May 11, 2021 Commissioners Court

[Call Meeting to Order ]

[00:00:03]

GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE, THANK YOU FOR COMING TODAY.

WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT TO ORDER TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MAY 2021 AT 9:00 A.M..

COMMISSIONER ROLAND, WOULD YOU LEAD US IN THE INVOCATION THIS MORNING? OUR FATHER, WHO ART IN HEAVEN TO FOLLOW OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST FATHER ONCE AGAIN .

AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

[Announcements. (Part 1 of 2) ]

LET ME KNOW. I HAVE ALREADY HAVE SOME APPOINTMENTS SCHEDULED FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW.

BUT IF YOU NEED HELP, I CAN HELP YOU ALSO TO REMIND EVERYBODY TO DO THEIR CYBERSECURITY TRAINING BECAUSE THE END IS COMING UP AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY GETS ON THAT. AND IF YOU DON'T REMEMBER YOUR PASSWORD, CALL ME OR KRISTIANNA AND WE CAN RESET YOUR PASSWORD OR SEND YOU ANOTHER INVITE.

AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEIR GRANT FUNDING IS ATTACHED TO THAT NOW.

SO REALLY NEED TO GET EVERYBODY, INCLUDING ME.

SO, YES, THANK YOU.

OK, DENNIS.

GOOD MORNING, JUDGE COMMISSIONERS, LAST EVENING I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN A WHITE HOUSE U.S. TREASURY BRIEFING, THEY PRESENTED THE INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR THE AMERICAN RECOVERY PLAN ACT, 150 PAGES.

AND I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A BRIEFING REPORT OF THAT.

I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT THIS PARTICULAR PLAN, THIS IS THE FUND WHERE CALDWELL COUNTY HAS BEEN ALLOCATED EIGHT POINT FORTY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS.

BY THE WAY, THOSE FUNDS WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ARRIVED YESTERDAY.

AND WITH THE BRIEFING LAST NIGHT, THEY ANNOUNCED THOSE FUNDS WON'T COME UNTIL NEXT WEEK IS THE ANTICIPATED ARRIVAL DATE.

BUT THIS PARTICULAR PLAN COVERS EXPENSES INCURRED FROM MARCH 3RD OF 2021 THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST OF 2024.

AS I MENTIONED, WE'RE GOING TO RECEIVE EIGHT POINT FORTY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS NEXT WEEK.

THE JUDGE HAS ALREADY BEGUN TO CREATE AN ID LOGIN AT THE U.S.

TREASURY TO CREATE THE PROCESS FOR US TO RECEIVE THOSE FUNDS.

THERE ARE FOUR MAIN USES OF THESE FUNDS.

I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT PRIORITY HELP IS FOR THE UNDERSERVED, THE LOWER MODERATE INCOME POPULATIONS, CALDWELL COUNTY'S RIGHT FOR THAT ASSISTANCE BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOW TO MODERATE INCOME RATE IN EXCESS OF 60 PERCENT.

BUT THEIR USES INCLUDE TO RESPOND TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY AND ITS NEGATIVE IMPACT, ECONOMIC IMPACTS, INCLUDING SMALL BUSINESSES AND NONPROFITS TO PROVIDE PREMIUM PAY TO ESSENTIAL WORKERS, ESSENTIAL WORKER, HOSPITAL WORKERS, SAFETY PERSONNEL, ETC..

AND THE PREMIUM PAY IS THIRTEEN DOLLARS AN HOUR, UP TO TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER WORKER TO PROVIDE GOVERNMENT SERVICES TO THE EXTENT OF ELIGIBLE GOVERNMENT REVENUE LOSSES RELATIVE TO REVENUES COLLECTED IN THE MOST RECENT FULL FISCAL YEAR PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC.

AND FOURTHLY, TO MAKE NECESSARY WATER, SEWER AND BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND INVESTMENTS AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS AS WELL.

BUT THEY PRIMARILY HAVE FOCUSED ON WATER, SEWER AND BROADBAND.

BRIEFLY, INELIGIBLE USES INCLUDE MAKING DEPOSITS INTO PENSION FUNDS, DEPOSITS INTO RAINY DAY OR FINANCIAL RESERVE FUNDS, PAYMENT OF INTEREST OR PRINCIPAL ON OUTSTANDING DEBT.

[00:05:04]

AND WE'LL STAFF WILL STAY ON TOP OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS AND KEEP YOU INFORMED OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS. THANK YOU.

CAN WE ASK ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH. DENNIS COULD WE ASK YOU A QUESTION? JJ, STOP US IF WE STRAY.

YEAH, ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, DENNIS, YOU MENTIONED BROADBAND AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE.

WOULD THAT INCLUDE ROADS? IT DOES INCLUDE ROADS.

OK. AND THEN RIGHT AT THE END, YOU SAID IT CAN'T BE IN KIND OR IT CAN'T BE A MATCH.

IT CANNOT BE USED AS PART OF A COUNTY'S LOCAL MATCH TOWARD SOME OTHER FEDERAL GRANT YOU CAN'T USE IT FOR THAT. THAT'S CORRECT.

OK. OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. OK, COMMISSIONERS ANNOUNCEMENTS.

NO ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM ME JUDGE.

COMMISSIONER SHELTON? I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE CINCO DE MAYO FOR SETTING UP THE BOOTHS, GIVING COVID SHOTS. I THINK THEY DONE A GREAT JOB AT DOING THAT.

I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THAT OUT THERE, BUT THAT WAS A GREAT ADAGE.

I THINK THEY HAD A GOOD CROWD FOR THE FIRST EVENT THAT CAME HERE SINCE COVID HIT US.

AND IT GOT PEOPLE BACK IN THE SPIRIT OF FEELING LIKE THEY'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT BACK TO NORMAL. SO IT WAS A GOOD EVENT.

SO I HOPE WE SEE MORE OF THAT.

COMMISSIONER THERIOT, NOTHING ADDITIONAL.

COMMISSIONER ROLAND? I'M GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING.

THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD CINCO DE MAYO.

IT WAS REALLY, REALLY CROWDED.

AND I ONLY SAW B.J., BUT AND HE WAS SURROUNDED BY A BUNCH OF KIDS.

BUT ANY WAY, I THINK I THINK IT WAS REALLY, REALLY GREAT.

IT WAS A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE THERE.

IT WAS LIKE ONE BOOTH, THE VERY FIRST ONE.

I STOPPED AT. IT WAS LIKE FOUR DEEP ALL THE WAY BACK TO THAT 18 WHEELER ALL NIGHT LONG ON FRIDAY NIGHT AND THEN ON SATURDAY NIGHT.

I KNOW THEY RAN OUT OF EVERYTHING THEY HAD.

BUT I WANT TO JUST GIVE KUDOS TO THE HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

YES. AND I CAN ECHO THE SAME AS THEIR FRIDAY NIGHT.

AND IT WAS AN AMAZING CROWD.

I THINK, AS COMMISSIONER SHELTON SAID, I THINK IT WAS THE FIRST EVENT THAT WE'VE HAD WHERE PEOPLE COULD GET OUT AND ABOUT COUPLE WITH FIRST RIDING.

SO I THINK THAT EVERYBODY DOWNTOWN IN THE HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DID A WONDERFUL JOB MAKING US ALL FEEL NORMAL AGAIN.

SO THAT WAS VERY NICE.

ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE I MOVE ON? OK, IN THAT CASE, WE'LL GO TO CONSENT AGENDA.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? OH, SORRY. SUSAN'S COMMENTS

[Citizens' Comments. ]

NO OTHER CITIZEN COMMENTS.

OK. ALL RIGHT, NOW WE'RE READY FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA.

[CONSENT AGENDA. ]

I'D LIKE FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT CONSENT AGENDA.

[INAUDIBLE] WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT CONSENT, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE AYE.

OPPOSED NONE MOTION CARRIES.

[9. Discussion/Action regarding the burn ban. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Hector Rangel; Backup: 3; Cost: None ]

HECTOR. GOOD MORNING, JUDGE.

COMMISSIONERS, STAFF.

JUST GIVING YOU A BRIEF UPDATE.

WE'VE HAD SUBSTANTIAL RAIN IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, A TOTAL OF EIGHT INCHES.

WE'RE EXPECTING 80 PERCENT TODAY COMING OUT OF MEXICO.

SHOULD BE ARRIVING HERE LATER TONIGHT, ABOUT 9 O'CLOCK.

RAIN HAS BEEN GOOD TO EVERYBODY.

WE'VE HAD A FEW SMALL FIRES OUT IN THE COUNTY THAT PEOPLE JUST LEFT, YOU KNOW, BURNING BY THEMSELVES AND GOT OUT OF CONTROL.

BUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S OVER THERE AND DALE HIGH AND MCMAHAN PUT THEM OUT AND THEY ENDED UP WITH NO DAMAGE IS DONE TO OTHER PROPERTIES.

CURRENTLY, THE KBDI NUMBERS FOR CALDWELL COUNTY ARE THE MINIMUM IS SEVENTY THREE.

[00:10:02]

OK, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO KEEP BURN BAN OFF? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO LEAVE THE BURN BAN OFF.

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

OPPOSED NONE, MOTION CARRIES.

[Announcements. (Part 2 of 2) ]

LCRA, ALONG WITH BLUEBONNET YESTERDAY PRESENTED TWO VERY LARGE GRANTS IN CALDWELL COUNTY ONE GRANT WAS TO THE MCMAHAN FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND THE OTHER GRANT WAS TO THE CALDWELL COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION FOR FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.

THAT SECOND GRANT WILL BE USED TO A LONG LIST, SOME MONEY THAT WAS RAISED BY MY WIFE AND HANK ALEX AND OTHERS.

THEY RAISED OVER ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

AND DENNIS THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HELPING WITH THAT GRANT.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A FIRE TRAINING FACILITY AT THE MID COUNTING STATION SO THAT OUR VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS CAN TRAIN HERE IN THE COUNTY AND THEY NO LONGER WILL HAVE TO LEAVE TO GO ELSEWHERE TO TRAIN AND OTHERS CAN COME HERE TO TRAIN.

SO JUST WANTED TO CONGRATULATE EVERYBODY INVOLVED WITH THAT.

AND A SPECIAL THANKS TO ELSA [INAUDIBLE] FOR BEING SO GENEROUS TO OUR FIRST RESPONDERS IN OUR COUNTY. OK, WITH THAT, WE'LL GO TO ITEM TEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER

[10. Discussion/Action to consider Proclamation Authorizing May 2021 as Older Americans Month. Speaker: Commissioner Shelton; Backup: 2; Cost: None ]

SO THE MONTH OF MAY IS FOR OLDER AMERICANS MONTH.

SO I'D LIKE TO READ THE PROCLAMATION, AUTHORIZE THE RECOGNITION OF MAY 2021 AS OLDER AMERICANS MONTH, WHEREAS CALDWELL COUNTY INCLUDES A GROWING NUMBER OF OLDER AMERICANS WHO MAKE COUNTLESS CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR COMMUNITY EVERY DAY.

AND WHEREAS THE COMMUNITIES IN CALDWELL COUNTY ARE STRONGER WHEN PEOPLE OF ALL AGES, ABILITIES AND BACKGROUNDS ARE INCLUDED AND ENCOURAGED TO MAKE THEIR MARK.

AND WHEREAS CALDWELL COUNTY RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL, SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENS, AND WHEREAS CALDWELL COUNTY SUPPORTS OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS BY PROMOTING INDEPENDENCE, INCLUSION AND PARTICIPATION, ENGAGING OLDER ADULTS THROUGH EDUCATION, RECREATION AND SERVICE, AND CONNECTING PEOPLE WITH OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE THEIR TIME, EXPERIENCE AND TALENTS.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY DECLARES THE MONTH OF MAY 2021 TO BE OLDER AMERICANS MONTH IN THE CAPE COD REGION TO RECOGNIZE OLDER ADULTS AND THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THEM AS ESSENTIAL MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY PROCLAMATION ADOPTED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY 2021.

OK, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT PROCLAMATION? I SO MOVE. WE HAVE MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE AYE.

OPPOSED. HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.

[11. Discussion/Action to consider Resolution 28-2021, authorizing the County Judge to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Caldwell County and the City of Lockhart for subdivision regulation within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Lockhart. Speaker: JJ Wells; Backup: 10; Cost: None. ]

WHAT YOU'VE GOT HERE IS THE PRODUCT OF A MONTHS LONG COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN COUNTERPARTS AT THE CITY AND COUNTY LEVELS.

WE WERE WORKING TO COME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT THAT GOVERNS PLATTING RELATED SUBDIVISIONS.

YOU MAY RECALL, I THINK LATE LAST YEAR WE DID A SIMILAR KIND OF AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF UHLAND. WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF REASSESSING SOME OF THESE AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE WITH THE MUNICIPALITIES HERE IN THE COUNTY.

I THINK UP NEXT, WILL BE MUSTANG RIDGE THE GOALS IN DRAFTING THIS AGREEMENT INCLUDED MEMORIALIZING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE WAY THAT THE COUNTY AND THE CITY WORK TOGETHER FOR PLATS AND RELATED PERMITS.

WE WANTED TO ENSURE QUALITY DEVELOPMENT BY ENFORCING STRINGENT STANDARDS, BASICALLY THE MORE STRINGENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY STANDARDS.

AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SET UP KIND OF A ONE STOP SHOP FOR DEVELOPERS THAT ARE LOOKING TO DEVELOP PROPERTY IN THE ETJ..

ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH THE PRIOR INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT WAS THAT THE CITY OF LOCKHART HAS AREAS THAT ARE WITHIN ITS STATUTORY JURISDICTION.

THAT IS AREA THAT EXTENDS BEYOND THE CITY BOUNDARIES.

BUT THERE ARE ALSO AREAS IN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE UNINCORPORATED PARTS OF THE COUNTY THAT HAVE VOLUNTARILY REQUESTED TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF LOCKHART.

THIS IS MR. GIBSON WITH THE CITY OF LOCKHART, EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS DONE IN THE 80S.

I THINK SOME CITIZENS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENCROACHMENT OF AUSTIN'S ETJ.

AND SO RATHER THAN BE KIND OF SWALLOWED UP BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THEY REQUESTED TO BE

[00:15:04]

THAT'S LED TO AREAS THAT ARE, AGAIN, OUTSIDE OF WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE CONSIDERED THE CITY'S ETJ BUT ARE STILL PART OF THE VOLUNTARY ETJ.

THE PRIOR AGREEMENT WAS A LITTLE VAGUE ON WHICH HOW THESE AREAS WERE DEFINED.

SO ONE OF THE MAIN GOALS IN DRAFTING THIS ONE WAS TO IDENTIFY, YOU KNOW, AND KIND OF CLARIFY WHICH AREA IS WHICH AND WHO'S GOING TO REGULATE PLATS AND RELATED PERMITS IN EACH AREA. THE SOLUTION THAT WE CAME UP WITH WAS JUST USING THE STATE LAW STATUTES TO DEFINE WHAT IS A STATUTORY ETJ IN THAT AREA THAT EXTENDS A MILE OUTSIDE FROM THE CITY LIMITS.

THAT'S GOING TO BE COVERED BY THE CITY OF LOCKHART AND IN THE AREAS THAT ARE VOLUNTARY ETJ THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY SANITATION DEPARTMENT. MISS MILES AND TRACEY, THE COUNTY ENGINEER, WILL REVIEW PLATS AND RELATED PERMITS IN THAT AREA.

ANOTHER THING THAT WE DID WAS TRYING TO KIND OF STREAMLINE THE FEES THAT ARE APPLICABLE FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE IN THOSE DEVELOPMENTS.

A LOT OF THE FEES AND THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FEE SCHEDULE ARE NOT GOING TO BE APPLICABLE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COLLABORATIVE PLATTING REGIME THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED HERE. AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID WAS JUST KIND OF NARROW DOWN THE PLATS FEES AND THINGS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT JUST TO A HANDFUL RATHER THAN THE FULL SCHEDULE.

FOR INSTANCE, SOMEONE THAT IS DEVELOPING PROPERTY IN THE ETJ WOULD NOT NEED TO PAY A FEE FOR, YOU KNOW, RUNNING A NOTICE IN THE NEWSPAPER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING IN AND GOING TO BE DEVELOPING WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON THE HOOK FOR.

WE ALSO JUST KIND OF CLEANED UP LANGUAGE ABOUT ENFORCING MORE STRICT STANDARDS.

IN THE PAST, THE CITY HAD TO ENFORCE THE COUNTY'S ROAD STANDARDS IF THEY WERE MORE STRICT. WE'VE EXPANDED THAT TO MORE.

JUST BE ON THE ROAD STANDARDS AND JUST TO ANY SET OF STANDARDS THAT IS MORE STRINGENT, WHETHER IT'S THE CITY OR THE COUNTY.

THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BE ENFORCED.

AND THAT'S JUST BROADER. AND THAT'S WHAT WE CAME UP WITH THERE.

A LOT OF THINGS FROM THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT SURVIVED TO THIS ONE.

FOR INSTANCE, THE COUNTY IS STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR REGULATING SEPTIC PERMITS.

THE COUNTY STILL HAS INSPECTION AND APPROVAL AUTHORITY OVER ROAD CONSTRUCTION, STORM WATER DRAINAGE, WASTEWATER FACILITIES.

THE CITY'S AGREED TO FOLLOW THE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN.

AND THE TWO ENTITIES ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO COORDINATE ON 911 ADDRESSING GOING FORWARD.

SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE IN SUPPORT OF THIS RESOLUTION.

OK, GO AHEAD. I THINK YOU MENTIONED IT AND I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT.

THE THE AREA THAT GOES UP 183 WHERE THAT VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION AREA OCCURS.

IT GOES ALMOST ALL THE WAY TO MUSTANG RIDGE.

SO THE COUNTY WILL REGULATE IN THAT AREA BEYOND THE ONE MILE STATUTORY LOCKHART ETJ WELL, IT'S GOING TO BE WHICHEVER SET IS MORE STRICT IN THAT AREA.

AND THAT'S WHAT THAT'S THE THE LANGUAGE IN THE INNER LOCAL AGREEMENTS IS THAT WHICHEVER WHETHER IT'S THE CITY OR THE COUNTY HAS MORE STRICT STANDARDS.

THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO APPLY. FOR THE MOST PART, THE COUNTY STANDARDS ARE GENERALLY MORE STRICT AND THEY COVER MORE THINGS.

AND SO IN THOSE AREAS, IT'S MOST LIKELY GOING TO BE THE COUNTY REGULATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO APPLY. OK, WELL, THEN IT'LL JUST BE EXCLUSIVELY COUNTY REVIEW.

OR WILL THE CITY GET. THAT'S RIGHT.

IT'LL BE EXCLUSIVELY COUNTY REVIEW IN THOSE AREAS.

ALL RIGHT. OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO IS THIS GOING TO BE ADDING OR IMPOSING MORE WORK ON THE CASING THAT WE'RE TAKING THIS OVER THAT WE MAY HAVE TO LOOK AT? THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION, COMMISSIONER, THE WAY THAT THIS KIND OF DEVELOPED OVER TIME IS I THINK THAT THIS WAS KIND OF ALREADY THE EXISTING PRACTICE BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY. AND IT HAS JUST KIND OF GOTTEN THAT WAY OVER TIME, SINCE THE LAST TIME WE DID AN AGREEMENT LIKE THIS, WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS ONE IS JUST KIND OF KEEP THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE. BUT MAKE SURE THAT THE DOCUMENT ITSELF THAT SUPPORTS THIS REGULATORY REGIME COVERS BOTH OF THESE SITUATIONS.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE PRIOR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WAS A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS.

IT JUST DEFINED THE IT SAID THAT IN THE STATUTORY ETJ, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY OF THE CITY WILL CONTROL. SO WHAT WE TRIED TO DO WAS JUST MAKE IT MORE CLEAR WHICH AREAS ARE AND ARE NOT THAT STATUTORY ETJ JUST TO, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, SPECIFICALLY DEFINING WHICH AREA IS WHICH I MEAN, JUST KIND OF MEMORIALIZING THE EXISTING REGULATORY COOPERATION HERE.

OK, OK.

ANY OTHERS? I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU, J.J., FOR WORKING ON THIS.

THIS WAS I KNOW THIS WAS A LONG TIME COMING AND NOT THE EASIEST TO REFINE, BUT I THINK IT'S A MORE ROBUST DOCUMENT THAN WHAT WE HAD IN PLACE.

THANKS, B.J.. I WANT TO GIVE A LOT OF CREDIT TO THE CITY AND THE COUNTERPARTS OVER THERE.

IT WAS ACTUALLY REALLY EASY TO WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND HIM GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE PEOPLE ON THEIR SIDE.

AND ME GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH KASI AND THE COUNTY ENGINEER, TRACY BRATTON.

REALLY, I THINK IT IS A COLLABORATIVE DOCUMENT AND EVERYBODY SEEMS TO BE ON BOARD AND READY TO PROCEED WITH IT. ALSO, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S GOING TO COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION WITH THE CITY AT THEIR NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

VERY GOOD. OK, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THE RESOLUTION RESOLUTION 28-2021 RESOLUTION OF CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, WHEREAS CALDWELL COUNTY IS ADOPTED AND IS ENFORCING SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL

[00:20:03]

AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF LOCKHART IS ADOPTED AND IS ENFORCING SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

AND WHEREAS CHAPTER 242 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AUTHORIZES THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE COUNTY TO ENTER INTO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT THAT IDENTIFIES A GOVERNMENT ENTITY AUTHORIZED TO REGULATE SUBDIVISION PLATS AND RELATED PERMITS AND EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ETJ OF THE MUNICIPALITY AND WHEREAS CALDWELL COUNTY IN THE CITY OF LOCKHART ARE PARTIES TO AN AGREEMENT UNDER CHAPTER 242 DATED NOVEMBER 13TH, 2018, AND WHEREAS CALDWELL COUNTY IN THE CITY OF LOCKHART DESIRE TO EXECUTE A REVISED AGREEMENT DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO REGULATE PLATTING AND RELATED PERMITS AND INTENDED TO ENTIRELY SUPERSEDE AND REPLACE THE EXISTING AGREEMENT.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, THAT COUNTY JUDGE IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE INTER LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CALDWELL COUNTY AND THE CITY OF LOCKHART FOR SUBDIVISION REGULATION WITHIN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF LOCKHART ORDERED THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY 2021 COMMISSIONERS. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION? SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE AYE.

OPPOSED NONE MOTION CARRIES ITEM TWELVE DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENT

[12. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #49 to move money from line item (001-6000-0940) Reimbursed Revenue to (001-2140-4810) Training from TAC refund for Tax Assessor-Collector Darla Law. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Barbara Gonzales; Backup: 5; Cost: Net Zero ]

COMMISSIONER SO THAT'S GOING TO BE TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS COMING IN TO 001-6000-0940 BORROW AND THEN EXPENSE TO 001-2140-4810 FOR TRAINING.

DO I HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT FORTY NINE? SO MOVED. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE, AYE OPPOSED NONE.

MOTION CARRIES ITEM THIRTEEN DISCUSSION ACTION.

[13. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #50 to move money from line item (001-4300-3130) Operating Supplies to (001-4300-5310) Machinery & Equipment for the procurement of vest for County Sheriffs. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Barbara Gonzales; Backup: 3; Cost: None ]

EXCUSE ME, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE RECEIVING TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN DOLLARS 001-4300-3130 AND MOVING IT TO MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT,001-4300-5310. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 50.

SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE AYE OPPOSED NONE MOTION CARRIES ITEM FOURTEEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO

[14. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #51 to move money from line item (001-6000-0940) Reimbursed Revenue to (001-6560-4810) Training from TAC refund for County Judge Haden's Conference. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Barbara Gonzales; Backup: 6; Cost; Net Zero ]

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE TAKING MONEY FROM REIMBURSED REVENUE.

TWO HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS AND PUTTING IT INTO TRAINING ZERO ZERO ONE SIX FIVE SIX ZERO FOUR EIGHT ZERO ZERO TWO HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT FIFTY ONE? I SO MOVE.

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

ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE AYE OPPOSED NONE MOTION CARRIES ITEM FIFTEEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO

[15. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #53 referencing Coronavirus Relief Funds in the amount of $937,948. Transferring the funds into the General Fund. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Barbara Gonzales; Backup: 28; Cost: Net Zero ]

SO THIS ONE'S A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED, SO JUST BEAR WITH ME.

SO WE HAVE NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE DOLLARS EOC SALARIES NUMBER THREE.

THAT'S WHERE THE FUNDING CAME INTO.

THEN WE MOVED IT TO PUBLIC HEALTH EXPENSES FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY FOUR OF THOSE DOLLARS WITH A BALANCE OF NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND SIX NINETY ONE TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL FUND, THEN TRANSFER FROM THE CORONAVIRUS CRF NINE HUNDRED AND

[00:25:04]

SO THAT'S A LOT OF MOVEMENT OF MONEY.

RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT? OH NO. IT'S JUST WE RECEIVED THE REVENUES AND SO NOW WE WE'RE GETTING REIMBURSED BACK BECAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO EXPENSES FOR ALL OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AND SO NOW WE'RE JUST MOVING IT.

WE'RE MOVING IT TO OUR GENERAL FUND SO THAT WE CAN FOLLOW IT.

AND I THINK THE SECOND PART WOULD BE ALLOCATING ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT WAS APPROVED, THE COMMISSIONERS BEFORE BEGINNING, I THINK, IN DECEMBER.

YES, OK.

AND THOSE THOSE FUNDS WERE WE MET WITH THE COMMITTEE AND THOSE FUNDS HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED TO VARIOUS PLACES AND THE BALANCE WILL MOST LIKELY GO INTO THE CONTINGENCY PLAN.

SOME OF IT WENT TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR THEIR BROADBAND EFFORTS, ETC..

SO AND IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN ALL THE GORY DETAILS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO GIVE THEM TO YOU OTHERWISE? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT FIFTY THREE? SO MOVED WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

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

OPPOSED NONE.

MOTION CARRIES ITEM SIXTEEN DISCUSSION ACTION.

[16. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #54 for FY 2019 and FY 2020 for Juvenile Probation Reimbursing Caldwell County $404,144.00. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Barbara Gonzales; Backup: 6; Cost: Net Zero ]

IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS.

I'D LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT FIFTY FOUR.

SO MOVED, WE HAVE A MOTION.

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

ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE AYE OPPOSED NONE MOTION CARRIES ITEM SEVENTEEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO

[17. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #55 move money from Contingency (001-6510-4860) to Dues and Subscriptions (001-6560-3050) for upcoming conferences. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Barbara Gonzales; Backup: 7; Cost: Net Zero ]

IT SAYS THE DUES AND SUBSCRIPTION 001-6503-050 SIX FIVE ZERO THREE OH FIVE ZERO.

IT IS INSTEAD GOING INTO TRAINING 001-6560-4810.

AND THAT IS IN THE AMOUNT OF THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ANY QUESTIONS, IF THERE ARE NONE I'D LIKE FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT FIFTY FIVE.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION ITEM 17, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT 55.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE AYE OPPOSED NONE MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM EIGHTEEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPOINT WILLIAM DAMON, A LULING, RESIDENT PLUM CREEK

[18. Discussion/Action to appoint William Damen, a Luling resident, to the Plum Creek Conservation District Board. Speaker: Judge Haden; Backup: 2; Cost: None ]

MOST OF US KNOW HIM AS BUBBA.

WE HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR SOMEONE TO DO THIS AND HE'S COMMITTED TO DO IT.

SO I WOULD JUST LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE MR. DAMONS APPOINTMENT TO THE PLUM CREEK CONSERVATION BOARD.

SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

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

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE AYE OPPOSED NONE THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM NINETEEN DISCUSSION ACTION

[19. Discussion/Action seeking permission to submit an application to the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program to acquire bulletproof vests for County law enforcement personnel. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Dennis Engelke; Backup: 2; Cost: $9,912.00 ]

DENNIS, THANK JUDGE COMMISSIONERS.

I WAS ASKED BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO PURSUE A GRANT FROM THE BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM TO PURCHASE FOURTEEN VESTS AT A UNIT COST OF SEVEN HUNDRED AND EIGHT DOLLARS. THE GRANT REQUEST IS FOR NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND TWELVE DOLLARS WORTH OF VEST. THE BDP WILL REIMBURSE FIFTY PERCENT OF THOSE EXPENDITURES TO THE COUNTY, RESULTING IN A TOTAL EXPENDITURE TO THE COUNTY OF FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX DOLLARS.

THE GRANT APPLICATION IS DUE JUNE 17TH OF 2021.

I SEEK YOUR PERMISSION TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE BDP PROGRAM COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS. WILL THIS GO WITH BACK TO OUR ITEM NUMBER THIRTEEN? I SEEN THESE TWO KIND OF RELATED BEFORE WE APPROVE IT.

DOES THAT HELP WITH ANY OF THAT OR NOT? I'M SORRY. YOUR QUESTION AGAIN, DOES THAT DOES IT, DOES IT WILL THIS HELP WITH THAT AT ALL? I MEAN, WE IT REIMBURSE WILL IT REIMBURSED THAT.

[00:30:03]

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE AYE OPPOSED NONE MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS.

[20. Discussion/Action to consider solicitation of request for proposals (RFP) of medical services for inmates of Caldwell County Jail. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Danie Blake; Backup: 27; Cost: None ]

RFP OF MEDICAL SERVICES FOR INMATES CALDWELL COUNTY DANIE.

GOOD MORNING JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS'.

SO THIS IS A RFP THAT HAS TO GO OUT EVERY THREE YEARS FOR MEDICAL SERVICES AND INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR OUR INMATES AT THE JAIL.

SO JUST ASKING PERMISSION TO GO OUT FOR BID FOR THIS ONE.

COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS? NOT LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE SOLICITATION FOR RFP, FOR MEDICAL SERVICES, FOR INMATES.

CALDWELL COUNTY JAIL. I SO MOVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE AYE OPPOSE NONE MOTION CARRIES ITEM TWENTY ONE DISCUSSION ACTION TO

[21. Discussion/Action to consider execution of a contract for engineering services for T.W.D.B. Caldwell County Flood Protection Planning Study. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Danie Blake; Backup: 59; Cost: None ]

JUDGE DO I NEED TO ABSTAIN ON THIS? UH I KNOW I'M SORRY COMMISSIONER. I HAD TO FIND OUT WHICH ONE WE WERE ON A STACK OF PAPERS.

OK, GO AHEAD.

YES, SO WE WENT OUT FOR BID OR I MEAN, WE WENT OUT FOR RFQ FOR THIS ONE A WHILE BACK.

WE DID AWARD IT TO DO SO.

THIS IS JUST THAT CONTRACT THAT WE'D LIKE TO EXECUTE TODAY.

OK, SO COMMISSIONERS LOOKING FOR PERMISSION TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT WITH [INAUDIBLE].

I WAS IMPRESSED WITH IT AND THEY DID A REALLY GOOD JOB.

YEAH, THEY VERY GOOD BACKUP.

YEAH, VERY GOOD.

SO. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE AYE OPPOSE NONE THE MOTION CARRIES AND THEN I HAVE THREE COPIES THAT ARE BLANK RIGHT NOW.

SO I DON'T KNOW. DOES TERESA GET THESE FOR THE END TO SIGN OR DO YOU ALREADY HAVE A COPY? I JUST HAVE THE BLANK ONE.

ITEM 22 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER EXECUTION OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR CALDWELL COUNTY GLO CDBG HARVEY INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE NEED TO BRING COMMISSIONER THERIOT BACK IN.

OH YEAH. SORRY, WE'RE GETTING HERE.

HE PROBABLY TOOK HIS BREAK.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP ON GOING ABOUT YOU ALMOST TOOK OFF WITHOUT YOU SORRY ABOUT THAT.

[22. Discussion/Action to consider execution of a construction contract for Caldwell County GLO CDBG Harvey Infrastructure between Caldwell County and WJC Constructors. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Danie Blake; Backup: 182 ]

DANIE. YES.

SO WE WENT OUT FOR A BID FOR THIS A COUPLE OF MONTHS BACK AND IT IS NOW TIME TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE IS A CORRECTION ON PAGE 39.

WE HAD TO WE HAD TO REVISE ITEM FORTY SEVEN UNDER CONTRACT PERIOD.

WE HAD TO EXTEND THAT BECAUSE WE DO KNOW THAT POLITICAL ROAD IS FAILING RIGHT NOW.

SO WE'VE TALKED WITH WJC AND THEY ARE WILLING TO START THAT REPAIRS ON THAT ROAD HOPEFULLY BY NEXT WEEK.

SO I'LL PASS THAT OUT.

AND THEN I HAVE FOUR COPIES OF THIS, SO WHENEVER IT'S QUITE A LENGTHY ONE, SO WE WILL EXECUTE THEM. YES.

AND THEY SHOULD BE ON THEIR WAY.

THEY'RE NOT HERE ALREADY.

SO I JUST HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS.

WE WERE SENT SURE.

PAGE THREE OH THREE, WHICH IS WHAT'S ON OUR COMPUTER.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOUR PAGES.

SORRY I DIDN'T WRITE THAT DOWN.

THE UNFINISHED NOTARY THAT WAS SUPPLIED IN THEIR ORIGINAL PACKET.

I DON'T KNOW WHO NOTARIZED THAT WITHOUT PUTTING SOMEONE'S NAME THERE, BUT THAT KIND OF STUFF THAT DIDN'T MAKE THAT COMPLETE TO ME FOR THEIR PACKET TO BE COMPLETE, THAT DIDN'T

[00:35:06]

TWENTY SIX, ITEM TWO UNDER A THEY HAVE THE CALDWELL COUNTY, BUT THEY LEFT OUT THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTOR. IT JUST SAYS NAME OF A CONTRACTOR.

INSTEAD OF FIXING THAT, I CAN FIX THAT.

AND PAGE THREE THIRTY FIVE ITEM B IT SAYS THE CITY REQUIRED I CAN CHANGE THAT TO COUNTY IT SHOULD SAY COUNTY ON PAGE THREE THIRTY SIX ITEM THIRTY OR THIRTY ONE OF THAT IT HAS CITY MANAGER AND I'M NOT YOU KNOW THERE WAS ONE PLACE IN OUR CITY COUNTY I'M OK WITH THAT BECAUSE, IT IDENTIFIES AND I KNOW THIS IS A PRESET FORM, BUT MY, MY CONCERNS IS I'M STILL BOTHERED WITH THE 60 ODD THOUSAND DOLLARS DIFFERENCE IN THE BIDS.

I'M JUST COMMISSIONER, I CAN TELL YOU THAT ALL APPLICANTS HAD ISSUES LIKE THAT WITH THEIR BIDS. WELL, I DID RECEIVE DOCUMENTS. AND I HAVE WENT THROUGH THEM, PRINTED THEM OUT AND HAVE WENT THROUGH THEM.

AND BECAUSE ONE OF THEM WAS ASKED THAT THEY HAD, I BELIEVE, EVER FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY, THEN THAT QUESTION WAS NOT ANSWERED.

SO THEY WERE ISSUES LIKE THAT WITH ALL THE APPLICATIONS.

THE ISSUE OF THE FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, AS WE DISCUSSED, WAS WE ACCEPTED THAT BID BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF OUR CONSULTANT AND OUR COUNTY ENGINEER.

TRUE, BUT THEN I DO BELIEVE THAT THE OTHER ONE, THE OTHER COMPANY, 304 CONSTRUCTION THAT CAME UP AND SAID THAT THEIR REFERENCES WASN'T EVEN REFERENCED LET ME STOP EVERYBODY RIGHT HERE.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT RIGHT NOW.

WE'VE ACCEPTED IT.

WE'RE HERE TODAY TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO EXECUTE THIS CONTRACT.

AND I WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION TO ACCEPT AND EXECUTE THE CONTRACT.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WITH THE NOTED CORRECTIONS.

OK, WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE AYE OPPOSED NONE.

I'M SORRY FOUR ONE.

MY APOLOGIES, COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER, CAN I GET WITH YOU AT THE END OF THIS AND FIND THOSE ON WITH YOUR COMPUTER? AND SO I COULDN'T REVISE MY OK.

YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. AND I HAVE YOUR I HAVE YOUR DEAL WITH ME.

OK, THANK YOU. VERY GOOD.

[23. Discussion/Action to consider the recommendation for County Wide Polling Places Advisory Committee. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Kimber Daniel; Backup: None; Cost: None ]

[INAUDIBLE] BEFORE YOU START, LET ME JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON THE JOB THAT YOU'VE DONE. THANK YOU.

WITH YOUR OFFICE AND YOUR STAFF.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS, BUT NOT ONLY HAVE THEY DONE A REMARKABLE JOB GETTING THAT OFFICE CAUGHT UP AND MAKING MULTIPLE CORRECTIONS, PUTTING IN SOME LONG HOURS ON KIMBER'S PART, BUT THEY ALSO EVERY MONTH ON THEIR OWN TIME AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, SEEK OUT A COMMUNITY SERVICE ITEM TODAY.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO, BEFORE YOU GET STARTED, TO COMMEND YOU FOR THE JOB THAT YOU'VE DONE. IT'S BEEN EXCEPTIONAL.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ESPECIALLY YOU, JUDGE, FOR GIVING ME TIME OFF WHEN MY MOTHER PASSED AWAY TWO WEEKS AGO.

SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.

IT WAS A HARD TIME, BUT I WILL TELL YOU WHAT MY STAFF.

AMAZING. STEPPED UP, TOOK CARE OF THE OFFICE ELECTIONS, HAS STARTED THAT WEEK AND THEY DID A GREAT JOB PUTTING THAT TOGETHER.

SO I APPRECIATE TIME TO TRAIN FOR IT.

SO THANK YOU. VERY PROUD OF THAT.

THANK YOU. TODAY WE NEEDED TO COME TOGETHER AND APPROVE THE ADVISORY COUNCIL OR ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE COUNTYWIDE POLLING PLACES, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO CALL VOTING CENTERS.

IT'S JUST EASIER THAN THAT, CWPP SO I DO NEED THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS TO DO THAT SO FAR ON THAT.

AND I HAVE APPROVAL WITH ALFREDO MUNOZ, WHO IS THE DEMOCRATIC CHAIR, PAT DANIEL, WHO IS A REPRESENTATIVE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER JOE ROLAND HAS AGREED TO SIT ON THAT ADVISORY COUNCIL. SO WHAT I NEED FROM YOU GUYS IS YOUR NAMES AND THE APPROVAL TO GO AHEAD AND GET TOGETHER AND START MEETING. OK, COMMISSIONERS, MY NOMINATION IS MRS. ALLISON SMITH. AND I DIDN'T KNOW THIS WAS COMING, SO I'M NOT

[00:40:04]

THAT'S FINE. THAT'S OK.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DO THE SAME THING, OK? YEAH, I APOLOGIZE.

I SHOULD HAVE SENT OUT A THANK YOU B.J..

I SHOULD HAVE SENT OUT A AN EMAIL REMINDING YOU THAT THAT WAS THAT THAT WAS DUE TODAY.

SO CAN I GO AHEAD AND GET APPROVAL.

I NEED TO START MEETING.

WE'LL GIVE IT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE NOMINATIONS.

AND I JJ DO WE NEED TO GET THE LIST FIRST BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE KIND OF BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL HERE. JUST GOING OFF THE AGENDA ITEM.

THIS IS CONSIDERED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNTYWIDE POLLING PLACES.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

I WOULD SAY JUST TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE BECAUSE OF THE THE WAY THAT THE AGENDA ITEM IS STRUCTURED, OUR ACTIONS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE ITSELF.

WHEN WE PROBABLY WOULD NEED A SEPARATE ITEM TO AUTHORIZE THE ACTUAL COMMITTEE TO GO AHEAD AND START MEETING. OH JJ, APOLOGIES.

THAT'S OK. WELL, KIMBER, WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE'LL POST AND AND DO A SPECIAL MEETING TO GET THAT DONE SOONER THAN LATER.

SO ABOUT THREE MORE DAYS.

OK, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

WE'LL HAVE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND GET IT DONE.

THANK YOU. ONE QUICK THING I WANTED TO SAY IS WE ARE PUTTING ON A VOLUNTEER DEPUTY REGISTRAR TRAINING ON MAY THE 20TH FROM SIX TO EIGHT.

WE ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO DO THAT MONTHLY.

SO WE WILL START DOING THAT IN THE MONTH OF MAY TO GET THAT DONE.

I JUST LIKE TO SAY I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT WITH THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE GO TO THE POLLS AND THEY GO TO THE WRONG ONE.

AND THEN WHEN THEY GET THERE, THEY ARE YOU YOU GOT TO DO THIS.

YOU GOT TO GO TO SUCH AND SUCH A PLACE.

A LOT OF TIMES THEY DON'T EVEN GO THERE AND VOTE.

SO THIS IS A GREAT MOVE.

AND I THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THIS. AND IF EVERYBODY COULD BE HERE MONDAY, WE JUST GO AHEAD AND DO IT MONDAY MORNING.

THAT GOOD WITH EVERYBODY YOU KNOW? OK, SO I NEED A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM 23.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO TABLE ITEM TWENTY THREE.

OK, WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM TWENTY THREE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE AYE OPPOSED NONE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.

THANKS KIMBER.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THAT POSTED AFTER AFTER THIS MEETING FOR MONDAY AT 9.

YES. ITEM TWENTY FOR DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER VARIOUS REQUESTS FOR SUBDIVISION ON

[24. Discussion/Action to consider variance request for subdivision on Grapevine Trail. Speaker; Commissioner Westmoreland/ JJ Wells; Backup: None; Cost: None ]

COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND AND JJ.

I'LL JUST START OFF JUDGE COMMISSIONERS BY SAYING I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO FINALIZE THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE.

I'VE SPOKEN WITH BOTH OF THE INVOLVED LANDOWNERS AND THEY BOTH HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW. CAN YOU THAT'S OK. I'VE SPOKEN WITH BOTH OF THE INVOLVED LANDOWNERS AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, THEY BOTH HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS ON THE VARIANCE THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST COMMISSIONER'S COURT.

I HAVE NOT RECEIVED FINAL INDICATION FROM THEM THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT IT AS WRITTEN OR IF THERE MAY BE NOTES OR COMMENTS THAT MAY NEED TO BE IMPLEMENTED.

IF I GOT WORD FROM BOTH PARTIES, BOTH OF THE LANDOWNERS ARE ALL THE LANDOWNERS ACTUALLY THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO GO ALONG WITH, IT WOULD BE ABLE TO GO AHEAD AND EXECUTE IT AND GET IT APPROVED. BUT WE'RE JUST NOT AT A FINAL LEVEL AT THIS TIME.

OK, AND I THINK [INAUDIBLE] HAVE SAID YES, MA'AM.

COME ON UP. HELLO, AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, I'M CANDACE PHILLIPS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME THIS WEEK, LAST TWO WEEKS LOOKING AT ALL OF THIS.

AND I'VE TALKED TO JJ EXTENSIVELY OVER IT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE OTHER LAND WAS SOLD A YEAR AGO AND BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOAN ON IT RIGHT NOW.

AND ALSO THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, A TITLE POLICY AND A WARRANTY DEED AND ALL.

WE'RE JUST UNSURE AT THIS TIME THAT WE COULD GO BACK IN AND PUT SOME TYPE OF RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR PROPERTY, WHICH WAS THE 17 ACRES THE 22 ACRES IS STILL MINE.

BUT ONE THING THAT JJ AND I TALKED ABOUT, I THINK JJ IF I'M RIGHT, HE HAD THOUGHT THAT THE ROAD THAT YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY IN ORDER TO GET TO THE END OF THE ROAD. AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM YESTERDAY, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

THERE'S A CLEAR ROAD WITH FENCES ON BOTH SIDES THAT YOU GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO GET TO

[00:45:03]

SO IF THAT HELPS Y'ALL AT ALL WITH ANY OF THIS, I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT.

AND THEN I THINK LINDA AND TINKER HAVE SOME THINGS ALSO THAT WE'VE TRIED TO LOOK TO SEE IF ANY OF THIS COULD CLEARED UP.

SO THAT'S OK.

NO, NO, GO AHEAD AND HAND THEM OUT FIRST.

WE CAN'T WE JUST NEED TO HEAR IT FROM THE MICROPHONE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SO. OK, [INAUDIBLE] WORK WITH THESE FOLKS TRYING TO GET THIS STRAIGHTENED OUT.

DIDN'T REALIZE ANYTHING WAS DONE WRONG BECAUSE THERE'S MORE THAN 10 ACRES AND HAD ACCESS.

THAT IS A MAP THAT DAVE MOORE DREW IN 2003, WHO WAS AT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND ALSO SURVEYOR IN THIS COUNTY FOR MANY YEARS.

I ALSO HAVE A UNIT ROAD MAP THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME, PROVIDED IN 1999 TO US THAT I'VE PRETTY WELL WORN OUT.

I HAVE A COPY THAT CALLS THAT GRAPEVINE TRAIL, PRIVATE ROAD AND GIVES IT SAME NUMBER IT HAS UP THERE TODAY.

I DID DO A LITTLE READING ON EASEMENTS AND HOW THEY AFFECT PROPERTIES.

NOT A LAWYER, BUT YOU KNOW, I TALKED TO ALAN FIELDER A COUPLE OF TIMES, WHO'S A TITLE ATTORNEY AND REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY WHO SAID HE DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM OR ANYBODY ELSE THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST HAS A PROBLEM TO TITLING ISSUE, TO AN ESTABLISHED EASEMENT.

THIS IS USED BY SEVERAL PEOPLE ON THAT ROAD.

CANDACE ACTUALLY OWNED THE ROAD UP TO HER PROPERTY WITH AN SO SHE WAS THE ONE PAYING TAXES ON THE WHOLE LENGTH, GOING OUT TO BUSHY BRANCH ROAD.

THIS IS A BIGGER VERSION OF THAT MAP I JUST GAVE YOU.

THIS IS IN YOUR BIBLE COUNTY ROAD UNIT.

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU ALL ACCEPTED THE ROAD YOU WERE GOING TO MAINTAIN.

GRAPEVINE TRAIL IS IN RED, CLEARLY DRAWN ON THIS MAP.

SO IT'S BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A PRIVATE ROAD THROUGH ALL THESE DOCUMENTS.

AND I GAVE YOU ALL THE MAP IN 19 IN 2008 THAT ALSO ACCEPTED IT IN THE PACKAGE THEY SENT IN WHEN THEY DID IT. SO WE REALLY AND TRULY NOBODY KNEW THIS WAS A PROBLEM.

WE HAVE EASEMENTS ALL OVER THE COUNTY, 100 ACRE TRACKS.

SEVERAL PEOPLE OWN THEM WITH ONE WAY IN THEY ARE ONE WAY AND THERE'S THERE AND THEN THEY HAVE 100 ACRES. THEY WANT TO GIVE THEIR KIDS A COUPLE OF PIECES OF DIRT OR THEY'VE WORKED ALL THEIR LIFE TO HAVE THAT PROPERTY AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO SELL 20 OR 25 ACRES IF THEY'RE CREATING A NEW EASEMENT.

I UNDERSTAND A NEW ACCESS.

I UNDERSTAND.

BUT SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN HERE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE PAYING THEIR TAXES ACCORDING TO THE ROAD THEY LIVE ON, WHICH IS AN EASEMENT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL.

IF YOU LIVE ON A GRAVEL ROAD, A PRIVATE ROAD, WHATEVER, YOU'RE BEING ASSESSED THOSE TAXES ACCORDINGLY. SO IN LESS THAN A YEAR AGO, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT SITUATION, BUT WE DID IT. CAN I BRING THESE? YES.

THAT'S OK.

AS FAR AS THE STRUCTURE OF THAT DOCUMENT THERE, IT'S ALMOST THE EXACT SAME SCENARIO.

IT COMES OFF OF A COUNTY ROAD 301, WHICH IS LONGHORN ROAD ONTO AN EASEMENT AND THEN ON TO EASEMENT. THE ONLY WORDING THAT'S DIFFERENT IN THIS IS SAYS THIS WAS DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC. YOU KNOW WHAT WHOEVER WROTE THAT, HE WROTE THAT IN THERE, THESE THIS WAS WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT ALL THE DOCUMENTS ON THIS, THE LOT ONE WANTED TO SELL HE WAS MOVING OUT OF TOWN AND HIS DAD LIVED ON LOT TWO.

IN TRACEY'S RECOMMENDATION LETTER.

HE SAID THEY OWNED IT TOGETHER.

WELL, THEY DID. AND IT'S CLEAR IN THE GUYS REQUEST ON THE LOAN AND WANTED HIS DAD TO

[00:50:05]

SO WE'VE DONE THINGS SIMILARLY TO THIS CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WAS THE ISSUE NOT ACCESS AND NOT WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A PRIVATE ROAD? WELL, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THAT.

GO AHEAD.

TRACKS, ONE OF WHICH HAS A STREET THAT GOES ACROSS IT, THAT IS FOR PUBLIC USE UNDER THE STATE LAW A PLAT IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY SUBDIVISION UNLESS IT IS EXEMPT EXEMPTIONS IN THIS SITUATION. WOULD THE ONE THAT WOULD APPLY MOST LIKELY WOULD BE IF THE RESULTING TRACKS ARE MORE THAN 10 ACRES AND A ROAD IS NOT LAID OUT ACROSS THE PROPERTY.

IN THIS SITUATION, WE HAVE THE RESULT TRACKS THAT ARE MORE THAN 10 ACRES.

BUT ONE OF THESE RESULTING TRACKS, THE 17 ACRE PARCEL, HAS GRAPEVINE TRAIL THAT GOES OVER AND ACROSS IT. THAT'S PART OF THE SUBDIVISION, LAYS OUT A STREET FOR PUBLIC USE AND THAT REMOVES IT FROM, YOU KNOW, BEING EXEMPT FROM PLATTING.

AND THEREFORE A PLAT WOULD APPLY RATHER THAN REQUIRE A PLAT TO BE OBTAINED IN THIS SITUATION. WE'RE PROPOSING THE VARIANCE UNDER THE CONDITIONS WHERE THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WOULD APPLY INSTEAD.

AND BASICALLY, LIKE I MENTIONED LAST TIME, REMOVES A REQUIREMENT IN TIME FROM THIS SUBDIVISION TO ANY SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTION OR SUBDIVISION THAT OCCURS IN THE FUTURE.

BECAUSE THE STREET IS LAID OUT ACROSS ONE OF THE RESULTING PARCELS.

IT'S NOT EXEMPT FROM THE PLATTING FORMS, BUT IT'S NOT BECAUSE THE STREET IS LAID OUT.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN THERE. THAT PRIVATE ROAD'S BEEN THERE.

THERE'S PEOPLE LIVE BEHIND.

THIS IS PROBABLY MESS HER LAST NAME UP [INAUDIBLE] OR WHATEVER.

SHE'S LIVED BACK THERE OVER 30 YEARS.

THAT'S HER ACCESS. WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT ACCESS THAT EXISTS.

RIGHT. WE CAN'T MAKE IT ANY WIDER OR ANYTHING.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THE STREET PREDATES SOME OF THESE PLATTING REQUIREMENTS OR EXEMPTIONS AND WE CAN'T GO BACK AND MAKE IT ANY WIDER THAN IT ALREADY IS.

BUT THE FACT IS THAT IT DOES.

THE ROAD CLEARLY CUTS ACROSS ONE OF THE RESULTANT PARCELS.

AND THE LAW VERY CLEARLY SAYS THAT IF STREETS, ALLEYS, PARKS, SQUARES OR OTHER PARTS OF THE TRACT ARE INTENDED TO BE DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE, THEN IT IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE PLATTING REQUIREMENTS. EVEN IF THE RESULTANT TRACKS ARE BOTH OVER 10 ACRES, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MENTION THE WORD ACCESS.

IT TALKS ABOUT STREETS, ALLEYS, SQUARES, PARKS, ET CETERA, AND PRIVATE ROADS.

RIGHT. PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROADS, PRIVATE LONG AS IT HAS ACCESS TO PUBLIC ROADS.

WHAT IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY, IF THE TRACT LAYS OUT STREETS, ALLEYS, SQUARES, PARKS OR OTHER PARTS OF THE TRACT INTENDED TO BE DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE OR FOR THE USE OF PURCHASER'S OR OWNERS OF LOTS FRONTING ON OR ADJACENT TO THE STREETS, ALLEYS, SQUARES OR PARKS, BECAUSE GRAPEVINE TRAIL CUTS ACROSS ONE OF THE RESULTANT TRACKS AND IS INTENDED FOR PUBLIC USE. EVEN IF IT'S NOT MENTIONED ON ANY KIND OF GRANDFATHERED. THAT'S WHAT THE AND IT DOES SAY THAT IN THERE.

BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT, LIKE I EXPLAINED TO JJ, YOU DO NOT GO THROUGH ANYBODY'S FENCED PROPERTY. EVERYBODY OUT THERE HAS IT USED FOR AG YOU KNOW, THEY RUN CATTLE AND STUFF LIKE THAT. NO ONE GOES THROUGH ANYBODY'S PROPERTY OUT THERE.

THERE IS A ROAD THAT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN, YOU KNOW.

AND I PURCHASED THIS BACK IN THE EARLY 80S.

AND, YOU KNOW, AS A PERSON THAT'S BUYING IT, I HAD TO PAY FOR WHATEVER THEY SAID.

THEY TOLD ME THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE PRIOR TO ME WERE SELLING TO ME.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE IT'S BEEN THAT SAME WAY.

I'VE NEVER, EVER HAD ANYONE IN ALL THESE YEARS GO THROUGH MY PROPERTY, NOR HAVE I HAD TO EVER GO THROUGH ANYBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE'S A DEDICATED ROAD THERE AND IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD, BECAUSE WHEN THE CITY CAME THROUGH AND CHANGED THAT, WE USED TO BE ROUTE BOX, 177 B THEY CAME IN AND CHANGED ALL THAT AND GAVE US A NAME AND IT HAS A SIGN AND EVERYTHING. SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TALK TO SOMEBODY AND YOU SAY IF THEY'RE COMING TO YOUR HOUSE, YOU SAY YOU GO DOWN COUNTY ROAD BY 202, WHICH IS BRUSHY BRANCH, AND THEN YOU TAKE A LEFT ON GRAPEVINE TRAIL BIG OLD SIGN THERE.

EVERYBODY GOES STRAIGHT DOWN AT LIKE THE FOURTH DRIVEWAY, YOU KNOW, THE FOURTH PROPERTY OR THIRD PROPERTY TURN TO THE LEFT.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S THAT'S WHAT I THINK EVERYBODY HAD TO UNDERSTAND, IS YOU DON'T GO THROUGH ANYBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY.

THERE'S THAT ROAD. AND IT WAS GIVEN TO THE TEXAS LAND BOARD WAY BACK BEFORE I EVEN BOUGHT IT. OK, THANK YOU.

I THINK THAT THE DEAL ORIGINALLY STARTED OUT WITH IT WASN'T WIDE ENOUGH.

THAT WAS AND THAT'S WHAT WE CAME IN FOR.

THE VARIANCE WAS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT 50 FEET WIDE AND IT WOULD THEY ACCEPT, YOU KNOW,

[00:55:06]

IT'S KIND OF THE SAME [INAUDIBLE] SCENARIO.

I THINK IT'S IF YOU READ THAT ONE, IT SAYS NO FURTHER SUBDIVIDING, NO FAMILY LAND GRANTS.

THEY HAVE TO. AND THAT'S ON THE FACE OF THAT PLAT.

ANYBODY GOES BY PIECE THAT PROPERTY DON'T SEE IT.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO LOOK FOR RESTRICTIONS SOMEWHERE.

THAT BUYER IS GOING TO GET THAT PLAT AND THEY'RE GOING TO SEE IT.

NOW IT'S NOT LIKE THIS RESTRICTION WOULD BE FILED OUT OVER HERE SOMEWHERE WITH ANOTHER NUMBER WHERE IF THEY HAD SOMETHING ON THEIR OWN WITH THEIR SALE ITSELF, YOU CANNOT SPLIT THAT AGAIN, 722 ACRES.

YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SPLIT IT IN ANYMORE.

IF SHE SAYS IF SHE PUTS THAT RESTRICTION ON THAT 22 ACRES RIGHT NOW, THEN THAT GOES WITH THAT DOCUMENT THAT GETS RECORDED.

WHEN SHE SELLS IT, SHE CAN MAKE THAT AS A, YOU KNOW, A ENCUMBRANCE ON WHATEVER SHE'S SELLING THAT STOPS IT RIGHT THERE FOR YOU, FOR EVERYBODY ELSE THAT STOPS IT NO FAMILY AND GRANTS NO FURTHER SUBDIVIDING INTO THE 22 ACRES.

THE 17 CAN'T BE SUBDIVIDED BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET MORE THAN 10 OR LESS, YOU KNOW, YOU'D HAVE SOME LEFT. SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO COMMISSIONERS COURT ALSO.

AND I THINK THAT THIS EASEMENT HAS BEEN THERE AS LONG AS WE CAN FOLLOW IT BACK.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT PART, DOESN'T ASK FOR ANYTHING SPECIAL.

IT'S A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

AND I FEEL REAL CONFIDENT THAT THE COUNTY ALREADY KNOWS IT'S THERE.

THEY'VE ALREADY YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN ACCEPTED BY EVERYBODY.

AND I THINK IT'S GOTTEN BLOWN WAY OUT OF WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE.

THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

BUT I STILL FEEL LIKE EVEN IF YOU SAID, OK, PLAT IT PUT THAT ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT ON A DOCUMENT CAN BE FILED, I'VE FOUND ONE THAT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

ONE HUNDRED AND SIX ACRES KNOWN IN VOLUME.

SO AND SO IS NOW, WHAT, ONE LOT ONE LOT TWO OF GRAPEVINE TRAILER SUBDIVISION OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT SO THAT PEOPLE SEE THAT, OK, YOU KNOW, SO IT CAN BE FOUND IN THE COURTHOUSE. OK, YES.

[INAUDIBLE] YES.

THE PEOPLE YOU KNOW THAT ARE TRYING TO BUY IT, THEY'RE THE SAME ONES THAT BOUGHT THE SEVENTEEN. SO ONCE AGAIN, THEY'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE 40 ACRES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO, IS HAVE IT IN AG.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE MAN DOES HAVE CHILDREN.

HE HAS TWO. WOULD HE BE ABLE TO HAVE ONE OF HIS CHILDREN WHEN THEY GROW UP, BE ABLE TO BUILD OUT THERE IF THEY CHOSE TO DO THAT ON THAT? TWENTY TWO THE SEVENTEEN, THE WAY IT'S LAID OUT, WE PUT THE HOUSE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE.

SO I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD EVER WANT TO BUILD ON THAT PIECE.

BUT IF THEY HAD CHILDREN AND LATER THEY WANTED TO BUILD ON THE TWENTY TWO, COULD THEY DO THAT. THEY CAN HAVE AN ADDITIONAL HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY BUT IT COULDN'T BE SUBDIVIDED FURTHER. OK, SO THEY COULD JUST IF YOU BUILD AN EXTRA HOUSE ON THERE, I MEAN I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'D EVER WANT TO DO THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO PROTECT THOSE PEOPLE.

IF THEY HAD CHILDREN LIKE WE ALL WANT TO IF THEY BUILT THE HOUSE ON THERE, HOW HOW WOULD THEY NOW HAVE TWO HOUSES ON 40 ACRES? HOW WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO SELL IT LATER? PROBABLY. PROBABLY. WOULDN'T.

YEAH, I THINK WE YOU KNOW, WE CAN WE CAN SPECULATE BEYOND I THINK WE'VE DANCED WELL BEYOND THE WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA AT THIS POINT.

I'VE SPOKEN AT LENGTH TO ALL OF YOU OUTSIDE OF COMMISSIONERS COURT.

I'VE SPOKEN TO TRACY ABOUT THIS AD NAUSEUM AS WELL AS JJ.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE SEVERAL ISSUES IN REFERENCE TO WHETHER THE ROAD HAS BEEN FORMALLY EVER RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT AS A PRIVATE STREET.

THAT'S UP FOR INTERPRETATION BETWEEN OBVIOUSLY THE DIFFERENT PARTIES.

BUT AT THIS TIME, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT.

WE HAVE PRESENTED TODAY AND WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER IN THIS MEETING, WHICH IS JUST THE VARIANCE FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF GRAPEVINE TRAIL, JJ HAS SAID THAT AT THIS POINT, THIS ISN'T THIS IS NOT A COMPLETED PROCESS AT THIS POINT.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE EXEMPTION LIKE WE WERE AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

SO AT THIS POINT, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL WE HAVE MORE CLARITY AT THIS POINT.

I BELIEVE THAT IN WORKING WITH MISS PHILLIPS, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE CLOSE.

I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM WITH THE OTHER LANDOWNERS WHAT THEIR SITUATION IS.

THEY ARE IN A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN MISS PHILLIPS, WHO OWNS HER PROPERTY OUTRIGHT. SO THERE MAY BE SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS ON THEIR END THAT THEY MAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WITH THEIR LAND OR ANY OTHER CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS THAT THEY MAY HAVE.

SO ONCE I'M ABLE TO GET CONFIRMATION FROM EVERYBODY INVOLVED THAT THE TERMS OF THE

[01:00:01]

WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE IS WE HAVE A SECOND AND THEN WE CAN GET INTO SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION IF WE NEED TO.

AND ALSO, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TABLE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS.

SO, JJ, IT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS IS NOT READY OR I HAVE PROPOSED TERMS OF THE VARIANCE DRAWN UP THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT COULD GRANT A CONDITIONAL VARIANCE WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TERMS ARE GOING TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE PARTY.

THAT'S PARTIES THAT ARE GOING HAVE TO SIGN THEM, WHICH WOULD BE THE LANDOWNERS IN THIS SITUATION, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPLEMENTING COVENANTS THAT ARE GOING TO RUN WITH THE LAND. THE OWNERS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL PARCEL ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON THEM.

IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE MR. PHILLIPS AND THE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER PARCELS AS WELL.

SO WE NEED BOTH PARTIES TO AGREE TO SIGN HOW MANY PARTIES.

THAT MEAN THAT I THINK IT'S FOUR TOTAL.

YES. OR TOTAL AND I TOLD JJ THAT I ASKED HIM, I SAID, WOULD YOU ARE NOT YOU DEFINITELY WOULDN'T ASK ME TO DO SOMETHING ILLEGAL.

CORRECT. BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING ME TO GO BACK NOW ON SOMETHING THAT I SOLD A YEAR AGO AND PUT SOME TYPE OF RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR DEED.

ARE THEY WILLING TO SIGN? I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE.

I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT SURE THAT THEY COULD.

WE'RE NOT SURE THAT WE COULD BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PERMIT.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE TABLING WE'VE GOT TO WORK THROUGH THAT BEFORE WE CAN GIVE A VARIANCE.

I THINK THAT'S THAT ISSUE IS THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE NOT AT A POINT WHERE WE CAN GIVE A VARIANCE YET BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T WORKED THROUGH ALL THOSE ISSUES.

AND LIKE I SAID THERE, YOU KNOW, BACK IN THE OLD DAYS, WE COULD DRIVE UP HERE TO FIRST LOCKHART AND SAY WE NEED TO SPEAK TO GARY BROWN AND GARY, CAN WE DO THIS? BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A LOAN THROUGH WHO KNOWS WHERE IT'S BEEN SOLD IN A YEAR FROM NOW, YOU KNOW, A YEAR AGO.

HOW DO YOU EVEN GO TO GET SOMEONE TO SAY, IS IT OK FOR US TO PUT A RESTRICTION ON SOMETHING THAT YOU SOLD TO US? AND THEY HAVE A TITLE POLICY THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TRYING TO WORK WITH YOU RIGHT NOW, BUT WE'VE GOT TO GET TO THAT POINT BEFORE WE CAN.

WE CANNOT ISSUE A VARIANCE TODAY.

SO I ASKED JJ WHAT HAPPENS IF THEIR LENDER SAID NO? AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE I'M LOOKING BACK NOW WITH THE TITLE COMPANIES, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THE PEOPLE THAT THAT GAVE THAT WARRANTY DEED, THAT GAVE THEM A TITLE POLICY BASED ON WHAT THEY HAD THAT DAY.

AND SO NOW YOU SEE EVERYTHING ON THAT.

SEVENTEEN WOULD BE CHANGING FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED.

AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, GOING FORWARD ON THE TWENTY TWO, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.

YOU KNOW, I'LL TO ME THEY'D HAVE TO COME TO YOU ANYWAY IF THEY WANTED TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT TWENTY TWO.

AND AT THAT TIME YOU COULD SAY YES OR NO.

BUT YOU KNOW JUST REALLY LOOKING OUT AFTER THAT.

SEVENTEEN THAT THOSE OTHER PEOPLE BOUGHT A YEAR AGO.

AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT LINDA SAID, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL HAVE APPROVED SOMETHING LIKE THIS AFTER I SOLD MINE WITH SOMEONE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS YOURS, BUT IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME.

WE HAVE WE NEED TO WORK THROUGH THIS WITH WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.

WE HAVE INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND WE'RE WE HAVE A IN THE SECOND TO TABLE.

YEAH, WE CAN.

WE CAN. AND I'VE GOT SOME INPUT TO THIS, I'M SURE.

GO AHEAD. UH OH.

I'M SORRY. UH, HELLO.

I'M [INAUDIBLE] AND AND OUR FIRST COMMISSIONER'S COURT.

WE WERE TOLD THAT IF THIS WAS A COUNTY RECOGNIZED PRIVATE ROAD, IT WOULD MAKE THINGS A LOT EASIER FOR OUR EXEMPTION LETTER.

AND LINDA HAD FOUND A 1999 LIST OF COUNTY PRIVATE ROADS AND ROADS.

AND THEN I FOUND ONE I HAD GOTTEN FROM 2003 AND I SENT B.J.

COPY OF IT. IF THE COUNTY PUTS THAT OUT ON YOUR LIST AND HAS A NUMBER AND THAT'S BEEN FIFTEEN, SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IDENTIFIES IT, DOESN'T IT? SO THERE IS. THERE WAS AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO QUOTE THE DATE, BUT THERE THERE WAS SOME LEGISLATION AT A POINT IN TIME THAT ACCEPTED ALL THESE ROADS.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DATE IS.

THAT'S THAT'S WE PROBABLY NEED TO FIND OUT AND MADE SO YOU CAN GO BACK AND FIND MAPS TO GET CALDWELL COUNTY.

[01:05:01]

AND I CANNOT REMEMBER WHAT YEAR THAT THAT OCCURRED IN YOU, LINDA.

YES, MA'AM. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YEAR THAT WAS, YOU'VE ANSWERED. MY QUESTION REALLY, ROAD IF IT WAS AN OLD COUNTY ROAD AND USED TO BE ABASEMENT, I MEAN, IT WAS JUST IT [INAUDIBLE] YOU COULD HAVE COME IN THE COMMISSIONER TO THE COMMISSIONER'S WHEN THEY WE'RE PASSING HOUSE BILL 1117 AND SAY, I DON'T WANT MY COUNTY ROAD I WANT IT TO BE AN EASEMENT SO GET IT OFF. THAT WAS WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.

BUT EVERYBODY INTERPRETS HOUSE BILL 1117 DIFFERENTLY, AS IT SAYS THE COUNTY HAD ADOPTED ROADS TO MAINTAIN SO, FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU HAD A PRIVATE ROAD OR WHERE YOU COME IN HERE, I WOULD ALWAYS A PRIVATE ROOM.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO DOC IT[INAUDIBLE] AND SO WE'RE AGAIN, WE'RE STRAYING AWAY. LAST TOPIC.

I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHEN THAT HAPPENED AND ANSWER.

I UNDERSTAND WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, BUT.

SO GO AHEAD. IT WOULD BE NICE IF THIS COULD BE DONE WITH AN EXEMPTION LETTER AND LEAVE THE FIRST TRACK ALONE OR A VARIANCE WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS.

IF SHE PUTS A RESTRICTION ON THE 22 ACRES THAT YOU CAN'T EVER THIS IS FOREVER THAT YOU CAN'T SUBDIVIDE. YOU CAN'T GIVE YOUR KIDS ANY LAND.

YOU CAN'T DO THIS. WHAT? SHE'S JUST KNOCKED HER VALUE WAY DOWN IN HALF.

WHY WOULD THE PEOPLE NEXT DOOR WANT TO BUY IT IF THEY CAN'T EVEN DIVIDE IT TO THEIR KIDS OR ANYTHING? SO I REALLY THINK THE COUNTY'S OVERSTEPPING WHEN YOU MAKE STIPULATIONS TO GET THINGS PASSED, TELLING YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR LAND THAT'S AGAINST TEXAS RIGHTS. AND THIS ROAD IS A 40 YEAR OLD VA EASEMENT THAT'S BEEN GOOD FOR SIX OR SEVEN TRACKS THROUGH THERE.

AND IT'S ABOUT AS GOOD AS YOU CAN GIVE BACK TIME.

30 FOOT WIDE WAS ALL THAT WAS REQUIRED.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE SAYING.

IT'S NOT A COUNTY RECOGNIZED PRIVATE ROAD WHEN IT'S BEEN A PRIVATE ROAD FOR ALL THOSE YEARS, PLUS A VETERAN EASEMENT FOR SURE THAT WHATEVER THAT WORD IS THEIR ANSWER.

AND IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

AND WE'RE OVER TEN ACRES AND YOU GOT ON THAT PRIVATE ROAD, PLENTY OF FRONTAGE.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A MESS TO GET THIS FAR AND WIN A SIMPLE EXEMPTION LETTER.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU KEEP READING THIS AND THAT JUST AND THAT'S THAT'S WHY THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO MAKE THIS DECISION TAKEN.

I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS.

BUT WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND ON THE TABLE TO TABLE IT AND THEN WE CAN ALL CAN SORT THROUGH ALL THIS AND COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS.

OK, BUT IT'S GOTTEN WAY FURTHER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE.

YES. OK, SO I STILL NEED TO MAKE MY COMMENT.

OK, THEN AT THIS POINT IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME, ALONG WITH DOING WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO TO HELP HIM WITH THIS AND YES, WE APPROVED A PLAN ONE YEAR AGO, MADE TWENTY TWENTY SAME SCENARIO. THESE PEOPLE, SAME ROOM SIGN.

PLEASE SAY THERE WAS NO RIGHT.

KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT. NOBODY.

I DON'T KNOW WHY OTHER THAN THAT'S A PUBLIC.

YES. IT'S A PUBLIC PROBLEM.

YEAH. WELL THE ONE THAT GOES THROUGH THE TRACK I DON'T THINK I'LL SAY THAT.

YEAH. RECORDED IN.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. BUT ANYWAY, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO ADD TO THIS IS WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE GREAT MONTREAUX PRIVATE ROAD.

WE'VE SKIPPED AROUND. WE'VE NOT MENTIONED THAT.

THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT TRACY IN INDICATED TO ME A WEEK AGO.

I THINK SO.

BUT THAT I'M GOING TO SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE.

FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE EVERYBODY CAME IN HERE TODAY WITH TRACY AT ALL SO THAT MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE HAD SOME KIND OF RESOLUTION FROM OUR ENGINEER. WELL, I DON'T THINK I COULD DO THAT WHEN B.J.

SOMEONE TALKING TO HIM ALMOST WAIT.

BUT HAVING HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO HAVE APPROACHED B.J..

AND TRACY, WE HAVE DISCUSSED I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH JJ ALMOST DAILY ON THIS ISSUE.

WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO A RESOLUTION TODAY.

WE JUST WERE NOT CAPABLE OF GETTING THERE.

AND I GOT A QUESTION FOR JJ SO WHY ARE YOU HAVING TO INVOLVE THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS?

[01:10:01]

THEY DON'T OWN THAT. THEY OWN THE 17 ACRE PARCEL AS A RESULT OF THE SUBDIVISION.

TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER. NOT NOT NOT HER.

AND THE PEOPLE ARE SELLING THE SEVENTEEN ACRES YOU MENTIONED.

THERE'S LIKE FOUR PEOPLE.

IT'S TWO, I BELIEVE, MARRIED COUPLES.

SO IT'S FOUR PEOPLE TOTAL. OK, THAT WAS MISCONSTRUED THAT, AS YOU'RE SAYING, THE OTHER FOUR PEOPLE AROUND THIS THAT USE THAT VERY SAY, I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE, I WAS MISCONSTRUED OR OK, OK, IN ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, I HAVE ONE.

I'M SORRY. I KNOW EVERYBODY IS READY, BUT.

NO, NO, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT IT.

YEAH, I'M I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF TABLING THIS.

I WOULD LIKE TO TO KIND OF APPROACH IT AS AN EXEMPTION.

THE. I'M SORRY, I FORGOT CANDACE PHILLIPS, MS. PHILLIPS. SHE'S GOT A 22 ACRE TRACT AND THEN THERE'S A 17 ACRE TRACT THERE.

THE 17 ACRE TRACT WOULD ALWAYS HAVE TO COME BACK TO US IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER DIVISION OF THAT. AND IF THEY'RE CLAIMING AN EXEMPTION, THEY COULD MEET IT BECAUSE THEY'D BE NOT ABLE TO LEAVE TO 10 ACRE TRACKS.

THE 22 ACRE TRACT COULD POTENTIALLY COME BACK TO US.

AH, AH, GET AN EXEMPTION TO GO INTO A 12 AND A 10 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. BUT BUT I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE ON IT.

BUT I THINK I WOULD LIKE PERSONALLY TO CONSIDER A AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR A VARIANCE TO OUR VARIANCE TO CONSIDER THE ACCESS THAT GRAPEVINE ROAD PROVIDES AS MEETING THE DEFINITION OF ACCESS AND IN THE LOCAL AND STATE REGULATIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING A DETERMINATION OF OF SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION.

AND THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT EXIST IN ORDER FOR US TO GRANT A VARIANCE IS THAT IT IS THAT THAT ROADS EXISTED SINCE WAY PRIOR TO WHEN I BOUGHT IT IN THE COUNTY, HAVING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND PROBABLY EVEN THE STATE HAVING PORTIONS DEALT WITH WITH THOSE EXEMPTIONS. SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST TABLING.

BUT BUT WOULD CONSIDER THAT.

OK, COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.

YES. WOULD YOU LIKE TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION OR CONSIDER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? I GUESS I WOULD LEAN ON JOE FOR A MINUTE TO SEE ON WHAT HIS OPINION IS AS FAR AS REMOVING THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE DEEP COVENANT ON THE 17 AND THE IMPLICATIONS THEREOF.

SO SO JUST BRIEFLY, TO ADDRESS ONE OF COMMISSIONER THERIOT POINTS, YOU MENTIONED THE FACT THAT THE 17 ACRE PARCEL WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE TO PURSUE AN EXEMPT SUBDIVISION IN THE FUTURE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER, IT MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR A LAND GRANT IF PERHAPS THE PROPERTY SUBDIVIDED AND CONVEY TO SOMEONE IN A QUALIFYING LEVEL OF SANGUINITY OR AFFINITY, WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE EXEMPT IT FROM A SUBDIVISION OR APPLY IT IN THE FUTURE.

SO EVEN IF THE PROPERTIES ARE NOT OVER 10 ACRES AS A RESULT OF ANY KIND OF SUBDIVISION, THERE MAY STILL BE SITUATIONS WHERE IT WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM PLANNING IN THE FUTURE.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AS WELL.

IN THIS SITUATION, IF WE GO WITHOUT PUTTING THESE RESTRICTIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR A VARIANCE ON THIS PROPERTY, IT DOESN'T RESOLVE THE SITUATION THAT IT'S A NONEXEMPT SUBDIVISION FROM GLADDING. THE ONLY OTHER RESOLUTION THAT I CAN SEE TO TRY TO RESOLVE IT IN SUCH A WAY WOULD BE TO PURSUE PERHAPS A RETROACTIVE PLOT IN SOME WAY THAT WOULD HAVE ITS OWN PROBLEMS. IT DOESN'T RESOLVE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OTHER LAND OWNERS AND THEIR MORTGAGE COMPANY OR WHATEVER CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS THEY MAY HAVE.

THAT PROBLEM WOULD STILL EXIST IF WE PURSUE ANY OTHER OPTION HERE.

SO AT THIS POINT, IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IS GOING TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT.

THE GOAL OR KIND OF THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE IN FUNDAMENTAL TERMS IS THAT WE HAVE A SUBDIVISION THAT HAS OCCURRED, THE ACT OF SUBDIVISION CREATING ONE OR MORE PARCELS FROM ANOTHER, FROM A LARGER PARENT TRACT.

AND THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT ALL SUBDIVISIONS BE PILOTED WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S MY OPINION THAT THIS DOESN'T MEET ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT IS WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT VOTED ON LAST TIME.

IF IT DOESN'T MEET ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS, THEN IT IS NOT EXEMPT. IT'S NOT EXEMPT FROM PLANNING AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE PLANIT.

THE VARIANCE PROCEDURE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A WAY TO ESSENTIALLY DO AN END RUN AROUND THE OTHERWISE MANDATORY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH A SUBDIVISION AND ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN LATER IN THE ROAD WITHOUT IMPOSING THAT BURDEN ON THE CURRENT LANDOWNERS IN ORDER TO RESOLVE IT. IN THIS WAY, WE WOULD NEED BOTH SETS OF LANDOWNERS TO SIGN OFF, AND

[01:15:03]

IF WE DON'T GO THIS ROUTE AND WE TAKE THE VARIANCE OFF THE TABLE AND JUST SAY THAT IT'S EXEMPT, FUTURE SUBDIVISIONS WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO US.

AND WE'RE LEFT WITH A SUBDIVISION THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING REQUIREMENTS IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, BUT IN THE EYES OF THE COUNTY, IT WOULD BE ACCEPTED.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY REJECTED AS A COMMISSIONER.

SO WHAT ABOUT THAT ONE THAT WAS DONE IN JUST A MOMENT? I HAVE I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU.

I'VE HAD A REAL QUICK SO TINKER'S POINT.

I CAN SEE THAT'S GOING TO RESULT IN A TIE VOTE, MAYBE IN THE TIEBREAKER.

SO I WANT TO GET CLEAR ON THIS.

IF IT'S OK WITH ALL OF ALL OF YOU, I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD WITH THE VOTE THE TABLE ONLY BECAUSE. I NEED TO GET COMFORTABLE WITH ED'S SUGGESTION, AND SO IN ORDER FOR ME TO GET COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO NEED A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO DO SOME RESEARCH.

I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO ED'S SUGGESTION.

I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND AS WELL.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF TABLING IT AT THIS TIME ONLY BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING SUGGESTION THAT COMMISSIONER THERIOT JUST CAME UP WITH.

AT THE SAME TIME, I WANT TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE BOTH OPTIONS.

I WISH WE HAD HAD BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT PRIOR TO COMING IN HERE, BUT WE WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS ACT IF WE DID THAT.

SO UNFORTUNATELY, THAT MEET THAT ACT IS THERE FOR A GOOD REASON AND THAT'S TO KEEP US FROM GOING IN A SMOKE FILLED ROOM AND MAKING A DEAL AND THEN COMING OUT HERE AND LOOKING LIKE WE'RE WE'RE ALL ON BOARD WITH SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.

SO IT'S A GOOD ACT AND I BELIEVE IN IT.

BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, IT'S GOING TO SLOW US DOWN A COUPLE OF WEEKS BECAUSE BECAUSE OF EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS, THE TWO COMMISSIONERS COULDN'T HAVE THAT CONVERSATION OUTSIDE OF COURT. WE NOW HAVE THAT CONVERSATION IN COURT AS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO.

I CAN SAY THAT THIS IS GOING TO RESULT IN A TIE IF IT COMES TO A VOTE.

AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE CASTING THE TIE BREAKER VOTE UNTIL I'VE HAD A CHANCE TO RESEARCH THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE. IF YOU GUYS WOULD JUST DO ME THAT COURTESY OF ALLOWING US TO GO THROUGH THIS VOTING TABLE, IT I WILL GET WITH B.J., I MEAN WITH JJ AND WORK THROUGH THE NUTS AND BOLTS, BOTH OF THESE SUGGESTIONS.

AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND I'LL CAST MY TIE BREAKING VOTE AT THAT TIME AT THE NEXT COURT AND MY QUESTIONING.

COMMISSIONER THERIOT, HITTING THE RIGHT SPOT.

OK, WANT TO PUT RESTRICTIONS ON SOMETHING AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT TO BEGIN WITH.

BUT YOU KNOW, THE 17 ACRES IS DONE AND GONE WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE TWENTY TWO ACRES.

IT WAS 10 ACRES OR MORE.

IT HAD ACCESS TO A PUBLIC ROAD AND RECOGNIZED.

YEAH, IT'S BEEN. I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT COMMISSIONER UP.

AND I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE BEFORE THAT, AT LEAST THE 1980S BY THE END OF THE YEAR, WHICH THEY CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE DON'T CONTROL.

I UNDERSTAND, COMMISSIONER THERIOT GETTING THE RIGHT POINT.

AND THE ACTION ON THIS WAS TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE SUBDIVISION.

AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TABLE.

YEAH, COMMISSIONER EDDIE, THE ONLY ONE MADE ANY SENSE.

SO WE UNDERSTAND.

I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS AND SEE WHERE IT GOES.

IF IT IF WE DON'T PASS A VOTE TO TABLE, THEN WE'LL CARRY ON.

BUT WE'RE NOT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR AT THE MOMENT.

AND I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF TABLING THIS ITEM.

SAY, AY, AY, AY AY.

BUT I CAN RESPECT YOUR JUDGE REQUEST.

I KNOW.

OK, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TABLE IT.

I'M GOING TO VISIT WITH JJ AND TRACY AND TRY TO SORT THROUGH COMMISSIONER THERIOT'S SUGGESTION AND THEN WE WILL BRING THIS BACK ON THE NEXT AGENDA AND GO FROM THERE.

JUDGE YES, MA'AM. HE CAN MEET WITH ME RIGHT AFTER COURT TODAY.

OK, GREAT. APPRECIATE IT.

YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. OK, ITEM 25, DISCUSSION ACTION TO RATIFY AND

[25. Discussion/Action to ratify an Administration/Professional Services Contract between Langford Community Management Services, Inc. and Caldwell County for services rendered to the Texas Water Development Board "Caldwell County Flood Protection Planning Study grant. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Dennis Engelke; Backup: 10; Cost: None ]

[01:20:05]

DENNIS. THANK YOU, JUDGE.

ACTUALLY, THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION, BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT BACK ON MAY 5TH OF 2020.

WE ARE IN THE FINAL THROES OF COMPLETING THE DUE DILIGENCE REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD. AND SINCE IT HAS BEEN A YEAR SINCE THIS PARTICULAR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED FOR FOR REASONS OF TIMELINESS, I'M ASKING YOU TO RE RATIFY ACTIONS YOU'VE ALREADY THIS COMMISSIONER'S COURT HAS ALREADY TAKEN PREVIOUSLY, JUST SO THAT WE'RE CURRENT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LAND MANAGEMENT, COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD. SO I'M BASICALLY ASKING YOU TO RE RATIFY THIS PARTICULAR AGREEMENT.

OK, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RATIFY THIS AGREEMENT? SO MOVED, WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, AYE OPPOSED NONE MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ITEM TWENTY SIX MOTION TO ADJOURN DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? WE HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE, AYE OPPOSED NONE MOTION CARRIES.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.