Thank you. The Court for Tuesday, January 13, 2009 is now in session. This morning, an invocation will be given by Dr. Bing Burton, the Director of the Denton County Health Department. And our pledges will be led by Bennett Howell, the County Engineer. Will you please stand? Would you pray with me, please? Lord, we thank You for this day, a day that You have made. We pray You're blessing upon this commissioners' corps, and all who appear before it today, hope that all would be pleasing in Your sight. We ask You're blessing upon this nation, upon all who serve it, both at home and abroad. Lord, we ask a special blessing upon those families and soldiers touched by the helicopter crash today and the M yesterday. Give them a special sense of your presence. Be with us, Lord, for we pray in Jesus' name, amen. I'm going to take this slide. I'm going to take this slide. I'm going to take this slide. I'm going to take this slide. I'm going to take this slide. I'm going to take this slide. I'm going to take this slide. I'm going to take this slide. I'm going to take this slide. I'm going to take this slide. I'm going to take this slide. I'm going to take this slide. The seats are on the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the table. On the agenda. If there's any member of the public that would like to address commissioners court, we ask that you please complete a public comment form available from the aid to the court. And we'd be glad to hear from you. I wanna extend a special greeting to our guest this morning. We have leadership, Louisville, and leadership fly around here with us this morning. We're very glad to see you and you're welcome anytime. We have a couple of public hearings that are posted but I know that our leadership groups are going from the courtroom downstairs to be with Georgia and learn all about what's going on in the Dayton County Museum and the Historical Group. So I want to take up on the Georgia item, Georgia's items first. We're going to go to item 14F. 14F is approval of publishing agreement between Denton County and Arcadia publishing and corporate for the publication images of America Denton. Georgia wanted to be here to make sure if you have a court member saying any questions I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. I'm going to ask motion is carried. See, Georgia, that was easy. Okay, first we're going to go to agenda item 4A, which is a public hearing. 4A is approval of receipt and consideration of bids for the lease of real property owned by Denton County, Texas for mineral development with the two tracks of real property described as follows. A, all that certain tract or parcel of land containing 4.09 acres more or less situated in the S ventures survey abstract number 1309. In the city of Louisville, Denton County, Texas, being more particularly described as Lot 3 block A of the replat of Louisville Valley commercial addition. In addition to the city of Louisville, Denton County, Texas, according to the replat there of recorded in volume 3421 page 880 of the flat records of Denton County, Texas and B, all that certain track or parcel of land containing four acres more or less situated in the S Ventures survey. Abstract number 1309 of Denton County, Texas being more particularly described as lot one block A, of Denton County, Texas being more particularly described as lot one block a the Denton County annexed edition and addition to To the City of Los Al Denton County, Texas according to the plant thereof recorded in cabinet seven page three seventy of the plant records of Denton County, Texas both properties are located on Valley Parkway In the City of Los Al Texas and Denton County. This is Commissioner precinct three. We need a motion to go into our public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Marchant, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye, opposed, Sainine. Motion does carry. We'll call on Beth Lennon. Good morning, judging commissioners. I did hand out this morning the one bid that we did receive on this project yesterday afternoon. We received the bid from Williams Production, Gulf Coast Company, and the agent is Thomas Development. This is for subsurface exploration on eight acres that the county owns in Lewisville. The bid does have 25% royalty for a term of three years, the primary term, and $2,500 per acre bonus, which comes out to $20,235. At this time, we're asking that we go ahead and hold the public hearing, but because there is a lengthy detailed contract that would need to be signed, if the county decided to award this, we would ask for additional time for our attorney to review that document before we make any recommendations. I have a question of legal if we're going to take time to review all that do we have to post another public hearing in order to take action. Edge we will not have to post another public hearing. The court After looking at the contract, we may ask to address the court in closed meeting to discuss the contract when to go shade it and then the court could take formal action. Thank you. Did you have anything else, Beth? If anyone is interested, would like to address Commissioner's Court on this issue, either in a favor of or opposed to? Is there anyone in attendance who would like address commissioners court on this issue? Very none do we have a motion to close of public hearing? Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner Marchion. On favor please say aye. Aye opposed say aye. Motion does carry. Okay we will hold it to take action until after it's been reviewed. The second public hearing is 14B. 14B is a public hearing to discuss the proposed adoption of the Denton County Commission's Court to revise the existing order for onsite sewage facilities as promulgated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, TCEQ, said order to update and replace the existing Denton County on site sewage facility order We need first to have a motion to go under public hearing Motion by Commissioner Mitchell second and by commissioner Eans. All in favor please say aye I'm posting in motion does carry dr. Burton did you want to start us with your input on this issue? Dr. Burton, did you want to start us with your input on this issue? Good morning. Good morning. Okay. The existing order has been in place since 1998. We have a minimum lot size of one acre when the lot is on public water or two acres, if there's a well. The intent of that order was to regulate growth, provide assurances for disease control and protect public health. Since that time, we've put in about 5,000 septic systems, about 500 a year. Occasionally, there are system failures. We really have had no associated these outbreaks. The Texas minimum, and that's been in place for a number of years, is one half acre on public water and one acre with a well, and that's pretty much what's proposed for the changes for today. We spoke with TCEQ, they advised us when this half acre minimum went into place, average house size was about 1500 square feet. And so I just put on the other side the contrast in County with one acre with public water and two acres with the well. Certainly you take into consideration population density and you take into consideration soil types. If it's sandy soil the space available matters less because it's going to be very absorbent. If it's clay type soil then there's not going to be as good an absorption and so that would be a complicating factor. Public health concerns relating to smaller lot sizes if the lot is half as large there would certainly be increased population density and that would diminish margin for error. We don't have a great many septic system failures it is a very small percentage that fails, but some always fail and over time an increasing number as they get older, an increasing number would fail. And so the concern for public health is that smaller lot sizes would expand potential for spread of disease. Some things that we might take into consideration, some things that the court might consider doing is putting some restrictions if you move to half-acre lot size you might consider, pools on those lots or no outbuildings might consider those issues or the court might consider we could do half acre lot but maybe not in type 4 soils which are the least absorbent and and didn't county has a fair amount of that clay type soil. It is a delicate balance when you consider the benefits of perhaps expanded development versus the risks of possibly diminished public health. I will tell you, Tarrant County had gone to half acre lot sizes. Tarrant County has since gone back to one acre minimums. It wasn't so much public health. I mean, they didn't have outbreaks of diseases. What they discovered is what they just got an awful lot of complaints because that smaller lot size didn't handle the surface discharge as well. So those are the issues for your consideration. Mr. Mitchell. Dr. Burden. What about the states requirements? Do they have those restrictions as to the smaller lives of those? The state does not have those restrictions that I suggested. Now keep in mind it's a big state and half of the state is mostly sandy and mostly very small populations. So the state does not have those restrictions. I know restrictions, okay. Commissioner. In being, you may not know this, but the houses that are being built now, what you believe would be the average square foot of a house that's placed on a one acre lot. I mean, I county, in counties building large homes these days, particularly in the, it's not, let us apply these trees. Yeah, in the, in the areas that we're talking about here that are outside of city limits. Tom, would you say 3500 square feet is typical size home? 3500 perhaps. 500. Large homes with swimming pool and a three-car garage and a couple of outbuildings. And if you try and put all that on a half acre, it doesn't leave a lot of room for the septic system to do a good job. Well, I mean, what's the, what's the reasonableness, I guess what I'm trying to get to, what's the reasonableness, if that's a word, of going to a half acre and placing restrictions on it as a maximum square footage, and are we deemed that undevelopable? In other words, if we say 2000 square foot, you put a 2000 and make it to where they can't afford to put 2000 square foot on a half acre. And I do that, why don't we just stay where we're at? I guess that's a... That would be my recommendation, but I understand that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea, I think it would be a good thing to consider putting some restrictions on there, rather than just saying half acre and you put whatever you can fit onto it. I'd be interested to know what the average, I mean you say 3,500 square foot on an acre lot, would that be a minimum or just an average amount? An average, okay. Sir, there might be developers that would represent a different perspective. Dr. Burton, would it not be an accurate statement to say that what somebody can do on their lot is based on the OSSF report. And that report is going to determine this soil type and taking the consideration the footprint of what they're planning to construct and whether or not there plans to be a swimming pool and all this sort of stuff. And if the soil type and the sort of business can't accommodate a swimming pool in all this, then the plant wouldn't be approved. Would that not be an accurate statement? Well, it's conceivable that everything physically could fit into a half acre lot. So I mean, it's conceivable. You could have a half acre lot and you could fit a 3500 square foot house and a swimming pool and an out building. You could physically fit it all in and still have the required setbacks and the required space for a row of systems. It's so accommodated. Yes. But that doesn't assure us that it would function well over the next 20 years. And that's my concern is that, and it wouldn't be my concern if we were going to create 10 half acre lots, but if we create 10,000 of them, then I think we have created a situation that might be of concern. Are there other questions from members of the Court for Dr. Burton? Yes. Bennett, did you have something you wanted to add? I do. I have a court for Dr. Burton? Yes. Bennett, did you have something you wanted to add? I do. I have a question for Dr. Burton. Thank you. Dr. Burton, we have a question for you. Regardless of the expanded density of population, have you consulted with the Sheriff's Department or the Fire Marshall as regards to any of the, you know, demand for services that these higher densities would require? I have not. I think that might be a good consideration. I mean, we go to a, you know, twice as dense. We're gonna put that much more stress on county resources. It'd be an important consideration. I'll come back to that issue a minute, but Bennett, if you know something, you'd like to add at this point. Thank you Judge. Commissioner, so in regards to your question on whether or not the OSS report would. Is safe. We're so to speak. It will when they're building it. But sometimes the people put the swimming pools in after the fact they put the out buildings in after the fact. And homeowners usually won't consult the OSF reports even if they even know what they are. So we have to look at that type of development to development after the fact, after the property is platted and that kind of thing. So it's just something to think about. Commissioner Coleman thinking about your concern about police and fire protection. The county has contracts with jurisdictions all over the county for fire protection in the unincorporated areas and those contracts are already in place. As far as police protection, it is currently the responsibility of the Sheriff's Department to patrol these unincorporated areas. If they become developed to some point that it requires more patrols or whatever the right terminology would be. I'm thinking is with the development of the homes out there you'd have the tax base to support hiring the necessary deputies to do the additional patrolling. I just wanted to point that out. We have a couple public comment forms here and in consideration of their time I'd like to call them up to talk at this time. You might want to leave it there. We might want to refer to it later. First of all, Mr. Everett, Newland is here. Thank you. We appreciate your being here and giving up your morning to help us with this issue. You bet. Thank y'all for hearing us this morning and considering the item of lowering the minimum lot size. I'll be brief I know I have three minutes. I'd like to address them. Well, yeah, actually you're not limited to three minutes and you after you speak you may be questioned by people up here. Oh, I'll just get comfortable there. So that's good. That's good. First of all, I'd like to thank Dr. Burton for his comments. I think they were well stated. I would just like to identify some specifics. One of his slides said the intent of this was to regulate growth. And there were a couple other things that were said, the real intent when, and Don Hill was our count, one of our county commissioners at the time, he was real pivotable in changing this to one acre. And we had a problem and it was mobile home developments. We're running rampant through our county. Our office, Vanderloin, New England, real estate, we had that called daily. But that is no longer an issue. We have not had a call for mobile home development since probably about 2000. Our land values have escalated as such to where it's not feasible for someone to develop for mobile homes, which had some defamation effects on our school and our tax base. Secondly, Tarrant County did go back to one acres, but Collin County is still half-acre and it's working well there and specifically in our county the city of Kruegerville does not have city sewer and so all of their lots are half acre lots and the best development that the city of Courgiville has is the development called the Woodlands. It's their highest priced homes and they're all on half acres. I have personal friends who live there and they've had it and they've had no issue. As far as the item on patrolling the septic systems, if a septic system goes bad you don't have to have it patrolled the neighbors will will let you know if one of those things are going bad. And I don't think that initially if you look at it's not doubled a lot by the time if you have a hundred acres and you lower the requirement to half acre lots our road widths are still the same. We still have flood plain, we still have gas wells to consider. So the density may increase 30 or 40 percent, but it's not gonna be a 100 percent increase or a double in the increase of lots. Speaking on flood plain and gas wells, another reason why I think we should lower this is it increases our land use efficiency. Didn't count as a big county. 33 miles north south, 33 miles east west. But if you draw a line, say highway 380 in south, 70 or 80 percent of that land is already developed. It's encumbered by Lake Lewisville. If you go north of there, we have Lake Ray Roberts. We have floodplain from duck creek, Oliver Creek, Clear Creek, Hickory Creek, a lot of floodplain. We have a lot of gas wells, especially in the Commissioner Eads precinct. So the tracks of land we have left that are suited in Ditton County for development, long term thinking, be very efficient and well planned and thought out policies. And I think making a half acre lot, you're going to leave a better tax base for future generations. And I think it's a lot better policy. If you have any questions for me, that's what I have. All right, members, do you have any questions? Commissioner Margin? Yes, sir. Could you respond to the same questions I ask Mr. Burton about if we put some stipulations on it, if we go to a half acre, we put stipulations on that lot size on the footprint of the house, what the square footage might be, if we require that only in certain soil types that you're able to do half acre lots, could you not necessarily economically, but could you address those concerns? Or if that's a concern to you, if the county went to half-acre and they started putting those stipulations on that half-acre line? I do think they would need some regulation. I'm an environmental science major from Texas A&M. So doing this environmentally right is about most importance to me. Judge Horne talked about the OSSF reports. So doing this environmentally right is of utmost importance to me. Judge Horne talked about the OSSF reports. What was proposed in our subdivision regulation review committee was that 20% of the lots of any subdivision had to do soil samples to make sure that their permeability is suitable for half acres or half acre lots. As far as the building, the Bennett talk about who will build swimming pools, you know, the other stipulations, the outbuildings, what I would love to see is that a plating requirement be made for half acre lots that only give a building envelope that they can only build so much in so you've left plenty of space on that lot for infiltration from the affluent that comes from septic systems. You're limiting the total square footage. If you've got a half acre lot, roughly 21,000 square feet, you do a 10,000 square foot for rough math of 10,000 square foot building envelope that they have to build within. If they want a 5,000 square foot house or if they want a 1,000 square foot house and a 4,000 square foot swimming pool, whatever they want to do in that envelope, property on is right right let them do it But then you're also leaving 10,000 feet for a fluent absorption into the soil So I guess I'd address it with the plating requirement is my answer Any other questions Thank you very much. Thank you. Do anything else? Okay? We have another public comment formed from Brad Andrews. I'm Bigger Pardon. Brad Andrews. Good morning and thank you for being here. Appreciate your input. I appreciate the time and sorry, I've got a little sort of throat here. Also, I want to thank you for addressing this issue and something that I've met with some of the commissioners before over the last year or two. And I guess my comments would be first directed at the size of the homes. I think often the size of the home is is a function of the price of the lot. I guess it's a little background on the self of Ben and banking and real estate development as well as construction of new homes. And when you go in and you have a two acre lot or a one acre lot and the price is you know 45,000 or 50,000 or something you know that kind of starts to drive the size of the home that you've got to put on there in order to for a builder to maintain its profit margin. When you start reducing the size of the lots the builder is able to bring the size of the home down and allow more people to afford to live in the county. There's a lot of people that enjoy living in the county and being in a little more of a rural setting but can't afford to do so. I would argue that 3500 square feet is an average. I don't believe that that's an average home size out in the county. There are certainly homes of that size. The development that I've worked in is one acre and we said a and several of these one acre subdivisions that have water have an 1800 square foot minimum and I would argue that most of those homes started about about there maybe about 2,000 square feet and are kind of between that 2,000 and 2,800 square foot range. And those have been very popular. As the judge pointed out, the reduction in the lot sizes would translate to more homes on these lots and an increased tax base that could provide for some of the services that need to be considered. I guess the, as Everett mentioned, I'm a big proponent that in quality developments in our county and I can foresee that by allowing these reduction these lot sizes Without I don't want to I don't want to tell soft story for developers But our land prices in the county have escalated to point that it is hard for a developer to be able to take To pay what they have to pay for the land and take the current restrictions and make it a profitable venture and be able to put in the type of infrastructure and quality development, you know, landscaping and other, you know, amenities that will make it a quality development when they're up against it already when they get into the land. By allowing them to have a little bit smaller lots, I believe the quality of our developments in the county will be improved significantly. And I guess lastly, I would say on the, that I would also agree that with the OSSF reports, can, will allow the county to still maintain control of what's happening, what's being built on these smaller logs. I would like to ask if we were to, first of all, should be stated here that I'm going to put this on the agenda. And what I'm advocating is that we, by reducing these size logs, what I'm advocating is that we, by reducing these size lots, what I'm advocating is that we go to state standards at the present time. Our lot size is higher than that. This is really for either average, new and or bred and should we go to the state standard? What would be your recommendation on specifically on the restrictions as Commissioner Marche was suggesting? Which ones do you think would give the most protection and still accommodate developers needs. I would recommend the 20% lot coverage for the OSSF reports that if you've got 100 lots, 20 lots, equal distance from each other sampled so you get a true cross section of what soil type you have to get infiltration rates and permeability. So 20% on OSSF. I would also ask that there is a um, plating condition for that building envelope that allows for the field for the affluent from the septic systems to infiltrate properly. So you don't have people that do this half-acre lot and so you did it in South Lake, worst-case scenario here, you did it in South Lake, somebody builds a 10,000 square foot house and 18 car garage, swimming pools, you know restricted to a building envelope where you also have a leech field I think is the term for the septic system. So building envelope and OSSF reports would be what I think is logical and not just from a developer standpoint, from the county standpoint, from an environmental standpoint. Okay, thank you. Did you just add something? I may just add to that, I mean, I think that Mr. Burton's suggestion of a maximum square footage requirement on the homes is a decent idea. The only issue we run into there is, I mean, we're talking about half acre lots here if there's public water. Doesn't mean that they won't do three quarters of an acre lot or it may be, you know, I mean there's a lot of room between half acre and an acre that depending on the development, the layout of the land that these may range between a half acre and three quarters of an acre even up to just under an acre, would still be allowed. And putting a maximum square footage for anything under an acre might be overly restrictive. I think a grin like Everett says if the building envelope is done at the plating stage, all of that can kind of be addressed at that stage, depending on all the lot sizes. Okay, thank you very much. Just out of curiosity, I, okay, my staff do a little checking and we didn't hear from everybody that I wanted to hear from, but just second. Class needs to leave. Okay. We're going to take a two minute break, so allow the class to leave. I don't want to get you off schedule. Thank you for being with us this morning. We appreciate it. I'm back anytime. At the end of your day, if you have questions, feel free to call or email. We'd be glad to answer them. How many of these tracks were created last year outside of freshwater supply districts? And it was 151. In talking to developers over whatever period of time, It was conveyed to me that they kind of felt like there was a building boom that went on in Denton County because of our restrictive regulations to a certain degree missed it. And it was interesting to note that in Grayson County outside of First Water Supply District, they had 392 of these tracks created. Terrent County had only 92, but you have to remember Terrent County doesn't have very much unincorporated land. Try to get information from Wies and Collins too, but they haven't responded unfortunately. Bennett, I'd like to hear from you. And then Jody Gonzalez has some input too. Thank you, Judge. On the issue of the 20% of the OSF reports on a subdivision, I respectfully disagree with that simply because the soil types change so drastically in this county, we have 600 types of soils in across this county. And if we're only collecting soil samples at 20% in a subdivision, they may miss the different types of soils. And so I would rather see the soil task collected on each lot instead of just 20%. Don't they do that before the plan is finally approved? Not if you say only 20% has. That would be a minimum. I understand, but if the county sets the standards of only 20% of the lots has to be tested, that's all the developer is going to do. But what do we currently do? 100% party in place. But as the houses are being built, the permit application on the report is submitted for each individual lot lot is it not? If you tell them 20% only 20% have to be tested, then they're going to use those test results from different lots to fill out the report. I want to OSSF report for each one. But that in that, but the minimum standards that the state sets as far as half acres they don't require OSSF Am I saying that right? Testing on any lots though that would be a requirement that we would have in addition to what their their minimum requirements are. The OSSF report basically tells the developer county what can be put on that lot as far as types of septic systems, the soil types, that kind of thing. Because not all of the treatment systems will work on every soil time. So the report basically dictates which treatment system can be used on each lot. Okay, Jody Gonzalez. Okay, our Marshal has some input on this. Since he gets called out for code enforcement. Thank you, Judge. And morning commissioners, one of the things I wanted to add to Dr. Burton's comments and they were in the report. Well said, and, Mr. Cohen, Dr. Burton, I did speak, but it was back in November, I think we discussed a lot of these issues. One of the major concerns that I have with is in the well and not necessarily in the sector, excited to side of the discussion. My concern is increasing the density by using water to do it with. By right now we have a two-acre minimum on a well site. So right now we have a community that's being built. If you have two-acre lots then there's not going to be public water put into that community therefore there are not going to be hydrants in that community. Right now, we're taking a two, we're looking at taking a two-acre lot and reducing the minimum to a half-acre lot. Now there's no requirement to put in public water because they're being able to issue wells in a half-acre lot. So you increase the density without the hydrants being placed in there. One of the comments I want to make sure the court takes that into consideration because that may be some restriction that we want to place if possible, if we can even do that, or if the court can do that, is how do we require hydrants to publish a law to put into the infrastructure of this community by not putting at risk fire and safety of citizens in that community. Secondly, the onset or a side note to not having hydrants in a community that has high density of half-acre lots increases insurance costs. ISO ratings go up. So now you've got a community of 100 lots of half-acre lot size. No hydrants, insurance rates increase. So that's some concerns that I wanted to make sure that the court will wear when they're making decisions on that. Call volume in the high density neighborhoods are not, you know, they're going to be there. You know, if they put water and sewage in there, we're still going to be more dense than half-figure. So the population density is not that great. My concern is having those hydrants in there to be able to adequately protect the citizens in those communities. Do you have a question for you? In regards to those fire contracts, how are they compensated in and based on population? The EMS is based on population. The fire contracts are based on per call. Yes. You get a higher density which you think there'd be more calls. There would be more calls both EMS and Fire, more EMS on new construction and anything. We see new construction. There's a lot less fire calls in new construction areas because of building standards and increase in building codes and fire codes in those residential areas. But EMS and Fire, there's going to be both accidents. Everything that could occur there would increase the call volume. Yes. I'm going to ask you this as a fire management person isn't it better to have that stuff in place before you do the development rather than chasing it? As a rule of thumb depending on the size of the development if we're looking at something that's you know the size of our freshwater supply that's just shown north of 38080, yes, that may absolutely. Absolutely. If we're talking about a 40 lot subdivision that we would need to look at that prior to the plating and all that to determine what the location is, distances, insurance type, ISO ratings, and all that. So we would need to make sure that the fire infrastructure is in place to handle the community before it's in place. I knew you had a good job, but traditionally we print pretty much chasing stuff. We never really have it front, do we? Okay. All right, thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Jody. Judge, pardon me a minute. And Dr. Burton, I may need your help on this. My reading of the state standards, when you move from septic system discussion to well lots, is that you can only go to a one acre minimum. We have a two acre minimum now. I don't think you can go to a half acre on a well lot. You can't go to one half acre with a well. I don't think that's, I don't think that's one option. One is not an option. Proposal is half acre without a well and one acre with a well. For it. We're going from, or what's, Judi's brought up this topic of well, that there is a reduction that could go to state standard, but it would be one acre. So we would go from two that we have now to one. On the, on the septic, we have one, and we would be talking about going to one half. I bring that B if you're on Bollover water or something like that. But I'm sorry, I'm sorry. If you're on Bollover water or some public water supply or even a private water supply, then you go to a half acre in that correct zone. So you're thinking the wells also have the half acre requirement? I think if you would go to a public water system then you'd have a half acre. Public water system. Yes sir. That's different. But I mean I have a place that has that ball of water and they do a good job but sometimes the pressure is iffy. Okay our two guests Everton and I'm sorry Brad Andrews after hearing the other people speak did you have anything else that you wanted to insert here? I thought I thought he had that look on his face. Go ahead. Again I want to say that I appreciate everybody's comments because well of the same goal do what's best for Denton County, which may have different opinions on on on how we do that and on the back to the OSSF reports. I've planted several subdivision. I've never been asked to provide a OSSF report. So right now I think we're doing zero those at the plating process and I'd like to move them as Commissioner Colburn say instead of instead of chasing this stuff doing it on the front end for those OSFsF reports. We do have many soil types but those bands usually don't change over a 200 foot increment but if it's important to the Canada have 100% done prior to plating, I don't think it would be a huge objection to that but I think it's unnecessary. What's the cost for that? How much would that be? What the OSSF report? Yeah. Cost. one one fifteen is kind of the yes sir are you saying the OSSF report is not required as part of the planning process now I thought it was part of the building process and if it is part of the planning process and we've missed it a few times because I've never been asked to provide it's not part one. It's not part of the planning process. There's a reduced sample before hand. Maybe that's where I got the 20%. But that's the 20% of the land for the planning process, but part of the construction. You have 100% OSSF report for each track. To get their septic permit. And for each life. That's when they apply get their septic permit. For each life. That's when they apply for their septic permit. Okay. Gotcha. Pre-development, the soil samples that you do are more for your drainage issues, determining how big the detention bonds need to be, how your drainage is going to be. How much water? So well. That makes more sense. Okay, you have questions? So currently, is your understanding if you go into the plant, you're not even required to have that 20%? Is that correct? Correct. We rely in the county on each specific lot when they come in for a building permit to put in a septic system. We require at that time that report for the soil. That's primarily the only permit that's required to build a home in the county. That's basically, and many can answer it. And if you're understanding understanding the reason for that report at that point is what type of service is not to keep them from putting one in based upon the soil. Currently is that correct? That is correct. During the plating process, no SSF reports are required. We don't deal with the only building requirements set on the platt or the building setbacks. They win the developer or the homeowner whoever is going to build the home then they apply for the building development permit is when the OSSF reports are required. That's when they would also get the septic permit. And again, that is just to clarify to the homeowner or the builder what type of septic system to put in there, not to keep them from putting one in or in other words there was a proposed requirement by being that you would make them that we wouldn't allow on a half acre a soil type of like type 5. The type of soil, the clay soils. But now if they came in and they did have clay soil you could not pre prohibit them from putting in a septic system It would be basically same what type of system that would be put in correct correct The OSSF report is designed to Tell the builder the homeowner and the regulatory agency to tell the builder, the homeowner, and the regulatory agency if the correct system is being installed on that piece property. Based on the conditions of that property. Based on the conditions of that property. Based on the conditions of that property. Based on the conditions of that property. Based on the conditions of that property. Based on the conditions of that property. Based on the conditions of that property. Based on the conditions of that property. Based on the conditions of that property. Based on the size of the house is this and by the time you get to the end of it it will give you the answer you need. The difference would be to me the difference would be this if we put a requirement on it that each lot have a soil prior to our during the plating process that expense would be towards the developer would have to pick up that expense. And of course, then it would be reflected later as the lot price. I'm sure of that. If you had your preference, would you want it on the front end during a plating process or would you want it for each individual lot? And the reason I'm saying that, if there was a restriction there, you would tell, in the plating process, you would tell that developer, you cannot put a septic system on this lot or this lot or this lot because of the soil samples. I mean, that'd be the only reason I would think that you would require that at the very beginning. From the county's point of view, theoretically it shouldn't matter when they do the OSS reports, but unfortunately, you know, sometimes they plot the properties and then they may not build on it for years. And so from, I think from the county's point of view, it doesn't really matter when we get the reports in. I'd rather get the reports in closer to the time they're actually going to use, actually going to do the building, so that there's not a question of, soil types, the builder bringing in fill or something after the fact, or a different builder coming in and bringing in Phil and changing the topography of the site, that kind of be better for the OSS effort port to be submitted when they're actually going to build. I'm trying to get a handle on if we place a restriction on it that no house can be built on a half acre lot with a certain soil type. If you do that then you're going to have to know during the plating process what that soil type is. Sure. In order for them to go back and say, okay we can't do that. We're going to have to make this a half, I mean a one acre lot rather than a half acre. Right. It's got the developer will have to do a little bit more homework up front. And I have a question for you. If somebody wanted, you know, we have a lot of floodplain in our county. And somebody wanted to develop a housing addition in a floodplain. And they wanted to build up the property here or, you know, by the floodplain, build up the home sites and stuff like that. How would that affect? How would that situation be affected by going to half-faker lots? That seems to me, just to lay opinion, that'd be kind of a recipe for disaster. Well, the first thing they would have to do to develop in the floodplain, they would have to meet our floodplain requirements. They may have to get a letter of map revision through FEMA to move the floodplain. They could bring in fill. There's a whole lot of steps they would have to do first before they would even decide if they could which septic system they could use. So there was a lot of front end. That's a requirement of the county. That's part of our fighting process. That's part of the state. Yeah. Ema. Not easily done. Not easily done and inexpensive. So highly and likely because of that I would think. Yeah, just let's say a commissioner Marchin and then we'll let you just have. Has this been run by any of these the impact of doing this or any conditions or any by any committee or anything? Is this the basic discussion that we've had other than between department heads. Has this been discussed with your subdivision review? The subdivision review committee started reviewing it but it is not in the subdivision rules so therefore the committee couldn't address it. Okay everyone you asked to speak to them Brad if you have something like to add? Yes ma'am on both the comments made I think you're 100% on the right track that the OSSF report should be done during plating. If you wait until building time say you plight a subdivision you develop it you have a half acre lot you've sold the loss and built homes on each side of it and you come in and say you can't build on this lot. What you did, that lot's gonna sit there forever. So instead of having train wrecks down, let's do it beforehand. We're at front, yes ma'am. And as far as the floodplain goes, I hope that it's all understanding that the half acre would have to be net of easement, net of floodplain, net of roadway. It is truly a net, net, net field in which to absorb all the affluent and the impervious surfaces from driveways and buildings so it would be net net net. Thank you. Brand. Again I believe that Commissioner Marchance on the right track and while we would require more a little more time and money from the developer up front on the right track. And while it would require a little more time and money from the developer up front, I fully support that and getting those reports done. Done in advance, the builder knows going into it. The homeowner knows going into it. It's on the plat, the building envelope. What size basically they have to work in to build their structure. And I think it could maintain the public safety as well. Thank you. In my discussions with King Gillis this morning, we find that even though I am advocating that we go to state standards on this TCQ requirement is that we basically get our intentions blessed by TCQ before we take action. We do have communication from TCQ allowing, now make sure I say this right, to the one acre. From the one acre to the half acre? From the one acre to the half acre? From the one acre to the half acre. The way it works is generally if you're not using the standard model order from TCQ, then anything that you write differently, you have to have approval on it before you have your public hearing. That's really designed because if you're not using the model order, you're setting more stringent requirements in place. We have more stringent requirements in place that have already been blessed by the TCEQ. We're talking about removing some of them. So lots of debate back and forth between the TCEQ and us on whether we even had to go through this whole process again, because our more restrictive things have already been approved. But in the long run, in the final analysis, we're still not using the model order because we're leaving some of our other more restrictive things in place. I'm sorry, I thought that was on. And so I went ahead and worked with them to get approval. Where I missed it was, I knew we were talking about going from the acre to the half acre. I had been told that, but I didn't know we were talking about going from the two to the one. So I do not have pre-approval on that. However, let me say that if we're going to put restrictions on the half acre anyway, we'll have to go back to the TCEQ. So what I really need is to be sure that I submit the right proposal to them and then they will give us a nod or not on what we're proposing to do. And then we would go back and post actually run a newspaper ad for public hearing again and then have you all take the final vote. So do you? If you're going to put restrictions formal direction from us today that then you then present to them and then we come back into another we do another public hearing and then come back okay either that or you know the way we did this in September was we had some workshops and really y'all really defined for me exactly. Remember, we had all those issues and, you know, really defined for me what we wanted. And that's another option. But having done the public hearing today, you may have a good feel for where you want me to go, in which case we can do that right now. I just want to be sure that I submit exactly what we're proposing and get approval on it before we go back to another before we run an end of paper and go back to another public hearing. Oh, listen to go to Bing, Dr. Burton's recommendation. You still have to go back to the and that would be to put the restrictions on it. Oh, we don't have to do anything. be to put the restrictions on it. Where is? Oh, we don't have to do anything. That's all said and approved and ready to, you know, we wouldn't have to do a thing. I would just advise the TCEQ that we decided not to change our regulation. I tell you, members, what I would really feel comfortable with is I would glean as much information out of Bennett and how that process would work with his department as well. That's why I ask you if this has been reviewed by the committee for the subdivision. I understand that's not in their scope of work. I just wonder how beneficial it would be to have those people that work in it every day to give them a recommendation to us. I feel a little bit inadequate on making, I don't want to discourage growth. You know, I don't want to do that if it makes it half acre, but yet I want it to be good growth. I don't want it to be growth that we regret even five years from now and so I want to if we're going to do this I want to do it right. Then it wouldn't it wouldn't it need to go into the rules and regulations if they make these decisions I mean so should the committee would they not be looking at it anyway? If they make it would have to go on the subdivision rules if you have restrictions. If you just, if the court decides to say state minimums, you know, we use model ordinance, then it wouldn't be in the subdivision rules. I'm not prepared to do that. Now, if the subdivision review committee, remember it's made up of developers and engineers that work in the industry so They're gonna lean more towards illustrations You know and as far as like the OSF reports have them done during plating You know from the county's point of view if the developer wants to do them up front great but You know, I think that is their business decision not the county's point of view, if the developer wants to do them up front, great. But I think that is their business decision, not the county's business decision. The county just needs the report before they... I'm in debt for the part. I realize that's all the way have to do, but I'm an agreement that OSSF report needs to be done during the planning process on each lot and I would advocate that that be part of our restrictions on making this change. Members, what do you think about sending this to back to the committee and making that part of their charge to draft for our consideration the changes that we discussed here with the restrictions. I'm going to give respect to Commissioner Marchin but you know I'm having listened to all the comments I'm prepared to leave it as is. I'm leaving the. Dr. Burden's recommendation I'm prepared to leave it as is. I would certainly give reference to Commissioner Marcheft if he wants to send it to committee. It is as well. I'm for changing it. There's lots of things to consider. Jody talked about fire protection and fire hydrants. We also had all types of land use has fire requirements and needs for fire protection. We burned 300 acres in a grass fire yesterday, multiple agencies. Commissioner Coleman, you had a huge grass fire up in your precinct yesterday as well. So grass fires on rural lands are a real concern year round for the county. In the summertime, let's hot and dry and in winter, we have just many burn bands in the winter. And so all types of land use has public safety demands. And I'm the son of a fireman and have a real sensitivity to fire requests. I think that especially in the southwest part of the county, with the Barnett shell, we do have considerable open space. It's going to be with us through our lifetime and into the future because of the the well sides and the easements that are throughout there. And if you look at a pop line map for our GIS department, you'll notice the considerable easements that crisscross the county with the gas transmission line. So I think that having a variety of land uses is important to the county and to the continued growth of the county. And so I'm in favor of revising our standards to the state requirements. I don't think it's a real life safety risk. I personally don't believe it's as much as a health concern. And Dr. Burton today said that we very rarely have septic tank failures. The court did maintain the aerobic septic tank inspection process. So that's an additional safeguard we have there. No, it's not. I was hoping she would let that one do it. I didn't get that one by. I'll let that slip by. That's a discussion for another time. Oh, whatever. So this gives me, but that doesn't, that does give me personally at an additional comfort level and reduce, and increase in the densities personally. But again, I think a diversified housing product and lot size throughout the county just makes better sense as we move forward. We will be increasing tax revenue, which will help offset public safety demands. And so I think there will be increased revenues to the county as far as that goes and also benefit the school districts as well. Mr. Ease, would you be in favor of taking Commissioner March Marchions recommendation and sending this to the committee to come up with a draft recommendation to Commissioner's Court for a proposed change to our subdivision rules regulations and making this change in the lot size with restrictions that would be of course subject to Commissioner Court approval. Yeah, and the other thing I was going to say was I believe things need to be done on the front end. I agree with your spirit and notion of that. I don't want people to buy a lot. Developers come and go as we all know and I experience this especially in our precinct. And what I don't want is a buyer to buy a lot and then close on it. And yes, they should do their due diligence before closing. But people don't always do that. And we don't want them to show up in our planning office or engineering office and then realize that there's limitations on there that because other development went in around them, like Everett had mentioned. So I think that's important that we do things on the front end. Yes, we have to realize that we have all developers on that committee. I believe. Well that's why it's subject to court approval. This is a recommendation from that body. But I want to be sure that we can mix some other people in there with some other opinions also. Yes, Horn. I wanted to ask Bennett what his recommendation, whether he would send it to the committee or if he thought another committee or if it would be a committee of staff might be a better option with maybe Bennett and John Felt and some other fellas. I mean, what do you think, Bennett? Before you get too far into setting restrictions on the lots, we probably want to look at that on the staff level first to see how that could impact the staff. There may not be necessarily a need to see if it would work. Because I think once you start putting in restrictions on the lots, I think you're going to have the developers up here asking for variances all the time. I think it just be simpler just to leave it as state minimums. Make sure the OSSF reports are done per watt sampled each watt before the septic permits. That staff has not or anybody has not run that by and see what procedurally or whatever, how that would even mix with what we're currently doing. And I'm concerned about that and I would seek a recommendation. I mean, we may throw it, like you said, throw all these restrictions in here to go to that minimum and they don't work. They don't fit. We have to rewrite. We have to do everything over again. And the only reason I put out that committee is an existing committee. If you believe that a group of staff members can vet that at the very beginning, look at what placing restrictions on it would do, an impact if we go down the minimum state standards and change it, how that would impact us, the way we're currently doing business, that's fine with me. I just wanted another set of eyes to look at. Jeff, you're on it. Miss Needs? What I'd like to do, and I agree with you, Ron, I think it's a good idea to get multiple viewpoints. I'd like to have a just a work session. I'd like to have a work session. I'd like to have a work session. I don't want my information filtered from the principles. I would rather have a work session with, if we can invite the committee members if they want to come, development community, staff, and I'd like for you to put together like a visual, maybe flow chart for all of us of what the process would be on the current existing, the plating process and how that goes in requirements. And what an option would be. And then we sit here and talk to staff and legal and we just have a work session one day after court and make the decision that way. That's personally what I would prefer. That'd be a great idea. And we need to make sure that if we actually have members of the public who take time out their day to show up, then we make sure to invite Mr. Anders and Mr. Newland to show up and make sure they get their opportunity to have input. I mean, I think it needs to be a broad spectrum. I'd say committee member, staff and the development community. And I think it's important to hear from the users who are going to go through the process because they're going to be on the other side of it. It can help troubleshoot the process because they live with it. Then it's good to have both sides of the process. Okay, well, thank you very much for your time, both of you. I know you have real life jobs to be doing, but your input is very important here. We appreciate what you've done up to this point and what you're going to be doing in the future. We sincerely thank you. With that, we need a motion to close our public hearing. So moved. A second. We have a motion by Commissioner Marchant, seconded by Commissioner Coleman. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to the name. Motion to secure you. So there'll be no action formal action on this item today, and we look forward to meeting with you. Bennett, why don't you send an email? I'm assuming you've got everybody's email once. You send an email out with some proposed dates and times, then see what would be most convenient for everybody, and we'll get that schedule pretty soon. Well, I'm thinking like after court, when we take care of all other business, maybe come back, and gentlemen, would it be convenient for you to come back, say at one 30 years so, you know, in the afternoon. And we'll just have a workshop on this issue. We won't be taking formal action out of it, but it'll be to formulate what we will eventually, hopefully, be taking formal action on. I can't tell when this is on. If we do that, I mean, we're having, that's's we'd have to be posting requirements. Oh sure well posted it's just that we'll take care of all other commissioners quarters. I'll be saying today I'm sorry. I'll be a friend. I thought you were saying today. No no no no no no no no no. It affords your date. Okay. Bennett needs time to pull all that together. Okay thank you I appreciate it. All right. Members, item 2 is the consent agenda. There are items on the consent agenda that you need to pull for discussion or do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Marchant, seconded by Commissioner Coleman. On favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, Cinean. Motion does carry. Consent agenda today consists of 2A, which is approval of the ordermaking appointments. We have a new hire in the County Clerk's office, a new hire in the Sheriff's Department, and communications, a promotion in Constable precinct 6, and two rehires in Constable precinct 6. 2B is approval of the Intrared Departmental Transfers, 2C is approval of renewal for corrugated, galvanized metal pipe with contact construction products incorporated to D is approval of renewal for temporary personnel services. This is RFP 08071849 with express personnel services as the primary agency. In ProFlex, personnel is the secondary agency. 2E is approval of budget amendment request 100460 for computer equipment for tax disaster collector and the amount of $3,370. 5A is approval of bill report payments from CSCD, Community Corrections, TAI, P shares, training shares, forfeiture, VIP interest, DA check fee, and DA forfeiture funds are presented for recording purposes only. I have a question for the committee. I have a question for the committee. I have a question for the committee. I have a question for the committee. I have a question for the committee. I have a question for the committee. I have a question for the committee. I have a question for the committee. I just a transfer of seized funds, mature forfeiture fund does not involve county revenue. This is really just for recording purposes. The other additions have the general fund to the tax assessor collector to increase the change fund at the tax assessors' call in the office by $400. Current change fund is $1,200. It's not adequate for them to get through the work day without having to go to the bank for more change. By proving this one, you'd be able to court would be actually taking action to approve the change fund, which is a requirement for that. So that's all questions I have. Other questions? Yes. That increased the change fund for every location satellite as well. No, each one is different, I believe. Now this is specifically just the tax office at the Colony Building. That's the only action. They're all, they're, they're separate for every office that has different amounts for each office. Flex fees. Are there any other questions? Do we have a motion for approval? for every office that has different amounts for each office. Next, please. Are there any other questions? Do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Marchant. I'll second. Second by Commissioner Coleman. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sen. Motion carries. 70 is approval of budget amendment request 1004040. For computer software for county wide technology and the amount of $825. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell. Second by Commissioner Marching. Go on in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Motion carries. 7B is approval of Budget Amendment request 10040470 to increase revenues and allocate expenditures for part-time salaries, benefits, and various operating line items, including the creation of a new line item for grant purposes for fiscal year 2008-2009, for public health influenza surveillance grant in the amount of $38,450. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, second and by Commissioner Marchand other questions. Your none on favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion does carry. 7C is approval of Budget Amendment, quest 100480. For contract labor for vehicle maintenance in the amount of $2,144. Chair will move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Marchand, Commissioner Marchand, go ahead. Does he have any idea? Has he not had very good? This is to help with our own field position, is that correct? It's too extended. It's my understanding they had some other issues arise at the department as far as working on the gas pumps and that sort of thing that distracted them from the hiring process. We've had the holidays and you expect to fill the position within this one month period. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Here none all in favor please say aye. Aye opposed any? Motion is carried. Ninies approval of contrast over him with Terry County regarding an influenza surveillance grant. Chair move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Marchant. Questions? Hearing none on favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sen. Motion is carried. 12A is approved food service contract between Dintin County, Texas and the Aremark Correctional Services, LLC. I approve approval, but I had a question on the I just mean we have a motion for approval by Commissioner Mitchell seconded by Commissioner Marchin now Commissioner Mitchell some plays 108 5.28 The times of the meals I Wonder if that may not been a typographical era says 1030 p.m. That should be 8.m. Okay, that's what okay, I figured it should be but I wanted to make sure I didn't think it was feeding them. It it catch, Bobby? That's all I had. Okay. It could be a.m. Any other questions? Any other questions? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed sitting? Motion is carried. Okay, 13A is approval of disaster declaration and executive order as a mitigation effort to reduce the threat of file while fires due to drought conditions. Jody. Morning Judge, commissioners, sorry to be back here, but I just see that I sent you an email yesterday that conditions have drastically increased to the point where we're having multiple fires per day. Yesterday, I sent you three that we had. On top of that, we had another one at six o'clock in the Sanger Northwest portion of the county which was about 10 acres. And then again we had one last night in the Argyle area that was threatening homes and luckily we didn't have any homes lost in the Argyle area off Geter Road. But again, so five fires yesterday about 10 over the last six, seven days we've had. So our question to you guys is to that we reinstate the burn band in place until this court determines that it is not needed. Sarah Wilson, move. Seconded by Commissioner Eadson, other questions. Sorry, we have to do it, but it's for the safety of everybody and everything. All in favor the motion please say aye. Aye. Opposed to name. Motion does carry. Thank you, June. 14A is approval of Johnson County's agreement as part of the Tarant Parker Denton Johnson County Medical Examiner's district agreement is recommended by the Denton County Health Department. Yes, sir. I'm going to leave. I've got to go to you. Mr. President, I want to come in. Okay. I've got a lot of back weight for that. Let me do one quick thing before you leave. Members, if we will go to a future meetings item 17, we've not made a determination since February 10 is Dan Coney Day in Austin. Do we want to have a meeting on the 6th to handle any bill payment and this sort of stuff or do we want to meet on Wednesday or what? James, what would meet your needs the best? As far as paying bills and stuff. Actually, the Friday before is fine for us. The Monday before is fine for us. Actually, Monday we're gonna be going down. Okay, so. Austin, I'm gonna suggest that we need on the sixth that's Friday at 9 AM pay bills, as restricted agendas, we possibly can. Sometimes there's things that just really need to go forward, but we will cancel court on the 10th and have a short meeting on Friday the 6th at 9 AM. Okay. Okay. Nine yes. Thank you. I wanted to make sure you were in the loop on there okay let's go back now to 14 a which is approval Johnson County's agreement is part of the Tarant Parker Denton Johnson County Medical Examiner's District Agreement is recommended by the Denton County Health Department. We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Eads. Seconded by Commissioner Marchand, other questions? Here none all in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Say name. Motion is carried. 14 B is approval of the Medical Examiner's District Agreement between Tarrant and Denton counties for the 2009 fiscal year as part of the Tarrant Parker, Denton, Johnson County's medical examiner's district is recommended by the Denton County Health Department. Motion by Commissioner Marchant, seconded by Commissioner Eeds, other questions. Here are none on favor, please say aye. Aye, opposed to the name. Motion carries 14 C as approval of the ambulance service agreement between Denton County, Texas and the town of Flower Mound is recommended by the director of emergency services. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell. Seconded by Commissioner Marchand. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Motion does carry. 14D is approval of fire protection and service agreements between Denton County, Texas and one city of Aubrey to town of Flower, Mount is recommended by the director emergency services Motion by Commissioner Mitchell second and by Commissioner Eads questions all in favor please say aye aye Opposed sitting motion does carry 14 E is approval of the 2008-2009 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Library Services between Denton County, Texas and Little Lumpur Public Library, the town of Little Lumpur. Motion by Commissioner Margent, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye, post-synane. Motion does carry 14. Yeah, F-Ware already did, we'll go to item G, which is approval of an order, setting January 27th, 2009 at 9 a.m. It's a date and time to consider a public hearing before the Dent and County Commissioners Court to approve the changes to the Dent and County subdivision rules and regulations is recommended by this subdivision review committee. Motion by Commissioner Marchant. seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Under discussion, this latest proposed change since that would also be part of the rules and regulations, subdivision rules and regulations. Do we want to do this public hearing here or am I am I thinking correctly that if we do make a change it would be part of the subdivision rules and regulations if we put restrictions on yeah but are we gonna okay but that's a different issue so we need to go ahead and get this business done correct oh yeah and I don't mind us doing that these rules and regs revisions over time. Just like we do each our policy. We have a lot that needs to be addressed. It's a lot to divide off at one time. Okay. If you do want to have a public hearing on the 27th for the Southern Ratter, we could try to. I don't think we're going to be ready. I don't think we're going to be ready. Okay. We'll go forward with this. We have a motion in the second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sitting? Motion does carry. 14-H and I are being pulled. There'll be no action on those, we have some funding questions on those issues. So that'll be reposted. There'll be no action on 14-H and I today. 14-J is approval of one contract for purchase of right away. But it didn't come to in Texas from Victor, Brian, Pope, and wife Cynthia Ruth Pope for parcel 23 of the Schleeder Road, Old Stony Road, and Smith Road Improvement Project to Grand Authorization to proceed with closing and approval for the didn't kind of judge, to sign on necessary closing documents to purchase right away. And three, direct to the didn't kind of auditor to issue a warrant in the amount of $200 plus any applicable fees for the purchase of right away. With funding to come from Commissioner Pristink IV, TRIPO IV, Hilltop Road Funds, this is auditor number 7673979010. This is in Commissioner Pristink IV. for. Opposed? Motion by Commissioner Ead. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sen. Motion does carry. 14K is approval of one contract for purchase of right away by Dyncannie Texas from the W.A. Chris Well Foundation by Jack Poe for Apostles 2 and 2E of the Shlita Road, Old Stoney Road and Smith Road Improvement Project 2. My authorization to proceed with the closing. In approval for the Denton County Judge, the sign-on necessary closing documents to purchase the right away. And three, direct the Denton County Auditor to issue a award in the amount of $33,100 plus any applicable fees for purchase of a right away with funding to come from the Commissioner Prissing for, triple four, Hilltop Road Funds, Auditor Number 7673979010, also in Commissioner Pristinct 4. For approval. Motion by Commissioner Eid, seconded by Commissioner Marchand, all in favor, please say aye. Aye, opposed, say aye. Motion carries. 14L is approval of the subscription plan agreement for state local government between then kind of Texas and Lexus, NXS, a division of read. Elsevier, is that how you pronounce that? For legal research service, for patrons of the Dyncannie Law Library is recommended by the Dyncannie Law Library Committee. Looking for a motion for approval. Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Are there questions? You're none. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cindy? Motion does carry. And we have one executive session item. This is 15a. An executive session under Texas Government Code 551.072, deliberation regarding real property closed meeting, deliberate the purchase exchange leasing. Or a value of real property where deliberation in an open meeting would have a detrimental effect on the position of the governmental body in negotiations with the third party regarding the potential purchase exchange lease or value of real property for county facilities located in Denton County Commissioner Prissings for with that we're an executive session. Commissioners quarters reconvene from the executive session there'll be no action on item 15A today and With that I believe we concluded our business we're adjourned everybody have a great day Thank you.