Apr 27, 2021 Commissioners Court

HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.

OPPOSED.

ITEM NINE DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION 26-2021 AUTHORIZING THE I

[9. Discussion/Action to consider Resolution 26-2021, authorizing the Count Judge to execute a Development Agreement between Caldwell County and K Marcos, LLC. Speaker: Commissioner Theriot/ Tracy Bratton; Backup: 15; Cost: None]

THINK THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE COURT JUDGE, NOT COUNT JUDGE, TO EXECUTE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CALDWELL COUNTY AND K MARCUS, LLC.

COMMISSIONER THERIOT? THANK YOU JUDGE, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COUNTY.

IT'S LOCATED OFF OF TWENTY ONE NEAR NINETEEN SIXTY SIX.

THIS IS A FIFTH PHASE OF A DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS BEEN THUS FAR OCCURRING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TWENTY ONE ON IN THE HAYS ON HAYS COUNTY SIDE OF TWENTY ONE.

THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL PROVIDE FOR MODIFICATIONS TO VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE COUNTY CODE.

THIS WILL BE A DEVELOPMENT PROVIDED WITH WASTEWATER.

SO THE LOT SIZES ARE SMALLER AND SMALLER THAN TYPICALLY PERMITTED BY THE COUNTY.

THE THERE ARE ALSO SOME OTHER CODE PROVISIONS RELATED TO STRAIGHTS IF NEED BE TRACY, WE PROBABLY CAN CAN GO INTO THOSE IN DETAIL.

BUT THE IN RETURN THEY'LL BE GUARANTEES THAT THESE ARE STICK BUILT HOMES AND IS IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, IT LOOKS LIKE A GOOD DEVELOPMENT THAT, THAT I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

TRACY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? BRATTON, [INAUDIBLE] ASSOCIATES.

THINK Y'ALL WANT THAT FOR THE RECORD.

YOU GOTTA TO SPEAK LOUDER.

MIKES ARE DEAD.

OH, WORKING ON SWAGIT.

HAS BEEN OCCURRING IN HAYS COUNTY.

THIS PHASE IS IN CALDWELL COUNTY.

IT IS IN CITY, SAN MARCOS'S ETJ AND THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.

WITH THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS STATES THAT THEY WILL ENFORCE THE STRICTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CITY OR COUNTY'S.

OUR LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS WERE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS'S.

SO BEFORE THE DEVELOPER CAN PROCEED WITH THEIR WITH THEIR PLAN, THEY NEED VARIANCES GRANTED FROM CALDWELL'S REGULATIONS.

WE WORKED WITH THEM ON A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE WAS THE TRANSPORTATION GRID AND THEY WERE VERY COOPERATIVE IN LOOKING AT THEIR LAYOUT TO ENHANCE PARALLEL CONNECTIVITY TO STATE HIGHWAY 21 TO REDUCE SOME OF THE LOADING ON STATE HIGHWAY 21 FOR THE FUTURE, WHICH DRIVES FUTURE SIGNALIZATION AND LIGHTS.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE PROPERTY THAT DIRECTLY CONNECTS TO I BELIEVE THAT'S FM NINETEEN SIXTY SIX.

BUT THEY DID ORIENT THEIR GRID FOR FUTURE CONNECTIVITY WHEN THE PROPERTY BETWEEN THEM DEVELOPS.

WE'LL BE ABLE TO ASK THAT LAND OWNER TO, TO MAKE THOSE CONNECTIONS BACK TO NINETEEN SIXTY SIX IN THE EIGHT STATE HIGHWAY 21.

SO THE VARIANCES THEY'VE ASKED FOR ARE SURROUNDING MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND SOME ROADWAY AND DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATIONS THAT MAKE THAT LOT SIZE POSSIBLE.

THEY ALSO ASKED FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE WHEN FEES WERE COLLECTED AND I WORKED WITH THEM ON THAT TO ENSURE THAT IT'S IN A POSITION THAT THE COUNTY WILL NOT BE UPSIDE

[01:05:05]

DOWN IN ITS REVIEW COST FOR REVIEWING THE APPLICATION.

SO IT DOES CHANGE THEIR TIMETABLE TO PAY SOME OF THE FEES TO CORRESPOND CLOSER TO THE TIME IN WHICH THEY'RE GOING TO RECORD FINAL PLATS AND THUS BE ABLE TO SELL THE LOTS IN ORDER TO BRING THE REVENUE IN CLOSER TO THE TIME IN WHICH THEY'RE PAYING APPLICATION FEES.

THERE MAY BE SOMEONE HERE FROM THE ENGINEER OR APPLICANT RIGHT THERE SO THEY CAN ANSWER SOME MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT IF YOU WANT.

SIDE AS PART OF SUNSET.

IN THE DEVELOPMENT.

BUT YES, THERE IS A SEWER PLANT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 21.

THEY HAVE A I BELIEVE IT'S TWO LIFT STATIONS PLANNED WITH THIS PART THAT'LL PUMP THAT OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE.

OK, OK, VERY GOOD.

COMMISSIONERS ANY, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE.

IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

I'LL SO MOVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

DO I HAVE A SECOND AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THE RESOLUTION.

DID YOU SECOND IT, COMMISSIONER ROLAND? I DID.

OK, OK.

RESOLUTION 26-2021 RESOLUTION OF CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, WHEREAS K MARCUS LLC DEVELOPER HAS ACQUIRED PROPERTY WITHIN THE CALDWELL COUNTY, WHICH IT DESIRES TO SUBDIVIDE AND DEVELOP.

WHEREAS THE CALDWELL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSIONERS COURT TO EXECUTE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH DELINEATES THE CONDITIONS FOR PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

WHEREIN VARIOUS CONCESSIONS TO THE COUNTY'S TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS MAY BE MADE IN EXCHANGE FOR MUTUALLY AGREEABLE ALTERNATE STANDARDS, WHICH MEETS THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND IS IN THE INTERESTS OF ALL PARTIES.

WHEREAS THE DEVELOPER AND THE COUNTY HAVE NEGOTIATED A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MEMORIALIZING THE CONCESSIONS AND STANDARDS WHICH WILL FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT THE COUNTY JUDGE IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND K MARCUS LLC ORDERED THIS TWENTY SEVENTH DAY, APRIL 2021.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

OPPOSED NONE MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM TEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION 27-2021.

[10. Discussion/Action to consider Resolution 27-2021 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Texas State Tubes, LLC, RKY, Ltd. and Caldwell County. Speaker: Commissioner Theriot/ JJ Wells; Backup: 10; Cost: None]

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING MOU BETWEEN TEXAS STATE TUBES LLC, RKY LIMITED IN CALDWELL COUNTY.

COMMISSIONER THERIOT.

THANK YOU JUDGE.

THE COUNTY CURRENTLY HAS AN MOU AND HAS FOR SEVERAL YEARS, I THINK SINCE 2016, I BELIEVE WITH THE TUBING COMPANIES THAT OPERATE ON THE SAN MARCOS RIVER.

THE MOU HAS HISTORICALLY PROVIDED FUNDING FOR PEACE OFFICERS TO WORK CERTAIN TIME SHIFTS ON THE RIVER DURING THE TUBING OPERATIONS TO WHERE THE TUBING COMPANIES ARE FINANCING THAT COST THAT THE COUNTY EXPERIENCES.

IN ADDITION, THE MOU HAS PROVIDED FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES SUCH AS A AN AMBULANCE THAT HAS TO BE STATIONED AND SOME MONEY RELATED TO OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES LIKE RIVER RESCUE OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT.

THE MOU HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN MANAGED AND OPERATED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

THERE'S A PROPOSED CHANGE THIS YEAR TO SHIFT THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT OPERATION TO THE CONSTABLE'S OFFICE.

WE'VE BEEN MEETING FOR SOME TIME ON THAT.

AND THE MOU IS BEING LOOKED AT AT THIS TIME IN ORDER TO ADJUST IT ACCORDINGLY, TO RECOGNIZE THAT NEW MANAGEMENT OF THE MOU AND TO ADJUST THE SHIFTS THAT ARE THAT ARE OCCURRING AS PART OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.

IN ADDITION, THERE'S MONEY IN THE MOU THAT WILL GO TO THE MAXWELL GROUP TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY SERVICES OPERATIONS.

[01:10:01]

AS A MATTER OF NOTE, RELATED TO THIS PROCESS, WHEN WE WHEN WE SUBMITTED THE MOU TO THE TUBING COMPANIES AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES FOR REVIEW THIS YEAR, WE INCLUDED THE ITEMS THAT ARE CURRENTLY SPELLED OUT AS PART OF A JUDGMENT, A PRIVATE SECTOR JUDGMENT THAT THAT MR. GOYNES AND OTHERS PROPERTY OWNERS PURSUED A FEW YEARS AGO.

I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW MANY YEARS AGO, BUT IT RELATED TO THE ACTUAL OPERATIONS OF THE T UBING COMPANIES, IT RELATED TO KEEPING ACCESS TO THE RIVER OPEN AND RELATED TO KEEPING THE RIVER CLEAN AND EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO WHERE THE TUBING COMPANIES WOULD EDUCATE THEIR CUSTOMERS ON VARIOUS THINGS RELATED TO SAFETY AND LITTER AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

PRIOR TO THEM GETTING IN THE WATER.

THAT AGREEMENT IS EXPIRING IN NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR.

IT WAS A AN AGREEMENT LAID OUT AND RULED UPON BY JUDGE BLUMER A FEW YEARS AGO.

IT'S A VERY GOOD AGREEMENT.

AND IT'S BEEN A GOOD TOOL THAT THAT THE PARTIES TO THAT AGREEMENT HAVE USED TO MANAGE HELP MANAGE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON ON THE RIVER.

THE AS I SAID, WE PUT THOSE IN THE MOU THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN AN EFFORT TO MEMORIALIZE THEM AND TO KEEP THAT GOING PAST NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR.

THE TUBING COMPANIES ASKED US TO REMOVE THOSE FROM THE MOU.

THEY WANTED THE MOU TO DEAL STRICTLY WITH THE SECURITY OPERATIONS.

WE DO HAVE A FEW GENERAL STATEMENTS ABOUT LITTER AND THINGS, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IN THE MOU, BUT NOTHING AS SPECIFIC AS IN THIS AGREEMENT.

SO WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT.

WE NEED TO GET THIS MOU DONE SO THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE SECURITY AND SAFETY PERSONNEL ON THE RIVER TO DEAL WITH THIS ONSLAUGHT AS AS IT BEGINS IN A MATTER OF WEEKS.

SO WE HAVE TAKEN THOSE REQUIREMENTS OUT.

THEY WILL BE STILL IN EFFECT FOR THIS SEASON.

BUT I, I AS A COMMISSIONER WILL BE, I THINK, PURSUING AND COMING BACK TO THE COMMISSION TO TALK ABOUT MAYBE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO AS A COMMISSION TO GET THOSE EXTENDED, NOT THROUGH THE MOU, BUT BUT THROUGH OTHER METHODS.

I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THOSE MIGHT BE AT THIS TIME, BUT I THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT AND SEE HOW WE CAN KEEP THOSE GOING, THOSE GOING.

BUT JJ HAS BEEN IN OUR LEAD IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, AND HE COULD PROBABLY ANSWER MORE QUESTIONS THAN I CAN.

AND I THINK THE CONSTABLE SERVICE IS REPRESENTED ALSO TODAY.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

MIC] SO REGARDING THE LITTER AND THE TRASH AND OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT BEING DOWN THERE, IS THERE ANY REASON, IF YOU SEE AND OFFICER KING, THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

CAN THEY NOT CITE PEOPLE IF THEY SEE PEOPLE LITTERING? IT GETS A LITTLE TRICKY BECAUSE IT'S.

[01:15:01]

YEAH, OK.

SORRY THE MICROPHONES AREN'T WORKING TODAY.

SO MY QUESTION TO JJ WAS AND I THINK HE ANSWERED IT, BUT IS THERE WAS THERE A REASON THAT YOU GUYS, IF YOU WITNESSED LITTERING, COULDN'T WRITE THEM A CITATION? ABSOLUTELY.

AND WE HAVE.

YOU HAVE? WE HAVE, IN YEARS PAST AS WORKING WITH THE CONSTABLE'S DEPARTMENT.

WE'VE BEEN DOWN IN THE RIVER SEPARATE FROM THE MOU AND WE HAVE I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT WE'VE IN YEARS PAST WRITTEN MULTIPLE CITATIONS FOR LITTERING.

WE'RE ALSO LOOKING FOR OTHER STATE LAW VIOLATIONS, PEOPLE WHO ARE USING DRUGS, PEOPLE ARE TOO DRUNK TO FLOAT, PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDERAGE DRINKING, LITTERING, YOU KNOW, THOSE TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL THINGS.

AND THEN WE ALSO WORK CLOSELY WITH PARKS AND WILDLIFE WHEN THEY'RE DOWN THERE AND ASSISTING JOANNE MAYBURY WITH ISSUES LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHEN SHE PULLS SOMEBODY OUT FOR HAVING NOT HAVING FLOTATION DEVICES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

WE WORK CLOSELY WITH JOANNE FOR SEVERAL YEARS ON MULTIPLE ISSUES.

AND ONE OF THE MAIN ONES IS LITTERING.

OK, THANK YOU.

YES, SIR.

JUDGE, JUST ONE SECOND.

JUDGE PAULA, TOM AND PAULA GOYNES HAVE THE ATTORNEY OR HAVE ASKED THE ATTORNEY TO BE PRESENT.

THAT WAS THE LEAD ON THAT LAWSUIT.

WOULD YOU MIND IF HE SAID JUST A FEW WORDS RELATED TO THAT? NO, NOT ALL.

IS THAT OK TOM? THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

GOOD MORNING.

COMMISSIONERS.

GOD BLESS YOU.

THAT'S I JUST SIT HERE.

GOD BLESS YOU.

AND THE WORK YOU DO.

I LIVE DOWN IN CORPUS.

I'VE KNOWN TOM SINCE 1978 WHEN I DID MY FIRST TEXAS WATER SAFARI.

DID LAST ONE I DID WAS 2018.

SO I LOVE THE RIVER.

THAT RIVER IN 1978 WAS UGLY.

THERE WAS A BIG BLACK TUBE COMING OUT OF THE RIVER JUST AS SOON AS IT WENT UNDER 35.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT MAYBE THAT'S HOW EVERYTHING WORKED.

BUT I JUST I BROUGHT THIS NEWSPAPER TODAY.

IT'S BACK FROM TOM AND PAULA GOYNES HAD BEEN CLEANING UP THIS RIVER FOR OVER 40 YEARS.

AND THAT BLACK TUBE ISN'T THERE ANY MORE BECAUSE OF THEM.

WE WOULDN'T BE FLOATING ON THIS RIVER IF PEOPLE HADN'T TAKEN CARE OF IT, LIKE THE GENTLEMAN THIS MORNING GOT UP AND I ONLY GOT IN THE CASE, I'M SEMI RETIRED.

I'LL KEEP MY LICENSE UP, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN OFFICE.

BUT I SAW TOM AND PAULA'S HEALTH JUST DETERIORATE.

KEPT TALKING ABOUT THESE TUBERS, TUBERS TUBERS.

AND I WENT MAN IT CAN'T BE THE TUBING, IT CAN'T BE.

I SAID, I'M ONE OF THOSE GUYS YOU LET ME GET ON.

SO I RENTED THE TUBES.

I DID IT FOUR TIMES, WENT DOWN BEFORE I GOT INTO THE THING AND SAW THAT THIS VAST, VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, THEY WERE NICE KIDS.

THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NICE KIDS.

THEY WANT A GOOD TIME ON THE RIVER.

I UNDERSTOOD ALL THAT.

BUT THEN THERE'S SOME PROBLEMS THAT COME UP EVEN WITH GOOD WITH GOOD KIDS.

AND THAT IS ONCE THE ONCE A PARTY STARTS, ONCE PEOPLE STOP ON THIS LITTLE TINY WE CALL IT RIVER.

BUT MY GOODNESS, YOU KNOW, TEXAS, EVERYTHING SUPPOSED TO BE REAL BIG.

THIS IS THIS IS VERY DELICATE, VERY BEAUTIFUL GEM.

IT'S AN ASSET THAT YOU HAVE IN THIS COUNTY CASE.

IT'S CLEAR.

IT'S PRACTICALLY CLEAR.

AT TOM'S PLACE I CAN STAND WAIST DEEP IN THE WATER AND IT'LL AND IT'LL STILL BE CLEAR UNLESS THERE'S A LOT OF ACTION SO I SAID, HOW WE HOW CAN WE SOLVE THIS? BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE MOST OF THE PEOPLE ARE NICE.

I SAW OTHER THINGS THAT WERE JUST HORRIBLE, BUT THAT HAPPENS.

SO I DID SOMETHING.

I SAID, I THINK WE CAN GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF IF THE JUDGE WILL ORDER THEM TO DO SOMETHING.

AND EVERYBODY TOLD ME, OH, YOU CAN'T GET A JUDGE TO POSITIVELY TELL SOMEBODY HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS.

JUDGES SAY, DON'T DO THIS, DON'T DO THAT.

AND IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THERE ARE THREE BASIC THINGS THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE DONE ON THIS RIVER.

WE NEEDED TO KEEP IT CLEAN.

WE NEEDED TO KEEP IT DOWN THE NOISE.

AND WE NEED TO KEEP EVERYBODY MOVING BECAUSE THIS LITTLE RIVER HAS DIFFERENT LEVELS, THE LEVEL IT'S IN RIGHT NOW, IT'S DOWN TO NOTHING.

AND PEOPLE GET IF THEY'RE NOT MOVING, WE HAVE WE HAVE VIDEOS.

[01:20:04]

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SOUND TODAY.

SIR, I DON'T WELL, I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT THEY CAN'T HEAR US ON SWAGIT.

SO IF YOU CAN SPEAK INTO THE MIC.

OH, I'M VERY SORRY.

THE RECORDING THAT WE'RE DOING.

DO YOU HAVE CAPABILITY TODAY? COULD WE HAVE A COUPLE LITTLE VIDEOS THAT JUST SHOW SOUND LEVEL THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE SOUND, WE DON'T NEED TO RUN THEM.

WE'VE GOT PICTURES, TOM.

TOM CAN SHOW YOU WE CAN PUT UP ON THE VIDEO.

JUST A PICTURE OF THE WOMAN THIS MORNING GOT UP AND TALKED ABOUT TRASH DOWN RIVER.

WE'VE GOT A STILL PICTURE THAT WE CAN SHOW YOU THAT.

THAT WOULD BE FINE.

WE DON'T HAVE THE SPEAKERS.

NO SPEAKERS.

WELL, SO.

BOY WE'D LOVE TO PLAY THOSE FOR YOU SOMETIME, BECAUSE WHEN YOU HEAR IT, I GOT TO LEARN SOME LYRICS THAT, YOU KNOW, PAUL WHO'S OVER 70.

HE TOLD ME A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, I CAME UP, SAID WE COULD HEAR THIS FROM OUR BALCONY, WHICH IS THEY'RE 70 YARDS FROM THE RIVER.

AND SO GET TO THE POINT.

SO SO I SUED THEM AND I SAID AND I DID IT, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T MAKE A BUNCH OF PUBLICITY ABOUT IT.

WE DIDN'T.

BUT WE WENT DOWN TO THE JUDGE AND WE PUT THE WE PUT THE FOLKS ON THE STAND AND WE ASKED HIM IF YOU GAVE AN ORIENTATION TO THESE FOLKS BEFORE THEY GOT IN THE RIVER, YOU LET THEM KNOW THERE'S A CHURCH CAMP DOWN RIVER.

THERE'S A THERE'S A LITTLE SCOUT CAMP.

THERE'S FAMILIES.

IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WILDERNESS.

YOU GOT ALL THIS BEAUTIFUL VEGETATION ALL AROUND.

YOU THINK YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, BUT YOU'RE NOT.

SO THERE'S PEOPLE.

THERE'S KIDS.

YOU GOT TO WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE.

I SAID, WOULD THAT COST YOU MUCH AS A BUSINESS MAN? THEY SAID, NO, WE COULD DO THAT.

I SAID, WELL, COULD YOU HAVE A LITTLE VIDEO ORIENTATION? AND OF COURSE, I'M THINKING.

AND SO WE WROTE IT OUT FOR THEM.

THEY SAID, NO, WE COULD DO THAT.

WOULDN'T COST TOO MUCH.

I SAID, WELL, HOW ABOUT HOW ABOUT NO STOPPING.

COULD YOU TELL US.

YEAH, NO, WE COULD DO THAT.

AND THEY SIGNED THEIR WAIVERS WHEN THEY SIGN IN BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE PUTTING THEM ON INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH ON TO THE RIVER.

WE'LL LET THEM KNOW, KEEP ON MOVING AND KEEP IT DOWN AND DON'T LITTER.

AND THEN ALL THE ALL THE THINGS THAT GO WITH THAT, NO GLASS, NO STYROFOAM, ALL THOSE THINGS.

BUT IT'S JUST VERY SIMPLE.

KEEP IT MOVING, KEEP IT CLEAN, KEEP IT DOWN.

YOU KNOW, LIKE PEOPLE TREAT EACH OTHER.

AND SO THE UPSHOT OF THAT IS, IS I GOT WE GOT AND THE JUDGE CALLED RECESS AFTER WE PUT TESTIMONY ON THE OTHER SIDE [INAUDIBLE], HE BROUGHT US BACK IN CHAMBERS AND THOSE FOLKS SAID, YEAH, WE CAN DO THIS.

SO HE ORDERED IT.

AND WE HAD AN INJUNCTION.

THEN WE TOOK A LITTLE MORE VIDEO DURING THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PHASE.

AND WE COULD SHOW THAT FOR YOU ON GATHERING HOW PEOPLE ONCE THERE'S A PARTY AND THEY STOP AND NOT EVERYBODY'S TRESPASSING.

AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET TECHNICAL AND STRAIN THAN NAT AND SWALLOW THE CAMELS LIKE LIKE YOU DO WHEN YOU GET INTO THE LEGAL STUFF, BUT YOU GET YOU GET A COUPLE HUNDRED PEOPLE STANDING ON SOMEBODY'S GRAVEL BAR AND YOU'VE GOT HALF OF THEM UP ON THE PROPERTY.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A VIDEO, FOR A, GILLESPIE COUNTY.

I THINK A SHERIFF IS A KHAKI OUTFIT.

SHE WAS TRYING TO PROTECT [INAUDIBLE] RANCH BACK SEVERAL YEARS AGO, AND SHE'S TRYING TO SHUSH PEOPLE OFF IT.

IT'S JUST SILLY.

SO IF THE TUBING OPERATION WOULD GIVE THE PROPER ORIENTATION AND REALLY MEAN IT AND THEY CAN DO THAT, THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT DOING IT.

THEY HAVE SOME THEY PUT THEY PUT OUR WORDS AS SUBTITLES TO SOME VIDEO.

THEY SAID THEY DO THIS OVER ON THE SIDE.

THEY YOU CAN'T MAKE PEOPLE GET THEIR HEARTS IN IT.

BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO UPSET THEIR BUSINESS.

I DIDN'T WANT TO SHUT THEM.

THEY THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO SHUT THEM DOWN.

I SAID, NO, WE JUST NEED TO GET ALONG.

YEAR, WHAT, IF ANY, PLANS DO DO YOU OR ARE THE FOLKS WHO LED THAT EFFORT HAVE FOR A RENEWAL OR COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THAT PROCESS WOULD BE? OTHERWISE, PEOPLE DO ALL KINDS OF THINGS.

BUT WE JUST SEEM TO ME THEY OUGHT TO BECAUSE WE AGREED WITH THEM, THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT THE TRIAL.

THEY WANT THEY SAID, NO, WE'LL DO ALL THIS AND WE'LL DO IT PERMANENTLY.

BUT LET'S GIVE US FIVE YEARS, SURE.

FIVE YEARS.

YOU'LL FIGURE IT OUT.

YOU'LL CHANGE THE CULTURE LIKE YOU TOLD THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

WE GOT VIDEO OF THEM SWEARING UNDER OATH TO THE TO THE TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE BACK IN 2014.

THEY'RE GETTING SCOLDED FOR NOT DOING IT BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT TWO YEARS BEFORE.

I MEAN, WE.

IT'S ON TAPE, AND SO WE ASK THEM, LET'S JUST EXTEND IT FOR FIVE YEARS.

THAT'S WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THEM.

[01:25:03]

[INAUDIBLE] HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THEM AND.

SO IS THERE? BUT IS THERE A PLAN TO TO MAYBE PURSUE THIS AND GET AN EXTENSION TO YOUR INJUNCTION? IF IT ALL FALLS DOWN ON US? YOU KNOW, A SINGLE CITIZEN? AND IT WAS JUST TOM, I TOLD TOM, I SAID, I'LL REPRESENT YOU.

PAULA, I KNOW YOU HAVE KNOWN YOU FOR 40 YEARS.

I KNOW WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE YOU ARE.

YOU GET INTO A LAWSUIT.

THINGS GET ALL KINDS OF OFF.

YOU'LL GET ON DIFFERENT KINDS OF YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU GET A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO KNOWS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME DRUNK OR SOMEBODY WHO'S GOT A DRUG PROBLEM, SOMEBODY GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING TO LOOK AT, GET EVERYBODY DISTRACTED.

AND I SAID, LET'S JUST WE KEPT IT SIMPLE, BUT WE DID IT FOR THE RIVER.

YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T GET ANY MONEY.

WE DIDN'T SUE FOR MONEY.

WE JUST WANT TO CONDUCT.

AND SO THE STEPS I THINK IF THIS DOESN'T WORK, I'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING CALLED THE MASS GATHERING, WHICH I THINK IS PERFECT FOR THIS TYPE OF SITUATION.

YOUR OWN COUNTY.

IT'S WE TALK ABOUT THAT.

BUT THEN IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE WHERE WE ARE BECAUSE LAWS CHANGE AND THERE'S SOME LAW NOW.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE NUISANCE LAW.

YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW WHAT WHAT THE WORKERS ARE AMONG THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE POWER AND THE MONEY TO GET TOGETHER AND AND I THINK I THINK THE NUISANCE LAW IS UP THERE NOW BECAUSE OF SOMETHING OVER HOUSTON, MAYBE I DON'T KNOW ALL THE PARTICULARS, BUT IF THEY CHANGE IN A CERTAIN WAY, I CAN SEE.

WELL, IT'S IT'S RUNNING THROUGH HIS COMPUTER, BUT WE DON'T HAVE IT HERE YET.

WELL, I DON'T MIND.

I KEEP TALKING.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND WATCH THIS AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE THIS ALONG.

YOU CAN SEE HOW FAR AWAY I JUST TOOK THE PHONE OUT, BUT WELL, I JUST WALKED IN.

I TOOK THIS MIC].

THIS IS FIVE KIDS.

THIS IS JUST FIVE KIDS.

I THOUGHT IT WAS QUITE A GIFT, BECAUSE THE MUSIC IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS A LOT OF THIS IS COUNTRY.

SOME PEOPLE LIKE COUNTRY, SOME PEOPLE LIKE DIFFERENT THINGS.

BUT THERE'S ALL KINDS OF EVERYBODY GETS BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S MY RIGHT TO FORCE MY FACE ON YOU.

AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR COMPETING MUSIC IN JUST A SECOND.

[INAUDIBLE] WE COULD SHOW YOU ALL THIS I THINK WE PROBABLY CAN'T.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE GOT TIME TO WATCH A BUNCH MORE VIDEOS, BUT I THINK WE GET THE IDEA, CERTAINLY, AND.

THAT'S FINE.

SO WE'VE ALL, FOR THE MOST PART, MOST OF US HAVE BEEN DOWN THERE AND SEEN IT AND WE UNDERSTAND IT.

CAN WE TURN THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT SO I CAN HEAR YOU? I CAN'T HEAR Y'ALL AND THIS.

I WOULD JUST URGE YOU RATHER THAN SIGNING AN MOU THAT DOESN'T HAVE CONDITIONS LIKE

I WOULD JUST.

[01:30:02]

NO GLASS, I MEAN, THEY WILL HAVE GLASS BACK ON THE RIVER.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND YOU CAN'T HAVE GLASS.

AND AT LEAST LET'S KEEP THE GLASS OFF.

I MEAN, [INAUDIBLE] JUDGE [INAUDIBLE].

WHY CAN'T THEY AGREE [INAUDIBLE]? I'D RATHER YOU SAY, WELL, WE GOT TO DO SOMETHING BY MAY 1ST.

HECK, WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH HELL FOR THE LAST MONTH, WE CAN HANDLE ANOTHER MONTH.

WAIT UNTIL JUNE BUT.

I WOULD SAY INSTEAD OF SIGNING A BAD MOU, WE'LL COME BACK [INAUDIBLE].LET'S HAVE A GOOD MOU.

WE THEY PUT TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE.

WE'VE COUNTED ON THIS 10 MILE STRETCH OF RIVER.

IF THAT AIN'T A MASS GATHERING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO WRITE ORDINANCES.

I GET IT, YOU CAN'T WRITE AN ORDINANCE, BUT YOU CAN CONTROL MASS GATHERINGS AND THEY ALL CAN [INAUDIBLE] 500 TEAMS EASY.

WELL, TEXAS [INAUDIBLE] TEAMS TOLD ME THEY PUT 900 TEAMS OUT TWO SATURDAYS AGO AND THE SEASON ACCORDING TO THE COUNTY, HADN'T EVEN STARTED YET.

YOU PUT NINE HUNDRED TEAMS OUT AND YOU DON'T ENFORCE THE NO STOPPING, 500 PEOPLE, IF HALF OF THEM CAN BE UNDERAGED, AND THEY ARE, AND IF ALCOHOL IS INVOLVED IN SOME MASS GATHERING.

THIS COUNTY NEEDS TO CONTROL MASS GATHERINGS.

SO, PLEASE, EITHER MAKE THEM GET A MASS GATHERING PERMIT EVERY DAY THEY OPERATE, WHICH MEANS A HEARING EVERY SINGLE MASS GATHERING PERMIT OR HAVE AN MOU THAT BASICALLY CONTROL ALL OF THE SAME CONDITIONS [INAUDIBLE] HAVING A MASS GATHERING PERMIT, BUT DON'T SIGN THIS ONE TODAY.

LET'S PUT IT OFF.

LET'S TALK, WE'VE GOT TIME.

I MEAN, WHAT CAN THEY DO TO ME THE NEXT MONTH THAT THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY DONE? I'M CLOSED DOWN.

YOU SAW MY CAMPGROUND.

NOBODY CAN COME ON A SUNDAY AFTERNOON, EVEN ON SUNDAY, FORGET SATURDAY.

NO ONE THERE ON SATURDAY.

I DON'T HAVE MUCH VOICE; I DON'T KNOW HOW [INAUDIBLE] THAT.

WE NEED TO MOVE ON AND TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT WE APPRECIATE IT.

ON A MASS GATHERING.

I'D LOVE TO, WHEN YOU WANT, WE'D LOVE TO TALK ANY TIME TO GIVE YOU A REAL DOG AND PONY SHOW ON THAT.

BUT ONE OF THE BEAUTIES OF THE MASS GATHERING ACT IS THAT BEFORE THE GET THE PERMIT, THERE'S A HEARING.

SO, I MEAN, THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE A REAL HEARING AND IT CAN BE FIXED.

THIS ISN'T KICKING THEM OUT.

THIS IS JUST HOW DO PEOPLE GET ALONG AND REALLY MAKE IT WORK? AND IT'S NOT THAT HARD.

THANK YOU YOU SAID [INAUDIBLE] DIFFERENT MOU AND THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT.

SO IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN GET TO LOOK AT THIS COMPARED TO THIS ONE AND SEE WHAT IT IS .

I MEAN, I AGREE WITH THEM THAT IF THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN UNDER FIVE YEARS [INAUDIBLE] KEEP IT MOVING AND IT'S GOING TO EXPIRE IN NOVEMBER, IF THEY AGREE TO DO THAT [INAUDIBLE] AGAINST IT BEING AN MOU [INAUDIBLE] WHAT WAS THEIR CONFLICT? WELL, THE MOU DIDN'T PREVIOUSLY INCLUDE THOSE THINGS.

THAT WAS A JUDGMENT THAT WAS PASSED AND IT'S GOING TO EXPIRE IN NOVEMBER.

AND SO I THINK THE TUBING COMPANIES ARE WANTING IT TO EXPIRE.

THEY'RE WANTING IT TO GO AWAY.

NOW, OUR CURRENT MOU HAS A CLAUSE IN IT THAT IT RENEWS EVERY YEAR.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'VE NEVER HAD TO BRING IT BACK EVERY YEAR FOR CONSIDERATION.

WE'VE DONE SOME TINKERING WITH IT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE.

BUT THE CURRENT MOU DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE NUMBER OF SHIFTS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE RIGHT NOW OR THE PAY THAT NEEDS TO BE PAID TO THESE FOLKS IN ORDER TO GET ADEQUATE STAFFING.

YOU KNOW, IT'S OUT OF DATE.

[01:35:01]

AND THERE'S ALSO SOME EMERGENCY SERVICES, THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ADDED.

SO WHEN WE PROPOSE TO ROLL THE JUDGMENT THINGS INTO THE MOU BECAUSE WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO EXPIRE, THEY OBJECTED TO THAT.

NOW, WE COULD SAY, WELL, WE'RE JUST GOING TO NOT CONSIDER AN MOU AT THIS TIME OR AMENDMENT TO IT.

AND THE TUBING COMPANIES WOULD PROBABLY BE FINE WITH THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY KNOW WHAT'S IN THE CURRENT MOU AND IT'LL RENEW AND IT'LL BE SAME OLD, SAME OLD.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE OUT--WE NEED TO GET THIS NEW MOU DONE BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE UP TO DATE AND SET UP TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT NEED TO BE PROVIDED.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER WAYS THAT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THROUGH MASS GATHERING PERMITS, JUDGE KNOWS A LOT MORE ABOUT THAT THAN I DO.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS OR ASSISTS, COULD WE ASSIST THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN GOING BACK AND ADDRESSING IT THROUGH A JUDGMENT? I DON'T KNOW, BUT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD, I FEEL, WITH THE MOU.

I UNDERSTAND WHY TOM WANTS US TO NOT AT THIS TIME, BUT I CAN COMMIT.

I'M NOT GOING TO LET IT DROP, BUT I THINK I THINK WE DO NEED TO PURSUE SPEAKERS].

ONE PROBLEM I SEE IS THAT SO IF WE TRY TO FORCE THEIR HAND AND PUT THE JUDGMENT INTO THIS MOU AND THEY SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SIGN IT.

NOW WE'VE GOT NO WAY TO GET OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT ON THE RIVER.

WELL, AND I THINK THAT YOU MAY BE HITTING ON SOMETHING THERE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR MOTIVATION IS, BUT THE MASS GATHERING PERMIT'S NOT A TERRIBLE IDEA.

BUT THERE'S SOME BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE COUNTY FOR EVERY SINGLE OUTFITTER, EVERY SINGLE DAY THAT THEY'RE IN OPERATION TO KNOW AND PROVE WHEN THEY GO OVER 500 PEOPLE.

SO, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

YOU GOT A CONSTABLE CLICKING THEM THROUGH THE GATE? I MEAN, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE MAGIC NUMBER HAS BEEN HIT WITHOUT LITERALLY COUNTING THE PEOPLE AS THEY COME THROUGH EVERY OUTFITTER? AND SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE'D HAVE TO EXPLORE.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT COULDN'T BE DONE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S A BAD IDEA, BUT 10,000 ON THE RIVER, AS YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE STATE'S PROPERTY.

WE ISSUE A MASS GATHERING FOR COUNTY PROPERTY SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY HAD 500 PEOPLE WALK THROUGH COUNTY PROPERTY, THROUGH THEIR OUTFITTER, INTO THE RIVER, AND THEN THEY'VE MET THE BURDEN OF A MASS GATHERING AT THAT POINT BECAUSE THERE IS ALCOHOL, THERE ARE PEOPLE THERE UNDER 21 YEARS OLD AND FIVE HUNDREDS.

AND NO, IF THERE'S I THINK IT'S, WHAT, 50 PERCENT, JJ, 51 PERCENT AREN'T UNDER THE AGE OF 21.

SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

YEAH, SO I'LL HAVE TO LOOK IT UP AGAIN.

BUT SO YOU ALSO HAVE TO KNOW FOR 500 THAT MORE THAN HALF ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 21 AND THERE'S ALCOHOL BEING SERVED.

SO YOU LITERALLY HAVE TO CARD EVERYBODY AND COUNT EVERYBODY THAT'S COMING THROUGH.

IF NOT, THE NEXT STANDARD GOES TO TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED.

AND SO THAT'S SOME OF THE RUBS WITH THE MASS GATHERING PERMIT.

I WISH IT WAS JUST AS SIMPLE AS SAYING YOU GET 500 PEOPLE COMING THROUGH HERE AND YOU'VE QUALIFIED, BUT IT'S NOT.

WE RAN INTO THAT RECENTLY.

WE HAD A CONCERT.

THERE IS SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE CONCERT.

WE NOTIFIED THEM THAT THEY HAD NOT APPLIED TO THE COUNTY FOR A MASS GATHERING PERMIT AND THEY DID NOT EXCEED THE FIVE HUNDRED PEOPLE, MUCH LESS BEING ABLE TO PROVE THEY WERE UNDER THE AGE OF 21 AND ALCOHOL WAS BEING SERVED MORE THAN HALF.

SO THOSE ARE ALL THINGS TO CONSIDER WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MASS GATHERING PERMITS.

TWO THINGS, IF I MAY.

YES, SIR.

ONE OF THE THINGS IN THE ORDER AND THE INJUNCTION, IT'S VERY, THAT WORKS IS MONITORS.

AND THE AGREEMENT ALSO CALLS FOR TUBING OUTFITTERS TO HAVE SOME ROWING MONITORS.

I THOUGHT THEY'D BE THE COOLEST PEOPLE ON THE RIVER, YOU JUST FLOAT UP AND DOWN THE DIFFERENT SPOTS ON YOUR LITTLE KAYAK AND REMIND PEOPLE THAT THERE'S OTHER

[01:40:03]

PEOPLE AROUND.

VERY SIMPLE.

AND WE'VE HAD DIFFERENT KIND OF MONITORS AT TOM'S PROPERTY.

FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, WE HAD A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN THAT HAD THE RIGHT ATTITUDE, SHE'S FRIENDLY, HAPPY, GOT EVERYTHING MOVING ALONG AND DIDN'T ACT LIKE WE GOT TO DO THIS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE RUINING THE PARTY AND EVERYTHING FLOWED BETTER.

YOU GET SOMEBODY THAT JUST KIND OF IT'S THE HEART.

IF YOU WANT TO GET ALONG, YOU CAN GET ALONG.

THE MONITORS ARE KEY.

AND THEN, YOUR HONOR, ON THE MASS GATHERING, I JUST WANT TO THROW THIS OUT THERE, I JUST RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT IT'S NOT A MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY THAT YOU HAVE FIVE HUNDRED.

I THINK IF YOU GOT REASONABLE EXPECTATION IN THIS [INAUDIBLE] ACT IF YOU GOT [INAUDIBLE] TO PUT IN FOR BOTH COMPANIES RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THIS TWO MILE SECTION PUT IN SAME PLACE ACROSS THE RIVER, TAKE OUT IT'S THE SAME PLACE DOWN THE RIVER.

YOU'VE GOT A TWO MILE STRETCH.

THAT'S YOUR VENUE.

YOU'VE GOT FAR MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED PEOPLE IN THERE.

AND I THINK THE REASONABLE EXPECTATION AND I CANNOT IMAGINE THE STATE OF TEXAS THROUGH ITS COURT SYSTEM SAYING SHAME ON YOU FOR MAKING WHAT--BECAUSE YOU HAVE A HEARING BEFORE YOU ON THIS MATTER GATHERING WHEN YOU HAVE ALL THE TESTIMONY AND THE VIDEO AND THE PROOF OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPEN, UNLESS THINGS ARE TAKEN CARE OF PROPERLY AND YOU HAVE A HISTORY OF A COMPANY THAT GOES, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING THAT YOU DON'T MAKE US DO.

I DON'T SEE YOU GETTING REVERSED.

AND I'M YOU KNOW, I'VE DONE THIS FOR PRACTICALLY FREE.

I'M HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW, SIT DOWN, BE AN OLD MAN THAT CAN TALK TO SOMEBODY.

I'M NOT LOOKING FOR HEADLINES.

I JUST WOULD LOVE TO GET ALONG.

WE CAN DO THAT, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE OF COURT.

WE CAN HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS LATER.

OK, SO BACK TO THIS DISCUSSION.

ACTION TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION 27-2021 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN TEXAS STATE TUBES LLC, RKY LIMITED IN CALDWELL COUNTY.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS? I RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH A COMMITMENT THAT WE WILL PURSUE MEANS TO FURTHER THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE JUDGE'S ORDER.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL MAKE THE SECOND.

MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? YES? YES, PLEASE, FOR THE RECORD SAY AYET AGAIN, 11000? SEVENTY? ZERO SEVEN ZERO? YES.

OK, OK.

WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO GET THAT RESOLVED, COMMISSIONER, BEFORE WE START DOWN THE PATH OF THE NEXT MOU, EARLIER YESTERDAY, LAST WEEK ? THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, NEED TO VOTE ON THAT AND THEN--CAN I AMEND MY MOTION? YES, PLEASE.

I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO PAST INVOICES BEING BROUGHT CURRENT AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE WILL PURSUE MEANS TO EXTEND THE ORDER CONDITIONS.

OK, WE HAVE A REVISED MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

WE HAVE A REVISED MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE: AYE.

ITEM ELEVEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER PAYMENT TO PURE CASTING COMPANY FOR

[11. Discussion/Action to consider the payment to Pure Casting Company for FY 2020 under 381 agreement. Speaker: Judge Haden/JJ Wells; Backup: 6; Cost: $12,973.17]

FY 2020 UNDER 381 AGREEMENT.

COMMISSIONERS, PURE CASTING HAS ASKED THAT WE CONSIDER NOT CONSIDER A ONE HUNDRED

[01:45:07]

PERCENT REBATE, ALTHOUGH THEY DID NOT MEET ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE 381 AGREEMENT AND JJ, DO YOU HAVE ANY NUMBERS ON WHERE WE'RE AT ON THAT? HISTORICALLY WE HAVE PRORATED BASED ON THEIR PERFORMANCE WITH THE THREE EIGHTY ONE AND THAT'S NORMALLY WHAT THIS COURT HAS TRADITIONALLY DONE.

AND IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM PURE CASTING THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? YES, SIR.

GOOD MORNING, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF.

MY NAME IS BILL HADEN.

I'M CFO OF PURE CASTING.

JUST BRIEFLY, LAST YEAR WAS A YEAR I'D LIKE TO FORGET FINANCIALLY.

WE HAD SEVERAL CONDITIONS, NONE OF LEAST WAS COVID.

COVID ACTED AS A MULTIPLIER TO AN ALREADY DECREASING BUSINESS CONDITION, ABOUT 70 PERCENT OF OUR BUSINESS IS RELATED TO OIL AND GAS, AND WE ALREADY BEGAN TO SEE IN 2019, A CYCLE THAT WE GO THROUGH SEEMS LIKE EVERY SEVEN TO 10 YEARS WHERE THERE'S A DOWNTURN IN OIL AND GAS BUSINESS AND TYPICALLY IN 12 MONTHS, THAT DOWNTURN IS OVER AND IT COMES BACK AND IT COMES BACK EVEN TO A HIGHER RATE THAN IT WAS BEFORE THE DOWNTURN.

SO LAST YEAR WAS ONE OF THOSE YEARS WE WERE IN THE THIRD YEAR OF A CHAPTER 381 AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY.

AT THIS THIRD YEAR, WERE GOING TO GET REIMBURSED 60 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY TAXES THAT WE PAID FOR 2020 BASED ON MAINTAINING A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES.

I THINK A TOTAL OF THAT WAS LIKE 62.

I CAN LOOK AT MY NOTES AND VERIFY THAT WE ENDED THE YEAR WITH A BLENDED AVERAGE OF ABOUT FORTY SEVEN EMPLOYEES, WITH THE ECONOMY OBVIOUSLY LOSING ABOUT 40 PERCENT OF GDP DURING THAT DOWNTURN AND DURING COVID AND OIL AND GAS BUSINESS JUST BASICALLY FREEZING ALONG WITH WE HAD AN AUDIT FROM ICE THAT CAME IN AND REQUESTED THAT WE TERMINATE 16 PEOPLE LATE IN THE YEAR AROUND THANKSGIVING THAT WE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE CONTROL OVER.

AND SO WE DID THAT ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

AND OF COURSE, THAT DIDN'T HELP OUR NUMBERS.

SINCE THAT TIME WE RESTORED I THINK WE ENDED THE YEAR AT AROUND TWENTY FOUR EMPLOYEES TOTAL ON AVERAGE, 25 MAYBE.

SINCE THAT TIME WE'RE BACK TO AROUND 40.

WE'RE SEEING A GREAT RECOVERY GOING ON, PARTICULARLY IN THE LAST 45 DAYS OR SO.

AND WE'RE VERY OPTIMISTIC THAT WE'RE HEADED BACK TO THAT 60 AND 70 RANGE, ASSUMING WE CAN FIND EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS A CHALLENGE THESE DAYS.

WELL, OUR WORK IS VERY BLUE COLLAR, HARD WORK, DIRTY WORK, AND IT'S HARD TO FIND FOLKS.

SOMETIMES WE ARE TRYING TO BRING ON THREE TO FIVE PEOPLE A WEEK IF WE CAN FIND THEM.

SO, IN FACT, WE JUST RECENTLY EXTENDED LOOKING AT GOING WITH STAFFING COMPANIES, JUST ANYBODY WE CAN GET BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THE WORK WE NEED TO GET IT BACK.

SO MY REQUEST TO THE COURT WAS TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SIXTY TWO AND PAY THE SIXTY PERCENT AS PER THE AGREEMENT.

AND IT'S JUST AS SIMPLE AS I CAN PUT IT.

OK, COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, WE ENDED THE YEAR AT ABOUT TWENTY FIVE AFTER THE ADJUSTMENT FROM THE ICE AUDIT.

I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU MR. HADEN.

BY THE WAY, MR. HADEN AND I ARE NOT RELATED, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.

OR I'D BE RECUSING MYSELF RIGHT NOW.

SO ALMOST ALL OF OUR 381 COMPANIES HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH THIS.

[01:50:01]

AND WHAT WE'VE HISTORICALLY DONE IS TAKEN THE PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES THAT YOU HAD, 47 OVER 62 AND ADJUSTED OUR REIMBURSEMENT BASED ON THAT.

TO ME, THAT SEEMS LIKE THE FAIREST AND MOST CONSISTENT WAY OF DOING IT.

AND THAT'S HOW WE HAVE HISTORICALLY DONE IT.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING I COULD GET COMFORTABLE WITH.

I THINK, BASED ON THOSE NUMBERS, WE AVERAGED ABOUT FORTY SEVEN EMPLOYEES FOR THE YEAR, BLENDED.

WE STARTED OUT IN THE 80S AND WENT DOWN TO THAT TWENTY FOUR NUMBER.

SO THAT FORTY SEVEN OF THE SIXTY TWO I GUESS WOULD BE THE PRO RATA SHARE.

YES THAT'S RIGHT.

SO WE TAKE WHATEVER YOU'RE 60 PERCENT WAS, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLY IT BY WHATEVER THAT FACTOR IS AND THAT WOULD BE THE REIMBURSEMENT.

IN OTHER WORDS, IN JANUARY WE MAY HAVE HAD 70 EMPLOYEES THERE, AND AS THE ECONOMY BEGAN TO SHUT DOWN, WE WENT DOWN TO 24.

AND SO WHAT YOU DO IS YOU LOOK AT THAT OVER THE WHOLE YEAR, YOU LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF HOURS AND DOLLARS PAID.

AND YOU AND YOU AVERAGE THAT, I GUESS, FOR THE YEAR SO FOR 2020, IT WAS RIGHT AT 47 FOR THE AVERAGE.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO WOULD THAT BE A MOTION TO DO A PRO RATA REIMBURSEMENT OF THEIR 60 PERCENT BASED ON 47 EMPLOYEES OVER THE REQUIRED 62 AND A MULTIPLIER BASED ON THAT? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

ANY MORE DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE: OPPOSED NONE, MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 12 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER FORTY FIVE FOR

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[12. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #45 for Harwood Road Culvert Grant and County Match. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Barbara Gonzales/ Dennis Engelke; Backup: 15; Cost: Net Zero]

HARWOOD ROAD CULVERT GRANT AND COUNTY MATCH.

IS DENNIS AROUND? I WAS JUST A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

SORRY, DENNIS--THIS WILL BE A JOINT PRESENTATION WORKING IN CONCERT WITH THE COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE, JUST WANT TO REMIND THE COURT THAT IN HURRICANE HARVEY, 13 OF THE 14 ROAD PROJECTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

THE 14TH PROJECT IS THE HARWOOD ROAD PROJECT, AND IT WAS THE ONLY PROJECT THAT CLASSIFIED AS A LARGE PROJECT, MEANING THAT THE COST FOR REPAIRING THE ROAD EXCEEDED ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS THRESHOLD THAT FEMA HAS AS A RULE.

THEREFORE, BEING A LARGE PROJECT, THE ROAD WORK CANNOT BE DONE BY ROAD.

IT HAS TO BE BID OUT BY A CONTRACTOR AND THE WITH THE CURRENT ALLOCATION OBLIGATION FROM FEMA FOR THAT PARTICULAR ROAD PROJECT THAT REQUIRES A LOCAL OF A LITTLE MORE THAN FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT.

WE ARE WORKING WITH FEMA ON MAKING PROGRESS, HOPEFULLY ON COMPLETING THIS HARWOOD ROAD PROJECT.

IT REQUIRED A SCOPE MODIFICATION WHICH TRACY BRATTON, OUR ENGINEER, AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH FEMA.

WE HAVE TO HAVE THE SCOPE MODIFICATION APPROVED AND THE SCOPE MODIFICATION IS THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR EXPENDITURE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BUILD A TEMPORARY BYPASS AROUND THE HARWOOD ROAD SO THAT WE CAN WORK TRAFFIC WHILE WE FIX THE MAIN HARWOOD ROAD.

THAT TEMPORARY BYPASS WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ORIGINAL PROJECTIONS WITH FEMA.

SO THAT'S WHY THAT WE'VE HAD TO ASK FOR A SCOPE MODIFICATION, WHICH IS WHY THAT PARTICULAR ROAD PROJECT HAS NOT YET BEEN COMPLETED.

BUT THIS IS A BUDGET AMENDMENT REFERS TO THE ORIGINAL OBLIGATION FROM FEMA TO REPAIR THAT ROAD, WHICH INCLUDES A LOCAL MATCH OF A LITTLE MORE THAN FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS, WHICH IS BEING ACCOUNTED FOR IN THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT.

OK, BARBARA, YOU WANT TO DO IT, OR DO YOU WANT ME TO DO IT? I DON'T CARE.

I'M EASY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO CREDIT 00230000301 FOR ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX DOLLARS AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO CREDIT 00211013142

[01:55:03]

CONTRACT MOWING FOR ELEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY EIGHT DOLLARS 00211014640 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT FOR FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE DOLLARS AND THEN 00211013138 HARWOOD ROAD CULVERT FOR ONE HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED TWENTY NINE DOLLARS.

WE'RE GOING TO DEBIT THAT AMOUNT.

OK, VERY GOOD.

I MIGHT JUST ADD ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, ONCE THAT SCOPE MODIFICATION IS HOPEFULLY APPROVED, THEN WE CAN BEGIN THE BIDDING FOR FINDING A CONTRACTOR TO FINISH THIS PARTICULAR ROAD PROJECT.

THIS PROJECT CURRENTLY HAS A GRANT ENDING PERIOD OR PROJECT ENDING PERIOD OF AUGUST THE 25TH OF THIS YEAR.

AND SO WE'RE HOPING THAT CONTRACT PROTOCOLS CAN BE FOLLOWED AND WE CAN GET THE CONTRACTOR AND GET THE CONSTRUCTION DONE BEFORE THE AUGUST 24TH DEADLINE.

OK, COMMISSIONERS LOOKING FOR MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 45.

MOTION AND SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE: AYE.

ITEM THIRTEEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER FORTY SIX

[13. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #46 to transfer funds from Code Enforcement Repairs and Maintenance (001-6640-4510) and Training (001-6640-4810) line items to Disposal Fees (001-6640-3151) due to the increased illegal tire disposal. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Barbara Gonzales/ Mike Bittner]

TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE ZERO ZERO ONE SIX SIX FOUR ZERO FOUR FIVE ONE ZERO AND TRAINING ZERO ZERO ONE SIX SIX FOUR ZERO FOUR EIGHT ONE ZERO LINE ITEMS TO DISPOSAL FEES OF ZERO ZERO ONE SIX SIX FOUR ZERO THREE ONE FIVE ONE.

COMMISSIONER, WE HAD ONE OF OUR [INAUDIBLE] EVENTS AND WENT SLIGHTLY OVER AND IN THAT AMOUNT.

SO WE HAD TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER THAT OVERAGE.

LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM THIRTEEN.

SO MOVE.

WE HAVE MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE: AYE.

OPPOSE? NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM FOURTEEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER FORTY SEVEN

[14. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #47 to move money from line item 013-6520-5312 (Mach & Equip - Johnson Controls) to 013-4310-5312 (Mach & Equip - Johnson Controls) to pay Johnson Controls invoice. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Barbara Gonzales; Backup: 4; Cost: Net Zero]

TO MOVE MONEY FROM LINE ITEM ZERO ONE THREE SIX FIVE TWO ZERO FIVE THREE ONE TWO MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT JOHNSON CONTROLS TO ZERO ONE THREE FOUR THREE ONE ZERO FIVE THREE ONE TWO, MACHINERY EQUIPMENT JOHNSON CONTROLS TO PAY JOHNSON CONTROLS INVOICE.

COMMISSIONERS, WHEN WE BEGAN THIS PROJECT WE ALLOCATED THE MONEY INTO SOME DIFFERENT CATEGORIES AND THIS IS THE BUDGET AMENDMENT JUST TO MOVE MONEY FROM ONE CATEGORY TO ANOTHER TO COVER THAT EXPENSE.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 47? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE: AYE OPPOSED NONE, MOTION CARRIES ITEM 15 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE CHANGE ORDER TO PURCHASE OR THE CHANGE

[15. Discussion/Action to consider the change order to Purchase Order #00673 for Johnson Controls. Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Blake; Backup: 6; Cost: $164,378.00]

ORDERED A PURCHASE ORDER NO.

ZERO ZERO SIX SEVEN THREE FOUR JOHNSON CONTROLS.

THIS IS COMMISSIONERS.

THE CHANGE SO THAT WE CAN PAY THAT BILL.

LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE A MOTION THAT WE HAVE A SECOND SET IN MOTION.

A SECOND I'M IN FAVOR, SAY AYE: AYE.

ITEM SIXTEEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE INVOICE NUMBER FOUR FOUR TWO

[16. Discussion/Action to consider the invoice #44275624 for payment to Johnson Controls in the amount of $57,773.00. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Danie Blake; Backup: 6; Cost: $57,773.00]

SEVEN FIVE SIX TWO FOUR FOR PAYMENT TO JOHNSON CONTROL IN THE AMOUNT OF FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THREE DOLLARS.

THIS IS JUST TO PAY THE INVOICE FOR THAT AMOUNT THAT WE OWE JOHNSON CONTROL.

SO MOVED.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE: AYE OPPOSE NONE MOTION CARRIES ITEM SEVENTEEN DISCUSSION

[17. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #48 to move money from Contingency (001-6510-4860)to Emergency Managements Dues and Subscriptions (001-6650-3050) to pay AT&T hotspots. Speaks: Judge Haden/ Barbara Gonzales; Backup: 66; Cost: Net Zero]

ACTION TO CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENT FORTY EIGHT TO MOVE MONEY FROM CONTINGENCY ZERO ZERO ONE SIX FIVE ONE ZERO FOUR EIGHT SIX ZERO TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS ZERO ZERO ONE SIX SIX FIVE ZERO THREE ZERO FIVE ZERO TO PAY AT&T HOTSPOTS.

COMMISSIONERS, WE HAD GOTTEN SOME HOT SPOTS DURING ALL THE COVID STUFF THAT WAS GOING ON AND FOR OUR VACCINATION AND TESTING MOBILE CLINICS, THOSE WERE GETTING A LITTLE EXPENSIVE.

THIS ADJUSTMENT IS TO PAY FOR THOSE AND WE'VE SINCE CLOSED THOSE DOWN AND MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS.

BUT THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT IS TO GO AHEAD AND PAY THAT BILL FOR THOSE HOTSPOTS.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SO MOVE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE: AYE OPPOSE NONE MOTION CARRIES.

[02:00:02]

ITEM EIGHTEEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER BLANKET PURCHASE ORDER REQ00918 MADE

[18. Discussion/Action to consider the blanket P.O. REQ00918 made to FirstNet (AT&T) for Emergency Management hotspot expenses. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Danie Blake; Backup: 2; Cost: $1,710.00]

THE FIRSTNET AT&T FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HOTSPOT EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND TEN DOLLARS.

COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE? WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE: AYE.

ITEM NINETEEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER PAYMENT BE MADE TO FIRSTNET AT&T FOR

[19. Discussion/Action to consider payment be made to FirstNet (AT&T) for January, February, March and April 2021 invoices in the total amount of $1,763.04. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Danie Blake; Backup: 65; Cost: $1,763.04]

JANUARY, FEBRUARY, MARCH AND APRIL 2021 INVOICES TO A TOTAL OF ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY THREE DOLLARS AND FOUR CENTS.

COMMISSIONERS DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SO MOVED.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION, IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE: AYE.

ITEM TWENTY DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER NONCOMPLIANCE FIRST.

[20. Discussion/Action to consider the Non-Compliance first quarterly investment report (October 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020). Speaker: Judge Haden/ Barbara Gonzales/ Angela Rawlinson; Backup: 17; Cost: None]

QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT OCTOBER 1ST, 2020 THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST, 2020 BARBARA.

COUNTY JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS, OUR EXTERNAL AUDITORS HAVE ASKED US TO FOLLOW UP ON ALL THE QUARTERLY REPORTS THAT ARE NOT COMING BEFORE COMMISSIONERS COURT.

AND THIS IS A STATUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION TWENTY TWO FIFTY SIX POINT ZERO TWENTY THREE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE INVESTMENT POLICY THAT DOES COME BEFORE COMMISSIONERS COURT AND IS DUE TO COME BACK BEFORE COMMISSIONERS COURT NEXT JUNE.

THIS COMING UP JUNE.

WE SHOULD HAVE A QUARTERLY REPORTS THAT COME BEFORE COMMISSIONERS COURT.

AND SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COME IN ACCORDANCE.

AND I BELIEVE WE'VE GOT AN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE QUARTERLY MEETING COMING UP HERE PRETTY SOON.

AND SO WE WILL HOPEFULLY HAVE THESE QUARTERLY REPORTS COMING BEFORE YOU.

BUT IN ACCORDANCE TO THE LAW, WE SHOULD HAVE THESE QUARTERLY REPORTS COMING BEFORE YOU AND YOU APPROVING THESE.

AND SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE COMPLIANCE HERE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

BUT THIS IS TO JUST REPORT TO YOU THAT WE'RE NON-COMPLIANT FROM OCTOBER 1ST, 2020 THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST, 2020 FOR THE INVESTMENT REPORT.

AND SO WE JUST NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE NONCOMPLIANCE REPORT OR I MEAN, WHAT'S THE ACTION HERE.

JJ, ANY THOUGHTS? DO WE NEED TO MAKE AN ACTION? JUST TO APPROVE THAT IT'S NON-COMPLIANT.

OK, ALL RIGHT, SO DO WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE NONCOMPLIANCE FIRST QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT FOR OCTOBER 1ST 2020 THROUGH DECEMBER THIRTY FIRST 2021? WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION, AND A SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION, IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE: AYE.

ITEM TWENTY ONE DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE EMERGENCY PURCHASE AND TO

[21. Discussion/Action to consider the emergency purchase and to make payment to Cothron's Safe & Lock in the amount of $709.25. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Danie Blake; Backup: 3; Cost: $709.25]

MAKE PAYMENT TO COTHRON'S SAFE AND LOCK IN THE AMOUNT OF SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINE DOLLARS AND TWENTY FIVE CENTS.

COMMISSIONERS WE HAD A SITUATION WHERE THE TREASURER'S DOOR LOCK JAMMED AND THE TREASURER AND HER ASSISTANT COULD NOT GET OUT OF OFFICE.

AND SO WE HAD THE COTHRAN'S LOCK TO GET THEM OUT OF THE OFFICE AND FIX THAT DOOR KNOB.

SO THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL IS.

AND SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR RATIFICATION OF THE PAYMENT SINCE IT WAS ABOUT FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS.

WE HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE: AYE.

ITEM TWENTY TWO DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE PAYMENT ON INVOICE NUMBER

[22. Discussion/Action to consider the payment on invoice #1250119 for Cothron's Safe & Lock. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Danie Blake; Backup: 2; Cost: $709.25]

ONE TWO FIVE ZERO ONE ONE NINE FOR COTHRAN'S LOCK AND SAFE.

MOTION TO APPROVE PAYMENT? SO MOVE.

MOTION AND A SECOND ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE: AYE.

ITEM TWENTY THREE DISCUSSION ACTION TO DISCUSS CALDWELL COUNTY FIRST VEHICLE AUCTION

[23. Discussion/Action to discuss Caldwell County first Vehicle auction summary. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Shenale Gerrity; Backup: 10; Cost: None]

SUMMARY.

CHANEL.

GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS.

ON FEBRUARY 2ND, RENEE BATES CONCLUDED THAT CALDWELL COUNTY'S FIRST VEHICLE AUCTION.

IN CLOSING THE AUCTION SOLD TWENTY SIX VEHICLES WITH A SUM OF SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS AND THIRTY NINE CENTS.

[02:05:02]

AFTER RENEE BATES COLLECTED THE SEVEN POINT FIVE PERCENT COMMISSION FEE, CALDWELL COUNTY RECEIVED A TOTAL OF FIFTY NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY NINE DOLLARS AND SEVENTY FOUR CENTS.

IT IS WITHIN MY INTENT TO CONDUCT A SECOND AUCTION IN MAY OF 2021 FOR THE REMAINING COUNTY VEHICLES AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT THAT IS NO LONGER IN SERVICE OR IN WORKING ORDER.

OK, THANK YOU.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE HAVING ACTION ON THIS COMMISSIONERS.

WE JUST WANTED TO BRING YOU UP TO DATE ON WHERE WERE WITH THE DISPOSITION OF THAT OLD EQUIPMENT.

AND WITH THAT WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM TWENTY FOUR.

AND BY THE WAY, CHANEL, THAT SOUNDED LIKE SOMETHING THAT WAS PRETTY EASY, BUT IT ACTUALLY TOOK HER AN EXTREME AMOUNT OF HARD WORK.

AND WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DID.

ITEM 24 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION OF A GRANT THROUGH THE TRAVIS

[24. Discussion/Action to consider the submission of a grant through the Travis County Sheriffs Office to seek funding to support the creation of a Task Force Agent position in the Caldwell County Sheriffs Office in the FY 21-22 Budget. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Mike Lane/ Dennis Engelke; Backup: 2; Cost: None]

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO SEEK FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE CREATION OF A TASK FORCE AGENT POSITION IN CALDWELL COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

FY2122.

COME ON UP, DENNIS.

AT THE LAST COMMISSIONER'S COURT MEETING, COUNTY SHERIFF LANE ANNOUNCED TO YOU HIS INTEREST IN PURSUING A GRANT PURSUING GRANT FUNDING TO ESTABLISH A TASK FORCE AGENT POSITION IN THE 2021-22 BUDGET.

AND A GRANT APPLICATION IS BEING COORDINATED WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

I'M ASKING FOR YOUR RATIFICATION OF A GRANT THAT WAS SUBMITTED ON APRIL 14TH TO THE TRAVIS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

THE GRANT REQUEST IS FOR SIXTY SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY TWO DOLLARS AND THIRTY THREE CENTS, WHICH INCLUDES FUNDING FOR SALARY AND FRINGE BENEFITS FOR THIS NEW POSITION, WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN NEXT YEAR'S FISCAL BUDGET.

SO I'M ASKING FOR RATIFICATION FOR THE FACT THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED THIS APPLICATION TO TRAVIS COUNTY.

AND THE AMOUNT WAS HOW MUCH, DENNIS? TOTAL OF SIXTY SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO DOLLARS AND THIRTY THREE CENTS.

AND THAT'S SALARY AND FRINGE.

WE GOT SIXTY SEVEN, SIXTY EIGHT TWENTY FOUR ON [INAUDIBLE], THAT'S WHY I ASKED.

OK, I'M SHOWING ON THE FORM, THERE MAY BE A TYPO OR SOMETHING BUT THE SALARY IS FIFTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINETY NINE DOLLARS, FRINGES OR FIFTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED TWENTY THREE DOLLARS AND THIRTY THREE CENTS.

DID ANYBODY ADD THAT UP? MAY BE A TYPO.

SAY IT AGAIN, DENNIS.

THE SALARY WAS FIFTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE DOLLARS EVEN OK.

AND THE FRINGES WAS FIFTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE DOLLARS AND THIRTY THREE CENTS.

I THINK WE GOT OFF ON OUR FRINGE HERE BECAUSE THE FRINGE ON THIS FORM'S SIXTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY NINE TWENTY FOUR.

IT AUTOMATICALLY POPULATED ON THE FORM WHEN WE FILLED IT OUT.

SO THAT 67000 IS CORRECT? THE 67068.24 IS CORRECT.

OK, VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT.

OK, SO, COMMISSIONERS, I THINK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS THE RATIFICATION.

WE HAD TO GET THIS IN BY DEADLINE.

SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR RATIFICATION OF OUR SUBMITTAL FOR THE GRANT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO RATIFY? SO MOVED.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE: AYE.

ITEM 25 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE CAPITAL AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT CLEAN

[25. Discussion/Action to consider the Capital Area Council of Governments Clean Air Coalition PM 2.5 Emission Reduction Measure Commitments. Speaker: Commissioner Westmoreland; Backup:ll; Cost: None]

AIR ACT COALITION PM 2.5 EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURE COMMITMENTS.

COMMISSIONER WESTMORLAND.

THIS YEAR, EPA MAY CHANGE THE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS VOLUNTARY REDUCTION MEASURES THE COALITION PUT TOGETHER GUIDELINES THEY'RE ASKING FOR EACH BODY TO CONSIDER REDUCTION COMMITMENTS.

WE DO SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR FOR OZONE I WILL SAY THAT OUR COMMITMENTS ARE JUST IN REFERENCE TO CALDWELL COUNTY

[02:10:05]

SORT OF REGULATORY ACTION THAT THEY DO, BUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR OUR VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT AND THOSE CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE TWO OF THE DOCUMENT.

AND SO AT THIS POINT, THEY'D LIKE A RESPONSE BACK [INAUDIBLE] BY MAY 31ST.

THERE'S ALSO A TIMEFRAME FOR THE PROCESS MOVING FORWARD ON PAGE THREE.

AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR ME BRINGING TO THE COURT TODAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOME DECISIONS ON HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN RESPONSE TO THE CLEAN AIR COALITION AND [INAUDIBLE].

SO IF WE CHOOSE TO VOLUNTARILY ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH THESE THINGS, WHAT IF WE DO NOT COMPLY WITH THEM? THERE'S NO PENALTY? [INAUDIBLE] YEAH, COMMISSIONER, CAN YOU PULL YOUR MIC UP? THEY CAN'T HEAR YOU ON SWAGIT.

THAT'S OK.

[INAUDIBLE] ABOUT COMMITMENTS AS FAR AS FUNDING WAS CONCERNED [INAUDIBLE] AT THIS POINT, IN ADDITION TO [INAUDIBLE], IF YOU DON'T MEET THEM, THERE'S NO PENALTY FOR IT, OTHER THAN THE POTENTIAL [INAUDIBLE] PEDESTRIANS [INAUDIBLE] AND EVENTUALLY [INAUDIBLE] NOW, WHY DOES THAT MATTER? NOT [INAUDIBLE] AIR QUALITY CAN AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO APPLY FOR A GRANT FUNDING [INAUDIBLE].

ASHBY, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO COME UP AND SAY? YES.

AND I JUST HAPPENED TO WALK BACK IN HERE; THIS WAS NOT PLANNED.

SO FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS ASHBY JOHNSON.

I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CAMPEAU.

AND SO AS FAR AS THE PM 2.5 ISSUE IS CONCERNED, THIS REGION DOES NOT, IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, HAVE A TWO POINT FIVE ISSUE.

AND I'VE DISCUSSED THAT WITH CAP COD BEFORE, WITH THE STAFF PERSON.

SO THE PARTICULATE MATTER TWO POINT FIVE THAT WE GET IN THIS REGION LARGELY COMES WHEN THEY BURN THE FIELDS OF MEXICO AND WE GET AIR TRANSPORT.

SO IT'S A FEW TIMES A YEAR.

IN MY OPINION.

WE ARE NOT CLOSE TO THE STANDARD OF VIOLATING THE STANDARD.

LIKEWISE, ON ON NOX AND CO2, WE HAVE BEEN CLOSE TO VIOLATING THE STANDARDS.

SO THE LAST TIME THAT EPA CHECKS EVERY I THINK FOUR TO FIVE YEARS OR SO, SO THE LAST TIME WAS ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.

AND WERE UNDER THE STANDARD.

SAN ANTONIO WENT OVER, BUT WE DID NOT.

BASED ON WHAT WE SEE, NOT JUST WE AS CAMPEAU, BUT WE AS TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THROUGH TEXAS A&M, THAT TXDOT HIRES TO DO THE ANALYSIS ON THIS WORK.

BUT ALSO, EVEN IF YOU LOOK BIG INTO THE CAP COD NUMBERS, OUR VEHICLE FLEET IS EXPECTED TO GET CLEANER OVER TIME BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO SEE ELECTRIC VEHICLES COME IN AND HAVE NO EMISSIONS AT ALL.

AND THEN OUR FLEET IN THIS REGION IN GENERAL TENDS TO BE CLEANER BECAUSE THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME HERE IS HIGH AND THE VEHICLES TEND TO BE NEW.

AND WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DIESEL TRUCKS HERE LIKE YOU DO IN HOUSTON OR I WAS IN HOUSTON AND I USED TO HANDLE AIR QUALITY THERE FOR A WHILE.

I WOULD TELL YOU, THIS IS NOT A BURNING ISSUE.

DO WE NEED TO BE PROACTIVE? I WOULD SAY YES, BUT I DON'T SEE THIS AS A AS A BURNING ISSUE FOR US.

AND SO, COMMISSIONER THERIOT, SINCE YOU'RE ON THE POLICY BOARD, JUST SO YOU KNOW, SHOULD WE AS A REGION GO INTO NON ATTAINMENT, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ATTAINMENT IS THE POLICY BOARD IT'S NOT CAP COD.

THAT'S FEDERAL LAW.

SO I IF IT'S POSSIBLE, COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND, I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE

[02:15:05]

PROPOSING AND SEE THIS SEE IF IT'S IN AGREEMENT WITH TRANSPORTATION.

BECAUSE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WENT INTO NON ATTAINMENT? IT WOULD AFFECT OUR TRANSPORTATION DOLLARS AND OUR ABILITY TO ADVANCE PROJECTS.

WE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ACTION UNTIL THE 31ST, IS THAT CORRECT? SO WE CAN TABLE THIS AND DO A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH ON IT AND BRING IT BACK? SO.

CONVERSATION WITH CAMPEAU AS IT RELATES TO WHAT'S GOING ON AT CAP COD SO THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THANK YOU FOR STEPPING UP.

THANK YOU JUDGE.

GLAD YOU WERE HERE.

YES, MA'AM.

IF Y'ALL DON'T MIND, I THINK ITEM TWENTY SIX MIGHT TAKE JUST A FEW MINUTES.

I'D LIKE TO TAKE ABOUT A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND COME BACK.

WE'RE IN RECESS AT 11:20.

WE'LL COME BACK AT 11:25.

AS SOON AS SWAGIT COMES ON.

OK, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 11:28 ON TUESDAY, APRIL THE TWENTY SEVENTH, AND PICK UP ON ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION ITEM

[26. Discussion/Action to consider the application for Exemption Letter for subdivision located on Grapevine Trail under section 3.3.1(b) for the Caldwell County Development Ordinance. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Commissioner Westmoreland/Tracy Bratton/ JJ Wells; Backup: 9. Cost: None]

TWENTY SIX TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FOR THE EXEMPTION LETTER FOR SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON GRAPEVINE TRAIL UNDER SECTION THREE POINT THREE POINT ONE B FOR CALDWELL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.

SO COMMISSIONERS, THAT I KNOW I'M DOWN AS A SPEAKER BUT I'VE NOT BEEN TERRIBLY INVOLVED WITH THIS.

IS WHERE'S JJ? TRACY, YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND COME UP WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR JJ? I WANT TO GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO KIND OF GET THE WHOLE COURT UP TO SPEED ON WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS.

AND THEN WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE SOME DISCUSSION.

ALL RIGHT.

FOR THE RECORDER, TRACY BRATTON [INAUDIBLE] ASSOCIATES, I'M MOSTLY HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

THIS CAME TO ME REQUESTING INITIALLY AN EXEMPTION LETTER AND THAT SOMETHING PROVIDED FOR IN THE ORDINANCE THAT I DO AS A REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS, AS THE COUNTY ENGINEER.

AND THAT'S WHEN SOMEBODY DIVIDES A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT MEETS THE EXEMPTION LAID OUT IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 232 AND OUR, AND IN OUR ORDINANCE TO DIVIDE PROPERTY.

WE GRANT THEM AN EXEMPTION LETTER THAT HELPS FACILITATE THEM GETTING PERMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION FOR SEPTIC.

I'M SORRY, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO MOVE MOVE UP, LINDA, BECAUSE OUR SPEAKERS ARE NOT OUR MICROPHONES AREN'T WORKING.

SO, OK, I'LL TRY TO TALK LOUDER.

IT'S USUALLY NOT A PROBLEM FOR ME.

AND SO THIS IS JUST NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS.

THIS PARTICULAR TRACT OF LAND DIDN'T MEET ONE OF THE CRITERIA LAID OUT IN THE ORDINANCE FOR EXEMPT SUBDIVISION.

AND THE ORDINANCE LAYS OUT A PROCEDURE THAT IF IN THE VIEW OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER, IT DOESN'T MEET THE EXEMPTION REQUIREMENTS, IT'S THEN REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR THE COURT TO GRANT AN EXEMPTION OR VARIANCE OR DENY.

AND SPECIFICALLY THE ISSUE IS IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY AS AN EXEMPT TRACT, IT HAS TO MEET A COUPLE CRITERIA.

AND THERE WE WON'T TALK ABOUT ONES ABOUT VETERAN LAND BOARD KNOWS THINGS BECAUSE THOSE DON'T APPLY HERE.

THE SPECIFIC ONE HERE IS THAT WE ASK FOR EACH TRACK CREATED TO HAVE 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON AN EXISTING ROADWAY THAT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE COUNTY, AND THAT CAN BE A COUNTY ROADWAY, STATE ROADWAY OR A PRIVATE ROADWAY.

BUT THE KEY IS THAT IT'S A ROADWAY THAT'S BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE COUNTY AND THAT'S COME THROUGH SOME FORM OF RECOGNITION OF THE COURT.

AND THAT COULD BE THAT IT WAS PLATTED AS A PRIVATE ROADWAY OR COULD BE THAT IT'S ON SOME OF THE COUNTY ROADWAY MAPS THAT GO BACK PRIOR TO AND I DON'T REMEMBER THE HOUSE

[02:20:01]

BILL NUMBER THAT ADOPTED THE CURRENT COUNTY MAINTAIN ROADS.

NOW, THIS ORIGINAL TRACT OF LAND, I THINK IT WAS ABOUT THIRTY SEVEN ACRES, CONTAINS A THIRTY I BELIEVE IT'S A 30 FOOT WIDE STRIP THAT GOES BACK AND CONNECTS TO A COUNTY ROADWAY.

AND IT IS ENCUMBERED BY AN EASEMENT THAT GOES DOWN THAT 30 FOOT STRIP THROUGH THIS TRACT AND TO SOME OTHER PROPERTY IN THE BACK.

AND SO THE DIVISION CUT THAT INTO TWO PIECES, SEVENTEEN ACRES AND TWENTY TWO ACRES.

BUT THE ONE OF THE PIECES DOESN'T HAVE ANY FRONTAGE ON ANY EXISTING ROADWAY.

IT'S ONLY ACCESSED BY THE EASEMENT.

AND SO FOLLOWING OUR PROCEDURES FOR AN EXEMPTION.

IT DIDN'T QUALIFY AND THUS REFERRING TO THE COURT HERE, I BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION AND JJ HAS DRAFTED SOMETHING TO PUT IN FRONT OF YOU THAT BASICALLY RESTRICTS AN OFFER FOR A VARIANCE THAT RESTRICTS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SO IT DOESN'T BECOME TEN HOMES OR TWENTY HOMES.

AND, OH, I BELIEVE THE STRUCTURE OF IT IS THAT RESTRICTION GOES AWAY.

IF AT ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE THE PROPERTIES ARE PLATTED IN ORDER TO BE PLATTED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONSTRUCT A ROADWAY OR ACHIEVE FUTURE ROADWAY FRONTAGE.

OK, JJ, WOULD YOU MIND SPEAKING OF THAT, PLEASE? SURE.

JUST TO KIND OF JUMP ONTO WHAT MR. BRATTON WAS SAYING, JUST BASED ON THE PLAT SET UP AND THE LAW AND THE EXCEPTIONS TO PLANNING REQUIREMENTS.

I AGREE.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS EXEMPT FROM THE STATUTORY PLATTING REQUIREMENTS.

TO RESOLVE THIS.

WE'RE HERE AGAIN.

MR. BRATTON IS NOT WILLING TO PROVIDE THE EXEMPTION LETTER UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS.

AND IT'S UP FOR THE COMMISSIONERS COURT FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER OUR ORDINANCE.

IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM, WE'VE TRIED TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO IMPOSE ANY KIND OF CONDITIONS OR COME UP WITH A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD SATISFY THE GOALS OF THE COUNTY'S ORDINANCE, BUT ALSO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAINTAIN THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY.

ONE SOLUTION THAT WE'VE KIND OF KICKED AROUND THAT I'VE KIND OF BEEN WORKING ON, AND I THINK I'VE SHOWN IT TO THE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND, WHO I THINK IS THIS IS IN HIS PRECINCT.

ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION WE'VE DISCUSSED IS PERHAPS ENCUMBERING BOTH PROPERTIES WITH A COVENANT THAT THEY IF THEY NEED TO BE SOLD TOGETHER IN THE FUTURE AND IF THEY'RE EVER NOT SOLD TOGETHER OR SEPARATED IN SOME WAY, THEN THEY WILL NEED TO BE PLATTED AT THAT TIME CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE.

ESSENTIALLY, IT WOULD ALLOW THE PROPERTIES TO BE SUBDIVIDED RETROACTIVELY, ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION TO OCCUR, BASICALLY BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH OUR ORDINANCE WHILE ALSO ATTACHING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS, LIKE I MENTIONED.

THAT WOULD PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN, ESSENTIALLY, ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION OR SALE OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD THEN TRIGGER THE PLATTING REQUIREMENTS THAT SHOULD HAVE POTENTIALLY BEEN FOLLOWED THIS TIME.

AND JUST, YOU KNOW, FOR PROCEDURE'S SAKE, I THINK THAT ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE, THE BEST WAY TO GO ABOUT DOING THAT WOULD BE EITHER TO ATTACH THESE CONDITIONS TO A VARIANCE.

IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY BECAUSE THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN WITH AN EXEMPTION AND THE EXEMPTION LETTER PROCESS, THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE WRITTEN FOR US, DOESN'T NECESSARILY PROVIDE AN AVENUE BY WHICH THE COMMISSIONERS COURT CAN ATTACH THESE COVENANTS TO AN EXEMPTION LETTER.

HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO IN THE FORM OF A VARIANCE, AND THAT CAN BE DONE ON THE COURT'S OWN MOVEMENT OR BY THEM REQUESTING A VARIANCE.

I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE THAT FITS MORE WITH THE PROCEDURAL OUTLINE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE, ALTHOUGH IT IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT TO GRANT THE EXEMPTION IF THEY SEE FIT.

OK, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS, THAT'S HERE? LINDA.

LINDA HENKEL, I'M WITH THE SURVEY OFFICE, AND WE DID THIS.

NOW YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE ROAD COMING TO THIS [INAUDIBLE] RANCH IS ONLY 30 FEET WIDE .

WE CAN'T GET 50 IF THAT'S THE REASON FOR THIS NOT BEING ABLE TO HAPPEN.

THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 232-0013.

I HEARD TRACY MENTION EARLIER ALL THE EXEMPTIONS, MORE THAN 10 ACRES PRIMARILY USED FOR AGRICULTURAL.

YOU KNOW, AND IT IS ON AN EASEMENT, WE HAVE EASEMENTS IN THIS COUNTY EVERYWHERE.

THEY'RE MOSTLY 30 FEET WIDE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE WAS YEARS AGO.

THERE IS A SURVEY THAT LEROY BUSH DID IN 1980, BUT THAT WAS WHEN THE OLD [INAUDIBLE] THAT WAS 30 FEET.

YOU CAN'T TAKE YOU CAN'T MAKE 50 [INAUDIBLE] ACTUALLY OWNED THE STRIP AND

[02:25:08]

[INAUDIBLE] SURVEY IN 1983.

DAVE MOORE SURVEYED IT IN 1984.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, DAVE MOORE WAS A SURVEYOR [INAUDIBLE].

DAVE WAS A VERY INTELLIGENT MAN, YOU KNOW, 30 FOOT STRIPS FOR EASEMENTS HAVE BEEN IN THIS COUNTY FOREVER.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE ASKING.

AND I DIDN'T REALIZE UNTIL TWO DAYS AGO, THREE DAYS AGO, WHEN TRACY WROTE THE LETTER THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE EXEMPTION AND THE VARIANCE.

AND WE SHOULD HAVE CHANGED THAT BEFORE IT GOT HERE TO SAY IF WE WERE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE OR ASKING FOR AN EXEMPTION, I DON'T KNOW WHICH.

AS FAR AS PLATTING, THAT'S GOING TO ALWAYS BE A 30 FOOT ROAD REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO.

NOW, THE MONEY THAT MS. [INAUDIBLE] SPENT ON THAT ROAD ACTUALLY THE ROAD BELONGS TO CANDANCE.

SHE HAS AN EASEMENT.

SHE HAS A RIGHT TO PUT THAT GRAVEL ON THERE AND EVERYBODY SHOULD SHARE IN MAINTAINING IT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, YEARS AGO, THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING EVERYBODY DID.

YOU JUST DROVE ON EASEMENT, WHETHER WHATEVER IT WAS WHEN THE [INAUDIBLE] CASE.

YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE THINGS OUT ON 20 OR 30 FEET WIDE, THEY'RE NOT 50 FEET WIDE, YOU KNOW.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS HAS BEEN SUCH A LONG, DRAWN OUT THING WITH AND I HAD NO IDEA THAT THIS COULDN'T BE DONE.

WE WERE BASING IT OFF THE MORE THAN TEN ACRES, YOU KNOW, AND THAT HAD EITHER PRIVATE, COUNTY ROAD, PRIVATE ROAD OR, YOU KNOW, ROAD STATE RUN FRONTAGE.

SO I FEEL LIKE I DIDN'T KNOW WASN'T EVEN AWARE THAT THIS WAS A PROBLEM, THAT WE HAD TO GET VARIANCE LETTERS AND STUFF UNTIL THIS ONE CAME UP.

AND THERE WAS ONE DONE AFTER THIS IMMEDIATELY NEXT [INAUDIBLE] EASEMENT UP THERE THAT NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT.

I MEAN, NOBODY KNEW IT WAS NOT PUBLISHED.

IT WAS NOT TOLD [INAUDIBLE].

HAVE YOU HEARD OF US HAVING TO DO ALL THIS? ANY OVER THE, MORE THAN 10 TRACKS? SORRY, BECAUSE THEY CAN STILL HEAR YOU SWAGIT.

SO WE WANT TO GET IT ON THE RECORD.

YEAH, JUST WHEN WENT TO SELL THE SECOND PART OF THIS TRACK, WHICH WE DIVIDED EARLY LAST FEBRUARY 2020 AND GOT RIGHT BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, WE SOLD THE HOUSE AND 17 ACRES, WHICH THEY WERE THE OWNERS WERE TRYING TO SELL THE THIRTY SEVEN ACRES IN THE HOUSE BUT DIDN'T HAVE ANY TAKERS.

AND THEN THEN I TOOK OVER AND THEN WE DECIDED TO CUT IT DOWN ON ACREAGE AND THE ROAD THAT IT'S THAT'S ON.

THE OWNERS, CANDANCE AND STEVEN PHILLIPS, THEY OWN IT ALL THE WAY OUT TO BRUSHY BRANCH.

SO THIS 30 FOOT IS ALSO A DEDICATED VETERANS EASEMENT TO SEVERAL TRACKS BEHIND THIS TRACK.

AND I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE 50 FOOT OF FRONTAGE, IT SAYS ON A PRIVATE STREET.

WELL, I WOULD CONSIDER THIS ROAD A PRIVATE STREET.

I MEAN, IS THAT RIGHT? I THINK IT'S PRIVATE STREET THAT'S BEEN PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED BY THE COUNTY.

I THINK IS THE.

WELL IT IS IT'S GOT A IT'S CONSIDERED A PRIVATE ROAD WITH THE NAME.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A COUNTY ROAD.

BUT IT'S ON A COUNTY MAP.

IT'S RECOGNIZED BY THE COUNTY.

NO.

AND THE SIGNS ARE DIFFERENT COLOR AND ALL THAT.

BUT IT DOES THE ORIGINAL TRACK, WHICH WE SOLD A YEAR AGO, THAT'S THE BIG PROBLEM.

WE'RE COMING BACK TRYING TO SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO BE LEGAL.

IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT RIGHT? GET THIS CLEAR BEFORE THEY DO.

BUT THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING A LOAN, WHICH IF IT DOESN'T WORK OUT, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO PUT THE TRACK ON THE MARKET AGAIN AS A WHOLE TRACK.

BUT WE WANT TO DO IT LEGALLY, WHICH WE DIDN'T KNOW WEREN'T LEGAL.

I DON'T THINK ANY ANYBODY INVOLVED WITH THIS SET OUT TO BREAK OR VIOLATE ANY RULES.

I THINK WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM NOW.

I DO NOT WANT TO TELL PEOPLE.

[02:30:01]

CUZ YOU KNOW, I APOLOGIZED AND DONE EVERYTHING BUT IF I DON'T KNOW.

AND NOBODY SAID AND I HAVE NO UNLESS I WENT BACK TO EVERY COMMISSIONERS COURT [INAUDIBLE] KNEW THERE WAS SOMETHING IN PLACE.

BUT WHEN YOU READ THAT LOCAL CHAPTER 232, I DISCUSSED [INAUDIBLE] EVERY SINGLE EXEMPTION IN THERE REFERS TO THE SAME [INAUDIBLE], EVERYONE OF THEM.

SO ANY [INAUDIBLE] AND THE ADJOINING LANDOWNERS, ANY MORE THAN 10 ACRES, ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION WOULD [INAUDIBLE].

EVERY SINGLE COUNTY IF IT HAD AN EASEMENT ON IT.

YEAH, TRACY, DO YOU CAN YOU CAN YOU COME UP, PLEASE? COME ON UP, TRACY.

THAT'S NOT ACCURATE ABOUT EVERY TRACK, EVERY DIVISION OF LAND HAVING TO COME TO THE [INAUDIBLE].

GO AHEAD.

GO AHEAD TRACY.

THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE LAYS OUT CLARIFIES A COUPLE OF PROVISIONS THAT CHAPTER 232 LEAVES COMPLETELY VAGUE.

AND CHAPTER 232 SAYS THAT DIVISIONS OF LAND, TEN ACRES AND GREATER IN THE COUNTY ARE LEGALLY EXEMPT.

HOWEVER, IT SAYS THAT SUCH DIVISIONS ARE NOT EXEMPT IF IT LAYS OUT IN ANY PART OF THE TRACT FOR THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF ADJOINING TRACTS.

SO THAT'S LAYING OUT AN EASEMENT FOR ACCESS.

CHAPTER 232 DOESN'T SPECIFY THEN WHAT THEN BY DEFINITION, THE TRACT HAS TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON AN EXISTING ACCESS.

CHAPTER 232 DOESN'T SPECIFY WHAT THAT FRONTAGE IS.

EVERYBODY'S LEFT TO INTERPRET THEMSELVES.

SOME PEOPLE HAVE TEN FOOT, SOME PEOPLE HAVE 20 FOOT, 30 FOOT.

AND THE COUNTY'S ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED, THE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT IS 50 FEET.

AND THAT'S NOT, THE 50 FOOT'S NOT IN 232, THE 50 FOOT REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN IN THERE SINCE 2011.

AND IN 2018, IT WAS CLARIFIED AS THE FRONTAGE WAS STATE ROAD, COUNTY ROAD OR PRIVATE ROAD THAT HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT.

SO WHAT ALL THEY NEEDED WAS A VARIANCE TO THE 50 FOOT ROADWAY BECAUSE THAT 30 FOOT WAS CREATED AS SHE EXPLAINED BACK IN THE 1980S TO VETERANS LAND BOARD TO BEGIN WITH.

SO THEY THERE'S NO WAY TO GET MORE LAND BECAUSE SHE DON'T OWN IT.

AND THEN.

SO THEY COULD HAVE JUST ASKED FOR A VARIANCE.

WELL, THE 37 ACRE TRACT IS 30 WITH THE 30 FOOT OF FRONTAGE IS A LEGAL TRACT OF LAND BECAUSE GRANDFATHERED IT EXISTED IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS RULE.

SO THE 37 IS COMPLETELY LEGAL.

THE QUESTION IS, WAS IT DID IT FOLLOW THE ORDINANCE TO DIVIDED INTO TWO PIECES? AND IT DOESN'T.

BUT IF ALL YOU'VE GOT 30 FEET TO THE LAND.

WELL, THEN THEN THEN THE QUESTION IS, DOES THE COURT WANT TO ALLOW CONTINUED DIVISION OF PROPERTY OFF OF PRIVATE EASEMENTS? AND I MEAN, THAT'S A POLICY QUESTION FOR THE COURT.

I WOULD I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE MORE DIVISIONS YOU DO OFF OF EASEMENTS, MANY OF THESE DON'T HAVE CLARITY AND MAINTENANCE AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET MORE AND MORE PEOPLE LIVING DOWN THE EASEMENTS.

AND WE KNOW THAT THEY THEN COME TO THE TO COME TO THE COUNTY ASKING, OH, MY GOSH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE I LIVED DOWN THIS EASEMENT FOR DECADES.

MY FAMILY'S LIVED DOWN THIS.

AND THERE WERE FIVE PEOPLE.

IT WAS NO BIG DEAL.

AND NOW EVERYONE HAS BEEN DIVIDING THE PROPERTY.

AND NOT ONLY THAT, YOU'RE DIVIDING THE PROPERTY IN TEN ACRE PIECES, BUT THEY'RE PUTTING TWO, THREE, FOUR HOMES ON IT.

NOW, WE'VE GOT 100 PEOPLE DOWN THE EASEMENT.

I NEED THE COUNTY TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE THERE'S NO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT IN PLACE FOR THE EASEMENT.

AND THAT'S WHY DIVISION OFF OF AN EASEMENT IS NOT DONE, NOT ALLOWED BY RIGHT.

AGAIN, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT CAN APPROVE WHATEVER THE COMMISSION COURT WANTS TO APPROVE.

SO ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS IF SOMEONE BEING THIS WAS CREATED IN THE 80S, IF SOMEONE WAS TO DO AS THEY'RE DOING, CUT OUT THE EXTRA TRACK, THEN AT THAT TIME BECAUSE BACK IN THE 80S, THEY DIDN'T DO [INAUDIBLE] AT THAT TIME, THEY COULD CREATE THAT TO ADD TO IT BEING ALL THEY GOT IS 30 FEET? THAT WAY YOU I DIDN'T FOLLOW THAT.

SAY IT AGAIN.

I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER.

I WASN'T FOLLOWING.

OK, SO THIS 30 FOOT LANE, IT ACCESSES SEVERAL TRACKS BACK THERE [INAUDIBLE].

SO IF THESE THIS PERSON HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW PEOPLE CUT OFF OF EASEMENT AND THEN THEY

[02:35:01]

DON'T HAVE A ROAD MAINTENANCE [INAUDIBLE].

SO NOW BECAUSE BACK THEN THEY DIDN'T DO ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS, WE ALL KNOW THAT IT WAS A HAND SHAKE AND EVERYBODY'S HAPPY.

SO NOW IF THEY DO CUT ONE OFF OF AN EASEMENT, THAT'S OUR OPPORTUNITY TO GET THEM TO SAY, OK, IF YOU DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO CREATE A ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.

THAT TAKES CARE OF THAT ROAD AT THAT POINT.

THAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE THING FOR THE COUNTY TO CONSIDER.

THAT'S [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S ONE OPTION.

IT IS AN OPTION.

AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING FOR THE COUNTY TO CONSIDER AND LOOK AT.

THAT WAY WE GET THAT.

I THINK THERE DOES NEED TO BE SOME DISCUSSION AND THOUGHT INTO, AGAIN, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND WHAT'S LAID OUT, I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT WITH SOME OF THE PROVISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED.

BUT FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT, GOING FORWARD, IN ADDITION TO THE MAINTENANCE OF IT, YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES BECAUSE MANY OF THE SOME OF THEM ACROSS CREEKS WITH, YOU KNOW, TINY CULVERTS OR NO CULVERTS IN PLACE, 30 FOOT WIDE CAN EVEN BUILD A ROAD, YOU KNOW, WITH ENOUGH DITCH ALONG IT THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO GET WASHED OUT.

BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW, YOU KNOW, CONTINUED DIVISION AND IN MULTIPLE HOME DEVELOPMENT DOWN EASEMENTS LIKE THIS, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PROVIDE IN THE FUTURE ONCE THERE'S.

AND THIS.

THIS IS A RELATIVELY SMALL DEAL, YOU KNOW, TWO TRACKS OF 20 ACRES AND 17 ACRES, BUT IF YOU OPEN THAT DOOR, WHAT'S TO STOP YOU FROM GETTING THIS HAPPENING OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND GETTING 100 HOMES BACK THERE AND AGAIN, THEN WE HAVE TO START THINKING ABOUT DELIVERY OF FIRE AND POLICE AND AMBULANCE THOSE THINGS.

PURELY BY RIGHT.

WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTIONS PUT ON IT, THEY COULD PUT AS MANY AS 22 HOMES ON THE 22 ACRE TRACK.

THEY'D HAVE TO COME FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DO THAT, BUT THAT COULD BE DONE.

AND THAT'S, AGAIN.

NOBODY'S DISPUTING THAT.

THAT'S NOT IN DISPUTE AT ALL.

GO AHEAD.

IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO TAKE THE FORM OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

YES, BY PLACING THE CONDITIONS ON ESSENTIALLY CONDITIONAL VARIANTS AND HAVING, YOU KNOW, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD APPLY, IT ESSENTIALLY, IT'S AN AGREEMENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, NOT AGAIN, NOT A STRICTLY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LIKE WE CONSIDERED EARLIER TODAY.

WELL, HOW WOULD WE MOVE THIS FORWARD, THOUGH? IF WE DECIDED TO DO THAT.

HOW WOULD WE MOVE THIS FORWARD? SO TO BE IN ACCORD WITH THE STATE LAW AND THE ORDINANCE.

I THINK.

I THINK IT'S UNCONTROVERTED THAT THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE PLATTED IN THIS SITUATION WHEN IT'S SUBDIVIDED AND IT WAS SUBDIVIDED APPARENTLY IN LAST YEAR.

IT'S ALSO CLEAR THAT A ROAD JUTS ACROSS ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WAS SUBDIVIDED, AND THAT MEANS THAT IT CANNOT BE EXEMPT FROM SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS.

THEY ARE MORE THAN 10 ACRES, BUT THEY LAY OUT THE PART OF THE TRACK FOR STREETS.

THEREFORE, IT IS NOT EXEMPT FROM SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO ALL SUBDIVISIONS.

THEREFORE, THE COUNTY, IF IT WERE TO BE PLATTED AS WOULD ORIGINALLY BE CONTEMPLATED AS IS GENERALLY REQUIRED, THE COUNTY WOULD STILL HAVE THE SITUATION WHERE IT'S ONLY A 30 FOOT, 30 FOOT WIDE ROADWAY.

AND IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE LEGALLY PLATTED, THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO GRANT A VARIANCE IN THAT SITUATION BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY FOR IT TO COMPLY.

REGARDLESS, WE'RE NOT TO THAT POINT, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS NOT BEING PLATTED, AS MAYBE IT SHOULD BE, IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THAT.

SO THE COURT BEFORE IT TODAY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER GO ALONG WITH THE DENIAL OF THE EXEMPTION REQUEST THAT THE COUNTY ENGINEERS PREPARED OR THEY CAN OVERRULE THAT AND SAY THAT IT IS EXEMPT FROM PLATTING.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF THE 30 FOOT WIDE STRIP THAT WE CAN'T RESOLVE THAT.

SO IT'S STILL GOING TO NEED THAT'S STILL GOING TO NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

THE ACCORDING TO THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN, WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER OUR OWN RULES TO ATTACH CONDITIONS TO THIS TYPE OF EXEMPTION REQUEST.

WE DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ATTACH CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS TO A VARIANCE

[02:40:01]

REQUEST.

AND IN ORDER TO STAY IN LINE WITH WHAT OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES, I THINK THAT PROCEDURALLY THE BEST WAY TO GO ABOUT IT WOULD BE TO MAKE THIS A VARIANCE TO WHICH WE CAN ATTACH THE CONDITIONS THAT WE PROPOSE.

IN THE MEANTIME, BETWEEN IF THIS IS GOING TO GET TABLED OR WHATEVER HAPPENS IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT ROUTE.

THAT WOULD GIVE US TIME BETWEEN THIS COMMISSIONERS COURT, THE NEXT COMMISSIONERS COURT, TO FIRM UP WHAT THE AGREEMENT IS GOING TO BE, THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS THEMSELVES.

AND BECAUSE OF THE SPLIT OWNERSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO TRACKS, IN ORDER FOR THE COVENANTS PLACED IN THE PROPERTY TO BE BINDING, BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS WILL NEED TO SIGN OFF.

SO THAT ATTACHES TO BOTH PIECES OF THE PROPERTY AND IT CAN RUN TOGETHER GOING FORWARD.

AND SO IN THAT ASPECT, WOULD THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE REAR COULD USE THAT ACCESS IF THERE'S OTHER TRACKS.

BUT BEYOND THIS, THAT IS THEIR ACCESS SO THEY GONNA HAVE TO SIGN OFF? I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANY OTHER TRACKS ONES THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH ARE THE 22 AND THE 17 HERE THAT ARE I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE.

TWO MORE.

ALL I KNOW I'M THE SCOPE OF MY ANALYSIS IS LIMITED TO THE SUBDIVISION OF THE THIRTY NINE ACRE PARCEL INTO THE TWO SEPARATE PIECES.

OK, SO WE'VE GOT WE'VE GOT FOUR TRACKS THAT USE THIS EASEMENT FOR ACCESS, IS THAT CORRECT? NOT JUST TWO? NO, NO, I DON'T THINK SO.

I THINK SO.

THIS IS GETTING MORE COMPLICATED THAN I THOUGHT IT WAS.

I THOUGHT WE HAD A RESOLUTION.

BUT IF OTHER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO NEED THAT TO ACCESS THEIR PROPERTY FURTHER BACK, I'M NOT SURE THE RESOLUTION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS GOING TO WORK.

YOU RESPECTFULLY JUDGE THE SCOPE OF THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO CONSIDER EXEMPTION FOR THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY THAT OCCURRED LAST YEAR.

I UNDERSTAND, BUT I'M AROUND THAT.

WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE OTHER VARIABLES TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

I THINK, JUDGE THE NOTHING THAT'S DONE, THE COURT CAN'T DO ANYTHING THAT TAKES AWAY THE FACT THAT THE EASEMENT EXISTS AND CONVEYS TO THOSE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS FURTHER BACK, THAT EXISTS.

AND NO ACTION TAKEN HERE WOULD AFFECT THAT.

THE AS I UNDERSTOOD THE DISCUSSION IT WAS ABOUT WOULD THE COURT FEEL COMFORTABLE GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THIS DIVISION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S HALF OCCURRING ON AN EASEMENT, IF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS WERE PUT IN PLACE ABOUT THE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT? AND THAT'S WHERE MY CONCERN LIES FROM, NOT WHETHER THERE'S FIVE PROPERTY OWNERS OR SIX PROPERTY OWNERS AFTER THIS DIVISION'S DONE.

IT'S WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT LAND.

AND AGAIN, BY RIGHT UNDER OUR RULES, THEY COULD COME TO US AND PUT AS MANY AS 17 HOMES ON ONE TRACK AND 22 HOMES AND THE OTHER TRACK.

AND THAT'S A LOT.

AND I THINK EVERYONE WOULD TEND TO AGREE THAT WOULD BE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT OFF OF AN EASEMENT THAT'S 30 FOOT WIDE, THAT THERE IS NO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT IN PLACE.

SO I THINK THE NATURE OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT I HAD WITH JJ AND WITH MS. HINKLE WERE OK.

IF THERE WERE RESTRICTIONS ALLOWING, YOU KNOW, JUST TWO HOMES PER TRACT OF LAND, THEN IT'S LIMITED TO A CERTAIN DENSITY, INCREASED DEVELOPMENT, POTENTIAL INCREASE ON THE ON IT.

THAT, AGAIN, WOULD BE REASONABLE.

AND I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH.

SO.

WELL, ACTUALLY.

I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU SINCE YOU'RE, SINCE YOU'RE THE ONE THIS IS ULTIMATELY AFFECTING.

HI.

EXCEPT THAT WE MAINTAIN [INAUDIBLE].

[02:45:35]

YEAH, YEAH.

SO IS THERE A BUYER NOW THAT'S INTERESTED IN THE WHOLE 37? I'M STILL NOT CLEAR ON THAT.

BECAUSE.

WELL, THEN WE'LL BE BACK TALKING ABOUT THIS AGAIN, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, IF WE CAN DO A VARIANCE WHERE IT'S A YOU KNOW, THEY OWN THE WHOLE 37 ACRES WITH SOME D COVENANTS ATTACHED TO THE VARIANCE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT IF THEY WERE TO SELL IT AND IF THEY WERE TO SUBDIVIDE IT, THAT THEY WOULD AGREE TO SUBDIVIDE IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCE AND STATE LAW.

THEN I THINK WE CAN GET BEYOND THIS AND GET YOUR DEAL DONE AND MOVE ON AND STILL KEEP.

OPEN PANDORA'S BOX FOR US.

I WAS TELLING MS. HINKLE I'M NOT I'M NOT REAL REAL COMFORTABLE WITH DOING SOMETHING JUST FOR THIS INSTANCE THAT'S GOING TO OPEN A KIND OF A PANDORA'S BOX FOR US, FOR OTHER SITUATIONS LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE.

SO I WANT TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING TO RESOLVE THIS FOR YOUR SAKE AND FOR YOUR BUYER'S SAKE AND FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE, AND THEN IN THE FUTURE WE'LL ALL KNOW THAT THIS IS THE RULE GOING FORWARD AND WE'LL DEAL WITH IT THAT WAY.

TRACY'S COMMENT ABOUT NOT BEING [INAUDIBLE].

? THAT'S ON THIS PARTICULAR TRACK? YOU JUST SAID [INAUDIBLE].

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THOUGH.

THEY GET THE WHOLE 37 ACRES AND AGREE THAT IF THEY SUBDIVIDE IT, THAT THEY'LL DO IT ACCORDING TO OUR.

[INAUDIBLE] THEY ALREADY BOUGHT THE SEVEN.

YEAH, BUT THEY'LL BUY THE OTHER ONE AND WE'LL GIVE THEM THE VARIANCE WITH THOSE COVENANTS ATTACHED TO IT.

AND THAT SOLVES THIS PROBLEM.

ESSENTIALLY, IF THE PROPERTY WHEN IT WAS SOLD AND SUBDIVIDED LAST YEAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLATTED, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLATTED.

AND WHAT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY PROPOSING, WHAT I'VE PROPOSED IN THIS IN THIS VARIANCE PROCEDURE WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY IT'S A FREE PASS.

YOU DON'T WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU GET AWAY WITH NOT PLATTING IT THIS TIME, SUBJECT TO THESE REQUIREMENTS.

BUT IF IT'S UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP AND IT SELLS AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, THEN EVERYBODY'S ON NOTICE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE PLATTED.

[02:50:02]

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IN THE FORM OF THIS VARIANCE, THE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD HAVE HAVE.

SO DO WE.

SO HOW DO WE PROCEDURALLY GET PAST THIS SO WE CAN GO? SO.

THE COMMISSIONERS COURT NEEDS TO TAKE ACTION ON THE EXEMPTION REQUEST TODAY.

IF YOU ALLOW THE IF YOU ALLOW THE EXEMPTION TO PASS, THE PROPERTY'S EXEMPT.

THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO DO.

IF YOU DENY THE EXEMPTION, YOU STICK WITH MR. BRATTON'S LETTER, THEN THE PROPERTY IS NOT EXEMPT.

BUT THEN THEY CAN REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM THE PLATTING REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO ATTACH THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF [INAUDIBLE].

THE COUNTY HAS THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE VARIANCE PROCEDURE TO ATTACH CONDITIONS.

SO WE WOULD DENY THE EXEMPTION AND THEN THEY WOULD BRING BACK A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE WITH THOSE? THAT PROCEDURALLY IS HOW IT SHOULD WORK JUDGE.

IF THAT'S THE COURT'S INTENT.

SO CAN I GO OUT ON A LIMB ON SOMETHING? I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS PLAT HERE.

SO WHAT IF JUST WHAT IF WHAT IF THEY WERE TO TAKE WHERE THE ROAD COMES DOWN AND IT TOUCHES THE 17 ACRES AREA SOLD THEM AND THEY WERE TO EXPAND THAT TO 50 FEET BECAUSE THEY OWN IT ANYWAY AND MAKE THAT A 50 FOOT DESCRIBED EASEMENT FROM THAT POINT ON, NOT THE 30 FOOT, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET ANY PROPERTY ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT DOWN THE LONG STRETCH.

BUT AT THAT CORNER OF THE 17 ACRES, WHICH WOULD BE LIKE A NORTH CORNER, AND THEY WIDEN THAT EASEMENT TO A 50 FOOT AND TOOK IT BACK.

IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE ONES WHO ALREADY HAVE 30 CUZ I'VE SEEN DOUBLE EASEMENTS BEFORE, BUT THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE 50 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY.

BUT WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH DENYING THE EXEMPTION AND THEN BRING THIS BACK WITH ALL THOSE.

BUT IN THERE.

DOES THAT SOUND LIKE SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT GET MORE IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT OUR RULES ARE? WE CAN'T CHANGE THE 30 FOOT.

I AGREE.

THE STRIP DOWN.

AND SO WHAT I WANT TO DO, THOUGH, IS JUST DEAL WITH THIS MATTER AND THEN THOSE KIND OF DISCUSSIONS CAN GET TAKEN UP OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.

WE'LL PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA AND BRING IT BACK.

IS THAT FAIR ENOUGH? JJ AND TRACY, WE'LL GET WITH YOU AND WE'LL DENY THE EXEMPTION, YOU'LL COME BACK, REQUEST A VARIANCE WITH AND WITH THE THINGS THAT JJ JUST DESCRIBED ATTACHED TO THAT VARIANCE, AND THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND APPROVE IT BASED ON THAT.

AND THAT WAY, THE PERSON THAT OWNS THE ONE TRACK CAN GO AHEAD WITH THEIR PURCHASE OF THE OTHER TRACK AND THEY'LL OWN IT ALL.

THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO.

I MEAN, AND PUT THE RESTRICTIONS AND IT CAN'T BE [INAUDIBLE].

CAN WE CAN WE DO THIS? CAN WE CAN WE JUST DEAL WITH THE EXEMPTION RIGHT NOW AND THEN WE CAN DO ALL THE WHAT IFS LATER BECAUSE WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET BEYOND THIS EXEMPTION ISSUE.

WE'RE GOING TO IN ORDER TO DO ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DENY THIS EXEMPTION AND THEN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

CAN'T YOU APPROVE THE EXEMPTION? WE COULD.

BUT I'M HONESTLY, I'M NOT INCLINED TO BECAUSE OF WHAT IT WOULD MEAN GOING FORWARD FOR OTHER TRACKS.

BUT.

THAT'S MY VOTE ONLY.

THE TRACK THAT SOLD LAST YEAR, NO, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH THIS.

FOR EVERYBODY GOING FORWARD.

WE CAN'T WE CAN'T JUST LOOK AT THIS ISOLATED CASE.

RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY COULDN'T TRY TO DO IT LATER.

BUT THEN THEY NOW THEY GOT NOW WE WOULDN'T HAVE A MECHANISM TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE GRANTED AN EXEMPTION.

FIGURE OUT WHAT EVERYBODY IN CALDWELL COUNTY IS GOING TO DO IF EVERY TRACK OF LAND IN THIS COUNTY GOING FORWARD.

AND WE CAN'T DO THAT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO BE IN THIS SITUATION WHERE WE'RE DENYING AND APPROVING

[02:55:01]

EXEMPTIONS BASED ON HOW WE FEEL ABOUT.

IS THERE A SECOND I'LL SECOND IT.

MOTION AND A SECOND.

WE'VE HAD A TON OF DISCUSSION.

IS THERE MORE DISCUSSION? BUT IT'S NOT.

I KNOW.

I KNOW THAT NOW.

AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE, IT'S JUST THAT IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE EXCEPTIONS RULES .

SO.

I THOUGHT WE WERE GETTING THERE, I JUST THOUGHT WERE GETTING YEAH, IT'S JUST GOING TO TAKE TWO.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DENY THE EXEMPTION AND THEN DO THE VARIANCE AT THE NEXT COURT IN ORDER TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE.

I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.

IT'S RED TAPE, BUT THAT'S THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT PROCEDURALLY.

EXACTLY RIGHT, SO LET'S DEAL WITH THE EXEMPTION, LET'S WE'RE GOING TO, WE'VE GOT A.

I UNDERSTAND.

MIC] SO WHAT WE'RE ALL UP HERE SPLITTING HAIRS OVER TWO WORDS, EXEMPTION AND VARIANCE, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY THE EXEMPTION AND THEN THE HINKLE WILL BE ABLE TO HELP YOU AND TRACY COME BACK AND GET THE VARIANCE.

THE WAY WE'RE SUGGESTING VARIANCE.

SO WE JUST HAVE TO DENY THE EXEMPTION AND THEN COME BACK WITH A VARIANCE AT THE NEXT COURT.

JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS, IF I MAY, JUST IN THE INTEREST OF TRYING TO KEEP EVERYTHING AS THIS FRIENDLY IS POSSIBLE.

THERE IS A FEE FOR REQUESTING A VARIANCE.

I MIGHT RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT WAIVE THAT FEE.

AND WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AT THE NEXT COURT.

HAPPY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT COSTING ANYONE ANY MORE MONEY.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT OF COURSE.

YES, MA'AM.

AND THAT'S NOT YOUR FAULT THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH THIS AS WELL.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OPPOSE NONE, MOTION CARRIES AND WE'LL SEE IN TWO WEEKS.

THANK YOU, YOU BET.

YES, MA'AM.

ITEM 27 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC STREETS AND DRAINAGE IN LAS ESTANCIAS II

[27. Discussion/Action to consider public streets and drainage in Las Estancias II as compete and ready to begin the two year performance period. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Donald LeClerc; Backup: 8; Cost: None]

IS COMPLETE AND READY TO BEGIN THE TWO YEAR PERFORMANCE PERIOD.

ACCEPT THE ROADS BECAUSE THEY WERE COMPLETED AFTER MANY, MANY CORRECTION ITEMS AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR THE COURT TO ACCEPT AND START THE TWO YEAR MAINTENANCE.

OK, COMMISSIONERS, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

TO CLARIFY PART AND PARCEL WITH THAT IS RELEASING THE FISCAL THAT THE COUNTY'S HOSTING HOLDING FOR COMPLETION OF THE ROADS.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT, OK, WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE PUBLIC STREETS AND DRAINAGE IN LAS ESTANCIAS II IS COMPLETE AND READY TO BEGIN THE TWO YEAR PERFORMANCE PERIOD.

WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR? SAY AYE.

ITEM 28 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE CONSTRUCTION BOND FOR BLUFFVIEW ESTATES

[28. Discussion/Action to consider the construction bond for Bluffview Estates in the amount of $444,522.76. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Donald LeClerc; Backup: 3; Cost: None]

AND THE AMOUNT OF FOUR HUNDRED FORTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO DOLLARS AND SEVENTY SIX CENTS.

OK THE UNIT ROAD IS JUST ASKING FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BOND FOR TO START THE

[03:00:05]

CONSTRUCTION AT BLUFFVIEW.

OK, WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTION BOND FOR BLUFFVIEW ESTATES IN THE AMOUNT OF FOUR HUNDRED FORTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO DOLLARS AND SEVENTY SIX CENTS.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE.

ITEM TWENTY NINE DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER FY 2022 CALDWELL COUNTY BUDGET

[29. Discussion/Action to consider FY 2022 Caldwell County Budget Calendar. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Ezzy Chan/ Barbara Gonzales: Backup: 4; Cost: None]

CALENDAR.

COMMISSIONERS YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE BUDGET CALENDAR IN YOUR BACK UP.

ALL THE DATES ARE THERE.

WE HAVE WORKSHOPS SCHEDULED, HAVE ALL OUR MILESTONES SCHEDULED BY WHICH WE HAVE TO POST THINGS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FY 2022 BUDGET CALENDAR.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.