Jul 11, 2023 Commissioners Court

[00:00:01]

ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.

[Call Meeting to Order]

COMMISSIONER THOMAS, WOULD YOU MIND LEADING US IN THE INVOCATION THIS MORNING? OKAY. DEAR FATHER GOD, WE COME THIS MOMENT, THIS MINUTE, THIS HOUR, IN PRAYER, ASKING YOU TO GUIDE US TO WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE US GO. DEAR FATHER, WE ASK THAT THIS MEETING.

BE WELL DONE, DEAR FATHER.

DECENT IN ALL OF THESE THINGS.

WE'RE ASKING YOUR DARLING PRECIOUS SON, JESUS CHRIST.

NAME AND BLOOD SHED NAME THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.

AND EVERYONE SAID AMEN.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS THIS MORNING?

[Announcements]

JAMES LOVETT WITH SH-130 CONTACTED ME LAST WEEK AND THE WEEK OF THE 31ST OF THIS MONTH OF JULY, THE WEATHER PERMITTING THE LIGHTS AT SH-142 AND SH-130 WILL GO UNDER CONTROL OF THOSE LIGHTS AS OPPOSED TO BEING FLASHING AND STOPPED IN ONE DIRECTION.

SO IF YOU'RE TRAVELING THAT WAY CONSISTENTLY, JUST BE LOOKING FOR A TRAFFIC CHANGE THAT WEEK OF THE 31ST.

THANKS. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER HORNE. NONE AT THIS TIME JUDGE.

COMMISSIONER THERIOT.

NO REPORTS, JUDGE.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

NONE. OKAY.

UH EZZY. I KNOW YOU HAVE ONE.

YES. OKAY, GUYS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.

I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE NEED TO DO OUR CYBERSECURITY.

IT IS DUE BY AUGUST THE 15TH.

WE ARE CURRENTLY AT 75% COMPLETION AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET TO 100 OR AT LEAST A HIGH 90, 99 MAYBE.

SO IF YOU HAVE NOT TAKEN YOUR TEST, I WILL BE SENDING YOU OUT AN EMAIL AND BE BUGGING YOU UNTIL YOU TAKE IT BECAUSE I KNOW OF SEVERAL.

AND IF YOU NEED A REMINDER OR CAN'T REMEMBER YOUR PASSWORD, SEND ME AN EMAIL, SEND KRISTIANNA AN EMAIL AND WE CAN GET YOU GUYS UNLOCKED.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS? OKAY, NOW WE'LL MOVE TO CITIZENS COMMENTS.

NO CITIZENS COMMENTS.

OKAY. AND WITH OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO TO CONSENT THEN.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

SO MOVED JUDGE.

WE HAVE A 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.

ITEM EIGHT DISCUSSION.

ACTION REGARDING THE BURN BAN.

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

COMMISSIONERS, STAFF AND GALLERY.

LET'S GIVE YOU A BRIEF UPDATE.

WE'VE HAD A FEW FIRES IN THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS WITH THE LATEST ONE BEING THIS PAST WEEKEND OF TWO RVS CATCHING ON FIRE.

THEN IT CAUGHT THE SURROUNDING BRUSH AROUND IT ON FIRE, BUT GOT IT UNDER CONTROL.

WE'VE HAD A FEW RAIN SHOWERS HERE AND THERE, BUT NOT A LOT OF RAIN.

SOME PEOPLE ONLY GOT A TENT AND SOME OTHER PEOPLE GOT A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT NOT ENOUGH TO AFFECT THE DRYNESS IN THE COUNTY.

THE 15 DAY FORECAST FOR CALDWELL COUNTY, VERY GRIM, SHOWING THE 15 A 48% CHANCE OF RAIN ON THE 23RD OF JULY. AND THAT'S ABOUT IT.

TROPICAL OUTLOOK LOOKS ALSO GRIM AS NOTHING'S OUT THERE IN THE GULF TO PROVIDE US WITH ANY RAIN IN THE FUTURE.

COCORAHS SHOWS ZERO RIGHT NOW FOR THE CAPTURE OF RAIN IN THE COUNTY.

OUR KBI NUMBERS, THE MINIMUM IS 337.

MAX IS 560 AVERAGE 438 WITH A CHANGE OF PLUS 14 DUE TO THE DRYNESS AND THE MOISTURE IN, THERE'S NO MOISTURE IN THE SOIL. I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND TO COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT WE PUT ON A BURN BAN.

IF WE GET SOME RAIN, WE CAN TAKE THE BURN BAN OFF.

BUT I REALLY RECOMMEND THAT WE PUT THIS BURN BAN ON BECAUSE OF THE DRYNESS OUT IN THE COUNTY AND NO RAIN PREDICTED UNTIL LATER THIS MONTH.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS HAVE A MOTION TO PUT THE BURN BAN ON.

I MOVE THAT WE PUT THE BURN BAN ON.

WE HAVE A 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.

THANK YOU, JUDGE. THANKS, HECTOR.

ITEM NINE DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 21-2023, AMENDING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH RANCH ROAD BOLLINGER, LLC FOR BOLLINGER

[9. Discussion/Action to consider approval of Resolution 21 -2023. amending a development agreement with Ranch Road Bollinger, LLC for the Bollinger Subdivision located at Sundance Court (FM 2720). Speaker: Judge Haden/Commissioner Theriot; Backup: 30; Cost: $0.00]

COMMISSIONER THERIOT.

[00:05:02]

OKAY. GOOD MORNING.

SCOTT MILLER RANCHO DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS OUR BOLLINGER PROJECT OFF OF 2720, KIND OF RIGHT ACROSS THE FORMER MICRON SITE, THE FRONT AREA OF THE COMMUNITY RIGHT IN THIS AREA HERE IS 27 ACRES WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED AS MIXED USE AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH ALLOWED US FOR FLEXIBILITY.

WE WEREN'T SURE WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ACROSS THE STREET.

SUBSEQUENTLY, WE DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND DO RESIDENTIAL THERE.

AND SO IN THIS SECTION HERE, RIGHT BEHIND THE UTILITY EASEMENT, WE'RE DOING OUR STANDARD 40 FOOT LOTS, WHICH WERE PART OF THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

AND THEN IN TALKING WITH THE BUILDERS, JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT THE MARKET, THIS AREA UP HERE, RIGHT NEAR THE ENTRY, WE DECIDED WE DECIDED TO GO A LITTLE BIT DENSER.

SO WE'RE DOING WE'RE PROPOSING A 35 FOOT WIDE LOT WITH A 25 FOOT WIDE PRODUCT.

SO SINGLE FAMILY HOME, SINGLE CAR GARAGE.

BUT WE'RE DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS OR PARKING CONCERNS IS A TWO CAR, DRIVEWAY, SINGLE CAR GARAGE.

AND THEN WE'RE SHRINKING THE DRIVEWAY DOWN THE DRIVEWAY APPROACH DOWN TO 12FT.

AND WHAT THAT ALLOWS US TO DO IS HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL ON STREET PARKING SPOT AND THEN TO FURTHER MITIGATE SOME PARKING.

IN THIS EXHIBIT HERE, WE PUT TWO PARKING BAYS OF 12 UNITS EACH AT THE END OF THIS BLOCK.

SO WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL 24 SPOTS OF PARKING.

SO THAT BRINGS US OVER FOUR PARKING SPOTS PER UNIT, WHICH WE THINK IS A VERY, VERY CONSERVATIVE PARKING ALLOCATION.

SO THE DA AMENDMENT IS SIMPLY TO ALLOW US TO COME IN AND REVISE OUR SETBACKS AND LOT SIZES AND THEN ALSO AMEND THE CONCEPT PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE 35 FOOT WIDE.

AND THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO BRING THE PRICE POINTS DOWN.

AFFORDABILITY IS KIND OF CONTINUES.

EVEN THOUGH IT'S RESET A LITTLE BIT, IT'S STILL PRETTY HIGH.

AND SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING A HOUSE IN AT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE $260,000 PLUS OR MINUS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSE IN A MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY. SO WE THINK IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO CAPTURE THAT BUYER POOL.

SO WE'RE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? I THINK WE'VE LOOKED IT OVER AND DISCUSSED IT, JUDGE, AND WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE OF THE AMENDMENT.

OKAY. I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THE RESOLUTION RESOLUTION 21-2023.

WHEREAS ON APRIL 26TH, 2022, CALDWELL COUNTY, THE COUNTY AND RANCH ROAD BOLLINGER, LLC, THE DEVELOPER ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOLLINGER SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT SUNDANCE COURT FM 2720.

AND WHEREAS, THE DEVELOPER NOW SEEKS TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW FOR NEW MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE AND GARAGE DRIVEWAY AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH RANCH ROAD BOLLINGER, LLC FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF BOLLINGER SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON SUNDANCE COURT FM 2720 AND ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A ARE HEREBY APPROVED AND THE COUNTY JUDGE IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE AMENDED AGREEMENT.

RESOLVED THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY 2023.

COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2021? I'LL SO MOVE. WE HAVE A MOTION.

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

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE, AYE. OPPOSED HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.

THANKS EZZY. ITEM TEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 22-2023 DISAPPROVING THE CALDWELL

[10. Discussion/Action to approve Resolution 22-2023, disapproving the Caldwell County Appraisal District's FY 2024 adopted budget. Speaker: Judge Haden; Backup: 14; Cost: $0.00]

CHASE YOU HAD SOME YOU HAD SHARED SOME NUMBERS WITH ME ON THE ON THE LAST TWO YEARS AVERAGES.

DO YOU HAVE THOSE? YES, JUDGE. I'VE ACTUALLY INCLUDED THEM IN THE RESOLUTION TOO.

IF YOU WANT, I CAN READ THE RESOLUTION WHICH WILL HAVE THOSE NUMBERS.

GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. AND THEN WE'LL WE CAN HAVE SOME CONVERSATION.

RESOLUTION 22-2023, RESOLUTION OF CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT DISAPPROVING OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET.

WHEREAS THE TAXPAYERS OF CALDWELL COUNTY ARE EXPERIENCING RISING COSTS AND EXPENSES THAT CONSTITUTE AN INCREASING FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES.

WHEREAS THE TAXPAYERS OF CALDWELL COUNTY ARE ENTITLED TO COST EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION AND BUDGETING BY LOCAL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

WHEREAS THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT CCAD, PURSUANT TO SECTION 6.06 OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SET ITS OWN BUDGET SUBJECT TO THE DISAPPROVAL OF LOCAL TAXING ENTITIES, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS OF CALDWELL COUNTY.

[00:10:05]

THESE RACES CONSTITUTED AN AVERAGE INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 16.6% AND A MEDIUM RAISE OF APPROXIMATELY 21.6%.

WHEREAS ON JUNE 20TH, 2023, THE CCAD ADOPTED A BUDGET THAT INCLUDED AN ADDITIONAL 5% SALARY INCREASE FOR CCAD PERSONNEL.

WHEREAS IN THIS TWO YEAR PERIOD ALONE, THE CCAD SALARY INCREASES CONSTITUTE AN APPROXIMATE 48% RAISE FOR THE CHIEF APPRAISER AND A 50 AND A 53% RAISE FOR THE DEPUTY CHIEF APPRAISER. ALL PERSONNEL RAISES TAKEN TOGETHER DURING THIS TWO YEAR PERIOD CONSTITUTE AN AVERAGE INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 22% AND A MEDIAN RAISE OF APPROXIMATELY 18%.

WHEREAS ULTIMATELY, THE TAXPAYERS OF CALDWELL COUNTY BEAR THE BURDEN OF ANY INCREASED CCAD BUDGET.

AND WHEREAS, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE LIMITED RESOURCES OF ITS TAXPAYERS, HAS REFRAINED FROM SUCH EXTREME SALARY INCREASES IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE COUNTY SERVICES TO THE TAXPAYERS OF CALDWELL COUNTY.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT HEREBY DISAPPROVES OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT ADOPTED, IT SAYS 2023 THAT ACTUALLY SHOULD BE 2024 APPRAISAL DISTRICT BUDGET PURSUANT TO SECTION 6.06 B.

SO WE'LL MAKE THAT CORRECTION ON THE RESOLUTION.

OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT FOR DISCUSSION FIRST WITH LITTLE OUT OF ORDER, BUT I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE IN THIS INSTANCE.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD OR SAY? I DON'T. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.

I THINK THE RESOLUTION LAYS OUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE PRETTY CLEARLY.

I THINK FOR ME, THE PROBLEM IS I KNOW THAT THAT PEOPLE WORK HARD OVER AT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND THEY DESERVE TO MAKE A COMPETITIVE WAGE.

HOWEVER, THE PEOPLE HERE DO, TOO, AND WE'RE STRUGGLING TO DO A 3% RAISE.

I'VE JUST SPENT THE LAST TWO WEEKS CUTTING THE BUDGET AND CUTTING THE BUDGET AND CUTTING THE BUDGET TO TRY TO KEEP THOSE 3% RAISES IN PLACE, WHICH MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO NOT GROW A COUPLE OF OUR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AS THOUGH FOR THE UNIT ROADS, THE WAY WE'D LIKE TO, TO KEEP UP WITH THE GROWTH HERE JUST TO DO A 3% RAISE.

SO I STRUGGLE WHEN I SEE THESE KIND OF NUMBERS.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T I WISH I WISH THIS COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ALONG OVER SORT OF A FIVE YEAR PLAN AND SPREAD OUT, BUT IT WASN'T.

AND SO FOR ME, I'M HAVING A REALLY HARD TIME GOING ALONG WITH THAT WHEN WE'RE STRUGGLING, YOU KNOW, TO DO THREE.

AND AND UNTIL YESTERDAY, I WAS SOMEWHAT CONCERNED WE MIGHT HAVE TO DROP IT TO 2 OR 0 TO BALANCE OUR BUDGET.

LUCKILY, YESTERDAY, AFTER WE WENT THROUGH REVENUES, WE WERE ABLE TO FIND A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO DO THAT.

SO WE'LL KEEP IT AT THREE, I HOPE.

BUT AND THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T HAVE A WORKSHOP TODAY BECAUSE THAT DIDN'T OCCUR UNTIL ABOUT 3:30 OR 4 YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.

WE SPENT ALL DAY ON IT.

AND SO SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT ON IT.

SO ANYWAY, COMMISSIONERS, I'D LOOK FOR A MOTION TO EITHER APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE RESOLUTION 22-2023.

JUDGE, WHAT IS, WHAT HAVE SOME OF THE OTHER TAXING ENTITIES DONE ON THIS? AND THEN WHAT'S THE EFFECT, I GUESS, OF A DISAPPROVAL? WHAT HAPPENS? SO HALF THE ENTITIES HAVE TO DISAPPROVE IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE EFFECTIVE AT ALL.

AND THERE'S QUITE A FEW.

I THINK THERE'S 22 ENTITIES SO ABOUT HALF OF THEM WOULD HAVE TO.

AND AS FAR AS I KNOW RIGHT NOW, CITY OF LULING IS THE ONLY OTHER ONE BESIDES US THAT'S DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVING OF IT.

I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANY OF THE OTHER ENTITIES.

SO OKAY I HAD REACHED OUT TO SOME OF THE OTHER TAXING ENTITIES SENT AN EMAIL JUST TELLING THEM WHAT THE COUNTY'S POSITION WAS GOING TO BE.

I RECEIVED SOME RESPONSES TYPICALLY FROM THE SCHOOL BOARDS SAYING THAT THEY DON'T MEET AGAIN UNTIL AUGUST, AND OF COURSE, BY THE END IT WOULD BE TOO LATE.

THE LEGISLATURE ONLY GIVES A 30 DAY WINDOW TO DISAPPROVE OF THIS BUDGET AFTER ADOPTION.

SO WE'LL WE'LL TO SOME EXTENT, WE'LL JUST HAVE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

BUT LIKE LIKE JUDGE SAID, IF WE IF THERE AREN'T A MAJORITY OF TAXING ENTITIES DISAPPROVING, THEN THEY JUST GOES INTO EFFECT.

AND IF IT WE DO GET A MAJORITY OF TAXING ENTITIES THAT DISAPPROVE, BASICALLY THEY JUST GO BACK AND REDO THEIR BUDGET AND THEN WE START THE PROCESS AGAIN.

OKAY. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. IF NOT I LOOK FOR A MOTION TO EITHER APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE RESOLUTION 22-2023.

I'LL SO MOVE TO APPROVE TO TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION DISAPPROVING.

OKAY. OKAY.

[00:15:01]

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

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 11 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CALDWELL COUNTY BETWEEN CALDWELL COUNTY AND THE REGIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE FOR

[11. Discussion/Action to approve an interlocal cooperation agreement between the County and the Regional Public Defender Office for indigent legal defense services, and authorizing the County Judge to execute the same. Speaker Judge Haden/Chase Goetz; Backup: 14; Cost: $18,645.00]

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, SO WE'D JUST BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT.

I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY AND REGIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE LEGAL DEFENSE SERVICES. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 12 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 2 TO WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER ONE PROJECT SH-

[12. Discussion/Action to approve Supplemental Work Authorization No. 2 to work Authorization No. 1 Project: SHI42. Additional cost of $46,649.78 for additional effort related to environmental services. Speaker: Judge Haden; Backup: 8; Cost: $46,649.78]

COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE LAST EXPENSE THAT WE HAVE REGARDING THIS TO GET US TO 100% COMPLETION ON THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR.

AND WE HAVE TO WE NEED TO APPROVE THIS SUPPLEMENTAL WORK IN ORDER TO FINISH UP THE ENVIRONMENTAL ON CAPITAL SEGMENTS ON THAT ROAD.

COMMISSIONER THERIOT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD OR COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND? THIS THIS ALLOCATION WILL COMPLETE THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK REQUIRED BY TXDOT AND IT WILL SET UP THE PROJECT AS BEING ELIGIBLE AND READY FOR FUNDING DURING THE NEXT CAMPO CALL FOR PROJECTS.

OKAY. AND WE DO HAVE THE FUNDS IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET TO DO THIS.

COMMISSIONERS, JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION.

OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER TWO? I'LL SO MOVE. WE HAVE A MOTION.

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

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 13 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 46 FOR PURCHASING 17 NEW HOTSPOTS FOR CALDWELL COUNTY SIX LAPTOPS FOR

[13. Budget Amendment to approve budget amendment #46 for Purchasing - Seventeen new hotspots for Caldwell County. Six laptops for Tax Office. Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Teltow; Backup: 6; Cost: $14,500.00]

GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS.

SO PRIOR IN THE YEAR, THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT HAS A BUDGET LINE ITEM FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR $15,000.

IT WASN'T USED, SO THEY OFFERED TO MOVE THAT MONEY INTO THEIR MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT TO PURCHASE THE HOTSPOTS AS WELL AS THE NEW LAPTOPS FOR THE TAX OFFICE. THE NEW LAPTOPS, THE EQUIPMENT THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW IS GETTING PRETTY OLD AND THEY NEED SOME NEW EQUIPMENT TO RUN THEIR THEIR STATE PROGRAMS SO.

OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 46? SO MOVED JUDGE.

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

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 14 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF DELL INVOICE NUMBER 10680883867 FOR TAX OFFICE

[14. Discussion/Action to approve payment of Dell Invoice #10680883867 for tax office laptops. Speaker Judge Haden/Carolyn Caro; Backup: 3; Cost: $7,390.98]

GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.

YES, THIS IS JUST TO REQUEST APPROVAL TO PAY THAT INVOICE TODAY FOR THE LAPTOPS WE PURCHASED FOR TAX OFFICE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE DELL INVOICE NUMBER 10680883867? SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

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

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. ITEM 15, BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROVE DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 47 FOR

[15. Budget Amendment to approve budget amendment #47 for Constable Pet. 4 for increase to Uniform line item. Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Teltow; Backup: 4; Cost: $3,000.00]

YES. SO I GOT A REQUEST FROM CONSTABLE VILLAREAL.

THEY ARE A LITTLE LOW IN THEIR UNIFORM LINE ITEM.

THEY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL MONEY IN THEIR TRAINING AND REPAIRS.

SO THEY WERE GOING TO MOVE THAT JUST TO SUPPLEMENT THAT UNIFORM EXPENSE LINE ITEM SO THAT THEY CAN GET A FEW MORE UNIFORMS. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 47? SO APPROVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

[00:20:02]

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 16 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 48 FOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE TO COMPLETE CURRENT PROJECTS COST $3,000,

[16. Budget Amendment to approve budget amendment #48 for Building Maintenance to complete current projects. Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Teltow; Backup: 6; Cost: $3,000.00]

YES, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST PUT THE MINUTES.

I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S FOR CURRENT PROJECTS.

WE REACHED OUT TO CURTIS.

THERE IS SOME SHORTFALL IN SOME OF HIS LINE ITEMS. WE DISCUSSED THOSE AND THIS IS KIND OF JUST TO GET THOSE TWO DIFFERENT LINE ITEMS BACK UP INTO THE GREEN.

HIS SCOTT ANNEX LINE ITEM IS -$128 AND HIS JUDICIAL CENTER IS -$1,200.

SO WE'RE JUST MOVING THAT $3,000 OUT OF OPERATING SUPPLIES TO COVER THAT SHORTFALL.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

COMMISSIONERS DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 48 WITH THOSE CLARIFICATIONS? SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

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

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 17 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 49 FOR THE COUNTY CLERK TO PURCHASE FOUR SCANNERS FOR THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DANIE.

[17. Budget Amendment to approve budget amendment #49 for the county clerk to purchase four scanners for the clerk's office. Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Teltow; Backup 10; Cost: $1,517.64]

SHE HAS SOME SCANNERS THAT ARE GOING DOWN IN HER OFFICE.

WE WORK TOGETHER UP IN MY OFFICE AND A COUPLE OTHER OFFICES WITHIN THIS BUILDING HAVE SCANNERS THAT INTERFACE WITH OUR FINANCIAL SOFTWARE SYSTEM, AND IT WOULD BENEFIT TERESA'S OFFICE.

SHE DOES HAVE SOME EXTRA MONEY IN HER CAPITAL OUTLAY, SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO MOVE THAT OVER.

OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 49? SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

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

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 18 DISCUSSION ACTION.

[18. Budget Amendment to consider approval of budget amendment #50 to transfer Visiting Judge funds to administrative expenditures and visiting court reporters. Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Teltow; Backup: 8; Cost: $5,000.00]

LAST ONE. THERE WAS SOME SORRY DURING LAST BUDGET CYCLE, THE PRIOR COUNTY COURT AT LAW JUDGE, I'M NOT SURE IF SHE WAS GOING TO EXPECT THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURES THAT WERE GOING TO COME THIS YEAR.

THERE'S DEFINITELY SOME SHORTFALL GOING ON IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW'S BUDGET.

I'LL BE MEETING AGAIN WITH YOU GUYS NEXT COURT TO DISCUSS A LARGER ONE.

BUT FOR NOW, THE VISITING COURT REPORTERS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WE NEED TO SUPPLEMENT THEM RIGHT NOW.

THEY CURRENTLY STILL HAVE SOME EXTRA MONEY IN THERE VISITING JUDGE LINE ITEM.

SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO COVER THAT SHORTFALL WITH THOSE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 50.

SO MOVED. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

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

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ITEM 19 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF INVOICE NUMBER 61423 TO HEATHER HOLDEN, CSR FOR COURT REPORTING SERVICES.

[19. Discussion/Action to approve payment of Invoice #61423 to Heather Holden, CSR, for court reporting services. Speaker: Judge Haden/Carolyn Caro; Backup: 2; Cost: $1,200.00]

HI AGAIN. YES, THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT IS LOOKING FOR APPROVAL TO PAY THIS INVOICE FOR MISS HOLDEN FOR THE COURT REPORTING SERVICES AND COST IS $1,200.

COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE INVOICE NUMBER 61423.

SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

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

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ITEM 20 DISCUSSION ACTION CONSIDER PUBLIC STREETS AND DRAINAGE AND TUMBLEWEED ESTATES.

[20. Discussion/Action to consider public streets and drainage in Tumblewood Estates Phase 2 Subdivision as complete and ready to begin the two-year performance period of said public improvements as evidenced by a maintenance bond in the amount of $58,238.40 for maintenance security. Speaker: Judge Haden/Daryl Thomas/Donald LeClerc; Backup: 4; Cost: $0.00]

YEAH, THE PUNCH LIST HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF AND THE MAINTENANCE BOND HAS BEEN POSTED.

SO OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC STREETS AND DRAINAGE AND TUMBLEWEED ESTATES SUBDIVISION TWO IS COMPLETE? YEAH. SO MOVED.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

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

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 21 DISCUSSION ACTION TO RETURN THE CONSTRUCTION BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $856,604.65 FOR TUMBLEWEED

[21. Discussion/Action to return the construction bond in the amount of $856,604.65 for Tumbleweed Estates Phase 2 Subdivision back to 2231 Romberg 30 LLC. Speaker: Judge Haden/Commissioner Thomas/Donald LeClerc; Backup: 3; Cost: $0.00]

[00:25:01]

DO YOU LIKE SO MOVED.

MOTION TO APPROVE? YES. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

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

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 22 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND JOHNSON TRUST INVESTMENTS, LLC AND FLINTLOCK OFFICE SUITES

[22. Discussion/Action to consider approval of a development agreement between the County and Johnson Trust Investments, LLC and Flintrock Office Suites, LLC. for an RV and boat storage facility and industrial park located at 5133 N US HWY 183. Speaker: Commissioner Theriot; Backup: 15; Cost: $0.00]

COMMISSIONER THERIOT, TRACY WERE YOU GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE? I CERTAINLY CAN. OKAY.

SO WE HAVE A COPY, IT'S IN THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT BACKUP.

THIS IS ONE WE WORKED ON FOR FOR QUITE A WHILE.

IT'S ON 183.

WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS CREATE WHAT'S WHAT'S REALLY AN INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT IT'S GOING TO EXIST ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS.

AND THERE'S A VARIETY OF USES, INCLUDING RV STORAGE, BOAT STORAGE.

IT'S KIND OF A MIXED USE INDUSTRIAL STYLE PROJECT.

AND WORKING WITH THEM THROUGH IT THERE WERE SEVERAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE THE LOT FRONTAGE THAT THEY WANTED.

IT REALLY ONLY HAS TWO DRIVEWAYS AND FITS WHAT IS INTENDED ENVISIONED FOR FRONTAGE ON A FACILITY LIKE STATE HIGHWAY ONE, STATE HIGHWAY 130, EVEN THOUGH IT'S TECHNICALLY GOING TO BE TWO DIFFERENT LOTS, IT IS DEVELOPED IN AN INTEGRATED FASHION.

IT HAS CROSS UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS.

HOWEVER, THE SEPTIC STANDS ALONE ON EACH LOTS, AND THAT'S IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN THE ABILITY FOR KASI TO PERMIT IT AS A FACILITY UNDER 5,000 GALLONS PER DAY, WHICH IS WHAT THE COUNTY IS ABLE TO APPROVE. ANYTHING ELSE HAS TO GO TO TCQ.

AND LOOKING AT THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT, THERE WERE REQUESTS MADE BY THE COUNTY FOR VEGETATIVE SCREENING AS WELL AS FENCING AROUND THE FACILITIES, AND THEY'VE INCORPORATED THAT IN THE DEVELOPMENT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

THIS IS THE SITE OF WHERE THE COUNTY CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED A SALVAGE YARD.

OH, OKAY. SOME TIME AGO, RIGHT ON 183.

THEY'RE JUST NORTH OF 185 ON THE WEST SIDE.

OKAY. AND THERE'S THERE'S ALREADY ONE EXISTING RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO IT.

AN RV PARK, RIGHT? YEAH, JUST SOUTH OF IT.

YEAH. OKAY.

AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DOES MAKE CLEAR WITH SOME LANGUAGE THAT CHASE WORKED ON THAT SALVAGE IS NOT ALLOWED ON IT.

IT DOES WITHIN THE KIND OF MIXED USE INDUSTRIAL MAKEUP OF IT.

IT DOES INCLUDE LIKE AUTO REPAIR, BUT IT'S MORE TRADITIONAL AUTO REPAIR, NOT SALVAGE.

OKAY. AND IN THE EVENT THAT THEY CHOOSE TO ONE DAY PETITION THE COURT AGAIN TO BECOME A SALVAGE YARD, THAT'S ITS OWN SEPARATE THING THAT THE COURT CAN CONSIDER AT THAT TIME. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER THERIOT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE? YES, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND JOHNSON TRUST INVESTMENTS, LLC AND FLINTLOCK OFFICE SUITES LLC FOR AN RV AND BOAT STORAGE FACILITY IN INDUSTRIAL PARK LOCATED AT 5133 NORTH US HIGHWAY 183.

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

ANY MORE DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 23 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FORM WHEN AN EXEMPTION LETTER FROM CALDWELL COUNTY IS REQUESTED FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES.

[23. Discussion/Action to approve an application form when an Exemption Letter from Caldwell County is requested for development purposes. Speaker: Commissioner Westmoreland/Kasi Miles/Tracy Bratton; Backup: 3; Cost: $0.00]

I WAS ASKED TO PLACE THIS ON THE COURT FOR CONSIDERATION.

IT'S A SIMPLE TWO PAGE APPLICATION FOR AN EXEMPTION LETTER THAT WE, I BELIEVE WE HAVE BEEN USING, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THE COURT HAS ACTUALLY APPROVED THIS LETTER.

SO IT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY TO POTENTIALLY BE APPROVED.

IT'S A WAY FOR KASI'S OFFICE TO HAVE BASIC INFORMATION FOR TRACKING PURPOSES ON ON EXEMPTION LETTERS.

SO THAT'S THE THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

ALL RIGHTY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE EXEMPTION APPLICATION.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXEMPTION LETTER FOR CALDWELL COUNTY REQUESTED FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY TRACY.

OH, GO AHEAD, TRACY. SORRY.

CLARIFYING QUESTION.

OF COURSE. DON'T MIND THE COURT APPROVING ANY FORM THAT THEY WANT TO.

THIS PARTICULAR FORM WAS ADOPTED IN THE LAST, I DON'T KNOW, 8 OR 9 MONTHS AS A RESULT OF THE INCREASED NUMBER OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION

[00:30:06]

IT'S ACTUALLY A FORM THAT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS WE'VE REALIZED NEEDS TO BE AMENDED AGAIN BECAUSE IT REALLY LOOKS AT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LIKE HALVING A 15 ACRE TRACT OUT OF A 15 ACRE TRACT AND DOESN'T REALLY DEAL WITH SOMETHING ELSE WE'RE SEEING, AND THAT'S THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER LAND SWAP.

THE COURT BACK IN, I BELIEVE IT WAS 2017 OR 2018, WE BROUGHT FORTH SOME A ONE APPLICATION FORM AND A SET OF CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.

AND WITH THAT ADOPTION THE COURT AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, AND IT WAS TALKED ABOUT VERY DELIBERATELY, GAVE STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO AMEND THOSE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AND FORUMS FROM TIME TO TIME AS IT SAW FIT.

WE HAVE AMENDED THE OTHER APPLICATION FORMS AND CHECKLISTS AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS, AND TECHNOLOGY IS ALWAYS EVOLVING.

THE THINGS WE'RE GETTING SUBMITTED ALWAYS ARE ALWAYS EVOLVING.

AND I'M A HORRIBLE SPELLER AND FIND MORE AND MORE TIMES WHERE I'VE GOT A COMMA MISSING OR SPELLING IN THE WRONG PLACE.

SO I WOULD LIKE I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME CLARIFICATION AFTER THIS IS ASSUMING IT DOES GET APPROVED AFTER IT'S APPROVED.

WHAT WE NEED TO BRING BACK TO THE COURT WHEN WE SAY THAT, HEY, TXDOTS AMENDED THE SEATING SPECIFICATION FOR RIGHTS OF WAY AND THAT'S WHAT WE REFER TO OR DO WE NEED TO BRING THAT BACK WHEN AS THE PROCESSES EVOLVE AND WE BECOME MORE SOPHISTICATED AND WE NEED TO AMEND FORMS AND APPLICATIONS, WE NEED CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT STAFF'S ABILITY IS TO ADOPT THOSE AND DEAL WITH THAT VERSUS WHAT NEEDS TO COME TO THE COURT.

OKAY. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY MORE DISCUSSION? OKAY. IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 24 DISCUSSION ACTION CONCERNING APPROVAL OF MAIORKA ACRES REPLAT LOT THREE LOCATED OFF FM 20 AND OLD COUNTY LINE ROAD IN

[24. Discussion/Action concerning approval of Maiorka Acres, Replat of Lot 3 located off FM 20 and Old Colony Line Road in Dale, Texas. Speaker: Commissioner Westmoreland/Kasi Miles/Tracy Bratton; Backup: 16; Cost: $0.00]

GOOD MORNING. THIS IS JUST A SIMPLE REPLAT AND EVERYTHING WHERE THEY TOOK ONE LOT AND SPLIT IT INTO THREE LOTS AND EVERYTHING.

IF YOU'LL SEE THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL LETTER IS INCLUDED, ALL FEES HAVE BEEN COLLECTED AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE THERE AND I'M JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL.

OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MAIORKA ACRES REPLAT OF LOT THREE LOCATED OFF FM 20 AND OLD COUNTY LINE ROAD.

SO MOVED.

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

ALL ANY MORE DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 25 DISCUSSION ACTION CONCERNING APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF PAZ ACRES LOT ONE AND TWO LOCATED ON HOMMANNVILLE TRAIL IN LOCKHART,

[25. Discussion/Action concerning approval of the Replat of Paz Acres, Lot 1 and 2 located on Homannville Trail in Lockhart, Texas. Speaker: Commissioner Thomas/Kasi Miles/Tracy Bratton; Backup:21; Cost: $0.00]

IF YOU'LL SEE THE ATTACHED RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL LETTER IS INCLUDED, FEES ARE COLLECTED AND JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL.

OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REPLAT OF PAZ ACRES LOT ONE AND TWO.

SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

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

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. AYE. OPPOSED HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 26 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAGE RANCHETTE PHASE TWO, CONSISTING OF 13 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY

[26. Discussion/Action to consider the approval of the Final Plat for Village Ranchette, Phase 2 consisting of 13 residential lots on approximately 106.3 acres located on Taylorsville Road. Speaker: Commissioner Horne/Kasi Miles/Tracy Bratton; Backup: 24; Cost: $0.00]

OKAY. VILLAGE RANCHETTES ACTUALLY STARTED ABOUT A YEAR AGO WHERE WE APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THEN THEY STOPPED.

THEY WENT IN AND BUILT THE ROADS, BUILT THE IMPROVEMENTS AND EVERYTHING.

AND SO NOW THEY'RE BACK JUST TO HAVE THE FINAL PLAT BECAUSE ALL THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED.

OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAGE RANCHETTE PHASE TWO, CONSISTING OF 13 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 106.3 ACRES ON TAYLORSVILLE ROAD.

MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

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

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 27 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 20 ACRES OUT OF 147.753 ACRES OFF AN EXISTING

[27. Discussion/Action to consider a variance request to subdivide 20 acres out of 147.753 acres off an existing easement for Property ID: 29126 located at 634 FM 1296 in Waelder, Texas. Speaker: Commissioner Horne/Kasi Miles/Tracy Bratton; Backup: 12; Cost: $0.00]

[00:35:07]

THEY'RE ALL LISTED HERE.

I CAN TALK ABOUT THIS ONE.

MR. MISS SONNY BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY AND BUILT A HOUSE OUT THERE.

COUNTY ISSUED THEM PERMITS, SITE BUILD AND ALL THAT.

AND THIS EASEMENT HAS BEEN DEEDED SINCE 1966.

AND ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS THEY LIVE OUT THERE.

THEY'VE BEEN LIVING OUT THERE SINCE 2018.

ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS PULL OUT 20 ACRES SO THEY CAN GET THEIR TAXES STRAIGHT.

THEY LIVE ON A SANCTUARY.

AND IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO BOTH OF THEM, THE 20 ACRES GOES BACK TO THE SANCTUARY.

WE DID PUT A RESTRICTION IN THERE THAT THEY COULD NOT SUBDIVIDE OFF THE EASEMENT BECAUSE THAT IS IN OUR ORDINANCE AND THEY DON'T PLAN ON SUBDIVIDING ANY DEAL LIKE THAT.

SO I RECOMMEND THAT WE GIVE THEM A VARIANCE.

OKAY. WE HAVE A IS THAT A MOTION, COMMISSIONER? MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE? YES, SIR. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.

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

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OPPOSED HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 28 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE REQUEST FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT IN THE CALDWELL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A THIRD

[28. Discussion/Action to consider a variance request from the construction site plan requirement in the Caldwell County Development Ordinance to allow a third habitable structure on 24.665 acres located at Property ID: 16130. 280 Sides Road in Lockhart, Texas. Speaker: Commissioner Horne/Kasi Miles/Tracy Bratton; Backup: 12; Cost: $0.00]

AGAIN, ON THIS ONE JUDGE, THEY'VE HAD SOME ON THEY OWN 24 ACRES.

THERE'S THEY LIVE IN A PARTICULAR HOUSE, I DON'T KNOW, ABOUT 200 YARDS.

THERE'S ANOTHER HOUSE. AND THEN WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS THERE'S AN EXISTING BARN THAT HAS A SEPTIC IN THERE.

I'M SURE IT WAS PUT IN BACK BEFORE WE HAD PERMITS AND ALL THAT.

BUT THEY WERE LIVING THERE AND WHAT HAPPENED IS THE THEIR UNCLE SUFFERED A STROKE.

THEY LIVE IN A TWO STORY HOUSE.

THEY WANT TO INSTEAD OF PUTTING A NEW RESIDENCE, THEY WANT TO PUT A TRAVEL TRAILER SO THIS UNCLE CAN LIVE THERE UNTIL SOMETHING HAPPENS.

WE PUT IN THERE THAT THEY CANNOT RENT, YOU KNOW, THE TRAVEL TRAILER OUT IN CASE SOMETHING HAPPENS, THAT IT WILL BE REMOVED ONCE SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THE UNCLE.

OKAY. SO I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE GIVE A VARIANCE VARIANCE TO ON THE SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUESTED ON ITEM 28.

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

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION.

SO THE TRAVEL TRAILERS THAT WASTEWATER WILL BE IN INTO AN EXISTING SEPTIC THAT'S ACCEPTED.

THEY WANT TO REVAMP IT.

OKAY. I THINK WE HAD A GOOD PRETTY GOOD LENGTHY CONVERSATION WITH THESE PEOPLE.

THE PROVISION IN OUR ORDINANCE WAS REALLY THERE BECAUSE WE HAD PEOPLE WITH TEN ACRES TRYING TO INSTALL TEN HOMES AND WE WERE GETTING A LOT. ONE, IT BECOMES VERY CROWDED AND YOU REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THINGS CLOSER ABOUT YOU HAVE THE SANITARY SEPARATION BETWEEN THE SEPTICS AND THE WATER WELLS AND WHERE THE ELECTRICITY AND EVERYTHING RUNNING AROUND.

THIS IS RELATIVELY LOW DENSITY.

I THINK THEY'RE ON 24 PLUS ACRES.

AND THIS IS A THIRD RESIDENCE.

WE ALSO HAD INSTANCES HISTORICALLY WHERE PEOPLE COMING IN WITH ALL KINDS OF STORIES ABOUT FAMILY MEMBERS, THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER AND NEXT THING WE KNEW, WE FOUND OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, NOW THEY'RE RENTING IT OUT LATER.

AND SO THEY WERE VERY WILLING TO ACCOMMODATE THE IDEA OF THIS VARIANCE BEING TEMPORARY FOR THIS MEDICAL REASON FOR THIS FAMILY MEMBER.

THE WHAT IT DOES IS IT CHANGES THE PERMITTING FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, WHICH IS MORE TIME CONSUMING AND MORE EXPENSIVE AND JUST ALLOWS KASI TO PERMIT AS A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. SO IT'LL STILL GO THROUGH HER OFFICE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SEPTIC IS CONNECTED TO, IS MEETS EVERYTHING WE NORMALLY ASK FOR FOR A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.

OKAY. THANK YOU ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 29 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON 1.311 ACRES.

[29. Discussion/Action to consider a variance request to allow two separate structures on 1.311 acres on Property ID: 13615 located at 762 Brite Road in Lockhart, Texas. Speaker: Commissioner Horne/Kasi Miles/Tracy Bratton; Backup: 14; Cost: $0.00]

I'LL TAKE THAT ONE. I'LL TAKE IT.

SO THIS ONE HAS BEEN A STRUGGLE FOR ME.

[00:40:04]

AND OF COURSE, WE HAVE ORDINANCES ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SEPTICS ON TWO STRUCTURES.

AND THIS I DID I'M NOT GOING TO LIE.

I DID ENTERTAIN THIS FOR A LITTLE BIT.

AND UNTIL THE ENGINEER CAME BACK AND WE ASKED HIM TO CHANGE THE SEPTIC TO A ONE STRUCTURE PERMIT AND THE ENGINEER CAME BACK AND SAID, WELL, AREN'T WE JUST SKIRTING THE RULES? AND THAT REALLY OPENED UP MY EYES BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A PROBABLY A MONTH THAT GOES BY THAT I DON'T GET A CALL ABOUT, HEY, HOW MANY FAMILIES ARE LIVING ON THIS PROPERTY? DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT SEPTICS DO WE HAVE THIS? AND SO I CHANGED MY MIND AND SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS.

WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE AND THIS IS WHERE WE GO.

HE'S HAD EVERY POTENTIAL TO WE TALKED ABOUT SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF MOVING A HOUSE OVER TOWARDS THE DEAL.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY HE ALL THE HOUSES ARE ALREADY REDONE.

SO IT WAS KIND OF LIKE, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO ASK FORGIVENESS AND IT SHOULDN'T.

AND MY RECOMMENDATION IS WE DON'T GIVE THE VARIANCE, OKAY? WE HAVE SO WE HAVE A MOTION NOT TO GIVE A VARIANCE ON TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON 1.311 ACRES.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I KNOW IN THE PAST.

CAN WE GET I NEED TO GET A SECOND FIRST BEFORE.

YES, I'M GOING TO HAVE DISCUSSION, BUT I NEED TO GET A SECOND FIRST.

YES, MA'AM. I'LL SECOND.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND.

NOW WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION.

GO AHEAD. I KNOW IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD THESE SITUATIONS COME UP BEFORE AND I KNOW OF FOLKS [INAUDIBLE] . CAN YOU TALK IN YOUR MIC? THEY CAN'T HEAR YOU. HAD TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MOVE ONE OF THOSE HOMES AND WE MADE THEM DO IT.

AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO BE PRETTY CONSISTENT ON THAT.

SO I'LL JUST ADD THAT.

OKAY. TRACY, DO YOU HAVE ANY, LIKE YOUR FIRST.

I JUST HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF HOMES HERE THAT ARE THE SAME.

LINDA, WOULD YOU MIND KIND OF GETTING UP THERE SO WE CAN HEAR YOU? I'M SORRY. LINDA HENKEL 1109 SOUTH MAIN STREET.

NUMBER ONE, THERE WAS NO IDEA THAT THESE TWO PROPERTIES DIDN'T GO TOGETHER.

THE HOUSE AND THE GARAGE.

THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1930 SOMETHING ACCORDING TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND THE GARAGE APARTMENT IN 1983.

AND THEY PUT A BATHROOM IN THERE FOR THEIR COLLEGE KID TO GO TO SCHOOL OR WHATEVER.

SO WHEN THE DEVELOPER BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THEY SPLIT IT INTO FOUR EQUAL PIECES.

NOBODY HAD ANY IDEA THOSE WEREN'T ALREADY CONNECTED AND THEY ARE CONNECTED BY SEPTIC SYSTEM.

THEY HAD BOTH HAD A CURRENT SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT CAME IN TO UPGRADE THE SEPTIC SYSTEM BECAUSE NOBODY HAD LIVED THERE FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

MISS ZIMMERMAN DIED.

SHE MY NEIGHBOR, BY THE WAY, SHE DIED AND HER SON, DIDN'T LIVE BACK IN THE HOUSE.

HE WAS GONE SOMEWHERE. SO THEY SOLD THE PROPERTY.

SO NOBODY HAD ANY IDEA THESE TWO PROPERTIES DIDN'T GO TOGETHER.

A HOUSE, A GARAGE.

YOU STILL HAS A TWO BAY GARAGE IN IT.

SO WHEN THEY WENT IN TO ASK FOR A SEPTIC SYSTEM COMMENT WAS MADE THAT, WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO BE RENTING THESE AND MAKING MONEY. AND RUSTY, YOU SAID IT.

YOU'RE RIGHT. I DID. YEAH.

SO I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT'S A CONSIDERATION TO ANYBODY WHAT SOMEONE ELSE IS DOING OR MAKING MONEY.

DON'T KNOW THEY'RE RENTING IT.

THAT COMMENT WAS MADE OUT OF CONTEXT, I BELIEVE.

AND WE HAVE WE HAVE RECENTLY IN 2017 AND I'LL SAY RECENTLY ALLOWED AND NOT JUST ONE.

I'VE GOT SEVERAL HERE IN 2017 ON TRACK ROAD, WE ALLOWED TWO MASSIVE DOUBLE WIDES BE PUT TOGETHER WITH A LITTLE BREEZEWAY AND GAVE THEM PERMITS.

THEY HAVE PERMITS.

WELL, THAT'S NOT A BREEZEWAY.

ACTUALLY, THAT'S A HALLWAY.

THERE'S I'M SORRY. THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

THAT'S NOT A BREEZEWAY.

THAT'S A HALLWAY.

RIGHT DOWN BELOW MY HOUSE AND I AM THE NEIGHBOR TO BOTH OF THESE.

RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND. THEY'RE ONE ACRE WITH TWO HOMES ON THEM WHY SHOULD WE LET THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEAL WITH SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH ANYWAY? RIGHT. IF THAT WAS NOT CAPABLE AND YOU JUST PASSED THE ORDINANCE, WHICH YOU JUST PUT ONLINE, BY THE WAY, THAT IF NOTHING HAS CHANGED,

[00:45:08]

THERE IS NO REASON IN 2007, WHEN THIS WHEN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED, I MEAN, OUR SEPTIC WAS ADOPTED.

THIS WAS ALREADY DONE.

THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT WERE TOGETHER.

I JUST THINK WE'RE AT A REAL YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS AND STUFF EARLIER.

I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANYBODY THOUGHT THIS WAS AN ISSUE UNTIL IT GOT BLOWN OUT OF PLACE BECAUSE THE COMMENT WAS MADE THEY'D BE MAKING MONEY OFF THIS PROPERTY.

IT WAS MADE BY TWO DIFFERENT EMPLOYEES OF THE COUNTY.

AND I JUST THINK THAT THAT'S IN ITSELF WRONG.

IT'S NOT ANY OF OUR BUSINESS WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING WITH THEIR PROPERTIES WHEN THEY SEPARATE THEM, I AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT NOBODY HAD ANY IDEA THAT THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE.

THEY DESIGNED A SEPTIC SYSTEM TO HANDLE THE THREE BEDROOMS, TWO BATHROOMS. THEY DON'T INTEND TO CHANGE THAT SIZE OF ANYTHING.

AND IF THEY HAD JUST COME IN WHICH THAT COMMENT WAS MADE TOO AND ASKED FOR A SEPTIC PERMIT TO UPGRADE THE SYSTEM AND NOT SET ALL THIS OTHER BECAUSE NOBODY GOES IN THESE HOUSES TO SEE WHAT'S INSIDE THEM, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE.

WHICH ONE OF THOSE DO WE DO? YOU KNOW, IT'S SO HARD TO DO FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS COUNTY BECAUSE WE FIND OUT AFTER THE FACT THAT EXEMPTION LETTER I GOT CHEWED OUT BY MR. BRATTON FOR NOT FILLING ONE OUT, DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT EXISTED.

HE SAID WE CREATED IT A MONTH AND A HALF AGO.

IT IS ANOTHER MATTER, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE SAID.

IT NEEDS TO BE ON RECORD.

WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH FIVE PEOPLE SITTING UP HERE MAKING DECISIONS FOR SOMEBODY'S ENTIRE LIVELIHOOD RIGHT NOW.

AND, YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR IS NOT ANYTHING SPECIAL THAT HE'S ASKING FOR.

OKAY. THEY WERE CONNECTED BY THAT SEPTIC SYSTEM.

I GOT YOU. WE GO AHEAD, MR. CARRILLO. I GOT SOME PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY.

CAN I HAND THIS OVER TO YOU? SURE. COME ON, SIR. OKAY, I'VE GOT IT.

JUST TO ASK, ARE THOSE THE ITEMS YOU'RE PASSING OUT ARE THOSE FOR THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT OR DO YOU WANT ARE YOU GOING TO WANT THOSE BACK? UH, THEY CAN KEEP THOSE.

OKAY. SO WHEN YOU GUYS ARE DONE, I'M GOING TO NEED THOSE.

WE'RE IN OPEN COURT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'VE BEEN PASSED OUT FOR CONSIDERATION JUST SO THEY CAN GO INTO THE COMMISSIONER'S COURTS.

WE'RE NOT EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WE CAN. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE CAN'T HANG ON TO THESE.

THEY'VE BEEN YES, THE COURT CAN HANG ON TO IT.

I JUST NEED THEM SO THAT I CAN GIVE THEM TO THE CLERK.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT, AS YOU SEE ON THOSE THOSE PICTURES IN THE GARAGE IS REALLY NOT INTENDED TO LIVE IN IT. IT'S JUST LIKE A MAN CAVE.

IT DOES HAVE A BATHROOM IN IT, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE A BEDROOM OR A CLOSET.

IT'S BASICALLY JUST A SPACE FOR SOMEBODY TO GET IN THE GARAGE AND WORK ON THEIR CAR AND THEN RELAX AND WATCH A TV SHOW OR SOMETHING IN THE MAN CAVE.

IT'S NOT REALLY INTENDED TO BE LIVED IN.

I WOULD I WANT TO KINDLY ASK YOU ALL TO CONSIDER THAT.

COMMISSIONERS, WOULD Y'ALL MIND JUST A MINUTE? YEAH, GO AHEAD. YEAH.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REAL EASY TO CHANGE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW, BACK IN THE DAY BEFORE WE STARTED WORKING ON IT.

AND WE WOULD HAVE DONE THAT WITHOUT A PROBLEM.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE.

AND WE ARE HERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT.

IT HAS BEEN ALMOST COMPLETELY REMODELED AND.

WELL, IT'S A I WILL VERY KINDLY ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER.

AND MY MAIN POINT IS, IS NOT REALLY INTENDED TO BE LIVED IN.

IT'S JUST LIKE A RECREATIONAL SPACE FOR SOMEBODY JUST TO GET AWAY AND READ A BOOK OR WATCH A TV SHOW AWAY FROM THE HOUSE AND NOT BOTHER THE WIFE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. THANK THANK YOU.

MR. CREO. SO WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DISAPPROVE.

WE HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.

JUST. I JUST.

LET ME GET LET ME REFRESH THIS AND THEN I'LL LET YOU GO AHEAD.

WE HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.

IF IT FAILS, THEN WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE.

[00:50:04]

UH, INFORMATION FOR THE COURT.

THE STATE OF TEXAS REGULATES DISPOSAL OF DOMESTIC SEWAGE WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS UNDER CHAPTER 285 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ALLOWS THE TCQ TO DELEGATE THAT AUTHORITY TO MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES ORIGINALLY IN 1990 SOMETHING, AND THEN AMENDED AND RESTATED AGAIN AND EXACTLY IDENTICAL LANGUAGE IN 2007 WAS THE COUNTY'S CURRENT SEPTIC ORDINANCE, WHICH IS NOT AN ORDINANCE THAT THE COUNTY WROTE AND ADOPTED.

AS WE ADOPT MOST OF OUR ORDINANCES WHERE WE CAN GRANT VARIANCES TO IT, IT IS AN ORDER ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT.

IT WAS SENT TO TCQ.

TCQ APPROVED THAT ORDER FOR HOW AND WHEN THE COUNTY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE SEPTICS.

NOWHERE IN THAT ORDER DOES IT GIVE THE DOES THE COUNTY GRANT ITSELF, NOR DOES TCQ GRANT THE COUNTY THE ABILITY TO APPROVE VARIANCES TO THAT ORDER.

THE ORDER IS VERY PRETTY SIMPLE AND FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IT'S NO MORE THAN ONE UNIT PER ACRE AND ONLY ONE UNIT CONNECTED EACH SEPTIC SYSTEM.

IT'S VERY BLACK AND WHITE AND CHASE IS HERE.

HE CAN CERTAINLY OPINE ON IT.

I DON'T SEE THE WORD VARIANCE IN THERE ANYWHERE IN THE ORDER THE COUNTY ADOPTED OR THE ORDER THAT TCQ GRANTED TO THE COUNTY.

ANYBODY CAN GO AND THEN ASK TCQU TO APPROVE THAT SEPTIC SYSTEM.

BUT KASI DOESN'T HAVE, IN MY OPINION, THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THAT SEPTIC SYSTEM.

OKAY, TRACY, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? UM, IN THE TCQ RULES OR IN ANY OF THE COUNTY RULES, IS A DWELLING UNIT DEFINED? I MEAN, WE'RE HEARING THE APPLICANT OR THE OWNER SAY THAT IT'S JUST A LIVING ROOM OR, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU CAN GO WATCH TV OR SOMETHING, OR JUST AN ALTERNATE LIVING SPACE.

BUT IS A DWELLING UNIT.

I KNOW SOME PLACES DEFINE THEM AS A A SEPARATE UNIT HAVING BATHROOM, KITCHEN AND LIVING FACILITIES.

AND I DID NOT READ THAT.

I KNEW THAT WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ITEM AND DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WAS ON THE TODAY'S AGENDA UNTIL HERE.

SO I DID NOT REREAD THAT ORDINANCE BEFOREHAND.

MY RECOLLECTION IS IT JUST REFERS TO SINGLE FAMILY NOT DEFINING WHAT THAT MEANS IN ANY WAY.

IT CLEARLY IN THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN, DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS CREATE SOMETHING VERY SIGNIFICANT ABOUT SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL STYLE STRUCTURES.

AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE MEANING ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS WHAT THAT MEANS VERSUS COMMERCIAL.

THAT'S VIEWED VERY DIFFERENTLY IN THE WAY IT'S CONSTRUCTED.

THE OTHER IS THAT THE CHAPTER 285 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ACTUALLY ALLOWS SEPTICS DOWN TO HALF ACRE FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND I DON'T KNOW THE BACKGROUND IT MAY HAVE BEEN AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNTY AT THE TIME, MAY HAVE BEEN TCQS EVALUATION BASED UPON THE PREDOMINANT SOIL TYPES WITHIN THE COUNTY.

THE MINIMUM STANDARD WAS ADOPTED BY THE SUGGESTED BY THE COUNTY AND ADOPTED BY TCQ FOR CALDWELL COUNTY WAS ONE ACRE.

THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE IN THE ORDER FOR LOTS THAT WERE CREATED PRIOR TO I BELIEVE 1983 COULD BE SMALLER, BUT THOSE WERE VERY SPECIFIC LOTS CREATED PRIOR TO 1983 AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS SITUATION WAS TWO STRUCTURES TWO SKEPTICS.

BUT AT THE TIME IT WAS OVER FOUR ACRES.

IT'S BEEN SUBDIVIDED SINCE THEN, WHICH DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THAT PORTION OF THE ORDER.

IT'S VERY SPECIFIC TWO LOTS CREATED PRIOR TO 1983 AND WE HAVE MANY OF THOSE LOTS.

PRAIRIE LEA HAS A BUNCH OF THEM.

THERE ARE OTHER AREAS. I THINK THERE'S SOME OUT IN THE BATEMAN AREA.

THEY HAVE SOME, SOME PRETTY SMALL LOTS WITH SEPTICS ON THEM, BUT THEY WERE ALL CREATED PRIOR TO 1983 AND IT IS A VERY INCUMBENT UPON AND WE TRY TO LOOK AT IT.

WHEN WE LOOK AT PLATS AND PRELIMINARY PLATS, WE DON'T ALWAYS SEE ALL THE STRUCTURES AND ALL THE SEPTIC SHOWN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT AFTER THE FACT, CREATING A LOT THAT IS SMALLER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE SEPTIC ORDINANCE.

OKAY. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THE MOTION WAS TO DISAPPROVE.

WE COULD ENTERTAIN A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO EITHER TABLE OR CHANGE THE MOTION.

OTHERWISE, WE HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE.

[00:55:03]

ALL IN FAVOR FOR DENYING THE VARIANCE SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? I THINK I WOULD.

I'M OPPOSED. ONLY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CLEAR ON THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS.

SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON, COMMISSIONER, THAT I VOTE AGAINST IT.

SO I'M GOING TO SAY I'M A NO.

SO IT WAS FOUR ONE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES TO DENY THE VARIANCE.

ITEM 30 EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071 CONSULT WITH COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED

[30. EXECUTIVE SESSION]

WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 9:55.

[INAUDIBLE] WE'RE GOING TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10:04.

PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071 CONSULTATION WITH COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR SETTLEMENT OFFICERS IN A SUIT FILED BY MICHAEL VOETEE.

WE ARE OUT AT 10:04.

GO TO ITEM 31 ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED.

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

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED. HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.