[00:00:02]
THANK YOU FOR COMING TO CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT.WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13,
[A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
2024 AT 09:00 A. M. COMMISSIONER THOMAS, WOULD YOU MIND DOING THE INVOCATION THIS MORNING?>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS THIS MORNING?
[D. ANNOUNCEMENTS]
>> NO ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM ME, JUDGE.
>> I'D LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE PROGRESSIVE CLUB THAT SERITA WILL BE HOLDING THE ANNUAL BANQUET AT THE CONNECTION CENTER STARTS AT SIX O'CLOCK AND EVERYONE IS INVITED. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS AND NO HECTOR HAS ONE.
>> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE. COMMISSIONER, STAFF IN GALLERY I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY NEW DEPUTY CHIEF HERE, JOSH FLORES COMES TO US WITH A LOT OF COUNTY EXPERIENCE AND I'VE ALREADY PUT HIM TO WORK IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, SO I WANTED TO INTRODUCE HIM TO YOU.
>> WELCOME. ANY OTHER STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS? WE'LL MOVE TO CITIZENS COMMENTS.
[E. CITIZENS' COMMENTS]
>> NO OTHER CITIZENS COMMENTS.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO TO CONSENT.
COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ON CONSENT,
[F. CONSENT AGENDA]
I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE.>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORN AND A SECOND BY.
>> OPPOSED HERE AND NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
>> DISCUSSION ACTION ITEMS G1 REGARDING THE BURN BAY AND HECTOR.
[G.1 Regarding the burn ban.]
I JUST WANT TO BRING YOU UP TO DATE.
OUR FIRE NUMBERS ARE DOWN PRETTY GOOD.
GROUND IS PRETTY SATURATED, BUT WE STILL HAVE SOME MORE RAIN COMING IN LATE TOMORROW EVENING WITH 76% CHANCE.
TOMORROW THURSDAY WITH A 50% AND THEN FRIDAY WITH ANOTHER 76%.
THE NEXT CHANCE OF RAIN AFTER THAT WILL BE NEXT THURSDAY WITH A 75% CHANCE OF RAIN.
THEN AFTER THAT, IT GOES DOWN TO ALMOST ZERO FOR ABOUT THREE WEEKS.
RIGHT NOW OUR KBDI NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM IS A TWO, MAX IS 45, AVERAGE 25 WITH A CHANGE OF FIVE.
JUST BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF RAINFALL AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE HAD JUST LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, I RECOMMEND WE KEEP THE BURN BAND OFF ANOTHER TWO WEEKS.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO KEEP THE BURN BAND OFF?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
>> THANK HECTOR. ITEM G2 TO APPROVE AN ORDER
[G.2 To approve Order 05-2024 authorizing the sale of fireworks for Texas Independence Day.]
052024 AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF FIREWORKS FOR TEXAS INDEPENDENCE DAY. HECTOR?>> YES. TEXAS INDEPENDENT DAY IS COMING UP ON MARCH 2.
DURING THAT TIME, WE WILL BE LIKE IN ABOUT A THREE WEEK DRY PERIOD WHERE WE HAVE NO RAIN.
WINDS ARE GOING TO BE BLOWING AND GUSTING PRETTY GOOD, SO IT'S GOING TO DRY UP THINGS, SO I'M RECOMMENDING THAT WE PROHIBIT USE OF ANY FIREWORK THAT HAS A FIN OR A STICK THAT PROPELS IT INTO THE SKY, TO KEEP US FROM BURNING UP THE FIELDS AND STUFF.
I RECOMMEND THAT WE PROHIBIT THAT.
>> OKAY. GO AHEAD AND READ THE ORDER CHASE.
>> ORDER 05-2024, AUTHORIZING TEXAS INDEPENDENCE STATE FIREWORK SALES, WHEREAS THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY IS AUTHORIZED UNDER OCCUPATIONS CODE SECTION 2154.202, TO ISSUE AN ORDER ALLOWING RETAIL FIREWORK PERMIT HOLDERS TO SELL FIREWORKS TO THE PUBLIC IN CELEBRATION OF TEXAS INDEPENDENCE DAY.
WHEREAS, ON THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY HAS DETERMINED THE CONDITIONS ARE FAVORABLE TO ISSUE SUCH AN ORDER.
NOW THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY ADOPTS THIS ORDER AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF FIREWORKS TO THE PUBLIC BY RETAIL FIREWORK PERMIT HOLDERS DURING
[00:05:01]
TEXAS INDEPENDENCE DAY PERIOD BEGINNING FEBRUARY 25, 2024 ENDING AT MIDNIGHT MARCH 2, 2024, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS.THIS ORDER EXPIRES ON THE DATE THE TEXAS NM FOREST SERVICE DETERMINES DROUGHT CONDITIONS EXIST IN THE COUNTY OR MIDNIGHT MARCH 2, 2024, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, AND B, THE SALE OF RESTRICTED FIREWORKS AS DEFINED BY SECTION 352.051 TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, INCLUDING SKY ROCKETS WITH STICKS AND MISSILES WITH FINS IS PROHIBITED.
APPROVE THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDER 053024.
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> ITEM G3. TO APPROVE A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 2024 AS BLACK HISTORY MONTH.
[G.3 To approve a Proclamation designating February 2024 as Black History Month.]
COMMISSIONER THOMAS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO FOR CHASE READ THE PROCLAMATION?>> PROCLAMATION AUTHORIZING RECOGNITION OF FEBRUARY 2024 IS BLACK HISTORY MONTH.
WHEREAS BLACK COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN AN INTEGRAL AND VITAL PART OF THE OVERALL EDUCATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH OF CALDWELL COUNTY.
AND WHEREAS, PLANNED OBSERVATIONS DURING THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY WILL SERVE AS A REMINDER OF THE OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY MEMBERS OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY TO OUR NATION IN ITS PRESERVATION OF FREEDOM, ITS HISTORY, AND IN ITS MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS OF THE ARTS AND CULTURE.
AND WHEREAS SAID EVENTS WILL ALSO PROMOTES A CONTINUING INTEREST AMONG ALL THE CITIZENS OF CALDWELL COUNTY IN THE CONTRIBUTIONS OUTLINED ABOVE AND A RENEWED AWARENESS OF THE CULTURE, CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS OF THIS VERY IMPORTANT SEGMENT OF OUR POPULATION.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS, DOES HEREBY PROCLAIM THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2024 IS BLACK HISTORY MONTH IN CALDWELL COUNTY.
THEREFORE, IN OFFICIAL RECOGNITION, WHEREOF WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, DO HEREBY AFFIX OUR SIGNATURES THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024.
>> COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 2024 AS BLACK HISTORY MONTH.
>> SO, MOVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G4.
[G.4 To approve a Proclamation designating February 2024 as Dating Violence Awareness Month.]
A DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 2024 AS DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH.DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE? I HAVE ASHLEY RIOS AND BRIANNA BUNDO ROSTOS. COME ON UP.
>> HI, I'M BRIANNA BUNDOS, A DATING VIOLENCE COUNSELOR WITH HAYES AND CALDWELL COUNTY.
WE JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING FEBRUARY AS DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH AND YEAH, THANK YOU.
>> PROCLAMATION RECOGNITION OF FEBRUARY 2024 AS DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH.
WHEREAS ONE IN THREE ADOLESCENTS IS A VICTIM OF PHYSICAL, SEXUAL, EMOTIONAL, OR VERBAL ABUSE FROM A DATING PARTNER.
WHEREAS THE EFFECTS OF DATING VIOLENCE IMPACT YOUTH IN ALL COMMUNITIES AND CUTS ACROSS ECONOMIC, RACIAL, GENDER, AND SOCIETAL BARRIERS.
WHERE RESPECTFUL, SUPPORTIVE AND NON VIOLENT RELATIONSHIPS ARE THE KEY TO SAFETY, HEALTH, AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS.
WHEREAS, BY PROVIDING TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS WITH EDUCATION ABOUT HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS, AND BY CHANGING ATTITUDES TO SUPPORT VIOLENCE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT DATING VIOLENCE CAN BE PREVENTED.
WHEREAS FAMILY, FRIENDS, TEACHERS, COACHES, FAITH LEADERS, COMMUNITY MEMBERS, AND OTHER IMPORTANT PEOPLE IN YOUNG PEOPLE'S LIVES HAVE THE POWER TO INFLUENCE YOUTH IN POSITIVE WAYS.
AND WHEREAS LAST YEAR THE HAYES COUNTY AND WOMEN'S CENTER PROVIDED 31 DATING VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP PRESENTATIONS TO 2,428 TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS.
WHEREAS WE MUST WORK TOGETHER TO RAISE AWARENESS AND PROMOTE HEALTHY DATING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ACTIVITIES AND CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MUTUALLY RESPECTFUL AND NON VIOLENT RELATIONSHIPS IN OUR HOMES, SCHOOLS, AND COMMUNITIES.
NOW THEREFORE, I HAPPY HAYDEN BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME AS THE JUDGE OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2024 AS DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH FOR TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS.
AND DO HEREBY CALL UPON ALL THE CITIZENS OF CALDWELL COUNTY TO WORK TOGETHER TO RAISE AWARENESS AND PREVENT DATING VIOLENCE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND BEYOND IN TESTIMONY.
WHEREOF I HAVE HERE ON TO SET MY HAND AND CAUSE TO BE AFFIXED THE SEAL OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE PROCLAMATION DESIGNATED FEBRUARY 2024 AS DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RIO AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
ANY DISCUSSION? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[G.5 To approve Resolution 10-2024, authorizing Caldwell County to apply for the Rural Sheriff's Office Salary Assistance Grant Program.]
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 102024, AUTHORIZING CALDWELL COUNTY TO APPLY FOR[00:10:03]
THE RURAL SHERIFF'S OFFICE SALARY ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM.COMMISSIONERS, AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS ALL PART OF SB 2022 AND THIS IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING US TO APPLY FOR THAT GRANT.
>> A RESOLUTION ISN'T NECESSARILY REQUIRED BY THE COMPTROLLER, BUT MANY COUNTIES ARE ERRING ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND THIS IS JUST US DOING THE SAME.
YOU'VE ALREADY TAKEN THE OFFICIAL ACTION TO APPROVE THAT LAST TIME, BUT THIS JUST MEMORIALIZES IT, IF YOU'RE READY.
>> RESOLUTION 10-2224, AUTHORIZING CALDWELL COUNTY TO APPLY FOR THE RURAL SHERIFF'S OFFICE SALARY ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM.
WHEREAS IN RECENT YEARS, RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS STRUGGLED TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN QUALIFIED PERSONNEL TO ENSURE QUALITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.
WHEREAS THE INABILITY OF RURAL AREAS TO OFFER COMPETITIVE COMPENSATION IS OFTEN ATTRIBUTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TURNOVER AND VACANCIES.
WHEREAS THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE HAS DETERMINED THAT A POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BETWEEN SALARY AND THE QUALITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THAT INCREASED COMPENSATION HELPS ENSURE PROFESSIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN RURAL AREAS.
WHEREAS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO QUALIFIED RURAL SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS, CONSTABLE'S OFFICE, AND PROSECUTOR'S OFFICES, THE LEGISLATURE HAS ESTABLISHED A GRANT PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, IN ADDITION TO CERTAIN MINIMUM SALARIES, THE GRANT MUST ALSO ALLOW FOR THE PURCHASING OF EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING VEHICLES, FIREARMS, AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
AND WHEREAS THE CALDWELL COUNTY IS A QUALIFIED RURAL COUNTY AND ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR THE GRANT AWARD.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT, ONE, THE COUNTY JUDGE IS AUTHORIZED TO REQUEST GRANT FUNDING UNDER SECTION 130.191 TEXAS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
TWO, THE COUNTY JUDGE IS DESIGNATED AS THE GRANTS AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL AND AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR ACCEPT, DECLINE, MODIFY, OR CANCEL THE GRANT AND EXECUTE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE AWARD OF THIS GRANT.
THREE, THE COUNTY AUDITOR IS DESIGNATED AS THE GRANT'S FINANCIAL OFFICIAL AND AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE ALL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE EXECUTION OF THIS GRANT.
FOUR, THE COUNTY WILL NOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS PROVIDED TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BECAUSE OF AN AWARD OF THE GRANT FUNDS.
FIVE, THE COUNTY WILL RETURN ANY UNUSED FUNDS AT THE END OF THE GRANT PERIOD.
SIX, IN THE EVENT OF LOSS OR MISUSE OF GRANT FUNDS, THE COUNTY WILL RETURN ALL FUNDS REQUIRED BY LAW AND THE GRANT PROGRAM RESOLVED THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 102224?
>> A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND SECOND BY?
>> COMMISSIONER HORN. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[OVERLAPPING] AYE. POST HEARING NONE.
[G.6 To approve Resolution 11-2024, authorizing the Caldwell County Criminal District Attorney to apply for the Rural Prosecutor's Office Salary Assistance Grant Program.]
ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 11-2024, AUTHORIZING CALDWELL COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO APPLY FOR THE RURAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE SALARY ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM.SAME THING, COMMISSIONERS. PART OF 2022, JUST RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE US TO PURSUE THE GRANT.
>> RESOLUTION 11-2024 AUTHORIZING THE CALDWELL COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO APPLY FOR THE RURAL PROSECUTORS SALARY ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM.
WHEREAS IN RECENT YEARS, RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS STRUGGLED TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN QUALIFIED PERSONNEL TO ENSURE QUALITY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.
WHEREAS THE INABILITY OF RURAL AREAS TO OFFER COMPETITIVE COMPENSATION IS OFTEN ATTRIBUTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TURNOVER AND VACANCIES.
WHEREAS THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE HAS DETERMINED THAT A POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BETWEEN SALARY AND THE QUALITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THAT INCREASED COMPENSATION HELPS ENSURE PROFESSIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN RURAL AREAS.
WHEREAS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO QUALIFIED RURAL SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS, CONSUL'S OFFICE AND PROSECUTORS OFFICES, THE LEGISLATURE HAS ESTABLISHED A GRANT PROGRAM.
WHEREAS THE CALDWELL COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS A QUALIFIED RURAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE AND IS ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR A GRANT AWARD.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT, ONE, THE CALDWELL COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS AUTHORIZED TO REQUEST GRANT FUNDING UNDER SECTION 130.193, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TWO.
THE CALDWELL COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS DESIGNATED AS THE GRANT'S AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL AND IS AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR ACCEPT, DECLINE, MODIFY, OR CANCEL THE GRANT, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE AWARD OF THIS GRANT.
THREE, THE COUNTY AUDITOR IS DESIGNATED AS THE GRANTS FINANCIAL OFFICIAL AND AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE ALL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE EXECUTION OF THIS GRANT.
FOUR, THE COUNTY WILL NOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS PROVIDED TO THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE BECAUSE OF AN AWARD GRANT FUNDS.
FIVE, THE COUNTY WILL RETURN ANY UNUSED FUNDS AT THE END OF THE GRANT PERIOD.
SIX, IN THE EVENT OF LOSS OR MISUSE OF GRANT FUNDS, THE COUNTY WILL RETURN ALL FUNDS AS REQUIRED BY LAW IN THE GRANT PROGRAM.
RESOLVED THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024.
>> COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 112024.
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORN. SECOND BY?
>> COMMISSIONER THOMAS. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[OVERLAPPING] AYE. OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 27.
[G.7 To approve Resolution 12-2024, committing to the co-location of emergency dispatch equipment and personnel with the City of Lockhart and the City of Luling.]
DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 122024,[00:15:04]
COMMITTING TO THE CO LOCATION OF EMERGENCY DISPATCH EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL WITH THE CITY OF LOCKHART AND THE CITY OF LING AND THE COUNTY.>> RESOLUTION 12-2024, COMMITTING TO THE CO LOCATION OF EMERGENCY DISPATCH EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL WITHIN THE CITY OF LOCKHART AND WITH THE CITY OF LOCKHART AND THE CITY OF LULING.
WHEREAS THE CAPITOL AREA EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT, THE CA ECD, IS A LOCAL POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, FORMED UNDER SUB CHAPTER D, CHAPTER 772, TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.
WHEREAS THE CAECD PROVIDES 911 SERVICES, INCLUDING PAYMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DIGITAL CONNECTIVITY TO ALL 31 PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINTS WITHIN THE COUNTIES OF BASTROP, BLANCO, BURNETT, CALDWELL, FAYETTE HAYES, LEE, LANDO, TRAVIS, AND WILLIAMSON, AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
WHEREAS A PEACE APP IS A LOCAL COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY THAT OPERATES CONTINUOUSLY TO RECEIVE 911 CALLS AND AS APPROPRIATE, DISPATCHES EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES DIRECTLY OR TRANSFERS, OR RELAYS 911 CALLS TO OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES.
WHEREAS THREE PEACE APPS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF CALDWELL COUNTY AND ARE OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY BY THE COUNTY, THE CITY OF LOCKHART AND THE CITY OF LULING WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS.
WHEREAS, TO BETTER PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY EMERGENCY 911 COMMUNICATIONS TO BOTH THE PEOPLE CALLING FOR HELP IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION AND THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE AGENCIES WHO ARRIVE ON SCENE.
THE COUNTY, THE CITY OF LOCKHART, AND THE CITY OF LULING HAVE AGREED TO CO LOCATE THEIR PSPS, EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT, AND EMERGENCY DISPATCH PERSONNEL.
WHEREAS THE CAECD REQUIRES FORMAL COMMITMENT BY THE COUNTY AND THE CITIES TO CO LOCATE IN ORDER TO FACILITATE FACILITATE THE RELOCATION PROCESS.
NOW THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT, ONE, THE COUNTY IS COMMITTED TO CO LOCATING ITS CEPP WITH THE CEPPS OF THE CITY OF LOCKHART AND THE CITY OF LULING.
TWO, THE COUNTY JUDGE IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE ANY ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE CAECD AND THE CAPITOL AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, CACG, EVIDENCING THE COUNTY'S COMMITMENT AS PROVIDED BY THIS RESOLUTION RESOLVED THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024.
>> COMMISSIONER, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 12-22024?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. SECOND BY?
>> COMMISSIONER TERRIO. ANY DISCUSSION?
>> I'LL JUST ADD, JUDGE, I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS.
>> THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] WE'RE A LONG WAY FROM DONE, BUT WE'RE GETTING THERE.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [OVERLAPPING] AYE.
OPPOSED HEARING MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G8, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE A FEE SCHEDULE FOR EMS,
[G.8 To approve a fee schedule for EMS ambulance services in the unincorporated portions of Caldwell County.]
AMBULANCE SERVICES IN THE UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS OF CALDWELL COUNTY.CHASE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ONE?
>> YES, JUDGE. YOU'LL REMEMBER A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE THE COUNTY ENTERED INTO AN EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LO CAAR TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICES IN PORTIONS OF CALDWELL COUNTY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COUNTY NEEDED TO DO WAS TO ADOPT A FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY TO ULTIMATELY BILL AGAINST.
IT'S A REQUIREMENT BY STATUTE.
WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THE MOST RECENT UPDATES FROM THE CITY TO ITS BILLING STUFF, SO THAT WE COULD BE CONSISTENT IN THEIR NORMAL BILLING PRACTICES.
WE HAVE FINALLY RECEIVED THAT THAT IS WHAT THIS IS.
THESE ARE THE FEES JUST ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY ARE PRETTY WELL MANDATED BY THINGS LIKE MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, SO THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY WIGGLE ROOM IN THIS.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR EMS SERVICES AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF COW COUNTY?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
>> COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G9. DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE CONTRACT BETWEEN
[G.9 To approve contract between Caldwell County and County Information Resources Agency (CIRA) for website hosting package that would enhance county's abilities to disseminate information to the public.]
CALDWELL COUNTY AND COUNTY INFORMATION RESOURCES AGENCY SERA FOR WEBSITE HOSTING PACKAGE THAT WOULD ENHANCE COUNTY'S ABILITY TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC. MILES.>> YES. THANK YOU. IT'S TIME TO RENEW OUR CONTRACT WITH SERA ON THE WEBSITE.
BEFORE WE DID THAT, I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ALL ABOUT MAYBE RENEWING IT WITH AN UPGRADED PACKAGE.
WE'VE HAD THE SAME PACKAGE SINCE 2014.
BUT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WELL, I JOINED ON, WE'VE BEEN USING A WEBSITE FOR A LOT MORE SPECIFIC MESSAGING AS FAR AS EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, URGENT COMMUNICATIONS AND STUFF, WE WANT TO BRING OUT MORE FRONT AND CENTER.
CURRENT DESIGN OF THE WEBSITE DOESN'T REALLY ALLOW US TO DO THAT.
IT BURIES THINGS ON DIFFERENT PAGES.
[00:20:02]
IT'S HARD TO BRING IT FRONT AND CENTER ON THE HOME PAGE.RIGHT NOW TO RENEW ON OUR CURRENT PACKAGE, IT WOULD BE $3,550 FOR THE YEAR ANNUAL COST.
THE ULTIMATE PACKAGE FOR THE FIRST YEAR WOULD BE $6,650 BECAUSE IT INCLUDES SOME INITIAL SET UP FEES, DESIGN FEES, ONE TIME COSTS, BUT AFTER THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE 4,200 A YEAR.
THIS WOULD GIVE US THE ABILITY TO PUT AN RSS FEED ON THE HOME PAGE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO UPDATE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE PAGE, BUT BASICALLY HAVE THAT COME UP FRONT AND CENTER WHERE PEOPLE CAN SEE IT.
WE'VE BEEN USING SOCIAL MEDIA AS KIND OF A CRUTCH FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS TO GET STUFF OUT AND MORE FRONT AND CENTER.
BUT IT REALLY SHOULD BE MORE OF A SUPPLEMENT AND NOT LIKE WHAT WE RELY ON.
I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME?
>> COMMISSIONERS, PROBABLY OUGHT TO GET A MOTION IN A SECOND AND WE CAN HAVE SOME DISCUSSION.
THIS IS AN INCREASE OF ABOUT $3,100 FOR THIS YEAR.
WE DO HAVE THE MONEY, AND THEN GOING FORWARD IT'LL BE 4,200.
>> TO ALLOW FOR DISCUSSION, I'LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH CERA AT THE COST AT $6,650.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER TERRIO. ANY DISCUSSION?
>> JUST FROM MY OPINION, I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO MOVE IN A LITTLE BIT BETTER DIRECTION AS FAR AS COMMUNICATION IS CONCERNED AND CLEAN UP THE WEBSITE.
WHILE THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IS IMPORTANT, I DON'T FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE OUR PRIMARY FORM OF COMMUNICATION. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.
>> I THINK WHAT THIS DOES IS WE'VE HAD THIS INFORMATION THERE, BUT YOU HAD TO DRILL DOWN AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO JUST OPEN OUR WEB PAGE, IF THERE'S A BURN BAND, FOR INSTANCE, A CHANGE IN THAT, THERE WILL BE JUST A TAB RIGHT ON THE HOME PAGE FORM SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO DIG DOWN IN THERE AND TRY TO FIND IT.
FOR THOSE COMMISSIONERS WHO AREN'T SURE WHAT THAT IS, THAT ALLOWS FOR THINGS LIKE PUSH NOTIFICATIONS, SO THAT THE COUNTY CAN BE MORE PROACTIVE IN DISSEMINATING INFORMATION AS OPPOSED TO ITS CURRENT REACTIVE POLICY, WHICH IS JUST, HEY, IF YOU CARE, COME LOOK AT IT AS OPPOSED TO ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO SEND OUT INFORMATION TO PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN COUNTY UPDATES.
>> HEY, MILES, YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A ONE-TIME COST AND THEN IT WILL GO DOWN.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE ONE-TIME COST?
>> THE ONE-TIME COSTS MOSTLY ARE RELATED TO TAKING THE CONTENT WE CURRENTLY HAVE ON THE WEBSITE AND MOVING IT OVER TO THE NEW DESIGN, THE NEW PLATFORM.
I ASKED THEM IF THERE WAS A WAY WE COULD DO THAT OURSELVES AND IT SOUNDED A COMBINATION OF TOO COMPLICATED AND NO OTHER CLIENT THEY HAVE DOES THAT.
SO I'M GOING TO GO WITH PRECEDENT ON THAT ONE.
PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA TO LET THEM GO AHEAD AND DO IT.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? NOW THAT WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL, ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[G.10 To ratify Right of Entry Consent Form.]
DISCUSSION ACTION TO RATIFY RIGHT OF ENTRY CONSENT FORM.THAT IS WHAT IT IS, COMMISSIONERS, THAT WE HAVE A CONSENT FORM FOR OUR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS THAT WE'RE DOING, WE'RE REQUIRED TO SEND OUT A CONSENT FORM TO PEOPLE IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET RIGHT OF ENTRY TO GET ONTO THEIR PROPERTY FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS AND DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY.
YOU HAVE THE CONSENT FORM IN YOUR BACKUP, WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR YOU TO RATIFY THAT AND APPROVE ITS USE, AND IT IS NECESSARY FOR US TO FURTHER ANY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT THAT WE TRY TO DO.
>> THIS PARTICULAR RIGHT OF WAY IS FOR THE WIDENING OF FM-2720.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OBJECTION.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM G10 FROM COMMISSIONER TERRIO. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G11, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE
[G.11 To approve a development agreement between the County and Entrada Capital Group, LLC - State Park Road Series, for the development of State Park RV Village on approximately 5.258 acres located at 10710 State Park Road.]
[00:25:02]
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND ESTRADA CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, STATE PARK ROAD SERIES, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN RV PARK VILLAGE ON APPROXIMATELY 5.258 ACRES, LOCATED AT 10710 STATE PARK ROAD. COMMISSIONER TERRIO?>> JUDGE, THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR RV PARK THAT'S LOOKING TO GO IN ON STATE PARK ROAD.
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR ENHANCEMENTS TO SPACING ON THE SPACES AND EMERGENCY ACCESS AND OTHER ITEMS THAT WILL MAKE THIS A HIGHER QUALITY RV PARK THAN COULD OTHERWISE BE DEVELOPED.
BUT TRACY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THAT?
>> NO, MOSTLY JUST HERE IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS.
I BELIEVE THERE ARE REPRESENTATIVES HERE FROM THE APPLICANT AS WELL, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, COMMISSIONER?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S SUBMITTED.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM D11 BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G12, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR COTTON GATEWAY,
[G.12 To approve the Preliminary Plat for Cotton Gateway consisting of 1,280 residential lots on approximately 396.7 acres located East of SH 21 and William Pettus Road.]
CONSISTING OF 1,280 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 396.7 ACRES, LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY SH21 AND WILLIAM PETTIS ROAD.>> GOOD MORNING. THIS IS JUST A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR A RATHER LARGE SUBDIVISION.
I'M GOING TO LET TRACY DISCUSS ABOUT SAN MARCOS.
>> WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON THIS PROJECT, THE CALDWELL COUNTY DOES.
THIS WAS INITIALLY IN SAN MARCOS EDTG, IT'S NOW DNX FROM SAN MARCOS SO THE APPROVAL HAS ALL NOW FALL FULLY UNDER CALDWELL COUNTY.
>> AT THIS POINT, WE'RE LOOKING JUST TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
IF YOU SEE ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR AN APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD.
>> YEAH, WE NEED A MOTION FIRST.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER TERRIO, DO WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
NOW WE HAVE DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER.
>> JUST AS A FEATURE OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR DISCUSSIONS DURING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS WE'RE OBTAINING RIGHT OF WAY ALONG WILLIAM PETTIS WHICH WILL BE THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT FOR THE WESTERN ARTERIAL.
THIS IS REFLECTING THAT THAT DEDICATION PLUS OR ADDITIONAL RESERVATION ASSOCIATED WITH THAT FUTURE NEED.
>> THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PLAT?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, SORRY.
>> IT'S PROBABLY WORTH ADDING THAT IN ADDITION TO THAT RIGHT WITH DEDICATION INCLUDING IN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS LANGUAGE THAT CALLS FOR THEM TO MAKE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS TO WILLIAM PETTIS IF THE COUNTY PROJECT HAS NOT PROCEEDED BY THE TIME THEY NEED THAT SECOND ENTRANCE OFF OF WILLIAM PETTIS TOO.
AGAIN, THAT'S A TIMING QUESTION THAT'S OUT IN THE FUTURE.
IT IS ADDRESSED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS WE PROCEED WITH PLATS, WE'LL MAKE SURE IT HAPPENS IF THE COUNTY HASN'T MADE THEIR IMPROVEMENTS TO WILLIAM PETTIS FIRST.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOW THAT WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM G12, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> JUDGE, BEFORE WE BEGIN THE NEXT ITEM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO BEGIN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 9:30 OR NOT IF WE'RE JUST ABOUT THERE?
>> YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME.
WE DON'T HAVE TO DO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 9:30, IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S A HEARING OR ANYTHING.
>> NO, YOUR HONOR. IT WAS JUST FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS WHO WAS CALLING IN.
>> HE NEEDS TO DO IT AT 9:30. MY APOLOGIES.
WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 9:30.
[I. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM I1, PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 551.0711 CONSULTATION WITH COUNCIL REGARDING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR SETTLEMENT OFFERS INVOLVING NUMBER 123-CV910,[00:30:07]
RP IN US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.ITEM I2, PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551-0712, CONSULTATION WITH COUNCIL REGARDING PROPOSAL CONTINGENT FEE, CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES FOR COLLECTION OF COUNTY ASSESSED FEES AND FINES.
POSSIBLE ACTION MAY FOLLOW IN OPEN COURT AND WE ARE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 9:30.
WE'RE GOING TO END EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10:04 PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.0711, CONSULTATION WITH COUNCIL REGARDING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR SETTLEMENT OFFERS INVOLVING NUMBER 123-CV910 RP IN US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
ITEM I2, PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.0712, CONSULTATION WITH COUNCIL REGARDING A PROPOSED CONTINGENT FEE CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES, FOR COLLECTION OF COUNTY ASSESSED FEES AND FINES.
WE WILL BE TAKING ACTION IN OPEN COURT WHEN WE GET TO THOSE ITEMS WE ARE DONE AT 10:04 AND BACK IN REGULAR SESSION OF COMMISSIONERS COURT AND WE WILL GO TO ITEM G13,
[G.13 To approve the Preliminary Plat for Sunset Oaks, Phase 7 consisting of 3 commercial lots on approximately 47.2 acres located on Highway 21 and FM 1966.]
DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUNSET OAK SPACE 7, CONSISTING OF THREE COMMERCIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 47.2 ACRES LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 21 AND FEM 1966.>> THIS IS GOING TO BE THE SAME SCENARIO AS COTTON GATEWAY.
IT USED TO BE WITH CITY OF SAN MARCOS, AND IT HAS BEEN ANNEXED AND IT'S NOW 100% IN OUR JURISDICTION.
WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND TRY TO MOVE FORWARD NOW.
EVERYTHING THE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN CLEARED AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO. SECOND?
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G14, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE
[G.14 To approve the Final Plat for Sagada Dos, Phase 2, subdivision consisting of 14 residential lots on approximately 16.658 acres located on Homann Road and Homannville Trail.]
THE FINAL PLAT FOR SAGATA DOSE PHASE 2 SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 14 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 16.658 ACRES LOCATED ON HOLMAN ROAD AND HOLMANVILLE TRAIL.>> I'M GLAD TO PRESENT THIS ONE FINALLY FOR THE APPROVAL.
WE'VE WORKED ON THIS PROJECT SINCE 2022 AND I AM JUST LOOKING FOR AN APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT.
>> COMMISSIONER THOMAS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOTION?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 14 BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS AND SECOND BY.
>> COMMISSIONER HORN. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[G.15 To authorize the County Judge to negotiate the terms of renewal for services from i3-Bearcat, LLC.]
DISCUSSION ACTION THAT AUTHORIZED COUNTY JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE THE TERMS OF RENEWAL FOR SERVICE FROM I3-BEARCAT LLC.COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO ALLOW ME TO NEGOTIATE THE TERMS.
>> MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. SECOND FROM.
>> COMMISSIONER HORN. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[G.16 To terminate an existing contract for Court Collection Services between the County and i3-Bearcat, LLC.]
ACTION TO TERMINATE AN EXISTING CONTRACT FOR COURT COLLECTION SERVICES BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND I3-BEARCAT LLC.COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO TERMINATE THE EXISTING CONTRACT?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER TERRY O AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HORN.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G17.
[G.17 To approve a contingent fee contract for legal services between the County and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP ("Linebarger") for the collection of County-assessed fees and fines.]
DISCUSSION, ACTION TO APPROVE A CONTINGENT FEE CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR AND SAMPSON, LLP, KNOWN AS LINEBARGER FOR THE COLLECTION OF COUNTY ASSESSED FEES AND FINES, THE AGREEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED IS NECESSARY FOR THE DELINQUENT COURT FINES AND FEES OWED TO THE COUNTY TO BE COLLECTED IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE MANNER.THE COUNTY DESIRES THAT SUCH COURT FINES AND FEES BE COLLECTED AND PROVIDED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 103.0031 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
[00:35:06]
LINEBARGER IS FULLY QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE THIS REPRESENTATION, BEING THE LARGEST COLLECTION FIRM IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, AS WELL AS THE UNITED STATES, AND HAVING BEEN ENGAGED IN THIS SPECIALIZED LEGAL SERVICE FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS.IN ADDITION, LINEBARGER POSSESSES THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY, SUCH AS CALL CENTER THAT THE COUNTY DOES NOT CURRENTLY POSSESS.
LINEBARGER HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED THE COUNTY IN THE COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT COURT FINES AND FEES.
THE SPECIALIZED LEGAL SERVICES REQUIRED BY THIS AGREEMENT CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY PERFORMED BY THE COUNTIES ATTORNEYS AND SUPPORTING PERSONNEL DUE TO THE HIGH COST OF IMPLEMENTING THE APPROPRIATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY AND EMPLOYING SUFFICIENT IN HOUSE ATTORNEYS AND STAFF WITH THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE AND COMPETENCE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THESE ACTIVITIES.
LINEBARGER WILL BE COMPENSATED ON A CONTINGENT FEE BASIS AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 103.0031 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
THESE SECTIONS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY ON COURT FINES AND FEES TO COMPENSATE COLLECTED ATTORNEYS CONTRACT TO PAY INSIDE OR OUTSIDE COUNTY ATTORNEYS ON AN HOURLY BASIS WOULD REPRESENT ADDITIONAL COSTS TO THE COUNTY.
ENTERING INTO THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTS OF CALDWELL COUNTY, BECAUSE THE COURT FINES AND FEES WILL BE PROFESSIONALLY AND COMPETENTLY COLLECTED, WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL COSTS TO THE COUNTY OF IMPLEMENTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY AND EMPLOYING IN HOUSE PERSONNEL OR PAYING OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON AN HOURLY FEE BASIS IS COST PROHIBITIVE.
>> JUDGE, THERE IS A RESOLUTION THAT'S ATTACHED TO THIS.
IT DID MAKE IT TO THE BACK UP, BUT IF I CAN GO AHEAD AND JUST READ IT OUT LOUD.
THIS WILL BE WHAT YOU'LL SIGN OFF ON.
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING CONTRACT FOR FINES AND FEES COLLECTION SERVICES.
WHEREAS FINES AND FEES COLLECTION SERVICES WITH LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR AND SAMPSON, LLP IS APPROVED AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT AND WHEREAS, AFTER EXERCISING ITS DUE DILIGENCE, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT FINDS THAT ONE, THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL NEED FOR THE LEGAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR THE COURT FINES AND FEES COLLECTION SERVICES.
TWO, THESE LEGAL SERVICES CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY PERFORMED BY THE ATTORNEYS AND SUPPORTING PERSONNEL OF THE COUNTY AT A REASONABLE COST.
THREE, THESE LEGAL SERVICES CANNOT BE REASONABLY OBTAINED FROM ATTORNEYS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE UNDER A CONTRACT PROVIDING ONLY FOR THE PAYMENT OF HOURLY FEES WITHOUT REGARD TO THE OUTCOME OF THE MATTER.
BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF COURT FINES AND FEES PROVIDED BY THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SECTION 103.0031 AND BECAUSE THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE THE FUNDS TO PAY THE ESTIMATED AMOUNTS REQUIRED UNDER A CONTRACT ONLY FOR THE PAYMENT OF HOURLY FEES.
FOR LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR AND SAMPSON, LLP IS WELL QUALIFIED AND COMPETENT TO PERFORM THE LEGAL SERVICES REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT.
FIVE, LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR AND SAMPSON, LLP HAS NOT PROVIDED THESE SPECIALIZED LEGAL SERVICES TO CALDWELL COUNTY IN THE PAST.
SIX, THE CONTRACT WITH LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR AND SAMPSON LLP AS A RESULT OF AN ARM'S LENGTH TRANSACTION BETWEEN CALDWELL COUNTY AND LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR AND SAMPSON, LLP AND IS FAIR AND REASONABLE.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT HAVING PROVIDED ADEQUATE NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 2254.1036 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT APPROVES THIS CONTRACT FOR LEGAL FEES AND FINDS COLLECTION SERVICES WITH LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR AND SAMPSON, LLP AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS, IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT, RESOLVED THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024.
>> COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION.
>> GOT A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> MOTION IS SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO DISCUSSION ONLY.
I'M GOING TO TAKE H2 AND 3 FIRST SO THAT ALL THE FOLKS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE TWO DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND GET GOING.
DISCUSSION ONLY ITEM H2 CONSIDER
[H.2 To consider a development agreement between the County and Chisholm Hill, LP for the development of an approximately 776.772-acre subdivision located at Black Ankle Road and Boggy Creek Road.]
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND CHISHOLM HILL LLP, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 776.772 ACRE SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON BLACK ANKLE ROAD AND BOGGY CREEK ROAD.COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. TRACY?
>> THANK YOU, JUDGE. I'LL JUST TEE IT UP A LITTLE BIT.
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN ACTIVELY WORKED ON FOR NOT QUITE A YEAR NOW PROBABLY, BUT SEVERAL MONTHS.
IT'S GONE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT AND THE LAST ITERATION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US HAD A SPECIFIC LAND USE SPELLED OUT IN IT THAT LED TO SOME CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN CHASE AND MYSELF AND TRACY THAT WAS GETTING INTO TERRITORY.
[00:40:04]
THAT WAS IT WAS PROBABLY NECESSARY TO BRING IT FORWARD COMMISSIONERS COURT FOR A POLICY TYPE DECISION.I'M GOING TO LET TRACY EXPAND ON THAT FROM THERE AND EXPLAIN WHAT THAT SPECIFICALLY IS.
>> REAL QUICK TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S ALSO AWARE.
JOSH THORNTON, DEVELOPER, SETH MERIG AND CRYSTAL HARRIS, THEY'RE ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ARE HERE AS WELL AND THEY CAN CHIME IN.
I THINK BJ AND CHASE JUMP IN AND SAY, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER THINGS, I THINK THERE WERE SOME RUN OF THE MILL COMAS THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY WORK THROUGH.
THERE WERE KIND OF TWO BIGGER PICTURE THINGS.
ONE WAS RELATED TO SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT THINGS IN THE CONDO REGIME, NOT CONSTITUTING A PLATE UNDER CHAPTER 232 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
IT CREATED A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT HOW THAT MIGHT BE IMPLEMENTED AND WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IN CORRESPONDENCE THAT I'VE HAD WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THEIR ENGINEER OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS, THEY'RE WILLING TO REMOVE THAT SECTION SO I THINK THAT CAN GO AWAY.
I THINK THE OTHER ITEM THAT WARRANTS SOME DISCUSSION, JUST SOME EXPLANATION AND THAT'S BTR BUILD TO RENT AND WHAT THAT REALLY IS A SITE PLAN.
THE DIFFERENCE IS BTR, IT MAY REALLY BE UNNECESSARY, FRANKLY, TO SPELL IT OUT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.
SOME PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO DO IT JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT THE CLARITY, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ALLOWED, BUT WHAT IT IS, IS A MULTIFAMILY SITE.
WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE USUALLY STACKED TOGETHER.
YOU'VE GOT ANYWHERE FROM EIGHT UNITS TO 20 UNITS TO 30 UNITS AND A BIG BRICK LIKE BUILDING, LOOKS LIKE A SHOE BOX STACKED OUT THERE.
BUILD TO RENT SIMPLY TAKES THOSE UNITS AND SPREADS THEM OUT.
SOMETIMES THEY'RE IN A DUPLEX TYPE ENVIRONMENT, SOMETIMES THEY'RE STANDALONE, SOMETIMES THEY LOOK LIKE SMALL, YOU COULD USE THE TERM PATIO HOME WITH THEIR OWN PARKING ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
SOMETIMES THEY EVEN LOOK LIKE A TRADITIONAL HOUSE AND YOU WOULDN'T EVEN REALLY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, WHAT WE'VE BEEN PUTTING IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND I'M CERTAINLY UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT READ, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS ONE A FEW TIMES NOW, SO SOME OF THEM GET A LITTLE GARBLED TOGETHER IN MY MIND, I THINK WE'VE ADDRESSED THE PRIMARY ISSUES WITH ANY TYPE OF MULTIFAMILY, INCLUDING IF THEY WERE TO BUILD THAT AS A BUILD TO RENT UNIT RATHER THAN A TRADITIONAL APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THAT'S COMPLIANCE WITH A FIRE CODE FOR ACCESS AND FIRE FLOW.
WE'VE PROVIDED PROVISIONS IN THERE THAT SHOULD ENSURE ADEQUATE PARKING.
AGAIN, WHETHER THOSE UNITS ARE STACKED IN ONE BIG BUILDING OR WHETHER THEY'RE SPREAD OUT, WE'VE TIED PARKING TO NUMBER BEDROOMS FOLLOWING TRADITIONAL PARKING RATIOS.
THAT SAID, I INVITE THEIR TEAM TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT.
I THINK THAT WAS KIND OF THE BIGGEST THING WAS WHAT IS BUILD TO RENT? WERE THERE OTHER THINGS, BJ THAT WERE BIG PICTURE POLICY?
>> I THINK CHASE, YOU CAN SPEAK.
>> YEAH. OUTSIDE OF SOME PHRASING WHERE THERE WAS CONFUSION AS TO WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THE MAIN ISSUE I THINK WAS BUILT TO RENT AND TO ALLOW THE COURT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE GUIDANCE ON WHAT IT'S LOOKING FOR AND BUILD TO RENT COMMUNITIES, BECAUSE LIKE TRACY SAID, BUILD TO RENT COMMUNITIES CAN ALMOST BE VIEWED AS A HYBRID, SINGLE FAMILY/MULTIFAMILY, DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S DESIGNED, AN APARTMENT COMPLEX RATHER THAN BUILDING UP BUT YOU BUILD OUT.
SOMETIMES THIS CAN BE DONE IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, SOMETIMES IT'S DONE IN DUPLEXES.
THE PROBLEM IS OR THE PROBLEM THAT COULD BE FORESEEN, AND THIS IS JUST THE EXAMPLE OF IT, IS FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU DO IT AS A MULTI FAMILY LOT AND IT DOESN'T REQUIRE PLATTING.
IF THE BUILDINGS ARE BUILT, FOR EXAMPLE, AS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, ULTIMATELY THE DEVELOPER COULD DECIDE TO SELL IT, WHICH WOULD SUBJECT IT TO PLATTING.
BUT THAT MEANS THAT NOW WE HAVE TO WATCH THEM FOREVER AND TO SEE IF THEY EVER DECIDE TO SELL IT.
DOES THE COURT WANT TO DO, FOR EXAMPLE, TO REQUIRE PLATTING? DOES IT NOT WANT TO REQUIRE PLATTING.
DOES IT WANT TO REQUEST AND I'M JUST SPIT BALLING THINGS OUT HERE JUST TO JUST TO MAKE THE POINT, BUT REQUIRE THAT THE MULTIFAMILY LOT AREA FOR BUILD TO RENT NOT BE HAVE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO NOT BE SUBDIVIDED WHATEVER THE COURT DECIDES IT WOULD LIKE TO DO, BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR BECAUSE THESE APPEAR TO BECOMING MORE AND MORE POPULAR AND WE JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT OF GUIDANCE, I THINK, ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE THESE IN THE FUTURE.
BECAUSE THEY CAN BE VARIED WITH SOME POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES DEPENDING ON HOW THEY'RE BUILT.
[00:45:06]
>> ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS, IF IT'S SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX UNITS AND THEY'RE PLACED ON A LOT, AN INDIVIDUAL LOT, IT'S REALLY NONE OF OUR CONCERN IF THEY'RE RENTED OR SOLD, OR HOW THAT IS.
I WOULDN'T EVEN DESCRIBE THAT AS BUILD TO RENT.
EVEN IF THEY INTENDED TO RENT THEM ALL, THEY'RE STILL SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS.
TO ME, A BUILD OR RENT PRODUCT IS A BUNCH OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON ONE BIG LOT.
SO IT'D BE A MULTI-FAMILY SCENARIO.
>> I AGREE WITH YOUR SAYING, CHASE.
I THINK THAT ISSUE COULD BE ADDRESSED IN RESTRICTED COVENANT.
IT IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION, AND QUITE FRANKLY, FOR THE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS, THAT THIS SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL THING IS FLOATING AROUND.
IT GOT A LITTLE CONFUSED IN MY MIND, BUT THERE'S TWO VERY CLEAR DISTINCTION, AND THAT IS SINGLE FAMILY FOR RENT RATHER THAN BUILD TO RENT.
SINGLE FAMILY FOR RENT IS ON A TRADITIONAL LOT, THERE'S A PLAT, THERE'S A STREET, IT'S FOLLOWING WHATEVER OUR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA ARE, POSSIBLY MODIFIED BY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND IT'S A FEE SIMPLE LOT.
NOW, THAT FEE SIMPLE LOT COULD BE OWNED BY SOMEBODY THAT LIVES IN IT, IT COULD BE OWNED BY ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT RENTS IT OUT, IT COULD BE OWNED BY A BUSINESS CORPORATION THAT MAY HAVE 10, 20, OR 150 OF THESE THAT THEY'RE ALL RENTING OUT, BUT THE STANDARDS FOR THAT PRODUCT FOLLOW OUR SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND GET A PLAT.
THE OTHER IS BUILD TO RENT, AND THAT'S INSIDE A SITE PLAN IN ONE LOT.
OUR INTENTION WITH THAT IS FOR IT TO BE UNDER ONE COMMON OWNERSHIP AND NOT SEPARATED OUT.
THERE'S ANOTHER STYLE OF DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT'S A TRUE CONDO REGIME.
WE'RE ALLOWED, UNDER AG'S OPINION, TO TREAT THAT CONDO REGIME IF THEY WERE GOING TO DO WHAT WOULD BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, BUT CONVEY IT UNDER A CONDO REGIME, WE'RE ALLOWED TO MAKE IT FOLLOW THE SUBDIVISION CRITERIA.
AGAIN, I THINK IN EITHER WAY, YOU CUT IT.
I THINK WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY'VE AGREED TO REMOVE ABOUT A CONDO REGIME NOT BEING A PLAT UNDER CHAPTER 232 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WE'VE GOT IN ANY OF THE THREE SCENARIOS, THE CRITERIA COVERED THAT, ARE WE GOING TO GET A QUALITY AND STANDARD CONSTRUCTION THAT WE UNDERSTAND WE'RE GETTING? ARE WE GETTING SAFETY REQUIREMENTS MET, THE FIRE ACCESS AND FIRE FLOW WATER? DO WE HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING? I THINK WE'VE GOT THOSE.
SUBJECT TO SOME I SAW IN THERE, CHASE, YOU SPOTTED THERE WERE A COUPLE PLACES THAT SINGLE FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED WERE USABLE INTERCHANGEABLY, WE CAN CLEAN UP, BUT I THINK WE HAVE THAT COVERED, SUBJECT TO SOME MINOR LANGUAGE CLEAN UP.
>> I THINK WE JUST NEED TO BE CAREFUL IN THE WORDING.
WHEN WE SAY NOT REQUIRED TO PLAT, THAT'S ONLY REFERRING TO NOT BEING PLATTED THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS.
BUT THERE IS A BIG PLATTED LOT, THAT ALL THESE UNITS ARE GOING ON.
WE'RE STILL REQUIRING PLATTING.
WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT ROADWAY ACCESS.
>> SURE. MIKE SAID, MY CONCERN IS JUST THE ULTIMATELY THE DECISION TO RENT OR TO SELL IS A DEVELOPER DETERMINATION, AND I KNOW THAT YOU'VE MADE A COMMENT EARLIER, THAT'S NOT OUR BUSINESS WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE DEVELOPING OR RENTING OR SELLING INDIVIDUAL PLATTED PROPERTY.
THE POINT I WOULD GET AT THOUGH IS THAT IT'S UNLIKELY TO PLAT INDIVIDUALLY AND THEN REPLAT TO A LARGE GROUP AS OPPOSED TO HAVE A LARGE GROUP THAT NOW YOU'VE DECIDED TO SELL AS INDIVIDUAL LOTS AND THEN JUST SELL.
THAT'S THE CONCERN MOVING FORWARD.
THEN IF WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE PLATTING REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, THEN WE HAVE TO WATCH THEM FOR AS LONG AS THEY DECIDE TO RENT IT AS OPPOSED TO SELL IT AS SINGLE FAMILY UNIT.
BUT LIKE I SAID, IF THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT IS THAT WE TRY THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ROUTE, IF WE JUST ARE NOT GOING TO WORRY ABOUT IT, I GUESS THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT I'M LOOKING FOR, AND ULTIMATELY, I THINK TRACY WILL PROBABLY WANT HIMSELF BECAUSE THAT'LL DEPEND ON HOW HE ADDRESSES THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD.
I THINK I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE WE NEED TO GO FROM HERE AT THAT POINT.
>> OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, BUT I'M RIGHT THERE WITH COMMISSIONER TERRIO.
I STARTED GETTING CONCERNED AND I THINK TRACY YOU SAID WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT LANGUAGE OUT, BUT WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT NOT BEING REQUIRED TO PLAT, I HAVE SOME SERIOUS HEARTBURN ABOUT THAT.
[00:50:01]
>> I THINK ADDING LANGUAGE THAT CLARIFIES THAT A MULTI-FAMILY TRACT, THAT THAT OVERALL LOT GETS PLATTED, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S PROBABLY THEIR INTENTION TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE PLAT ANYWAY, AND THEN SOME CLARIFICATION, MAYBE POSSIBLY SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, THAT THIS LOT SHALL NOT BE DIVIDED UP INTO SEPARATE OWNERSHIP VIA PLAT OR CONDO REGIME WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT, THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT THEY CAME BACK AND PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO AGREE DEPENDING UPON THE LAYOUT, WHETHER IT MEETS APPROPRIATE CRITERIA TO DO THAT OR NOT.
>> MY CONCERN IS, SO IF IT'S A TRADITIONAL APARTMENT COMPLEX ON ONE BIG LOT, SOMEBODY IS JUST GOING TO COME BY THAT COMPLEX.
WHERE I START GETTING WORRIED IS YOU'VE GOT 15 DUPLEXES NOW ON ONE LOT AND YOU START DIVIDING UP OWNERSHIP OF ALL THOSE INDIVIDUAL DUPLEXES AND THAT'S GOING TO GET TO BE A PROBLEM [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE NOW YOU'VE GOT 15 DIFFERENT OWNERS ALL ON ONE LOT, HOW DO YOU ASSIGN OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND? ALL THOSE THINGS START COMING INTO PLAY.
>> THAT SHOULD BE A SUBDIVISION UNDER CHAPTER 232 AND FOLLOWING THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
I THINK TO JUST ARTICULATE FEEDBACK, WHAT I THINK I'M HEARING IS THE POSSIBILITY OF COMING BACK AFTER THE FACT AND DIVIDING UP THE OWNERSHIP.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENT, AND I THINK WE CAN GET THERE AND ADDRESS THAT.
>> OR JUST SAY IT'LL BE SOLD IN ONE UNIT, JUST LIKE A TRADITIONAL COMPLEX.
>> THEY MADE THE TRIP. I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY COMMENTARY ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING ON YOUR BEHALF OR IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE TO HEAR ANY RESPONSES TO WHAT YOU SAID. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO ITEM H3,
[H.3 To consider a development agreement between the County and Tack Redwood Partners for the development the Lakeshore subdivision, an approximately 1,044.73-acre subdivision located at Railroad Street and SH 142.]
DISCUSSION ONLY TO CONSIDER A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND TAC REDWOOD PARTNERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAKE SHORE SUBDIVISION AND APPROXIMATELY 1,044.73 ACRE SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT RAILROAD STREET AND SH-142.>> I CAN LEAD OFF ON THIS ONE JUST BECAUSE TRACY IS IN A [OVERLAPPING] LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT.
>> I WOULD STILL MAKE THE INTRO IF YOU'RE READY.
>> OKAY. FOR THIS ONE, TRACY, WHILE HE WOULD NORMALLY INTRODUCE THIS, TRACY IS ACTUALLY THE ENGINEER FOR THE DEVELOPER.
>> TRACY WOULD USUALLY LEAN TO THIS, HE IS ACTUALLY THE ENGINEER FOR THE DEVELOPER.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND START ON THAT?
>> YES, SIR. JUDGE AND COURTS, GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS CHRIS ELIZONDO OR FOR CUATRO CONSULTANTS.
WE HAVE REVIEWED FOR THE COUNTY WHEN YOU SAID HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND IN THIS SITUATION, WE WILL BE REVIEWING FOR THE COUNTY ON YOUR BEHALF.
WE HAVE BEEN IN A FEW MEETINGS WITH JUDGE HAYDEN, AND THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM TO REVIEW THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH AND REVIEWED IT FROM A ENGINEERING PLANNING PERSPECTIVE.
THERE ARE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT CHASE BROUGHT UP THAT WE WANT TO HASH THROUGH AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
SOME OF IT HAS TO DO WITH BILL DURANT, SFR'S, AND ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S SOME OTHER JUST GENERAL, I GUESS, SPECIFIC VERBIAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ABOUT CHANGES REGARDING THE CONCEPT LAYOUT, ADDITION TO LANDS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
HERE TO HELP ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WE TALK THROUGH IT. COMMISSIONER.
>> GENERALLY THE CONCERNS WERE SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF BILL TO RENT WITHOUT [INAUDIBLE] NAILING DOWN OF WHAT WE WOULD BE REALLY REQUIRING FOR THE BILL TO RENT BASED ON OUR LAST CONVERSATION, ASSUMING THAT THAT WAS MORE OF A POLICY DISCUSSION AS OPPOSED TO A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DISCUSSION.
I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT BIT.
THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT PLAT REVISIONS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO COUNTY APPROVAL.
THERE IS AN IDEA THAT WE ARE APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS IS FOR THE CURRENT CONCEPT PLAN AND A CARTE BLANCHE ABILITY TO AMEND, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT THE COURT WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER OR NOT CONSIDER.
THEN ULTIMATELY WHETHER OR NOT DEVELOPMENT IS INTENDED TO BE RESTRICTED, I GUESS TO STICK IN MORTAR HOMES, OR WHETHER ANY PREFABRICATED HOMES AND TO WHAT EXTENT PREFABRICATED HOMES OR MODULAR HOMES, OR MANUFACTURED HOMES SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
I THINK THERE WAS ALSO A QUESTION THAT COMMISSIONER TERRIO HAD REGARDING SOME ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY TO FN-142.
[00:55:03]
IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE CONCEPT PLAN, THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ALMOST MAKES IT TO 142, BUT NOT QUITE, AND SO THERE'S A QUESTION OF HOW THEY WILL ACQUIRE THAT RIGHT OF WAY THERE TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS APPROPRIATE INGRESS AND EGRESS THROUGH THAT RIGHT OF WAY.>> CAN WE BACK UP AND TAKE THOSE ONE AT A TIME? THAT WAS A LOT.
>> [LAUGHTER] I'M HAPPY TO REPEAT ALL THAT.
>> [LAUGHTER] LET'S JUST TAKE THEM ONE BY ONE.
>> THE FIRST ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT WOULD LIKE, I GUESS, TO REQUEST APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR CHANGES TO THE CONCEPT PLAN, AND WHAT IF ANY RESTRICTIONS I GUESS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THAT.
>> I DON'T HAVE A PARTICULAR PROBLEM WITH SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLAN AS LONG AS THEY'RE MAINTAINING, THERE'S A TABLE ON THERE THAT SPECIFIES THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, AS LONG AS THEY'RE MAINTAINING THOSE NUMBERS AND THE DENSITIES.
OBVIOUSLY, ONCE THEY'RE OUT THERE PLOTTING AND SURVEYING AND LAYING OUT THINGS, THERE'S GOING TO BE ADJUSTMENTS TO LOTS AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS THAT END UP ON THE FINAL LAYOUT.
MAYBE JUST REFINING THAT LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT TO CLARIFY THAT.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT. WHAT'S THE NEXT ONE, CHASE?
>> NEXT ONE WOULD BE ULTIMATELY WHAT TYPES OF STRUCTURES ARE INTENDED TO BE ON IT.
THERE IS AN EXPRESS ONE OF ONE SECTION DISCUSSES THE PROJECT OF SITE BUILT STRUCTURES SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDING MOBILE HOMES, MANUFACTURED HOMES, AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
BUT THE NEXT SENTENCE SAYS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING MODULAR AND PREFABRICATED HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED OFF SITE ARE EXPRESSLY PERMITTED, PROVIDED THEY'RE INSTALLED IN A PERMANENT FOUNDATION WHILE THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY AFFIXED TO THE GROUND.
THOSE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT STYLES OF HOUSING, AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S WHAT THE COURT IS WANTING.
>> THIS IS JUST THE PERSONAL PREFERENCE FOR MY PART, BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF THESE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS IS TO TRY TO GET AWAY FROM THOSE TYPE OF PROJECTS AND PRODUCTS.
SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO A MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION, THAT'S GOING TO BE A WHOLE ANOTHER CONVERSATION AND A WHOLE SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
>> I THINK WHEN WE START BLENDING THOSE, THEN WE LOSE THE INTENT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, WHICH IS TO CREATE A PRODUCT THAT'S CONSISTENT.
>> I WILL SAY THE INTENT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT MOBILE HOMES.
I BELIEVE THERE'S A PROVISION IN THERE FOR THERE TO PARK A MOBILE HOME TEMPORARILY FOR MUD ELECTIONS.
>> OR MODULAR HOMES ON A PERMIT.
>> IT WAS INTENDED TO ALLOW FOR MODULAR HOMES.
THEY WOULD SAY THAT WE HAVE DONE THAT IN SOME OTHER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, BUT IT'S BEEN LIMITED TO SOMETHING LIKE 20% OR SOMETHING IN THE HOMES.
THIS IS DEFINITELY WAY MORE HOMES THAT YOU WOULD DO ALL MODULAR.
THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE CAN COME BACK WITH, A PROPOSAL TO REVISE AND AMEND.
>> I'D LIKE TO SEE IT GET PRETTY BUTTONED DOWN ON HOW MANY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND THAT KIND OF THING.
>> THE MODULAR ENCOMPASSES A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
>> THAT FOR ME, HAS BECOME THE ISSUE WHEN MODULAR COMES UP ON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DISCUSSION.
BECAUSE ONE THING THAT'S BECOME APPARENT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THAT IS THAT, THAT DEFINITION SOMETIMES GETS A LITTLE BIT HAZY.
FOR ME THAT CLARITY IN THE AGREEMENT TO ENCOMPASS IT IN THAT MANNER I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IN THAT WAY JUST DEFINITIVELY NAILING DOWN WHAT THAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT.
>> [NOISE] WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE MODULAR HOME SECTIONS, BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'M UNCLEAR ON AND IT COULD BE DONE A NUMBER OF WAYS.
IS THIS SOMETHING THE DEVELOPERS GOING TO INSTALL AND THEN SELL OR RENT, OR IS THIS LOTS WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE THOSE IN AND PUT THEM ON A PAD, OR WHAT'S THAT LOOK LIKE?
>> HI, I'M MIKE SCHROEDER. I'M CO OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY INTENT TO DO ANY MODULAR HOUSING.
>> WOULD YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TAKING THAT LANGUAGE OUT THEN?
>> I THINK TRACY MADE ONE POINT, WHICH IS THAT IF WE HAVE TO HAVE A MODULAR BUILDING FOR [OVERLAPPING].
>> EXCEPTION IN THERE FOR THE MUD ELECTION.
>> WE HAVE A REALLY GREAT TEAM ASSEMBLED FOR THIS PROJECT.
IT'S THE SAME TEAM THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING WATERSTONE WITH,
[01:00:02]
WHICH IS A 7,000 UNIT PROJECT ON 21.IT'S UNDER DEVELOPMENT. YOU CAN SEE IT.
WE'RE BRINGING THE SAME TEAM HERE TO THE SITE AND OUR PLAN IS TO DO A MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY WITH TOP TIER PLANNING, TOP TIER ENGINEERING, IT'S A GREAT SITE. WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT IT.
>> IF WE CAN JUST TAKE THAT LANGUAGE OUT, THAT'D BE GREAT.
>> MODULAR AND PRE FABRICATED OR JUST MODULAR?
>> NEXT ONE WAS THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT AWAY ALONG 142.
>> THIS PROPERTY DOES GO UP AND HAVE FRONTAGE ON STATE HIGHWAY 142, SO IT MAY BE THE SCALE AND RESOLUTION OF THE LAND REQUIRED.
>> IT'S PROBABLY JOINING ROADWAYS. [INAUDIBLE]
>> I THINK I WAS LOOKING AT RAILROAD STREET, WHERE IT'S CURRENTLY JUST A REAL NARROW COUNTY ROAD.
BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT PROVIDES A CONNECTION INTO THE SEGREGATION.
>> IT IS A SECONDARY CONNECTION.
THE INTENTION IS ABSOLUTELY TO HAVE OUR NEW COLLECTOR ROAD THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE COUNTY NEW THOROUGHFARE PLAN CONNECT TO FM 142.
[NOISE] I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACQUIRE MORE RIGHT AWAY THERE.
WHATEVER THE RIGHT AWAY IS AT RAILROAD STREET AND 142, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE DONE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, WE JUST TRY AND FIT IN THE BEST WE CAN IN TERMS OF SOME RESURFACING OR SOMETHING ON THAT ROAD TO MAKE IT ADEQUATE TO HANDLE THE TRAFFIC.
SIMILAR TO SOME OTHER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH, I THINK WE WANT TO DISCOURAGE THAT FROM BEING A PRIMARY POINT OF ACCESS.
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN WORK THROUGH THE COUNTY WITH IN TERMS OF WHETHER IT'S ADDING SOME STOP SIGNS ALONG RAILROAD STREET TO ENCOURAGE TRAFFIC TO GO THE OTHER WAY.
WHETHER IT'S SOME SPEED HUMP, SOMETHING BECAUSE WE WANT THE PRIMARY ACCESS TO BE THERE.
>> I GUESS, I CAN'T TALK ABOUT WE'VE ALREADY CLOSED OUT THE DISCUSSION ON CHISHOLM, I GUESS, BUT ON ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WE'VE RECENTLY TALKED ABOUT, TRYING TO INCLUDE A DISCUSSION OF OFFSITE STREET IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE WANT TO SEE AS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING.
WE MAY NEED TO START PUTTING THOSE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THEMSELVES.
WE MAY WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT RAILROAD STREET WOULD LOOK LIKE AND IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO PUT A FACILITY IN WHAT'S THERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW.
THEN ON THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT THAT ALSO.
>> COMMISSIONER TERRIO ON THIS ONE FOR A VICE PERSPECTIVE, THIS ONE IS IN PRECINCT 3, BUT IT FALLS VERY CLOSE TO THE LINE 1-3 THERE'S BEEN ON AND OFF DISCUSSIONS OF ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT THAT IS MOSTLY WITHIN PRECINCT 1.
THEN THAT EVEN FURTHER TO THE EAST OF THAT GETS INTO THE HARTLAND RANCH DEVELOPMENT UP ON BORCHERT, HAS THERE BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THOSE DEVELOPMENTS? I KNOW WHEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ON HARTLAND, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TRYING TO, AGAIN ADDRESS AS MANY EGRESSES AND INGRESSES THAT WE CAN THAT ARE CAPABLE OF HANDLING THEM OUT OF TRIPS PER DAY THAT ARE GOING TO BE ASKED A BIT.
>> THERE IS THAT LARGE NRCS RESERVOIR AND FLOODPLAIN THAT SEPARATES THIS.
THE OTHER PROJECT IS LONGHORN RANCH THAT BACKS UP TO HARTLAND RANCH.
THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY DIRECT CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THESE TWO POSSIBLE.
THE PLAN PROVIDES FOR A MAJOR ARTERIAL THAT'S RUNNING FROM 142 DOWN TO I THINK IT'S A BLACK ANKLE.
>> TOWER ROAD AND BLACK ANKLE.
>> IT DOES HAVE A CONNECTION OUT TO TOWER ROAD.
AGAIN TOWER ROAD IS NARROW, IT'S CONSTRAINED RIGHT AWAY.
THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT WE CAN DO THERE.
WE WANT THE PRIMARY PATH TO BE OUR NEW ROAD THAT WE'RE BUILDING.
FRANKLY, OUR CONNECTION TO TOWER ROAD PROVIDES A BENEFIT FOR TOWER ROAD.
IT PROVIDES THEM ANOTHER WAY, IN OR OUT.
WE DON'T REALLY INTEND TO DESIGN AND LAY IT OUT, SO IT'S A PATH THAT OUR RESIDENTS ARE TAKING OUT.
LAKE LONGHORN PROJECT ORIGINALLY INCLUDED A ROAD BELOW THE SPILLWAY OF LAKE MARTINDALE OR MARTINDALE LAKE THAT WE WANTED AS A ROAD AFTER SOME CONCERN BACK AND FORTH WITH PLUM CREEK CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
I BELIEVE WE TURNED THAT INTO A GATED EASEMENT, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, JUST FOR EMERGENCY INGRESS AND EGRESS BECAUSE OF
[01:05:02]
PCD'S CONCERNS ABOUT ABOUT THAT ROAD UNDERNEATH THEIR SPILLWAY.IN THIS CASE, THERE'S JUST A GEOGRAPHIC FEATURE BETWEEN THIS PROJECT AND THE ONE TO THE OTHER SIDE.
WE'VE PROVIDED CONNECTIVITY TO THE WEST, WHICH IS SOME PROPERTY OWNED, AS I UNDERSTAND ABOUT TITO BEVERIDGE, LARGE TRACT OVER THERE.
WE'VE PROVIDED SOME ROADWAY CONNECTIVITY TO THAT AND IN NORTH AND SOUTH.
BUT GOING TO THE EAST, THERE'S JUST GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES IN THE WAY THAT PREVENT IT.
AS I WAS GOING THROUGH, I FOUND ONE MORE THING THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY DISCUSS THERE'S A PROVISION IN HERE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WOULD TAKE THE PLACE OF A PHASE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT UNDER THE CALDWELL COUNTY ORDINANCE.
THE PHASING AGREEMENT THEY GENERALLY HAVE A PURPOSE, WHICH IS TO PROVIDE ONE UP TO DATE CONCEPT MAPS AND TO GET AN IDEA FOR LARGE PROJECTS HOW PROGRESS IS GOING WITH THE INCLUSION OF THAT PROVISION.
THIS PERMIT WILL COVER THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE IT WOULD BE ONE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE USED A PHASE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WOULD THE COURT LIKE THIS TO DO THAT IN PLACE OF A PHASE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT? WITH PERHAPS LIKE MILESTONES.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A PHASE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
IT CAN HAVE SOME ELEMENTS OF PHASE DEVELOPMENTS AGREEMENTS AND THAT WOULD BE JUST WHAT I GUESS ARE YOU GUYS LOOKING FOR IN YOUR EXCEPTION TO THAT AND THEN I GUESS WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS LOOKING TO DO AS PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
>> I THINK WE'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND GENERALLY THE PHASING THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR AS PART OF THE PROJECT.
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR INSTANCE, LIKE THE TIE INTO DICKERSON ROAD, WHEN WOULD THAT OCCUR? AT WHAT POINT DURING THE DEVELOPMENT?
>> WE COULD CERTAINLY ADD LANGUAGE THAT SPECIFIES WHEN THAT TIE TO DICKERSON WOULD OCCUR.
THE REASON FOR PLACING THE LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT THE PHASE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WE'VE GOT TWO OPTIONS.
ONE TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ON THE WHOLE THING, WE'RE ENTERING INTO A PHASE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THE CHALLENGE WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE WHOLE THING IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO RUN MANY YEARS AND WE HAVE PARAMETERS.
WE HAVE TO MEET IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ABOUT A NUMBER OF 60 FOOT LOTS AND 50 FOOT LOTS AND 40 FOOT LOTS, BUT THOSE CHANGE AND MORPH OVER TIME AS THE MARKET MOVES.
I PERSONALLY, AND NOT JUST FOR THIS PROJECT, BUT FOR THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING IN, I HATE CNS REVISED PRELIMINARY PLATS OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AGAIN, ALL WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE GENERAL PARAMETERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
CHANGING LOTS FROM 40 FOOT TO 45 FOOT, IT JUST KIND OF WASTE EVERYBODY'S TIME.
IT WOULD BE EASY, I BELIEVE, TO AGREE TO SUBMIT THE MAJOR ELEMENTS OF A PHASED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THAT WOULD BE A MASTER UTILITY PLAN FOR WATER, WASTEWATER, STORMWATER, AND A MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN ALONG WITH KIND OF A THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT PROVIDES CLARITY ON WHERE THAT ARTERIAL IS AND OUR COLLECTOR STUB OUT THE ADJOINING PROPERTY THAT WOULD LEAVE THOSE REMAINING AREAS AS WHAT'S REALLY INTENDED IN MANY OF OUR OTHER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS JUST HAVE BUBBLES.
WHEREAS WE HAVE MORE DETAIL AND WANT TO PROVIDE THE PRETTY COLORED PLAN THAT SHOWS ALL THOSE LOTS.
I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO GET THE IMPRESSION THAT WHERE WE'VE SHOWN A 40 FOOT LOT TODAY THAT THAT MAY NOT BE A 50 FOOT LOT LATER, AND VICE VERSA.
SOME OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL LOTS MAY MOVE AROUND WITHIN THE PROPERTY.
>> BUT IT'D STILL BE THE SAME RATIOS.
>> ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO STAY WITHIN THE RATIOS YOUR PROVIDED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
>> IS THE COURT THEN OKAY WITH INCLUDING SOME OF THOSE, I GUESS, MAJOR ELEMENTS OF PHASING AGREEMENTS IN THIS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S ALL THAT I HAD UNLESS THE COURT HAS SOMETHING THAT IT INDEPENDENTLY WANTED TO DISCUSS ABOUT THIS.
MR. SCHRADER I KNOW THE PROJECTS YOU DO AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT QUALITY, ON INTO THE COUNTY WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
>> THANK YOU ALL, EVERYBODY. WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO TO DISCUSSION ONLY.
[H.1 Request by Caldwell County Appraisal District (C.C.A.D) on delayed 1st QTR 23-24 payment.]
ITEM H1 REQUEST BY CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT CCAD ON DELAYED FIRST QUARTER 2023 2024 PAYMENT, AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A REQUEST FOR AN EXPLANATION.I'M GOING TO LET DANNY GO FIRST IF YOU DON'T MIND, MISS HENKEL AND THEN YOU CAN GO.
>> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS.
MY OFFICE DROPPED THE BALL BACK IN DECEMBER.
THERE WAS A FIRST QUARTER CCAD QUARTERLY PAYMENT DUE TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT.
[01:10:03]
THE CHECK WAS CUT ON THE 19TH.THE DUE DATE WAS 31ST DECEMBER.
THERE WAS SOME MISCOMMUNICATION IN MY OFFICE ABOUT HOW THAT CHECK WAS GOING TO GET OUT, WHETHER IT WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH THE MAIL WITH THE REST OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, OR IF WE WERE GOING TO PULL IT AND HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT COME AND PICK IT UP.
I THINK THERE WAS SOME HOLIDAYS TOO THAT BOTH SIDES WERE TAKING THAT.
WE JUST KIND OF DROPPED THE BALL IN MY OFFICE.
I'VE DEFINITELY TAKEN SOME STEPS IN MY OFFICE AND INITIATED SOME NEW PROCEDURES WHEN IT COMES TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND GETTING THEIR PAYMENT OVER THERE.
WE PULL IT, I HAVE ONE OF MY LADIES, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE IT OVER THERE, PULL THE CHECK STUB, HAVE BOTH OFFICES SIGN OFF, AND SEND COPIES.
I'LL KEEP A COPY IN MY OFFICE AND THEN SEND A COPY TO SHANNON AS WELL.
WHEN THIS HAPPENS, WHEN A QUARTERLY PAYMENT IS DELAYED GETTING OVER THERE, TEXAS PROPERTY TAX CODE SECTION 6.06, A PAYMENT IS DELINQUENT IF NOT PAID ON THE DATE IT IS DUE, A DELINQUENT PAYMENT INCURS A PENALTY OF FIVE PERCENT THE AMOUNT OF THE PAYMENT AND ACCRUES INTEREST AT THE ANNUAL RATE OF 10 PERCENT.
ONCE I WAS NOTIFIED BY MISS FISHER, SHE DID MAKE ME AWARE THAT FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY WAIVE THE PENALTY AND INTEREST ON THE DELINQUENT PAYMENTS.
SO I COORDINATED WITH HER, WENT TO THE BOARD, DRAFTED UP A MEMO.
THERE WAS A FEW TYPOS IN THE MEMO.
AS SOON AS MISS FISHER CONTACTED ME, I HAD THE MEMO OVER TO HER OFFICE WITHIN AN HOUR.
I BELIEVE SINCE I USED A PRE-FORMATTED MEMO FROM ANOTHER OCCASION, THE DATE WAS WRONG.
IT SAID JULY 14, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN JANUARY, I BELIEVE, 4TH OR 5TH.
THEN IN THERE, IT SAID THAT ONE OF MY STAFF HAD WALKED IT OVER TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT, AND IT MEANT TO SAY WALKED IT INTO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT IN CASE THAT BECOMES AN ISSUE.
>> LINDA HENKEL, 1109 SOUTH MAIN STREET.
I WAS THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT WHEN THIS HAPPENED.
I'M NOW SECRETARY, CHANGE IN JANUARY.
I KNOW IT'S TAX DOLLARS BEING PUSHED FROM ONE ENTITY TO THE OTHER, BUT THERE WERE VERY NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS MADE TO CONTACT FROM MISS FISHER TO MISS TELLO, EMAILS AND STUFF BACK AND FORTH THAT SHE HADN'T RECEIVED THE MONEY.
ALSO, I DON'T THINK IT'S THE APPRAISAL DISTRICTS JOB TO PICK IT UP WHICH WAS REQUESTED THAT DID THEY WANT TO COME OVER AND PICK IT UP.
SHE SAID, NO, I WOULD BE FINE WITH YOU MAILING IT AS LONG AS IT'S POSTMARKED.
NOW THEY WANT TO KNOW THE WAIVER WAS BASED ON AND I AGREED WITH IT IF IT CAME BEFORE COMMISSIONERS COURT BECAUSE NONE OF THESE EMAILS AND THERE ARE SEVERAL WHERE NO COMMISSIONER OR THE JUDGE WAS CCED.
>> I WAS MADE AWARE OF IT THOUGH.
>> NOBODY WAS CCED ON THE CORRESPONDENCE.
IN TODAY'S BACKUP, IT'S NOT ON LINE AS TO WHERE THE 14 PAGES OF BACKUP ARE EITHER.
NONE OF THE H ITEMS HAD THE BACKUP THAT I COULD FIND.
>> DID YOU ALL RECEIVE ANY BACKUP IN COURT WITH ALL THIS? I MEAN, AT THE CCA [OVERLAPPING].
>> DID YOU RECEIVE BACKUP AT THE CCAD?
>> I TRIED TO LOCATE IT. IT WAS NOT ON LINE.
>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FROM US.
WHEN DANNY CAME, DID YOU GUYS GET PROVIDED WITH [OVERLAPPING].
>> I HAVE ALL OF THE EMAILS THAT WERE BETWEEN PHYLLIS FISHER AND DANNY.
>> I HAVE A COPY OF ALL OF THOSE, THOSE WERE PRESENTED TO OUR BOARD.
>> WHEN THEY ASKED FOR FORGIVENESS.
I JUST THINK TRANSPARENCY IS A BIG THING, AND WHEN I'M RESPONSIBLE ON THAT BOARD FOR MAKING MAJOR DECISIONS LIKE THIS, WHICH IS A MAJOR DECISION, I WANTED IT CLARIFIED AS TO WHO KNEW ABOUT IT.
>> DID THE COMMISSIONERS KNOW ABOUT IT? DID THE JUDGE KNOW ABOUT? YOU MIGHT HAVE, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW YOU KNEW THAT.
THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDENCE HERE BETWEEN THAT.
I BELIEVE MISS TELLO DID TELL YOU ALL IN THAT HEARING [OVERLAPPING].
>> I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHY I'M ON THAT BOARD.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? WELL, ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, I THINK WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GO TO ADJOURNMENT.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
>> PAUSE HERE THEN. WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 10:48
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.