. Kathy do you want to start us off? Good morning again. For quite some time let me see if I can get my PowerPoint going here. I'm going to put it on the top. I don't know why that won't go away. It might be well in a minute. As you're aware, the Lake Ray Robert Slendice District has been in effect for several years. The commission has been charged with creating a desirable space around the lake that promotes family life and recreation. And in the interest of doing that, they have been updating the regulations and they have taken into consideration the character of the district and the suitability of the uses up there and what to the changing needs of the community. And development is increasing around the lake, although slowly, lately. But they felt that there were needs to create some additional classifications and some updates to keep the regulations current. The current regulations right now have five land use classifications. Agriculture R1, which is residential estate district and that's five acres and larger. R2, which is residential medium density district, which is one acre and larger. RC, recreational service and commercial district and planned development, RPD. The proposed regulations would add three additional classes. Our two would be two acres and larger, our three would be three acres and larger, and our four would be four acres or larger. Since we have added those three classes, we would like to make changes, and our one would be one acre and larger, and our five would be five acres and larger. It's just a lot easier to understand those classifications that way. We also expanded the definitions and the schedule of use is chart. In addition, we wanted it to be less complicated. The book was a little bit out of order. You had to turn to several different sections to read what you wanted to find about the district classifications and the restrictions in each of those. So the ordinance basically is the same, but rearranged. To do this, we started with visioning exercises with the public. It's very important that this be a document that was created or based upon the needs of the people who live in the district rather than only staff recommendations. So we held three visioning exercises. In May 2006, we held an exercise and pilot point. There wasn't a lot of attendance at that exercise. The senior exercise in May of that year was much better attended, so we decided to try again in pilot point. We did hold another one in August of 2006. We advertised all of them in the pilot point signal, the senior herald and the Denton Record chronicle. About a hundred individual maps were created by the public at those three exercises. We brought them back to the office and staff started to divide them up. We saw that they basically fell into three different groups of what people wanted to see. So three proposed zoning maps were created to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission. We then had some input from the affected cities. Sanger came and talked to us about their new master plan. And we had representatives on the board of the other cities. The commission members incorporated these maps and that information into one new proposed comprehensive land use map. That's what you see before you right now. A brief explanation is that the blue that's up in the center of the lake would be five acres and larger. The brown areas around the lake would be three, four or five acres and larger. The yellow areas would be the one and two acre tracks. Our larger. We held special workshops in addition to the commissioners worked on these proposed changes in the map at every regular meeting that we held during these two-year time period, and we had additional special workshops. On the October 20th, 2008, regular meeting the members voted to recommend the proposed regulations and map to commissioners court. We then held a public hearing at the commission level on December the 15th, 2008. We sent 850 notices to property owners in the land use district and about 60 people did attend a Monday at noon meeting that day so I felt that was a real good representation. Oh. There should be an assignment. And that somebody is. That basically what your currently zone remains the same. When you come in to ask for a change, that's when the new zoning map would be enforced. Every zoning classification can be requested in any area, but it would be up to the commission to decide if that was desirable and proper. And I want to assure everyone that every parcel regardless of how it's zoned does have the option to have one single family residence on it, even if you're on commercial, you may have built a single family residence. That is basically where we have been for two years. We, a little more, we have worked on this. I think a great deal of attention has been paid to what the public has given us as input and their desires. The commission worked very hard to create what they believe is a desirable use of the land around the lake and a way to keep it family friendly and still promote recreation up there. I'd be glad to take any questions. Are there any questions to members of the Court at the Stun? Here in Nunn. Thank you Kathy. We have a couple of representatives of the Lakeboro Roberts Commission with us this morning. Mayor Mark Boros and Bob McGumry. Thank you for being here today. And really also, good morning. Would you like to have any input at this time or? Bob Montgomery Thank you for being here. We appreciate it. Y'all put a lot of time in on this and we do appreciate it My name is Robert Montgomery of if you're in Denton until May I was on City Council And I was a City Council representative to the Red Roberts Commission and I spent a couple years as chairman We cast thanks to Kathy and Kay here, helper. And we did this on the ground. We didn't just sit in an office and map it out and make it pretty colors. We went through a lot of pizzas and a lot of bloney sandwiches and a lot of discussion. And it took a little longer than it should have. But I think it's a good test, if we're trying to go and remember the whole goal was to balance off the needs and desires of Sanger, pilot point, didn't, and the other people that are to live there and there's a push some people would like to see it more convenient with stores and so forth other people won't stay purely rural. The commission set out with a goal that we want to keep it as rural as possible and still work for the people that live out there. I think that's what this has done. I hope there's a great divergence of approaches between what Sanger thinks it should be and what PowerPoint thinks it should be, but I think Denton won this one. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you very much for being here. Did you wish to speak Mark Rose or really? I will limit you Sure Thank you very much. Yeah, I kind of hung on the The commission to try to see this through because I was on at the beginning of it. And I really appreciate you kind of Judge Horne to allow me to do that. You're a pointee during my off time off city council. But I think this is a really good balancing act. It's really trying to, in addition to what our past chair, my company said, it's really trying to allow for the convenience of those who are moving out there. And there's a pressure because of subdivisions coming in. And that's part of what adding those additional classifications help to control is how a subdivision can develop in a more reasonable way without being anything above one acre versus five acres. The choices were so minimal. So it gives a little more modern approach to some of the subdivision pressure that wants to come out there, but disallowing non-lake-related development as much as possible. So you don't want to have a dog food plant on the lake no matter how much they paid for the land. So that was a lot about philosophy that was going into preserve what you can but allow for change. But change that is beneficial and oriented to the lake as possible. It looks to me like you all did a great job of doing just that. And at the same time, of course, complying with the laws to why Lake River Roberts zone was created in the first place. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have one public comment form here from Mrs. Patsy Kirby. Good morning. Thank you for being here. Would you turn that microphone down so we can hear you better than that? That's good. I'm Pat C. Kirby and I'm 134 acres of farmland northeast of Sanger. My husband and I bought this land in 1962 and our home is built on it. I'm asking that the land be zoned one and two acre lots according to this map right now it isn't an ag but it's zoned in four and five acre lots. The length of my property is a long healing Road and my driveway opens on the north to Milton Road. The farmland on the west side of Healing across from me is down one and two acre lots, where mine is on the east side of Healing Road is down four and five acre lots. My property does not have lake views, This being the reason given to require a minimum of four to five acre lots. My property is just a little ways north of Lois Road. And the property on the south side of Lois Road near me has been developed into one in two acre lots in the last year or two. And much of it has lake views. I do not have any plans to subdivide my property at this time, as I intend to live in my residence for as long as my health allows. The four to five acre limitation will decrease the value of my land to potential developers. The land use ordinance should not be used to decrease the value of a person's property. I would like for the full value of my land to be retained. I ask that you give this your consideration as you are finalizing the Lake Ray Roberts zoning. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in attendance so would like to address commissioner's court on the issue of the proposed changes to the like Roy Roberts land use ordinance end or the map that is being proposed. Anyone else in attendance that would like to address Mr. Scored on this issue? Okay, Kathy just for clarification. The map is it's being proposed in particular concerning the property that Ms. Kirby is talking about. Should she or a developer want to come and make changes to that they can always have the option of coming to the commission and making a proposal. Yes, I believe that would be the steps that you would take. Actually, Ms. Kirby is in the area that's brown, which would be three, four, and five acre tracks of lead. But as I stated in my PowerPoint, everyone remains the zoning that they are now until a change is requested. And any land classification can be requested in any part of the area, whether the commission would grant that or approve that, would be up to them at that time. Thank you. There's one to two acres now. I'm sorry, commissioner. Is she grandfather? Right now she is agricultural. Okay. And that grandfather, yes, I mean, she stays ag until a change is requested. Change. And then whatever is requested, would go before the planning and zoning board. Bishop Coleman. Yeah. Let me ask you this. So she's basically zone for ag right now with no lot requirements. You stated earlier that she is in the map portion whereas for three, four and five acres. Yes. She is zoned ag and she will stay ag until a change is requested whether by her her or potential developers in the future. Really, right now you're not changing the map in any way. You're not proposing that. No, we're not changing what people have. The current map shows every one ag with the exception of those that have already changed, made request to change. Is that any additional categories in the regulations? Yes, the additional categories. If you'll recall last week, we had one and it was a condition approval that it be no less than two acres because there wasn't a two-acre classification to put them in, either one or five. Anybody requested two, three or four acres subdivision had to go with one. And we felt that we were limiting ourselves and not getting the highest use by not having enough classifications. Now, be an appropriate time to go ahead and change the map for her area to smaller lots or no. No, she wouldn't. Some one, Ms. Carby, or whoever was buying the property would need to give a proposal as to what what would Miss Kirby she doesn't want to change from Ag while she lives on the property. So until there is a requested change to develop the property you you would just she stays ag. We're not talking about that for tax purposes so right. No this is a zoning classification and it's totally different from a agriculture exemption that you get. You can be zoned R5 and have three or four of your acres have an ag exemption on the tax roll. All right, so that's my point is basically she could have its own smaller and still continue to have an ag exemption on there. So when did we initially make this determination? Was this one the, I mean, which determination, sorry, the ag are the, for the map to put her in the, you know, the R2, R3 and R4 and R5? Well during the two years that they have worked on, the commission has worked on the map. Their desire was to have larger tracks of land closer to the shoreline. If you were up against shore property, core property, they were looking at the larger. That's why it's referred to as the peninsula, but that area in the center is blue. They want to see that stay five acres in larger tracks. The smaller ones along 455 the larger roads. I guess my point is did you take her consider her interest into consideration at the time you were drawing this new map in the past two years? Because it sounds like she'd like even though she'd like to keep it in Ag now, she'd like to have it zoned. Well whenever we held the visioning exercises which Ms. Kirby didn't seem to be aware of, but that's where, that's where, that's how we began. We asked the public what do you want to see? And probably a majority of the maps showed agriculture. They wanted to keep it all the larger tracks, which if she were to stay on the ag, as she has now, that would be a 10-acre minimum lot size. That doesn't prohibit her or developer in the future from going to a smaller lot size and taking it to the government. Correct. Like you can ask for. Which has been done in the past. Classification. There's precedence for this. I mean, other people have come to the commission and asked for smaller lot sizes. Yes. Some have been granted, some have not. I just think it'd be a good time right now to do it We're in the process of drawing the redrawing the map. I know it's kind of late into the process But she's now expressed an interest in doing it as opposed to having her have to go and ask for a variance and Basically what she wouldn't be asking for a variance. She would be asking for a zoning change Which was what anyone up there would have to do zoning change which was what anyone up there would have to do. It's very we wanted to speak again. That's something. I was not aware of the meetings two years ago but my husband died of cancer in 2006. So up to that point I didn't know what I was doing. I was working full time and driving the Dallas almost every day. But anyhow, right here is what I'm speaking of. This side of Healing Road, which is large plots of farmland, this two areas right here have what you're doing right now, just like I've got wheat right here on the other side of the road. And I just wanted it in place now. So if probably not even in my lifetime but who knows, I'm not even making home today because I have to go down I-35. You know that it would be in place and that's what I'm asking for. I didn't think it was too late to do that because this just this past fall was the first time I was aware of this when they sent out all those cards to the landowners and I did it in that meeting at that time. I understand your concern. My point is, you know, we have a public hearing now to accept input from the people who live there. I think it's disingenuous to have a public hearing and say, we're taking your input now regarding these changes, but there's no way to make any change because why are we having the public meeting? Just to say we don't like it. I mean, that's why you have the public meeting is to take input from the people who live there. Otherwise, why do we have the public meeting? We're not going to change anything. We're not going to act on any recommendations from the public. I mean, it's a useless exercise. Commissioner Ead's has a question and then I want to call Mark Burrows. I don't think we're saying we're not taking input. We're taking input, but we're not able to act on it. We're able. Well, I got a couple questions for Kathy. Did I'm looking at the map here? Looks like you're having lower the rationale was to have a lower density around the lake, and then the farther away you're having a higher density. And then the yellow looks like Mr. Kirby's property is yellow, which is reading this right. Is it R123? Yes ma'am. I'm stuck in here. She better described the location of her parcel. That's where I was. She's got she's she's. She's on the Southwest. We can see it on the. Kathy can you pull that up or. Kathy's gonna get it. We're gonna put it on the screen. So thank you. Well, Kathy's doing that. Mark, do you wanna come up on the next? I have another question. Can I ask Kathy? Kathy, can you kinda let him have the microphone there so we can hear from him? No problem, I can stretch. Thank you. Yeah, I think I might be able to clarify Commissioner Coleman's questions to some degree. One, this public hearing does have a lot of import, less on the map than other things, because the map zones nothing. The map itself is merely a guide or a delineation of what already exists. The guidance part are the properties that were never zoned. They've never, no one's ever come forward with zoning. So rather than just leave them, you know, agriculture all over the place, where it doesn't make sense to be actually agging long-term future because there's developments all around it. But what the commission decided to do was in taking all this visioning and trying to implement the philosophy about the protection as much as possible, to put some guiding principles and put them in a, what looks like zoning classifications, it's only a guide for future. The properties never been zoned, it will still have to be zoned. They can't use it based upon what this map says. They still have to come forward and apply for zoning. Because in fact, there are existing zoning, which for this lady is agriculture, that is the zoning for it. They have to come forward no matter what it is. And this just says that rather than put speculative zoning for higher use since there's something the default was to try to put as guides only the lower zoning that makes sense in the area that it's in. And so using the principles of what exists already, what the cities nearest to it want, because we asked them for their long range plans, because once they zone, once I'm sorry, once they annex They're zoning text precedence. So it doesn't matter what what the commissioners court does or this map or or anything So at some point that'll that will happen, but This is really to try to to just give act as a guide. There is no zoning Caused by this map. That's why modifying the map doesn't do very much. It's just a guiding element anyway. Thank you. That explains a lot. Mr. Ease, did you have another question? Yeah, how many changes do you have to the zoning that come through? What's the percentage of approvals? Well, up until this last year, we were running about one month. I'd say there were 12 cases a year. Changes. Changes. If you look at this map for just far knowledge purposes today, you see that the tracks of land are outlined in red, green, and black. If it's red, no matter what zone it's in, it means it has been rezoned, but it is not compatible with this plan. If it is green, it has been rezoned, and it is compatible. The black line tracks have never had any zoning request asked. So you will see that there are several one and two acre tracks in the brown area and there are also some larger tracks in the yellow area. So the zoning up until now has basically been on as requested basis from Ag to R1, R2, R2 plan development. And we've had a few commercial requests not as many. Thank you. Are there any other questions? I guess to clarify what Mayor Burrows just said is that it's not classified, it's just a mere suggestion, right? Correct. She says that. Is this it? Well, this is where you start off as your basis? Is it default or? Well, it's the bit, yeah, it is I place it begin with the idea that the commission in reflecting what the needs and the desires as the larger tracks around the shoreline, the smaller ones out towards the more major roads. But as Mayor Burrow said, even if it were yellow, I like Miss Kirby wants, she's someone still has to come in at some point in the future and has to be resound from the current ag to something. I guess my concern is is that as she is expressed that she's concerned with the default or the, you know, the presumed zoning for that might hand for her ability to later sell it for development in the future. I mean, she's expressed an interest. She's here. She's participating in the public caring. Obviously, you know, she doesn't agree with you. And that's true. And I understand that. And it's something that is debatable, whether it would lower or raise the value. I don't think it has any effect. That's only my personal opinion. Well, I mean, she's participating in the process, which is what we want. Yes. What does that have the effect? That a proposed classification would not lower our raise or property values. She's ag. She has 133 acres. It's going to be what is desirable someone in the future to buy and develop. And the potential. She went out and triggered a rezoning of it to higher Density then right now that her value To increase I can't speak to the values. That's handled by the central I can tell you We just had a long meeting. What was it last Tuesday? We had a bunch of real estate agents, right Andy come in and We had a bunch of real estate agents, right Andy? Come in and say that they wanted to have half acre lots with septic and it was made a dramatic difference. I mean, they begged and pleaded for it, saying that it was a huge economic difference. So we just went through that ad nauseam last week. And that correct? He, Commissioner Grayson? How is it? So. OK, is there any more else? I'm sorry. Commissioner Marchandt. I was just want to echo what the mayor was saying. Anytime you, I've been through a comprehensive zoning change overlay of existing property through a planning board of a judge, I mean through the planning board or whatever and basically it's saying this is the vision that these communities see this land being developed out as and it's an overlay. Like you said, it places no zoning on it. It places, but what it does places a preference of zoning for the future that it might be there. What her preference today may not be the preference of a future buying your property. And I think that we, my understanding after going through that process is everyone has an opportunity, not only the input of the creation of the zone and the overlay, but also through the process of rezoning, our zoning to begin with, they have that opportunity for input. But in any of those processes that I've ever been involved in, the government has to take itself somewhat out of that equation of property value in overall zoning and taking the input from all the citizens based on that. If we were to say that we didn't like this map and we wanted you to do an overlay that would help her increase her value, what we do for that person we'd have to do for someone else in another part of the county that has a different overlay that they didn't like the overlay because it decreased their value or it increased their value. And so that's how I understand it. and so by that understanding since the only, and this is a question, can the commission itself start a zoning change on a piece of property without the permission of the owner? That's number one. And second of all, you know, and can it, the only time this would change from what it was, as we've said, over and over again, is she initiates the zoning request itself. So my question one is can the commission itself initiate a zoning change in a property without the permission of the property owner. I would say no, but I do want to make it clear that when this land use district was created back in the late 80s, I don't think the commission really was established till early 90s. Everything was deemed to be zoned ag. And then we at the county initiated re-zoning the already subdivided properties into whatever was the proper zoning for that subdivision. So there was some county initiated zoning. We also left it open for one year for anyone to come in and request a zoning change and there'd be no fee To help them establish themselves in the zone that they wanted Uh, I don't think we had any requests maybe one or two But there was some county initiated zoning to Properly zone already created subdivisions that were in existence even before the late and they didn't change the change that basically created a zone that was That was basically the use of the property at the correct it was changed to whatever use it was that like you ranchettes not changing it from Wow, instead of being ag because it was a not changing it from one of them. Instead of being ag, because it was a manufacturing home community was changed to at the time, MH. We later discovered that that was a zone we really could not have, and we went back and took that out. They were then changed to our two, which was the one acre and above properties, which fit exactly. That was what they were. Then they came in and initiated a zoning change to plan development as a community because that is where the convenience store and some storage buildings are so they came in as a plan development which is what a mixed use would be. Okay, so anyone else that would like to address commissioners court on this issue? Yes, ma'am? We first of all need you to come to the microphone and when you're done speaking if you'd see the aid to the court back here and fill out a public comment form. At least state your name for the record. Certainly. I guess the main question is, is why south of Lois Road, which buts directly to the core land, you have it zoned or the provost zoning or the one and two acres. And then some of the areas that farther away do not have any visibility of the lake at all are zone five acres. So there seems to be a discrepancy. If you'd like me to point it out, I can on there. But you have it all the way up to the core land at one in two acres on the south side of Lois Road, which doesn't seem to make any sense when you have this other land, which is much farther away from it, like as five acres. I think that's the only way to get the issue done. The back and respond to that is that this map was created. A section at a time by the commission members as they went around the lake, they looked at the existing zoning and then what they wanted to propose for ones that had not been changed. They can come and ask for a zone change. Yes. To any classification, commercial plan development. But there's just a presumption from the map. What the... Well, as Mayor Boros said, it's a vision or a desire to have the larger tracks there, but that does not preclude anyone asking for any zoning category. Hey, Commissioner Coleman. I just want to know how much of a trouble would it be to change it? Because obviously the landowner wants to have all of her options available. She's stated that she's keep plans on keeping it ag for a long time. But she would like to have her options available. And I'm frankly I'm surprised. I mean last week we voted to go to half acre lots in Denton County with Steptic, right? And you know that's considerably much smaller. The sole reason for it was so that we can promote development in the county. But now all of a sudden those rationals not come into effect. And I think if we have a landowner who comes before us to participate in the public hearing and say that she would like to have this done, I think it would be disingenuous for us to accommodate her. So, I think- Mr. Coleman, I need to remind you, first of all, we did not vote last week. We did express a pinion on it. We gave directions. We did not vote on it. Secondly, this is a public hearing and this is the precise time that you do these things. You can input from the public. We actually have two questions before this morning one is approval of the proposed land use ordinance and ordinance. And the second issue is to approve or not the proposed man. So I'm going to suggest that we perhaps take those, well, I was already going to take them in two separate votes. Let's finish with our public hearing and then we can take up the question of the two issues. One being the ordinance, the one being the actual man. Did you have something else you'd like to add? Yes. As you were saying this is a like Ray Roberts zoning and I'm assuming the proposed would come off of it. If this is truly just a preference or a suggestion or a basis default, that the name be changed such that is like Ray Roberts you know preference zoning or something because you know when someone's looking at it and they see zoning as a developer they're gonna look at it and say okay this is where it's gonna be might have to find might spend money thousands of dollars you know lawyers and all that if this truly is a preference then the name should not just say that zoning as if this is made in stone. Thank you. Okay, anybody else that attendance would like to address commissioners card on this issue? Any commissioners have questions, sort of questions at this time? Commissioner Eans? Yes, I would just like to say, Commissioner Koma, I resent your comments at our process as more as being disingenuous. Last week we were talking about health standards with the health department and the septic tanks and the water which is very different than what we're talking about as far as the zoning of this. We're also talking about road issues. This is part of the public process and we're doing the public's business this morning. So to say that as we go through this public process we hear Mrs. Kirby, we hear members of the committee who spent many years of volunteer hours on this and staff time as well to say this is disingenuous. I personally resent that. We're doing a public business. And this land is different than many other parcels of property in the county because of the the special zoning power that the county has through here so You know, just I just wanted to clarify that I have a question for Kathy Can you clarify this morning exactly what you're asking us to do which is Is it to adopt this Proposed and when we and when this maps is Lake Ray Roberts zoning proposed? Is that the proposal to us or we adopting this and this will be the proposed which will be on record to guide the zoning commission? Well, you're correct that it would be the proposed zoning whether we call it proposed today or we call it proposed tomorrow after you adopt it but we need to adopt in the terms of from the legal standpoint, I believe it says we shall adopt a comprehensive land use map or a land use map along with the ordinance. And that's our charge from the state. So this map will stay zoning proposed. It's not the proposal to us not only today, but it would say proposed. Well, I think that we have had a little bit comprehensive land use map. We can go back and title it, propose zoning zoning overlay. As Mr. Burrows stated in Mr. Montgomery, it's a guide that doesn't lock them, the commission or the commissioners at this court into only granting that zoning that shown. You may grant any zoning classification you think is correct and desirable. So to follow this process through the completion, Mrs. Kirby could initiate a rezoning for property from Ag to R1 as a request that she currently has not. And then it would go through the process and if the Lake Ray Roberts zoning commission proves it, it would come through the court for approval. And if they disapprove it, she could appeal to the commissioner's court. We then adopted it at that time. Then you have to appeal it automatically. You must ratify or approve any recommendations whether for approval or disapproval has to be ratified by this court. Only she has the opportunity to request rezoning them. Yes. Hey any other input on the issue? I'd like to respond to Mr. Eads. Right. Commissioner Eads I'll be real frank. I was 4-1-acre lots last Tuesday. I'm 4-1-acre lots last Tuesday. I'm 4-1-acre lots today. For you to say that it's a health department issue, I think it's also Dignian's disingenuous because the health department came here and said they opposed the half-acre lots. All right, and we all know the sole people who testified at the last commissioners court meeting were the developers who were in favor of it. They explicitly said it was for economic development. They didn't mention health department rules, but you stated was the underlying reason, and any man or what, so ever. So I will tell you, it was an economic decision then. Miss Kirby has come here before us today saying it's an economic decision now. So I think it's very clear. I'm just concerned that on one hand we take one position, and on the other hand we take another position. I would like to be consistent. That's my point. What I want to say is this is not, for you as a member of the court, as the members are sitting here, working through a process to say we're disingenuous as we work through it. And we heard Mrs. Kirby and we listened to her her Her concerns and everything we haven't made a decision But to say that as we work this process for being disingenuous is just I think a mischaracteration of our actions today I guess we'll agree to disagree Anybody else want to join in? All right hearing none. Let's close our public hearing do we have a motion? Motion by commissioner Mitchell the commission. I'm going to go to the committee. All right. Here none. Let's close our public hearing. Do we have a motion? Motion by commission Mitchell. Cheryl second. I'll in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed to say nay. Motion to you didn't want to close the public hearing. I didn't know if anybody else. questions. I have a question. I will vote to close the public. Thank you. Close by unanimous vote. We need to take this as two questions. Let me just write in. Let me just say that these are two different issues from last week commissioners. Last week we were asked to make a decision on whether we go to one half acre lots or acre lots. Today what we're doing is approving a policy, an ordinance, a zone in policy. And all we're saying is that this is the standard that we'd like to have, but if you don't like that and you'd like to come in and petition the court to change that, you have the opportunity to do that. So that's the difference. It's not, I don't think it's the same thing as it was last week. Last week we're saying that we wanted when you have sewer, we wanted to have those half acre lots, those acre lots rather than half acre lots. Today we're saying we're approving a policy and if you need to come in and request a zoning change, that is possible for you to do. Okay. Members, let's take the issue of the rules and regulations. And first of all, I want to thank staff and all the commission members. I know an awful lot of work went into this. There was a lot of cleanup necessary. Certainly legal helped a lot in defining all kinds of things. So I wanted to express my appreciation for all the effort that went into this. It was a long time coming. It's already been stated as at least a two-year process to get this right. Hopefully we have it right. And I think we do. With that, I'd like to stay one other thing and that is, I as county judge by law make appointments to the Lake Ray Roberts commission. But even though legal tells me it'd be okay for me to vote on this, I own property in the zone and I think I should abstain. Because I feel like I'm making rules from myself and I really do think I am. So I want to express my appreciation for all the work that was done. I want to express my support for the rules and regulations as presented here today but I wanted to state that for the reason stated I will not be voting on the issue I'll be abstaining. While I do have a couple of appointments to the commission it should be clarified that my appointments do not constitute a quorum of the committee so I don't have control that way. I just wanted to make some clarification there. So with that, is anybody prepared to make a motion? For clarification, this is on the rules and regulations. Correct? All right, we have a motion for approval by Commissioner Marchand. I'll second it. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Is there further discussion on just the rules and regulations as presented? You know, for the discussion on favor favor the motion, please say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion does carry four in favor, no opposed in one abstention. All right. That's one down. Let's consider the map question. I would propose a motion that we adopt the map with the changes suggested by Miss Kirby. There's second to Commissioner Collins vote motion. So second to Commissioner Collins vote motion. Here none motion fails. For lack of a second Are there any other motions? second. Are there any other motions? I propose that we adopt the map as he is with the understanding that Ms. Kirby has the understanding that she if she would like to come in and request a zone and change she has the right to do that. An emotion by Commissioner Mitchell. Sir, second to the motion. I'll second it for purposes of discussion. You. Question, Commissioner Coleman. This is an interesting situation because although it is not zone for that, it is presumption or it's a suggestion. And I think Ms. Kirby's concerns are legitimate that if the fact comes were for some reason she has to leave that land that she tries to market this to a real estate agent or developer that they would be concerned that it's not appropriately zone to where they can make the project commercially viable. We had testimony last week that talked about how smaller lots make things commercially viable. Several of the members indicated that that was a good idea to Suggest to the TCEQ that we change our rules regarding private septic I Think we should go ahead and serve it save Miss Kirby the Hasill of having to I know that it's been suggested as a preference But I think we should save her the trouble or her errors of having to But I think we should save her the trouble or her errors of having to Perhaps fight a prep-proposed zoning to get it down to the lower I think it would be better for her to have it with the most amount of options Although she is plainly stated that she plans on keeping an egg for a long time Danny for the discussion on the motion Commission March so are you saying that commission much so are you saying that say this for it doesn't offend you believe that we should take preferential treatment because she showed up today in a public hearing that we should not postpone this public hearing to give the other other owners that do not agree with this even though they've been through the process. The same opportunity come before us in a public hearing and ask for the same considerations that she's asking for today. What I'm saying, Commissioner Mershaw, if they were that concerned, they would have come here today. If they were that unhappy with the map as proposed at that point, they would have come here today and If they were that unhappy with the map as proposed at that point they would have come here today and I think we would give them the same considerations. So we key will you know gets degrees. Whoa okay. Okay so we should give them the same consideration if they what if they came to us and said that they had no Indication there was even going to be a public hearing today the same excuse Whether it's legitimate or not and I'm sure there's a legitimate that they weren't aware of the process itself I mean at what point do you draw the line? I guess that's what I'm asking. I would draw the line that after the public hearing, if they don't show up, if they didn't seek input, well then they need to go through the process. Why we have public hearings. I think this is it. I think we don't have a problem. I think you're saying there's ambiguity. And in this situation, there is no ambiguity. We have public hearings, people are allowed to come forward. If they come forward after the public hearings, that's where you all draw the line. I don't think there's any gray area. Well then, let me for a second discussion at what area would you do differently in this map that would include what they want? I understand your question. They're asking, I guess what they're asking. the variance they're asking is for the commission to reconsider what the overlay of zoning use or proposed zoning use is. And they're specifically asking for a geographical boundary and I would ask if we were to give them what they wanted, what would be the geographical boundary that you would suggest to the commissioners court to prove or not approve. Basically, her property line and I think it was plainly stated by staff, Ms. Alcorn, they're not asking for a variance right now while we're doing this. Exactly. That's what I said in overlay. But you were saying that we should approve a variance today and that's not taking place. No, no. No. Ask for a variance of what the initial recommendation that they have a overlay of variance meaning varying what they're asking for today. Change. And so- The variance is probably a term. Mr. Chair, call in one with time please. And so this is not a court of law. This is a court of deciding on policy. I'm asking you who are asking those same questions, what would be the overlay that you would recommend that the court change today to accommodate Ms. Kirby? I think it would be good to have it where the overlay I believe would be the R1-1 acre for her property. I think that would be appropriate. Just and it's just a suggestion. If she wants to later develop it at a higher acreage she can do that. This just takes the hassle out of her having to, you know, when she does have to take her property out of Ag, it just removes one hurdle. I don't think it's much to ask for. Commissioner Eads. This area is not it within precinct for it and I'm not as well versed in it as maybe perhaps should be but I believe the legislature created this zoning Authority which we don't have in other parts of the county for the for the reason that this is a unique unique properties surrounding this lake this public lake and surrounding this lake, this public lake. And I think that's, and as Kathy stated earlier, promote the health and welfare, a utilization of the lake and family life, et cetera, et cetera. But I think if you were to continue your note in Commissioner Coleman, if you continue that for, that if anyone paraded in here and was a squeaky will, as you said, that they should get their zoning, then let's just disassemble the commission and all their hours and all their efforts and time and expertise on the matter. And people wanna come in here and build apartment complexes, let them build apartment complexes, people are just, they're unhappy with their zoning and lots of people are potentially throughout the city, throughout the county, that they can come in here and get the zoning they want because they took the time and effort to show up and I appreciate Ms. Kirby and your daughter for coming out. But we would not have any guiding principles for this region which is unique to the county and it gives us unique authority to have some jurisdiction over. So I appreciate them coming in and as we've moved to vote forward, as we vote to move forward on this, I'm not saying that the R1 is totally unacceptable. What I think is that we need to somewhat respect the public process, which has been going on for many years as Kathy stated earlier, as we move forward on this. And I say to adopt this as a guiding principle with room for adjustments on particular pieces of property. Talk about visibility on your track that you may not have latent visibility, so that might be a particular issue. I think that's something that if you do, so choose to bring forward to the commission, into the commissioners court, I'd be very much open to. But I'm just saying, you, just because someone shows up here and raises the issue, should not be our guiding principles. Not going to be my guiding principle. I can tell you that because it's the proper lay in use and the overall philosophy of the county. So I'm going to clarify that. Well, in response. Commissioner Coleman, Commissioner Mitchell is asked to speak next. Again, I'm going to remind the court and the public that any government body has to have a policy top or under and that's what Den County has is this Lake Ray Robert land use zone in ordinance and in that policy there are going to be items that everyone is not going to agree with they have the opportunity to come to the Planning and Zoning Commission or this Commission is co-ed and state the problem that they're having with something and as long as that's an open process that the public can do I think what we're doing now is appropriate. If we decide Miss Kirby I thank you for coming but if we decide that Miss Kirby's situation is different from anybody else's, I think we're setting a precedent for anybody who decides that the planning and zoning commissioner decision and the commissioner's decision they can come in here and get a change whether it's right or whether it's wrong. There is a policy, there's an ordinance in place and you all have you do have a right to come in and say, I'd like to have that change. I need to have this ordinance, my zoning change. I don't think there's a problem with that. I think that's what, that's what policies and ordinances all about. And anybody, body of people, government people, have to have some rules to govern. You can't just say, anytime someone come here and say they don't like it, we throw it out and store it all over. And that's what we'd be doing. We throw it out and store it all over again. This is, she looks like she's saying any other member of court that I would like to respond. Okay, and then we're going to call for the vote. No, I understand. Commissioner Eads, first of all, I'm glad you brought out the specter of multi-family housing. That's always a good argument to scare people. As you know that there's no chance of it being here. The minimum would be one acre, so I think that's not really appropriate in this situation as designated. Much like I didn't bring out the specter possible having mobile homes last week, I don't think it contributed to the discussion. Next of all, I clearly stated, I think that the purpose we have public hearings is to receive public input. And right now we receive some. And so I clearly delineated that I think after the public process is taken place, we would not be taking any input to change anything. So I think that's also probably an unfair argument. The next thing is, Ms. Kirby is not here to ask for her neighbor's property to be zoned differently. I don't think she's not asking for a better field junction to be zoned differently. She's asking for her own property to be zoned or to be proposed to be zoned in a certain circumstance. I don't see any problem with that. And the thing is too, I mean, we're, I know that she's allowed to ask for, to any time she's gonna bring this from Ag, she's going to have to make a request of the zoning commission anyway. We've all stated that, right? I think the difference is, is whether do we remove a hurdle now and give her the opportunity? I think this is why we have public hearings. I respect staff quite a bit. I really appreciate their hard work. You know, I worked for the county for long periods of time. And, you know, believe me, I think much like Commissioner Mitchell, I have a very good experience of what it's like to be a county employee commissioner Eads. And so I believe me, I give great deference to staff. But I think we should applaud Ms. Kirby to show up and ask for the change right now. And I think it's not that big of a deal to change it at this point. I think Miss Alcorn does a great job. I think the people all have planning to a great job. The fact that she got into the process late, perhaps, is, you know, it's her. She needs to bear the full responsibility. But those people who don't get involved in the process whatsoever, I agree with you. They need to go through the process. But the mere fact of the matter is she has showed up. And I mean, I guess I shouldn't use the analogy about a squeaky will gets the grease or whatever, but I think the fact that she came here to give us her input should give her deference on her property. Now, if she was here complaining about somebody else's property, I think your arguments would perfectly valid. But she's not doing that. She's talking about her land that she wants to keep the potential for. Okay. We've heard from all members of the court we have a question of the public hearings over. We have a question before the court all in favor of the motion of approving the proposed land use. I'm going to draw my second. All right we have the second spin with drawn the second has been replaced by Commissioner Marchant. Now I'll call the question on favor of motion. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Aye. One abstention. This is three in favor. One opposed and one abstention. Thank you. OK. We need to go now to item 13b, which is approval of disaster declaration and executive order as a mitigation effort to reduce the threat of wildfires due to drought conditions. So we'll call on Jody Gonzalez. Wonderful. Ornidjudging commissioners want to take a minute to briefly discuss the disaster drought situation in our county, it is increasingly becoming more of a concern in more of a situation in our in the unacorporated area of the county. Right now we have been able to manage fairly well through per minutes and state required outdoor burning rules and regulations through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. We've had, we've had, we've had to have some fires in the last week, actually 11, but nothing of any size or, or, or significance. So we want to be sure that the citizens are aware that when there's a burn day that occurs that they need to be sure that they have their permit and that they are checking with the county to make sure that specific day, while not under burn ban, maybe it's not a burn day based off of high-wink conditions and things like that I know that I sent you guys an email Last week discussing how the process went and where we got our information from so we're continuing To follow that process as things may get worse towards the end of the week or may get better These these weather patterns coming out of a winter into a spring are very difficult to to forecast so Be my request that that we leave the decision with the county judge later this week and see what we're at with precipitation through the remainder of the week. So this time we'll be not, we will not be doing a burn ban, but well, as stated in law, the county judge has, had does have authority to do that if the situation should arise that it becomes necessary. Good job. It also requires. I don't believe we need to vote on that. I would also request that the agenda item 13 be stay on the agenda for the next. We'll keep it posted because this time of year, just don't know. And, Jody, you also wanted, we're going to go to item number one, which is for public input for items not listed in the agenda. If there's any member of the public that'd like to address commissioners court on an item not listed on the agenda, we asked that you please complete a public comment form. And I didn't do it earlier and we had one get away from us, but please turn off your cell phones and pages. I didn't feel it was right to charge them and I hadn't even made that announcement. So, Jody, you had asked to speak to us about severe weather week. Yes, Judge. The Governor of Texas declared this week severe weather awareness week and which we were putting together several programs yesterday. We held a press conference at the North Central Texas Council of Governments to express the regional emergency manager's programs on outdoor warning systems and had a lot of the media attend, which was a very successful event. We're also continuing with our education for severe weather awareness week with the training that we're conducting on the 28th, that's this Saturday at the Texas Women's University MCL Auditorium, and that's a severe weather seminar that teaches public citizens and children from 12 years and older are welcome to attend as a free seminar that really is directional based from the National Weather Service media and and also local participants and emergency responders are teaching citizens what to look forward during severe weather awareness and how to citizens what to look forward during severe weather awareness and how to there's basic storm recognition in the morning and then advanced storm recognition in the evening which really helps the citizens know what they're looking at when they come outside to see a cloud or they're looking at some situation. It's also going to talk about a lot of warning systems and with the education that the severe weather awareness week presents to the citizens of Texas and Denton County is that to protect yourself and your family from a natural disaster meaning that you have to do everything that you can to provide a warning systems for yourself in your home, especially for our incorporated citizens, and that a severe weather radio that alerts someone in their home that at three in the morning, if you have a major disaster or a major impending storm that you will be awoke from a no weather radio alert device that will let you know that there's a storm approaching and you take precautions for that storm. There's also a text messaging capabilities that can text message your phone to let you know that there is a severe weather storm and it is a tornado warning or some impending situation that is threatening your residents or business. So I want to encourage citizens that redundancy this year better than any years, the time to take redundancy and protecting your family and your business. And thank you, Judge, for the time. Hey, thank you. Members, we need to now go to item 12V. 12V is a presentation by the Sheriff's Office to explore options to transition to a shared governance communication system. And with us this morning is Lee Howell, good morning Lee. Morning. Thank you, Judge Warren commissioners. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to come to you this morning to seek your direction on a proposal and see how you'd like us to move forward with that. The proposal is concerns, public safety dispatching and communications. As you know, the Sheriff's Office provides that critical service not only to the Sheriff's units, but all the constables offices to emergency management to several state agencies. And we also serve 16 municipal police departments and 11 municipal fire departments. What we're doing today is we'd like to get your direction on a proposal that we feel will expand upon the current status of interoperability with the system and provide for a funding model that serves all the participating agencies fairly and equitably and allows for a dynamic growth of the operation that will meet the changing needs and demands. And considering those needs and growth patterns, we find ourselves at a pivotal point right now in the future of Denton County Public Safety Communications. The current status is not sustainable under much longer under the current demands. And the cities that we serve will either be faced with huge expenditure chairs to establish their own radio systems or independently or contract with entities that have established systems. We feel like we're in the position to contract with those agencies for some time and we feel like with our infrastructure and current radio system that we can meet the needs but we need to expand upon the way that that system is funded. As you can see, I've mentioned already that the agencies that we serve, our communications operation, our communications division does an excellent job, an exceptional job serving all these agencies with resources that we have. We also serve as a public safety entering point for our majority of the county. And that encompasses a number of different things. But now I don't want to insult your intelligence at all by showing you this slide. But I think it's important to emphasize how the population growth affects the service delivery of our communications operation. We see that Norton County over the period of the last nine years has grown tremendously. As of the 2008 estimates is 42% or about a 42% increase county wide. But a lot of that growth has occurred within the municipalities themselves, especially the major examples, little LEM, which is four times larger than it was in year 2000. The core-enth, experience of 71% increase, and a number of the other small cities that we serve, increase and a number of the other small cities that we serve, Crumb, Ponder, trophy club, Justin, Aubrey, Argyle, all of those have experienced somewhere between 20-50% growth during that same time frame. And how that affects our stats using the year 2002 is a baseline. Our officer responses to public requests, which is basically anytime we send out a police or fire unit in response to a public request has gone up over 32%. Our officer what we call officer initiated activities. I don't have a baseline for that in 2002, but it's fair to say that there's a tremendous number of those activities and it totals about over 74,000 in the last year and our radio log entries which will explain a little bit more in a minute. That's an activity that has gone up 100% during that same time frame and during that time frame since 2000 to the communication staff has only grown by four people which is about 16%. We do a number of things to monitor our system effectiveness and monitor workload and some of those workload measures have indicated here. One of course is the number of telephone calls that are handled by the communications division. Both non emergency and non-emergency calls. Again, the officer response to public requests is any time we dispatch a police or fire unit to a in response to a call in, either non-emergency or emergency. Again, the officer initiated activity concerns traffic stops, warrants, civil services, motor subsists. It's basically anything that, primarily, the police department, but it could be fire service also initiates on the room that does not result from a public request. And then again, the radiologist entries just to further explain them what that is. These are status changes of any of the units that we're monitoring. It could be computer inquiries for TCI, NCIC, location changes. It's basically anything that's relevant information that the dispatchers log into the computer assisted dispatch record. And just to give you an idea of how many of those we handle there were over 1.5 million computer entries into that CAD system in 2008. I mentioned telephone calls and this chart shows you where that's trending. E9-1 calls in the period of years are up only about 6%. I think there's a number of reasons why that hasn't grown dramatically more, but we saw a real dip in 2004 and it's trended back up to now where it's over 78,000 in the past year. Our administrative calls are up by 58%, and when you average all those together, it comes up to an increase of about 40%, which remarkably is almost the same as what the population increase of the county was. If you look at the blue line up there, you'll notice that it goes up dramatically in two year increments in the first two year increment. And then it trends down a little bit. In 2005 and 2006, we implemented a number of measures to try to reduce those administrative calls into our communications division as much as we could. We solicited some assistance from emergency management on the control burn calls. We also solicited some assistance from the city to operate answering telephone answering during administrative hours and we were able to reduce that just a hair I think where as you can see there we probably had trended up far there if we had not done that. So we've we've reduced those calls just about as far as we can right at the moment. And you see that E911 calls have gone up considerably in that time frame and then in their numbers. When you take those three workload measures and average them together, we feel that's a good depiction of our total workload. And this graph illustrates where that workload is going. The yellow bars indicate the percentage of the total workload that is produced by the city police department. And the blue bar indicates the county portion of that workload on communications operation, county and state. And the smaller orange bars at the bottom are the overall municipal fire agencies that we serve in percentage of their workload. You'll see that the municipal police departments as a percentage of the workload is growing, the percentage of the workload depicted by the county portion is diminishing proportionately and of course the fire service workload is increasing. So where we are right now just to give you an idea, this year we expect that the county communications resources will be devoted to municipalities in terms of percentage workload to about 63%, which means that the Sheriff's Office and State and County portion of that workload is obviously less than 50% and that's the direct reflection I think of the growth of the cities. Larger cities, especially little and more in Corinth, have come to us over the last couple of years with some requests about how we can improve the service delivery to them in particular. We've also heard from some of the smaller agencies. They're all demanding more radio time as they have more units on the street, more calls to handle. And that radio time has produced some issues with us where we get what we call busy signals and that's basically where two people try to key up on the radio at the same time. And it has to pick a priority to that and it creates a little bit of delay in some of our communications from field to our dispatch. And along with that, in our service delivery, we identify the need to improve what we do in the terms of fire dispatching. We don't have true fire dispatching for the agencies we serve right now, and we'd like to improve upon that. There are some limitations to what we can do, obviously, and there's three major limitations that we have that prohibits from immediately improving the service any farther. One of those is the confinements of the physical space of the dispatch center in the basement of the Sheriff's Office. We have a short term plan to accommodate some changes there if we need to and we can do that with a very little budget impact and then we also, as you know, put in a capital improvement project proposal for a future new communications center to be built out in a few years. The radio system load is another limitation. We have six frequencies that we utilize. We need a number more of those because as the system grows the load on those frequencies creates those busy signals. If we had more frequencies it would dynamically improve that and you can expect for us to come to you sometime in the next few years with the request to fund the acquisition of some new radio frequencies but that may not occurred until after the rebanding effort is completed. We also have a limitation of personnel and that's one of the things that the county has always funded and our proposal would funnel some of the resources that we would gain from contracting with the cities to additional personnel, which would give us the ability to almost immediately improve the service in some of the areas that we've talked about. We got together and decided to talk about how we can improve the service. And we kind of split it up into three phases. The first phase we are already into the implementation over the computer assisted dispatch system. The court granted the funding for that last year, more and this year's budget. And we are moving forward with that. We should have, we've gotten proposals. We should be making site visits and getting demos here in the next couple of months. And we should have a decision, hopefully a choice of a vendor within the next sometime this summer hopefully. So we're in the middle of that and we have great hopes and high hopes on how that will improve our service delivery. It'll be a significant upgrade and we think we make a lot of good changes with that. The phase two, which we have a plan for, and that will address directly the radio traffic on the system and how that's divided up. Right now, all the agencies that we serve in the police or law enforcement function are all on one primary patrol channel. We want to be able to split those channels into two primary patrol channels, which, and we'll do that by population and by geographics as well, where the two major cities that we serve, weren't the little album will be on separate channels. And other asmolar agencies fill in with those. That should significantly reduce the amount of talk and chatter that's on each of those channels and it'll make it possible for our dispatchers to pay a lot more attention to the units that they're monitoring. But doing that requires the addition of six personnel, five communications officer and communications officers in one corporal. Along with that phase two implementation, if we ask for a contractual situation with the cities, we're going to also allow them to have some input into how the operation is done. We want to create what we call a shared governance communication system. This is a trend that we see throughout the whole country. It's been around for some time. It's nothing really new. It has gained a lot of significance in momentum after 9-11. And I've provided some backup material for you on that on some of the details of what that entails. But basically, we all go over some of that here in just a second, but basically we would allow a lot of input on procedures from the cities that we serve. We would create a governance board and have a technical committee. And so a lot of things that would change on how we operate, although the sheriff's office would still retain the management of the system and the supervision of the employees. And then the phase three would address directly that our fire dispatching. We would like to be able to dedicate a 24 hour, seven day a week fire channel that is monitored by communications officers. And that will allow us along with the CAD system will allow us to make some significant improvements in our fire dispatch. This is kind of a busy slide here, but it gives you sort of an idea of what a countywide interoperable system looks like. The Sheriff's Office Communication there indicated by the Star in the center. The 16 police agencies, 11 fire departments that we serve along with the other county and state agencies. And then each of the other little symbols with a city name indicates a city that has their own dispatching center. Some of those, this proposal does not address us taking over those, but they would be invited into the shared governance system. And there's a lot of things that we can do to improve the interoperability. And we have a really good head start on that already. Many of the systems, but not all of them, share a common 800 trunk system. And we have shared channels or shared cart groups already. We have the Microwave project that the county saw fit to fund a couple of years ago. And we're, I think, we're in the third phase of that, which links up the 911 systems and the ability to have also a backup system within the telephone emergency telephone system. All of those things are a great head start and we're really way ahead of a lot of counties. But if we want to have true interoperability, we would have the ability to have all these communication centers immediately communicate with one another. Right now, Roe-Noke and the colony are on separate systems, and we don't have that function with them. And we don't have a common emergency channel that is monitored 24-7 between all these agencies. So that's some of the things that would be available with the county-wide interoperable system. Another pivotal piece of that would be the creation of that procedural advisory board, which would be made up of representatives from each of the agencies that we serve. They would review operational procedures and for the communication division and how they apply to all the agencies. And this board would be able to make recommendations for changes in those and to upgrade the level of service for everybody. They also would appoint a technical liaison committee, which would be another pivotal piece which they would hope they would stay on top of modern technology and make recommendations on improvements to the system. And in the contractual agreement, of course, we would ask that the cities contribute to the funding of the communications budget. And again, that's based on our proposal that we would recommend going with, it was based on the average, the public requests, the officer initiated activities and the radio logs. I'll show you chart in a second that illustrates that. We would average all those together and come up with the percentage workload. And we'd base the fees off of that. Under the proposal that we feel like is probably the most equitable to start with. The county would retain half of the total budget that it currently has, which is a little over 1.82 million. And then the other half would be distributed by workload amongst all agencies we serve. This is the chart I referred to and you may be able to see that better in your backup material than on the screen, but it shows the categories that we use to come up with the overall average. And we feel those are the best ones to use to reflect a true workload. The blue highlights indicate the eight major users on the system outside of the county. and we will see that we respond to nearly 150,000 public requests for service. Again, those are going to continue to increase. Again, I said the radio log entries. We enter over a million and a half entries into that CAD system. And officer initiated activity is always on the increase. Before you leave that slide, what is the unassigned others? Down at the bottom on the I'm sorry, I didn't know you don't leave it that clear. Previous. Okay. Daniel, you're on a signed other. Yeah, that is, well, I brought some experts with me. One of those is Kathy Stanley and I'd let her explain that because if you don't mind, no, not at all. Come on, Kat. And other, we actually have cat activity that is generated through our cat system, Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning generates activity and it comes into our total numbers but it's not actually assigned to another agency so the counties absorbing that activity is passing it on to the other agencies. Thank you. roll over the dollar amount from the O9 budget with no increases except with the six additional staff that we need to implement the phase two that we talked about and splitting the patrol channels. It does not include any charges for the computer system, the computer system, which the county is funding. Nor does it include any costs that might be passed on by the implementation of that CAD system in terms of mobile data computers for existing users. It doesn't include indirect costs or infrastructure costs. One of the things that we have discussed, that I've discussed with Donna in the budget office in Johnna and also with Joe DeGonzalez, is where would we fit in the charges that the city, that we pay now to the cities when fire departments respond outside or outside their cities to the county areas that we paid them for. And so that is not factored into here yet, so that's still something else that would offset some of the costs. But this chart gives you an idea of what the proposed 2010 budget would be under this funding model. funding model. And then this is the breakdown of the cost per agency under that same funding model. And get the complete cost per what we would ask the cities to contribute. You would add the police and apartments for those cities together. So for instance, with Argyle, you take the Argyle Police Department, 39,000 plus the Argyle Department and add that in. Another 6,600 or so and you would total that up. And that's what we would be asking the City of Argyle to contribute for this first year. And this is just only the police departments on the top eight. We feel like this is a fair and equitable proposal And know that economic situations as they are it could be a budget impact to everybody involved Not this proposal would actually reduce the county portion of the communications budget for some time and But it would allow us to to make these increases without and proportionately distribute the funding of those increases to the places that are served. So that's about really the basis of the proposal. There's a number of our strategy in the backup material, a few options of where to start. If we feel like this is too much for some of the cities to absorb. And I can explain some of those other funding models if you'd like or I can answer any other questions that you might have. Let me just start off by saying that I visited with both Lehal and the sheriff. It was at least a year ago. I started hearing from the cities that they were having a real hard time not only maintaining good communications for their city for the police and fire but it was just cost prohibitive to be adding on to their own facility or building a new facility and really the most logical thing to do would be to consolidate at the Sheriff's Department. And I very much appreciate the Sheriff's Receptiveness and really it wasn't news to him. He'd already been talking to some people on the idea of it. Leigh Howe mentioned the governance process. You have to remember you've got all these different cities that have their fire cheese, all these different cities that have their own police cheese and they're turning over something that is important as communications to the sheriff. So that took some delicate communications. We'll put it that way. But I think that what you've got worked out here gives them representation but at the same time the sheriff department does need and still has ultimate control of the people that are going to be handling the whole operation. This is good for the cities in that it saves them money and it's good for the public because it's better communications like Lee was saying you don't have so much chatter on the lines there and people trying to talk over each other and maybe relaying information from this dispatcher to that dispatcher. So ultimately, the public's going to be served faster and in emergency situations. That's very important. I'm glad to see this coming forward. To me, it just looks like a great solution for all. I'd like to get input from the other members of the court and then we'll get into a discussion about where we want to start. Commissioner Marchand is the wait a minute? Yeah, your first request. Thank you Chief. A few questions popped up just for clarification for me. We currently have, did you say 16, are they governed by an interlocal agreement? Is that the contract? Is that what it is? And of your, and maybe Donna can answer this question of the existing budget that you have to operate your communications and dispatch. Do they contribute if they are using 63% of the allocated time and resources of the Sheriff's Department. Are they reimbursing currently 63% of the expense? Okay. What would you say that would be? Well, I'm just off top of your. Under the row? Yeah, we get nothing from any of the cities now. Oh, so the interlocal agreement only is for providing services for them. Yes, sir. Okay. And I didn't know that and I apologize for not knowing that. But now, but you also mentioned that currently we have interlocal agreements with fire support that we do and we pay those entities for every service call on fire support. Yes, like say, for instance, again, the city of Aubrey responds in their ETJ in an unequal area of the county to a fire call. They build a county for that service. So that's something that I want to make clear that it's not factored into this proposal yet We would we would probably have to figure out some sort of a trade-off with our figures that we would charge them for we base on the last complete years workload In other words, so for 2010 we would use the workload Statistics for 2000 for the fiscal year of 2008 since that's a complete year. It'll be predictable. We'll be able to calculate it out and we'll be able to provide that to the cities ahead of time in time, in plain time for the budget process every year. But those fire calls are unpredictable. We don't know until they happen what the how they're gonna factor in. So it's something that probably would have to be put on the back end of it and take it off of a piece schedule somehow. Okay, so if we're not collecting any money of reimbursement for expenses of currently what we're providing to those 16 cities, eight primary ones and then eight, let's call them ancillary ones because of the amount that they're doing. You said in your presentation that the two million plus dollars that would initially be cost associated with the setup this and the 2010 budget. And I think that you had cost of asking those municipalities to contribute for about $2 million. I'm just remembering what I saw here. I mean, you can clarify that. You said initial in the initial request does that mean that they would contribute to the start-up of this and not contribute to anything past that initial first year? No, it's just, we feel like this is a place to start and continue every year from here on out, that we would anticipate that the municipalities demand on the system is gonna continue to grow in proportion to the counties. And overall, the budget figures, the overall communication division budget is a little, it would be a little bit over $2 million with that phase two proposal. So the city's portion of that really is only about a half a million. the city's portion of that really is only about a half a million. So the county would still retain, in other words, like right now, our communication division budget prior to that proposal for this year is about 1.8 million. It would go to about 2.1 total, but the county's contribution to that would be somewhere in area 1.47 million in the cities would pick up the rest. I'd ask you that question. I understand what the judge said about the reaction are response to her or municipalities saying we're having problems getting communications. Are you meeting with any resistance at all from municipalities of putting a cost associated with those calls? We have met with police and fire officials and city management of both Little Elm and Corinth through the two major cities and discussed it with them. They're pretty well braced for it. They are ready to improve the service delivery and understand that there's an equitable cost sharing there. We've discussed it unofficially with a number of other cities and again in dealing with the police and fire officials of those agencies, they're also very much in favor of it also. What we would do from here is we'd like to actually sit down with everybody and propose it out, show them what the costs are, and then see, see, you know, get everybody's input from there. In my last question, Judge. The formation of the Governor, let's call it a governance committee that would basically set up how this is going to work. Would it be similar to the board for the E911 system to the point of vision, policy on how to operate, but not going as far as a board to tell you how to spend your money. That's correct. That's correct. We still feel like the county because we own the system, we own the infrastructure, we have to retain a certain amount of control over the budget itself and over the expenditures. We would just be looking for an advisory input for everyone. I would just suggest to you from just experience that you be very, very specific on what their input is in that process. I would just suggest that to you, whatever it's worth. Thank you. Sure. Commissioner Mitchell. Thank you, Ron. There was some of the same questions I had. Mr. Hell, I was taking notes as I was listening to you. Hearing you correctly and saying that the cities that were coming on would offset some of the the expense for additional employees? Yes. In fact, that's under the under the funding model. That's directly the the proposed funding model. That's directly where that cost will go to would be to fund the additional personnel that it takes to branch that second channel off. Okay, now would it fund the all six of them? It wouldn't be complete because we're still allowing the county to pay for our portion of that increase, which is about 37%. So we're taking the other, and again, because of the ownership of the system and the maintenance of it and everything still needs to be retained by the county we cut that the budget basically in half and then distributed that top 50% by workload. So we're still paying more than 50% of the budget. The county was still be picking up more than 50% of the total budget. But the increase of those additional personnel would mainly be distributed to the cities. I mean, the way it works out, it comes out pretty close to the same amount. Actually, we're asking for a little bit more than those six parts, the cost of those six personnel from the cities under that funding model. And are they aware that doing this agreement that they would not be receiving money from the county on the interlocal agreement that we have with them? I really, that's something we would make clear and hash out in the contract. So this proposal was just a proposal to us to see, you know, looking for any approval of it today, right? We're mainly looking for the direction from y'all and make sure that we're heading in the right direction and that you understand that we're going to about to ask it for a contractual situation and monetary input from the cities? Well, I think it's a great idea. I mean, I realize that often the foreign police and sheriff's department do need to communicate with each other. I think it's a great idea my concerns are, as usual, about adding additional employees and adding money. And if, you know, I know right off the bat that the cities will not be we will have to absorb some of this on the on set but Later on we can make up for that. I'm assuming that Yes, man We feel like this is a place to start and you know Obviously if some of the smaller cities just cannot afford their contribution under this model We're not going to kick anybody off the system. We can't do that. We're going to still dispatch form. We would just have to work that out in later years somehow. I have some concerns. They may not be able to pay. They're told to first share, but they should be able to pay something. So I would hope that we would look at that and not just say you don't pay anything because you said you can't pay because I think all cities in as well as the counties should be responsible government bodies that wanting to pay their first share and not expecting somebody else to carry that. So I'm going to be looking for everybody to be given something even if it's a thousand dollars Mr. Coleman First of all, I'd like to thank you for putting so much time and effort into this I Know that this is a been a long-standing problem at the Sheriff's Department I myself drafted quite a few of those interlocal agreements for those cities and I can tell you the basics are In exchange for us providing dispatch services they provide it's basically a mutual aid agreement where they provide if mutual aid to us within their ETJ and exchange for dispatch services And I think it's a wonderful idea to get them to pay for the infrastructure that they've been using for all these years now I understand that you know many years ago these cities were not able to do these type of activities but as Denton County has grown we really need to get them used to paying for these services that they use and I want to commend y'all for trying to proactively take care of that and establish a system for which they can contribute to the infrastructure that's borne by the county and thank you for doing that. I appreciate it. Mr. Eads. Lee, would you go over, I understand Donna's response to Commissioner Marchand that 63% of the calls workload is from the municipalities and we're currently receiving zero revenue for that. Correct. We're also paying for if they do respond for fire and other purposes we are also paying if they do help us. They respond to the end incorporated areas of the county, that's correct. Okay, and so if we do an increase in staffing, you're saying that the county would start with a baseline of 50% and then they would go on the, we work at a formula for the increase in the remaining balance the percentage Yes, sir. Yeah, the the proposal that we felt we should start with that would be Would allow us to to move forward the phase two and also not severely impact the cities would be the 50 50 split The county retains 50 percent right off the top of the budget of the existing budget plus the new people Then we take the remaining 50% and divide that by workload so the county has a portion of that also about 37% of the other 50% based on our workload and then the rest of that funding would be proportionately applied to the cities by their percentage of the workload. So, they're paying, you know, on the overall budget is much less than the percent that they actually utilize, because we're retaining that 50 percent right off the top. 37. What I'm unclear on is, when you say the new budget, are you saying the new, the new, the the increase personnel or the new revised whole budget for the whole operations? That's where I'm. The, that's the whole operate, the whole communication is division budget. So that would include the new personnel for $20,000. Okay. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Eads, Donna, wanted to insert something here. It's for clarification to models that are in the packet would offset the cost of the employees. If all these entities participated, they would more than offset the cost of those new employees. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Marching. One other thing. In your graph, I guess, or your graphic that you had there showed the SO and the communication of the system of the SO, and then you had the 16 entities of the police departments that currently participating, then you had the, you know, which graphic on top. And then you had the bigger stars of the municipalities that currently have their own communication system. They have, don't they have an interlocal agreement, a question. Do they have a interlocal agreement with, some kind of agreement with S.O. in case their communication system fails? Does it automatically and because of that are they allowed in as members of this governance board on how the new system would apply even to them? Yes, well, there's no, I don't believe there's an existing interlocal agreement for that. However, in practice and procedurally there are things in place for us to dispatch say for the city of Denton or vice versa. Should there be some communication breakdown in our centers? We do have that availability and maybe with a couple other of the agencies also. In fact I think didn't you have two or three years ago a total failure or not a total failure at the city of Carrollton and they had to rely upon the SO for their dispatch what's I would defer to historically? We need you to come to the microphone. Yeah, what she's referring to is the city of Denton did have a situation where they had to shut down their Communication Center and we we Operated the dispatching for the city of Denton out of our Out of our communication center. Would they would indeed would they be part of this governance board? Well, they would be and not they would be in it in terms of the idea of the county wide interoperable system. And we feel like we need to all get together and work toward that so that everybody, that there's, without going in a lot of detail, there's some trends. There's some things happening that will happen regionally and even statewide in communications, in public safety communications. And we feel like everybody needs to be up to date and on the ball with that so that we can maximize the resources and maybe combine some of the things and cut down some of the expenditures that each of these entities would do on the right. Yeah. Yeah. So it's, it would be mutual beneficial to everybody. We're not proposing, although, we're not proposing, although we're not proposing to take over dispatching for anybody, although the cities of Roanoke and the colony both have indicated, well, particularly Roanoke has indicated that they might be interested in coming back on our system under this kind of a model. So several of them have been in contact with and they're all interested in participating as as a shared government's community. My motivation would be that I mean we could probably set up our own business of dispatch and communications based upon people vacating their existing system because we have a better car if you would. And I just don't want the SO's office and our ability to communicate with our own deputies to suffer because of maybe people wanting to come onto the system. Right, we don't really, we're not about to try to take on the whole county in that regard and that would probably be counterproductive at this point. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from members of the court? I think what the sheriff's department is looking for today is just not really, I don't think, a vote up or down on the whole process but little guidance as to the commission's course, feeling do we want them to proceed with this endeavor? I certainly think it's worthwhile and a great idea. I do. I mean I think we need to be as commissioner Coleman said earlier, consistent in what we put forward. You know, I stated last week that I was not in favor of any new hires. I think a caveat of that would be that new hires that don't pay for themselves. You understand? And because of that, I, since you laid it out there that those primary funds would be to underwrite the cost of any new employees, not only for that existing 2010 budget for budgets to come, then I tell you go for it and I think it's wonderful and I appreciate the work that you've done. Anybody else want to chime in with machines? I agree with the concept. I do have some particular questions. I'd like to visit the sheriff and leave out this next week or to take the first of the students to see how I'm going to try to go to the district and go to the district. Any other questions, gentlemen? You got our input? Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, we had a lot to talk about this morning. Let's move all the way to consent agenda item two. Members, I need to pull consent agenda item two B because there are no inter-departmental transfers today. Are there any other items on the consent agenda that you need to pull for consideration or discussion? We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner Eads. Here in no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say aye. Motion does carry. Consented agenda today consists of two a, which I just have mine. Okay, what are we doing? Here it is. Order makers. We have a new hire in the district clerk's office, a re-hire in juvenile case manager, promotion of criminal district attorney's office, a new hire in the tax office, four promotions in the county jail, and three new hires in the County Jail. 2C is approval of specifications and authority to advertise for bid number 01091951. This is Kanaka Minolta Reader Printer. 2D is approval of renewal for bid 1, 2, 0, 7, 1, 8, 7, 1 exterior lighting maintenance agreement to design the electronic division of facility solutions group To ease approval budget amendment request 1-0-0-7-1-0 for roof repairs for facilities management in the amount of $1,360 2-F is approval of ward a bid for fish trap road construction bid number 1-2-0-81948 This is precinct run to Reynolds construction for 1,718,956 hours and 80 cents. 2G is approval of the reappointment of Pamela Head to the Social Service Committee. 2H is approval of the appointment of DJ Taylor to the Dent and County Historical Commission. 2I is approval of the Saudi grievance committee. To J is approval of building use requests from Susan Tyler for the use of the community room at the Stephen Copeland Government Center to hold the annual DFW area shoe box swap on Saturday, May 30, 2009 from 8am to 9pm. 2K is approval of building use requests from Beth Lueyune on behalf of National Day of Prayer Task Force. Denton for use of the Court has found the square lawn, Commissioners Court and we will implement weather. On May 7, 2009 from 12 p.m. to 130 p.m., 2L's approval of the City of Denton's building usage requests for the use of the courthouse on the lawn every Wednesday and the months of May and June 2009 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. for concerts on the square. And now we'll go to item 5a, which is approval of the bill report payments from CSCD, community corrections, T.A.I.P. shares training, shares for for sure VIT interest DA check fee and DA for for sure funds are presented for recording purposes. Good morning, James Wells. for the court for future funds presented for recording purposes. Good morning, James Wells. Good morning, Judge Commissioners. I'd ask the court to prove the bills with the three deletions. And seven additions that are detailed on a separate page. I would like to make note that the very last addition, which is to Ed Bell construction for $286,000 on FM407 is actually a correction of the last deletion where we had actually processed it wrong and had the wrong vendor on it so that's not a there's not anything and it's just a correction we do want to pay that today to the correct vendor to get it expedited and paid timely. I'd also asked bring the court's specific attention to the second edition. We're making a refund payment to the NINKIN tax office of $637,554. Point out this is not a payment of county funds. This is a refund of money already paid over to the treasure of a duplicate payment from one tax payer that is now filed for a tax refund and the tax assessor needs the money back to actually make this payment. But it is a point out it's not an expenditure of county funds, it's funds that are in the treasury, but it is an overpayment. It is a tax refund and actually appropriate for the court to approve this as a refund as well as in this. So that's what actually I'd be asking on that. That's all corrections I have. Hey, do we have any questions or comments from members of the court or do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Marchin. You can't. Oh, I see. He's trying to trick me up, isn't he? I'm shady. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell, is there any discussion? Very none. I'll in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say aye. Motion does carry. Seven a is approval of budget amendment request 100720 for contract labor for vehicle maintenance in the amount of $1,608. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell. Seconded by Commissioner Marchand, are there questions? Any none? All in favor, please say aye. Aye, opposed, in a. Motion does carry. 8 a.s. approval of revisions to personnel policy 3.9 a. Family and Medical leave. We'll call on Amy Phillips. Good morning, judge and members of the court. This policy revision reflects changes that were just made in the final regulations. The new revised family medically that. This is a significant revision. There are new categories eligible for leave. We tried to reflect that in our draft that we brought to you last fall under the proposed regulations, but there are more changes under the new regulations. The final regulations. We will be changing our process. History has taught us that having employees take their requests to the departments and the departments forwarding them to us makes it nearly impossible in some cases to get that notification and the time that we need to do it and comply with the law, the time that we need to process it and comply with the law, the time that we need to process it and compliance with the law. So the new policy will require that notification be given to the human resources department and we will immediately notify departments of that lead request or that lead notification as the law calls it. There are a lot of new forms. The forms that are in the book are revised from samples provided by the Department of Labor. We have not added anything to them in order to request any information. We've simply taken out the DOLs label and put our label on it. I'm not asking for approval of the forms today. We still have some revision to do on the forms and we may need to revise them as we go along and find that something isn't clear or if they're asking for information that we really don't need to implement, then we will revise the forms. And I don't, so I'm not asking for you to approve them. I'm asking for you to approve the policy revisions only. Any comments? There will be motion by Commissioner Marche, second by Commissioner Yeats, any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Next item on the agenda is item 12A. Approved the Sheriff Office Project proposal to request funding to replace older vehicles with new law-emitting vehicles and the personnel expenses to enforce clean air laws and any appropriate action. I'll move to approve. Let's have some discussion on that before we go through. I can for purposes of discussion. Okay. I guess this is for Lee. So this is adding an additional full-time employee or you're dedicating or you're just using the funds to pay for the officer to be dedicated. I'm sorry that. Well, I mean, is it a completely new hire a new position? Yes. Yes. And only 50% is being paid for through the grant if we get it or is that a Donna question? It's 100 hundred percent match. She don't Maybe I'll or yeah, it's like 68,000 Larry call Hey, what let me let me get Steve Maxis our assistant chief operations to explain this to you. He's he's a One that actually Quit most of this together. Morning, Commissioner. Morning. The Superprosals in front of you are from the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division. It was established by Senate Bill 12, which was signed into law, I believe, in 2007. Allows funds to be collected throughout counties where they have emission standards set. The funds were set aside I believe in May of 08. The interim agreement with didn't can and is set aside 396,000 for didn't county. There are several proposals that were available for us to pursue. The two that we are requesting is an enforcement program. The second one is a clean fleet vehicle program. The enforcement program, it is a one-to-one match grant, but the county's match basically falls in line with the uh... percentage of time utilized by all my patrol deputies and my traffic deputies for use basically five percent of their time on the road enforcing uh... emission standards uh... within the county uh... they've all been trained and have access to a database set up by uh... a it's over and i believe through cog uh... they all got specific passwords allow them access to that database. They can utilize that from their computers and their cars. So they can enforce admission standards and that capacity. We calculated that 5% of their time on the road could be utilized doing this. That makes the counties match at about $112,000 as our percentage of that match. So that's in-kind rather than? It's ma'am. But you are asking for an additional employee, I'm sorry, can I just... I'm just thinking. Okay. You are asking for additional employee? Yes ma'am, it. Be an enforcement deputy. You know, covered not only the employee but all the salaries and benefits as well as the vehicle and equipment they need for the enforcement. County's match, I'm sorry, shows to be fringe benefits. The grant specifies that it will pay 10% of the fringe benefits of the employee. County has to match 90% of that, and that's certainly covered within our 5% of the utilized time of the other deputies. That again. The new employee. The way the grant reads is that the grant will pay for 10% of the fringe benefits of the employee. Pay for all the salary, but only 10% of the fringe benefits. Okay, and then the sheriff department through att% of the fringe benefits. Okay, and then The earth department through attrition is gonna pick up. Yes, ma'am. The rest of it. Yes, ma'am And are you asking for that today rather than? Is that a set of requests close to prove the employee today? I don't think I'm quite understanding This is an application. We are not guaranteed defending at this point. So once it comes back to court, you would be establishing the position. And I believe it's effective October 1. It's what's been proposed. It's just a proposal from here with the courts approval. We'll send it to the TCQ for the presentation. And I appreciate that. A lot of times we get it when it's been granted and put in a position to approve a position after the grants are already been granted. And I appreciate you coming forward now. Any of the application system to at least us give some kind of okay on you at least applying. And I do understand that you have to file for the apply for the grant and it has to be granted. It's not granted this whole proposal goes away, is that correct? That's correct. The deadline for the submission proposal is March the 1st, so we're kind of at the very end of the end of the period to request this just Hey Commissioner Coleman Chief Maxus I just like to thank you for being proactive in trying to secure outside funds I believe us trying to Install this type of equipment on these vehicles is good. It's good for the environment It's a good proactive manner for y'all to take place with and I appreciate you all's hard work. Keep it up. I think we have a motion over there. Beth had a little something to do with this too didn't you? Maybe not this one. You too Beth. No I did not. That a boy. And I complimented them yesterday for the vehicle side of it and the great job that they did in securing those and maximizing all the funds available on that. But no, I did not have any. You can take credit for this. She's been involved in some other questions. You do a great job anyway. Games Wells. We'll add without being prompted. This is funding that's part of the the Lyrapp program that we've been, it's, again, it's Sheriff's Office representative pointed out. It's part of the funding from the addition that's raised because of the emissions testings during the gold inspections. TCEQ manages those funds, makes them available to the county. Most of our funding is spent in a contract with the council of garments for the low income repair and replacement program And what they found out is that of the money raised in the county that they offer back the county first We don't need and all of it for the low income Repair and replacement program. It's not being used So these are alternative source ways to use the money that actually is raised in Denton County from our own citizens. So it's a new it's a new it's a new it's a money in Denton County. New's it. Denton County. It's a new program's being proposed but it's actually a fairly long standing now source of funding. Thank you Commissioner Mitchell. I think that's an excellent idea this but the attrition funds. we sure we don't have those attrition funds in October. Pay for this. It would be throughout the year, it would be attrition funds to turn over and ever during the year. But is there a guarantee that there's going to be enough to pay for that new employee? If you play, there's enough turnover in the department that it should cover that. However, they also, free their in-kind support should help address that as well. I just want to make sure that we don't today say go forward with this grant and new employees added and then we have to pay for that employee. When at this time we're looking at the budget saying we'd like to have no new employees, but then we're agreeing today to go forward with this grant which you know you do and then we say no sorry you can't have that employee. I want to be sure that. I think in the documentation we've seen here I think the sheriff's office has committed to fund whatever was required out of their budget and any other equipment Or and I assume that would apply for any of this benefit level as well. We had to Okay Commissioner Marchen. Yeah, just quickly let commissioners know Majority of not all those violations that are written up in Denton County are prosecuted through our JP courts. So any revenue because of the violations, I believe that's right. I know that I adjudicated a lot of those cases in my own court. So there are revenues that are generated by that program. Who do any violations that a person has within Ditton County? Commissioner Eads. Turn them back on. Is there a schedule of this declining? Do we know that Donna or James, what usually what these do? What do you think it's a one time. The only time. It's a one time comes here. Come to the city. Percent. We're going to eat the whole thing next year. No, that I've been told by by cog that it's already the money is already set aside for funding for the next year for the subsequent year after this. After it's an, the money is already set aside for funding for the next year, for the subsequent year after this. So it's an annual application? Yeah, and the money comes from the collection of those fees for inspections. So, and it's funneled to this program and they don't really anticipate this ever going away because of the pollution aspects and things that it's going to correct here and didn't come out. I was just curious if other agencies apply, are they going to want to fund them half to get their program started and we don't get funded? That's my quick work. You know we're slowly precing through all these grants. That's the reason why they do it. You know, so we just continually are the frog in the pot, you know. So I mean, when we're I mean, I don't know. James Wilson, do you have something you wanted to respond? I recall when the meetings we've had with this call, the Council of Governments and the TCEQ actually sought out the county on this as opposed to and the Sheriff'sQ actually sought out the county on this as opposed to the Sheriff's Department in particular as the best organization to do these new company, particularly the compliance on the admissions compliance and the false or fictitious inspection stickers or something like that. Big underground on that and they actually the both agencies sought out the sheriff's office in particular as the best agency to do this Rather and it would and actually Over the Departments or anything like that they felt like they was the best If something else commission I I want to go on record is saying that yes I'd like for this grant to go through but if we don't have the attrition to pay for that new employee I may or may not vote for that favorably for that new employee and I want to let you know that up front. Okay do we have a motion for approval of the Sheriff's Office project? I've already made the motion. Oh, you already made the motion? I'm sorry. And Commissioner Marchant, seconded. Here is, see no more lights flashing. So all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Motion is carried. Thank you. Okay, 13A is approval of legislative policy statements send or resolutions. Will. Yeah, I need to go through this a little bit and I'll try to be brief. But Senate Bill 820 relates to the qualifications for office of justice of the peace and in your backup you saw the letter from Judge Becky Kerboh. Um, 320. I thought it was 3 terribly interesting that this bill applies to 21 counties out of 254 on that rather interesting that you know if it's a good idea for one lives and a good idea for everybody it's because it's not a good idea for anybody actually. Well, is there is a house bill that mirrors this? I'm trying to. There's probably a companion bill. We need to clue that in as well. I believe it is. And I think it's like $29, House Bill $29. I would like to include that if there's a companion bill. And if there is, we can so stated on here. But I think it's important that we pass on to our legislators opposition to this if in fact that is everybody's position. Approval. Thank you. We have a motion for approval by Commissioner E. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Commissioner Coleman. Yeah. I'll tell you, you know, having been in Justice of the Pete Court in El Paso and other counties, I mean, we have a bunch of good JPs here in Denton County. It's an interesting experience sometimes. I think sometimes it's a good idea that you can get a denobo appeal to county court. I'll be honest with you, I think as Denton County gets bigger, the issues that become before the JPs become more complicated. And I think it's a good idea sometimes to have a lawyer to making those decisions. People spend a lot of money sometimes when they go to JP Court. I'm so. You know, I'm actually in fact. I'm actually in fact. I'm actually in fact. I'm actually in fact. I'm actually in fact. I'm actually in fact. I'm actually in fact. I'm actually in fact. I'm actually in fact. I'm actually in fact. I'm actually in fact. I'm actually in fact. I'm actually in fact. on the side. That's because the county won't pay him enough. Exactly right and I kind of think that a J.P. position is a full-time job. It isn't in county anyone. Oh I'm just telling you what my opinion is. I know I've been well informed of you know the propensities of you know whether y'all like lawyers or not. Yeah well I and I find it gets longer since I get to the lawyers, I get to the lawyers. I served for 14 years and had a lot of respect that attorneys in my court that I would have represent me every day. But, but on the other hand, I had a lot of attorneys that I wonder why they ever got through law school. So, I mean, this is a debate that has been going on and it will go on as long as the legislature increases the jurisdictional limits of the JP. When I first took over, it was 2,500 now it's 10,000. And the biggest debate should be, are you willing or is it required if you make the attorneys that you have to do a constitutional amendment to do that. Now the people that are arguing that you should be attorney says that you don't, those that oppose it say there has to be a constitutional amendment because this is a judiciary statutory court that's been set up by the Constitution not by any amendments to the Constitution. So anyway. Okay. We have a motion on the floor to oppose this particular piece of legislation and the companion bill. Should there be one? Only favor the motion. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Aye. Motion carries. Foreign favor. One opposed. The second bill for your consideration is House bill 337. This is relating to the cost of holding certain joint elections. This is obviously brought to our attention by our elections administrator, Donna Alexander. And right now costs are perforated with county and other jurisdictions that have elections at day end. If schools are allowed to do this, cities will be the next and with the final resolution that counties would fit the bill for everyone so I think that we need to express our opposition to House Bill 337. Thank you. Second. Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Hearing no discussion. All in favor please say aye Aye opposed a name motion does carry then lastly house bill 113 This is relating to eligibility requirements for appointment as elect county elections administrator specifically stating Then county's opposition to House Bill 113. And again, and Don Isle Sanders, backup material. What this bill is advocating is that all counties have elections and their election administrators have to be degrade. And not all counties can afford that. That doesn't make them necessarily a bad elections administrator. So I'm moved that we're opposed to. and not all counties can afford that and it doesn't make them necessarily a bad elections administrator so I move that we're opposed it Thank you I'm a motion for the record. I've counsel of urban college up Counties policies. You have opposed all these people don't record doing that good You know further discussion on favor the motion please say aye aye opposed in a motion carries foreign favor what opposed then lastly um need to talk about groundwater conservation districts and I'll try not to delay for this too long. This is a discussion that actually started a few years ago. I will tell you that the legislature turned to TCQ and bottom line once groundwater conservation districts and all parts of Texas, once counties to go together to create these groundwater conservation districts and bottom line if we don't form a groundwater conservation district, TCQ will put us in one. It's one way or another, we're going to be in the groundwater conservation district. Now, one of the ways that we could form a groundwater conservation district, they were so kind to us, they said, you can hold an election in your county or join with the county next to you or two or three of them. You can hold an election and it would create a groundwater conservation district property tax. Well, even before the latest economic downturn, I think that would have gone over like a lab bloom. And my concern was especially here in Dintn County with all the oil and gas industry. I definitely wanted the own gas industry included in the groundwater conservation district and the other districts throughout Texas have not included groundwater conservation district. So I was fearful that if we just basically ignored this, it was not going to go away. And T.C.Q. would put us in the district and the on gas industry would not be part of it in Denton County. So, after much discussion with Collin County, Grayson County, Cook County, Fanon County, and early a couple years ago with even Dallas and Tantt County, what this has come down to after a lot of meetings and a lot of discussion is proposing a Collin County, Denton County, groundwater conservation district that is fee-based, not property tax, but fee-based. So the users of the groundwater and anybody drilling a new well, and it's based on over 35,000 gallons. So your junk-you citizen has a little well to support their home would not be subject to this. We're talking a major user like a city. There was discussion with myself and county judge Keith Self and I'm sorry in Colin County and Joe James who's a commissioner in Colin County over proposing board of directors should we create this district and what's being proposed is both of us to have a couple representatives and here again I need to tell you that I've met not only with cities but I've met with water supply companies like Mustang water and they obviously have a huge interest in this the key self and I not only with cities, but I met with water supply companies like Mustang Water. And they obviously have a huge interest in this. The key self, and I thought it was important that commissioners courts are both counties at least consider when the time comes a pointing representation from both of these areas. One being cities, one being water supply corporations. But then we didn't wanna have boardeded directors within even number of persons on it so we're going to have a fifth member and we propose alternating that position and the very first year that this district goes into existence the two positions from Colin two positions from Denton one would draw draw for a two-year term, one to draw for a four-year term, so thereafter they'd be staggered terms. I will tell you that there's still some consideration and a possibility that Cook, Grayson, and Fanon, Mayor Me not, asked to join us. So there's been a suggestion made that we not call it the cook, I'm sorry, that may not call it the grace and I keep saying the wrong one. Collin Denton, Groundwater Conservation District, because legislatively as we get into this, it may come to pass that cook, grace, and infanannie may or may not join us. I will also tell you that there was, there is a requirement by law that any creation of the district has to have a public notice published in the paper which we did do and Senator Estes has agreed to carry this bill if we so desire but he asked to wait by law 30 days after that public notice. So that public notice was published in the paper in Dent and Record Chronicle on Friday the 13th, kind of an honor state. And also in the Dallas Morning News on Saturday the 14th, just to make sure. And it was it was worded and the notice was worded in such a way that it specifically states Colin and Denton but it also said or a groundwater conservation district of a different name. In other words, that allows us to add one or more counties. Should it become necessary legislatively as we go into this process? So what I'm looking for from you today is just as the court order states endorsement to create a Denton Collin Groundwater Conservation District or Groundwater Conservation District of a different name and authorize the Mia's County Judge to act as Denton County's representative of Collin County staff and elected officials and state legislative officials towards that end. I will tell you that one of the suggestions, if we do not call this the Collin Denton Groundwater Conservation District, was actually made by a staff person from the City of Colony who is well versed on this issue because the City of Colony uses so much groundwater and his suggestion was to call it the Twin Mountain. I thought that was kind of funny because we don't have too many mountains in in in in in in in county, but he tells me that actually comes from the aquifer that's underground and there is an area down there referred to as twin mountain that would be I don't like it easier, but my my primary concern was was not calling it anything that had the word Trinity and I don't like it easier, but my primary concern was not calling it anything that had the word Trinity in it. I don't know if you've looked at any of the already existing groundwater conservation districts, but everything's got the word Trinity. There's upper Trinity, and Trinity is Trinity there, so I was about to call it ABT, anything but Trinity. But that's open for discussion. That's not cast and stolen. I'm just throwing it out there for discussion purposes at this time. But the primary thing that I'm looking from court today is, as I said, approval to proceed with Senator Estus's office in creating this district with Colin County and working out the details. I will tell you that one other thing I need to tell you about. One way that groundwater conservation districts have been created in the past and Senator Estes last session did it for Parker, Wise, Montague. I think there were five counties. And after the creation of the groundwater district legislatively there was a confirmation election. Another way to handle it is instead of holding an election which we all know elections are expensive is to hold a public hearing in both commissioners court to ratify the action of creating the district legislatively and that's what we are proposing in the draft legislation which once it's completely drafted, I'll be glad to send you all a copy of it, but we're not we're not to that point yet Other questions on this issue commissioners. Yes judge I just like to thank you for your efforts and you and I've been talking about this for two years Yes, Judge, I'd just like to thank you for your efforts and you and I've been talking about this for two years This is a real issue for the residents across the county, but especially Of concern to the residents in precinct for along the Barnett shale where In order to frack a well you use so many thousands of gallons of water that they're pulling out of our aquifers. And read depositing those. Like 3.5 to 5 million gallons. Yes. The frack. The one well. And they travel down our roads with those heavy water trucks to frack them. So just through anecdotal conversations with residents out there who talk about the water table and how it's dropped down with the depth of their wells and they've had to redrill them to go deeper and deeper. Especially over the last few years, you know, this as a judge so eloquently stated this is a it's a matter of us not choosing to do it as it is going to be imposed upon us if we don't take a step to set it up in the way that we Want it to be set up and so If you read the back of material is in and look into this object at all. It's that's quite clear So again, this is somewhat of a mandate that's being imposed upon us But us taking the steps through the legislative process and Austin setting this up. We are controlling the way we want it to look and to operate versus it being imposed on us. So it's really not as much of a choice as it is in the position. I thought it was important that it not be a property tax, initiated new tax and it goes away. And that the oil and gas industry be included and Commissioner Coleman will call you in new next, but just for informational purposes. Collin County, about only 5% of their water comes from groundwater. I'm told that in Denton County it's between 12 and 15%, but that it's declining each year. Commissioner Coleman. I generally think this is a good idea. I'm glad for you working on it. I'm surprised you haven't talked to me about this. I mean, apparently you've been talking to Commissioner Eads about it but I would like for you to you know share with us what legislation you're working on on behalf of the county and I'd really like to see before I really can get on board with you know whole heartedly endorsing it. I'd like to see the legislation first. Well, it's not been written. Right. No, I understand. I mean, so we've been doing this in 07 and 08. The judge and I. There's been a lot of information and misinformation that's come from TCQ as to when the deadline to do this. like I said if we don't create it legislatively this time T.C.Q will put us in a district with whatever counties they see fit and I don't like the prospect to that. I'd like to work with you on this you know my portion of the counties almost 50% the top half so I think it's gonna be good. You got a lot of wells out there. Yes and I think it's gonna really affect the top half and So I think it's going to be a lot of wells out there. Yes, and I think it's going to really affect the top half in the communities, particularly the rural communities. So I would like to see the legislation. I'm on board with it as a concept. I think you know the devil's going to be in the details. Right. Always is in any other discussion or questions. Thank you. We have motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Eans. Hearing no further discussion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? In any motion? Does Carrie? Commissioner Coleman, anything else that I receive on this? I'll be glad to forward it to you. Thank you. Just for clarification and I believe we'll be on next week's agenda. The companion bill and it's not truly a companion bill, it's House Bill 29. The difference in the Senate bill and House bill, which is really, the Senate bill says that any county with a population over 200,000 at the J.P. required to be an attorney, the House bill, any county with a population of 1 million or more would be in there. And so if Frank had just draft that for next week and at least we could have a vote on that. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. You saying that's the so-called companion builders to 320? Yes. To 320. How about if we just added to what we've got today? It's the same issue, right? Yeah, I was just going at directions told to me. Okay, Frank, how's the best way to handle it? If you don't mind since it's not a true companion, I'd rather draw up a separate deal on it, and we have plenty of time. All right. Next week's okay. I'll have it ready for next week. Okay. We'll address it separately then. Thank you. All right. 13C is to approve the acceptance of the grant proposal for the 2009 Greater Denton Arts Council grant for $1400 for December holiday musicalities. Chair will move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner, Ms. Mitchell. Any discussion here none? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion does carry 14. I'm sorry, 13D is approval of access to the cable television connection, including connection and monthly service fees. This is serve veteran services. You had good information in your backup. Are there any questions? Or do we have a motion for approval? One quick question. Right ahead. There's already service there now because of the County clerk's office. I mean, not County clerk's. Tax successor collector in the building. My only concern would be I looked at doing this at our sideline facilities and the cable company were telling me in excess of $300 to $1,000 just to bring the service to the building. I just want to clarify that and make sure that that won't and I didn't see it in here but only place in another cable box, isn't it? cost of this is $75 with a monthly recurring cost. I'm assuming we have a $28. This request is for the 2010 budget process. It would be my recommendation this whole process just like every other request. Although we put it in the budget process, I agree. Bishop Cohen. Wish we could have had Mayor Burrow stick around because I'm aware to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to Pretty sure. I mean, we did it for the Sheriff's Department. Is that with the... Yeah, that's true. Because the Dintin or... I think the... The agreement with Dintin or with any... I think it's their agreement between the City of Dintin and their charter agreement with their cable provider. Says that they shall provide government building for free. Now, I think all that means is they bring it up to us and then we have to do the cabling all that. But my point is it really shouldn't be a monthly recurring fee. I'm just going to email from Kevin Carly says we have an existing contract with Charter. It is just for the cable box and additional outlet. The amount on their request is accurate. There you go. Having strikes again. I guess the 28 bucks is for the cable box. The cable box and additional outlet and just for the record, let me tell you that the actual television said has been donated. Right. I don't physically have it yet, but it's being donated. The cable box and an additional outlet. At least we can do for our veterans. The only thing that's going to happen is the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the left of your current $20. That's the thing. Yeah, it is. You get basic free. And then if you need a box or something like that, they charge you for it. Kevin sent another email. He said, we used to get free cable television service. However, that was with an old franchise agreement. We no longer are able to get free service. Kevin strikes again. Okay we have a motion and a no we don't have a motion. Chair remove for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Coleman other questions or comments. Commissioner Marchin. My motion is to wait for the budget process. What is your name? My motion is to enter into the agreement now, but I can tell you that the television is coming. They don't even have it yet, so the charges are not going to start for a little while. Donna? Kevin's memo indicates that this would be effective with the 2010 budget approval. So it's my understanding it wouldn't start October 1. So this proposal is that Kevin would put this in his budget request for 2010. Yeah. That's what it should be. Really for the new fiscal year. I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said. Sounds like it's for the new fiscal year. So we could just do it this summer. Oh, I see. Okay. Well, we still have a motion in the second floor, but under discussion, members would be you. We're comfortable doing this during the budget process. Or do you want to go forward and take care of it, man? I don't mind doing it before. I don't think it's a big. I want to do it at budget time, and I'm not going to be bold to do it now. Well, that goes to my question. Are the funds available now? If we said now, where would the money come from? OK. Off they don't have the TV yet anyway. And do they're in the budget? OK, let's do that. I'm going to withdraw my motion. I believe Commissioner Coleman. I would draw my second. I just got an email from Roger Cortez. Everybody's watching here this morning. Says the television is due to come to us in a few weeks. We won't have, they can play information DVDs for the first few months and then take it up during the budget process. All right, so we remove the motion in the second to approve it and we'll take this up during budget. And figure out how we're going to pay the monthly fee at that time. Okay. 14A is approved of the change order number four to the contract routine didn't kind of Texas and Jago Public Company for the lowest road east and lowest road roadway improvement project. In the additional amount of $15,771.78 to come from Better Safer Roads program, auditor number 7673669020, which increases the current total amount of the contract to one million five hundred forty seven thousand one hundred forty nine dollars and thirteen cents. This isn't commissioner precinct one. Commissioner would you like to move for a project? Not one of my projects, but I'll go ahead and move for approval. All right. It was Miss White's project. Your name? Oh, your agenda. Well, you know, I wish I had a file on it to review it, but I don't. So I really don't feel comfortable. But do you want to table this until it follows? I don't. Yeah, we can. Nope. We don't want a table. I didn't think so. Let's hear from Bennett. Thank you, Judge Commissioners. This project has been ongoing for a couple of years. This is one that the county is entered into agreement with the Walmart distribution. The county was financially responsible for the first million and anything over that Walmart is responsible for. This is finishing up the project as far as the change orders and actually Walmart's been been over backwards to pay their portion rather quickly so we're not having to float too much money so hopefully we will keep this project moving forward so we can need to get it done get it done get it over with because it's not even ours anymore it's been the area, the roads, the land, we're just finishing up some stuff. I'm moved for approval. Thank you. I'm sorry. We already have a motion in a second. Here in no further discussion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The name? Motion does carry. 14V is approval of the 2009 lease agreement between Denton County Farmers Market Association. It didn't kind of text us to park in that space located corner of the Sycamore Street in Carole Boulevard and the city of Denton is recommended by the Denton County Extension Court of College Turalist Department. The chair will move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Margin, on favor, please say aye. Aye, Opposed,. Aye opposed to name. Motion does carry. 14C is approval of the Master Service Agreement for professional services described as geotechnical engineering and construction material testing between Klo Harbor and associates, LLP and Denton County, Texas. Recommendabye the Director of Public Works Engineering Department. Do you have a motion of questions? Approval. Motion by Commissioner Eanes. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Other questions? Very none all in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion does carry. 14D is approval of amendment number four to the agreement between North Texas Alliance doing business as employer services and the county of Denton for third party administration services is recommended by the director of human resources. And we're going to take up 14 E at the same time and then I'm going to call on Kim for some clarification here. 14 E is approval of amendments number five in attachment G to the agreement between North Texas Health here network incorporated now health smart preferred care to a limited partnership and the county of Dennis recommended by the Den County Human Resources Department. And for a little clarification we're going to call and give us. Good morning. I wanted to let the court know and actually you were made aware yesterday by email that the backup material for 14D was actually old material for the amendment to number three on that agreement. I did prepare a document for item four and that has been submitted to you. The posting is correct. The amendment number four that is in your packet is correct. We're's going to substitute the backup material which gives the history. And on 14E in the second paragraph under background, that first sentence there says amendment number four when it's giving the history of all of these amendments. But actually in that paragraph it should say amendment number five. Again, the posting is correct, the agreement is correct, the rest of the backup material is correct, but that one error is there. And as I told Jennifer Stout who jumped their hoops to put these on after we had less than two hours to get it done on the PEC deadline when they got it to us. No good deed goes unpunished and next time we'll just have to be a week later than when they want it back so that we don't have this kind of stuff happening. But I appreciate her efforts on behalf of everybody here through the PEC. Thank you. Commissioner Mitchell, did you have a question? That's 66 cents. Was that included in the budget? Yes, Commissioner. Any increases that you see at this time of year were discussed last summer and approved in the budget. This amendment is just making the names of the claims administrator and the network both to health smart. Are there any other questions or comments? Okay, we need a motion. Just for clarification, this is for both 14D and 14E. Correct. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Marchin. Chair, we'll second the motion or other questions. Very none. On favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion does carry unanimously. 14F is a approval of amendment number five to the administrative services agreement between MHN Services and Denkani. This is group number 4542. This amendment reflects the rights that were approved last night. the amendment reflects the rights that were approved last right motion by commission march and seconded by commission or eans are the questions your none on favor please say aye I oppose the name motion is carried 14g is approval of the ambulance service agreement between Dint and Cundee Texas and the City of Crumb and its volunteer fire department is recommended by the director emergency services. Approval. Motion by Commissioner Ead seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Cine. Motion does carry 14 H is approval of fire protection service agreement between Dint and Cundee Texas in the city of Crumb and its volunteer fire department is recommended by the director emergency services. Motion by Commissioner Eane, seconded by Commissioner Marchin. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Motion does carry. 14i is approval of the 2008-2009 social service agreement between Denton County and the interfaith ministries of Denton Incorporated is recommended by the director of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the approval of the interlocal cooperation agreement between Denton County, Texas and the town of Copper Canyon, Texas for the Orkid. Hill Road and Chin Chapel Road improvements project located entirely within the town of Copper Canyon, Texas and Denton County Commissioner, pressing four. Approval motion by commissioner E seconded by commissioner Mitchell other questions. Very none on favorably say aye aye opposed Cinean motion does carry okay we've concluded all of our business today I just want to remind the cap on proven committee let's meet back here at 130 in the 1896 room I will not be in court next week I'm going to a NASCO event. Okay. All right we'll have a good trip. Be safe. We'll see you after that. We're adjourned. Have a great day. Thank you.