G.1 Presentation regarding a proposed development of a data center campus located at FM 2720 and Bobwhite Road.

[H.3 To approve a development agreement between the County and Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline LLC, for the development of a natural gas transmission pipeline. ]

ITEM H 3.

DISCUSSION. ACTION TO APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND KINDER MORGAN TEXAS PIPELINE, LLC FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION PIPELINE.

AND I THINK THAT KINDER MORGAN IS HERE.

COMMISSIONERS, WE'VE BEEN NEGOTIATING THIS FOR FOR SOME TIME.

YOU HAVE IT IN YOUR BACKUP.

AND SO THIS IS WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR AN APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL.

SO I'LL ASK FOR A MOTION AN A SECOND AND THEN WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION.

WELL, I MOVE, WE APPROVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND AND A SECOND? SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING. NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

[H.4 To accept a $1.5 million donation from Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline LLC. ]

ITEM H 4.

DISCUSSION ACTION TO ACCEPT A $1.5 MILLION DONATION FROM KINDER MORGAN TEXAS PIPELINE.

AND I THINK WE HAVE MR. FORE HERE. AND COME ON UP, MR. FORE. LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU.

MORNING, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS.

AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, WE ARE CONTINUING OUR GROWTH IN THE AREA WITH ADDITIONAL NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE.

YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH OUR PREVIOUS PROJECT, THIS PROJECT, CENTRAL TEXAS PIPELINE.

JUST A COUPLE OF FACTS ABOUT IT THAT ARE PART OF THIS DONATION.

WE ARE BUILDING ABOUT 13 MILES OF PIPE IN THE COUNTY THAT ORIGINATES AT THE EXISTING COMPRESSOR STATION.

EXITS THE COUNTY NEAR MUSTANG RIDGE AND THEN GOES INTO TRAVIS COUNTY, TERMINATING NEAR THE TESLA FACILITY.

AND THIS IS ALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF GROWING ADDITIONAL SUPPLY FOR THIS REGION.

SO ALL OF THE GAS THAT'S PART OF THIS IS GOING TO BE USED FOR CENTRAL TEXAS.

AS YOU KNOW, AS PART OF OUR PREVIOUS PROJECT AND OUR ONGOING COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT CALDWELL COUNTY, INCLUDING THE LIVESTOCK SHOW THE OTHER DAY, I KNOW A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS WERE THERE.

WE'RE VERY PLEASED TO SUPPORT THAT ANNUALLY, BUT ALSO TO DO A SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FOR PURPOSES OF WHATEVER THE COUNTY SEES AS THE BEST USE OF THOSE FUNDS.

WE HAD $1 MILLION AS PART OF OUR PREVIOUS PROJECT.

THIS PROJECT WE'VE COMMITTED 1.5 MILLION TO THE PROJECT TO THE COUNTY FOR PURPOSES OF LET ME SEE IF I GOT THE EXACT AMOUNTS HERE.

SO CORRECT MY WRONG, JUDGE, BUT.

OKAY. IT'S 600,000 FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE AND EQUIPMENT 500,000 FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND ADDITIONAL 400,000 DIVIDED BETWEEN THE THREE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

[00:20:04]

THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE'RE VERY PLEASED TO DO THAT.

AND I VERY MUCH ENJOYED LAST ON THE LAST PROJECT, JOINING YOU AND AWARDING THOSE GRANTS TO THE VARIOUS ENTITIES.

I KNOW THE FUNDS ARE WELL USED, AND I THINK IT IT SHOWS KINDER MORGAN'S BOTH IMMEDIATE AND LONG TERM COMMITMENT TO CALDWELL COUNTY.

AND WE'VE APPRECIATED THE SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE COMMUNITY.

THIS PROJECT IS GOING WELL.

WE ARE IN THE FINAL STAGES OF LAND ACQUISITION, WHICH IS GOING VERY WELL.

WE EXPECT TO START CONSTRUCTION ON THIS PROJECT IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF THIS YEAR AND BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF 2024. OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE $1.5 MILLION DONATION FROM KINDER MORGAN? SO MOVE. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ACCEPTANCE FROM COMMISSIONER THERIOT.

AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER THOMAS? ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED, HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES.

[H.5 To approve a professional services agreement between the County and Dr. Charles Laurence for the practice of medicine pursuant to duties as the local health authority.]

ITEM H 5.

DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND DOCTOR CHARLES LAURENCE FOR THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, PURSUANT TO DUTIES OF THE LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITY.

COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS EVERY YEAR.

WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS FOR DECADES BEFORE.

BUT COVID BROUGHT THIS TO THE FLOOR.

AND WE HAD HIM AS, AS DURING THAT, DURING THAT CRISIS.

AND THEN WE HAVE CONTINUED TO KEEP DOCTOR LAURENCE ON FOR THE YEARS SUBSEQUENT AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO DO SO.

WE PAY HIM $12,000 A MONTH FOR THIS, I MEAN, A YEAR FOR THIS SERVICE.

I'M SURE HE'D LOVE 12,000 A MONTH, BUT IT'S 12,000 A YEAR.

AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO THAT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DOCTOR LAURENCE AGAIN.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A BY COMMISSIONER HORNE? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

[H.6 To appoint Dr. Charles Laurence as the local health authority for Caldwell County, Texas, for a term of 2 years, effective March 25, 2024.]

ITEM H 6.

DISCUSSION. ACTION TO APPOINT DOCTOR LAURENCE AS THE LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITY FOR CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS, FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS, EFFECTIVE MARCH 25TH, 2024. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF DOCTOR LAURENCE.

SO MOVE. MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND AND A SECOND.

BY A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.

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

AYE. OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

[H.7 To approve the designation of 9 county assets as salvage or surplus property for disposal or auction. ]

ITEM H 7.

DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGNATION OF NINE COUNTY ASSETS AS SALVAGE OR SURPLUS PROPERTY FOR DISPOSAL OF AUCTION.

CAROLYN. GOOD MORNING.

AS WE CONTINUE TO UPDATE OUR COUNTY FLEET, WE DO HAVE SOME OLDER VEHICLES THAT WE HAVE PULLED FROM OUR REGULAR ROTATION.

AND I'M HERE TO REQUEST APPROVAL TO GO AHEAD AND DECLARE THESE AS SURPLUS SALVAGE, THAT WAY WE CAN PROCEED WITH EITHER SCRAPPING OR PUTTING THESE VEHICLES UP DURING OUR NEXT AUCTION.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR DESIGNATION OF THE NINE COUNTY ASSETS FOR SALVAGE.

SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS AND SECOND.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.

ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? I'VE GOT ONE QUESTION. OKAY.

ARE ALL THESE VEHICLES WRECKED OR.

NO, THEY'RE JUST END OF LIFE.

END OF LIFE? YEAH.

I WAS JUST THINKING OF MOVING.

YOU KNOW, IF WE COULD MOVE ANY TO THE CONSTABLE'S OR THAT DO WITH THE SCHOOL.

WELL, SO THAT'S HOW WE GIVE THEM THEIR NEW CARS.

WE SALVAGE THESE OLDER CARS AND THEN LEASE THE NEW CARS.

BUT WE HAVE TO DO THIS PART FIRST.

OKAY. YES. SOME OF THESE ARE STILL YOU KNOW, IN DECENT CONDITION.

SOME OF THESE JUST, YOU KNOW, ARE IN NEED OF MAJOR REPAIRS.

AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, NEW ENGINES, NEW TRANSMISSIONS, WHICH REALLY IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTY, I UNDERSTAND.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION.

ACCEPTANCE FOR APPROVAL.

IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? HEARING. NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM H 8.

[H.8 To approve the agreed cancellation of a competitive bid award to Vulcan Materials for TXDOT Grade 4 aggregate.]

DISCUSSION. ACTION TO APPROVE.

AGREED. CANCELLATION OF A COMPETITIVE BID AWARD TO VULCAN MATERIALS FOR TXDOT GRADE 4 AGGREGATE.

SO, COMMISSIONERS, THIS WAS A CONTRACT FOR UNIT PRICE AWARD OF GRADE 4 MATERIAL FOR ROADS.

[00:25:05]

THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFICULTIES IN GETTING THE ORDERED MATERIALS.

AND AFTER REACHING OUT TO VULCAN, THEY HAVE AGREED TO GO AHEAD AND CANCEL IT SO THAT WE CAN REBID FOR IT.

AND THAT WILL BE COMING UP IN THE NEXT ITEM THAT BID.

OKAY, COMMISSIONERS DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CANCELLATION OF THE COMPETITIVE BID AWARD TO VULCAN? SO MOVE. A MOTION TO APPROVE.

DO WE HAVE BY COMMISSIONER HORNE AND A SECOND.

SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND? ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

[H.9 To approve final draft and solicitation of RFB 24CCP01B for Aggregate Grade 4 (3/8"). ]

ITEM H 9.

DISCUSSION. ACTION TO APPROVE FINAL DRAFT AND SOLICITATION OF RFP 24 CCP01B FOR AGGREGATE GRADE 4 (3/8). CAROLYN.

YES. SO THIS WAS THE MATERIAL THAT VULCAN HAD WON DURING OUR LAST BID.

DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE CANCELING THAT CONTRACT, WE ARE NEEDING TO GO OUT FOR BID ON THIS MATERIAL AGAIN.

SO WE'RE JUST SEEKING APPROVAL TO GO AHEAD AND START THAT PROCESS.

OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE? ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

[H.10 To approve a permit for the development of Westwood Park #3, located at 1114 Westwood Road. ]

ITEM H 10.

DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE A PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WESTWOOD PARK NUMBER THREE, LOCATED AT 114 WESTWOOD ROAD.

COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.

THANK YOU JUDGE. I ASKED FOR THIS ITEM TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA TO ALLOW THE REST OF THE COURT TO BE BROUGHT UP TO SPEED ON AN ITEM BECAUSE IT WAS DISCUSSED WITH TWO MEMBERS OF THE COURT IN ORDER TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OUTSIDE OF THIS MEETING.

SO AT THIS POINT, IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THE PROJECT, TOO? OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TRACY TO EXPLAIN THE ITEM AS WELL AS GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AS WELL.

OKAY, THANKS.

GOOD MORNING.

THIS ITEM IS A QUOTE UNQUOTE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK LOCATED OFF WESTWOOD DRIVE. SO THERE'S AN AGENDA ITEM SET AT 9:30.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A TWO MINUTE DISCUSSION ITEM.

IS THAT A HARD STOP AT 9:30? YEAH. WE DO HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NEXT AGENDA, THE SECONDARY AGENDA THAT'S OH, THAT'S.

YEAH, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ONE.

YEAH. IT'S THE LATER OF 9:30 OR AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF.

SORRY. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. YEAH. BECAUSE I WAS LIKE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SCRATCH THE SURFACE HERE IN 60 SECONDS.

SO THERE'S, A COUPLE RELEVANT THINGS.

I'LL EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY AND WE CAN GET INTO WHAT THE DEFINITION OF DIFFERENT WORDS MEAN.

THERE'S A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK THAT'S EXISTED FOR A LONG, LONG TIME LOCATED ON WESTWOOD DRIVE IN APPROXIMATELY LATE 2020, EARLY 2021. THEY CAME AND APPLIED FOR A PERMIT TO EXPAND THE THAT RV PARK.

AT THAT TIME WORKED WITH JJ WELLS, WHO WAS IN THE DA'S OFFICE AND ASSIGNED TO THE COURT FOR CIVIL MATTERS BECAUSE IT BECAME APPARENT IN DISCUSSION WITH THIS RV PARK THAT WHAT THEY HAD WASN'T REALLY A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK.

AND THAT'S BY DEFINITION A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, AMONGST OTHER THINGS.

AND I'LL FIND THE DEFINITION HERE MEANS A MOTOR VEHICLE PRIMARILY DESIGNED AS TEMPORARY LIVING QUARTERS FOR RECREATIONAL CAMPING OR TRAVEL USE.

THE TERM INCLUDES TRAVEL TRAILER, CAMPER TRAILER, TRUCK, TRAVEL TRUCK, CAMPER OR MOTORHOME.

AGAIN, EMPHASIS THERE ON TEMPORARY LIVING QUARTERS.

OTHER DEFINITIONS DESIGNED PRIMARILY NOT FOR USE AS A PERMANENT DWELLING UNIT, BUT AS TEMPORARY LIVING QUARTERS FOR RECREATIONAL CAMPING OR SEASONAL USE.

LET ME FIND THE OTHER AND THEN RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK MEANS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT IS DESIGNATED PRIMARILY FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE TRANSIENT GUEST USE FOR WHICH FEES FOR SITE SERVICES, CONNECTIONS OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IS DEFINED AS SECTION.

AND IT REFERS TO ANOTHER SECTION HERE.

THE IMPORTANCE THERE IS WHAT BECAME APPARENT AS WE WERE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THIS RV PARK IS THE ORIGINAL SECTION OF THAT PARK HAD THAT WASN'T FOR RECREATIONAL USE OR TRANSIENT USE THEY WERE IN FACT PERMANENT RESIDENCES, IN SOME CASES WITH PERMANENT STRUCTURES ATTACHED TO THE RVS THAT HAD BEEN THERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE COURT CASES, AS WELL AS TWO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS THAT SPEAK TO THIS.

[00:30:04]

AND THAT BECOMES A MULTI-UNIT DWELLING DEVELOPMENT THAT THE COUNTY CAN REGULATE UNDER ITS SUBDIVISION RULES.

AND WORKING WITH JJ, WE WENT THROUGH THE VARIOUS ISSUES, AND IT'S BEEN ON OUR LIST TO UPDATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO DEFINE WHAT WE VIEW AS SHORT TERM LACKING ANYTHING IN THE ORDINANCE TO DEFINE WHAT TRANSIENT USE IS OR SHORT TERM RENTALS.

WE RELIED ON PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY SEPTIC ORDINANCE THAT ALLOW FOR PORTA POTTIES UP TO 30 DAYS.

THAT WAS CONSIDERED TEMPORARY SHORT TERM IN THOSE IN THAT AUSPICES.

SO AT THAT TIME, IN 2021 WE ASKED THE APPLICANT HEY, IS THIS SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM? BECAUSE IF IT'S A LONG TERM WE'RE GOING TO TREAT IT AS IF IT IS A SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT PLAT OR INFRASTRUCTURE STANDARDS TO IT.

AND THIS COURT HAS APPROVED NUMEROUS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS RELATED TO RV PARKS IN ORDER TO WAIVE THAT SHORT TERM REQUIREMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR SOME BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL AS FACILITIES FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE THERE IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE THERE LONG TERM.

AGAIN, SOME OF THE ONES THAT WE'VE GOTTEN RECENTLY HAVE THINGS LIKE LAUNDROMAT TYPE FACILITIES IN THEM.

APPROPRIATE BECAUSE MOST RVS DON'T HAVE A WASHER AND DRYER IN THEM.

THEY'VE HAD SOME OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL SPACE, WHETHER IT BE IN THE FORM OF DOG PARKS, KID PLAYSCAPES, PERGOLAS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND SO IN 2020 WE ASKED THE APPLICANT, HEY, OR WE NEED TO CONFIRM THAT YOU'VE MADE THIS REPRESENTATION AND I HAVE THIS EMAIL TO PASS OUT. THIS WAS MADE BY THE BEFORE I WALK AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE.

THIS WAS MADE BY THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER WITH COPY TO THE OWNER.

IN THIS EMAIL, WHICH WAS THE FINAL CONFIRMATION FROM THE APPLICANT THEY STATE ATTACHED TO THE CIVIL PLANS.

I DID SPEAK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AFTER I GOT OFF THE PHONE, AND HE INDICATED TO ME THAT THIS WAS A SHORT TERM RENTAL PARK.

I COPIED HIM ON THIS EMAIL SO HE COULD WITHHOLD IF NECESSARY.

FAST FORWARD TO NOVEMBER OF 2023.

THERE IS A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE HELD WITH THE SAME ENGINEER ON A FURTHER EXPANSION OF THE SAME RV PARK.

AND THE DISCUSSION WITH HIS ENGINEER, WE AGAIN ASKED, HEY, IS THIS SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM? BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, WE TREAT IT DIFFERENTLY.

IF IT'S BEING TRANSIENT USED VERSUS IF IT'S REALLY A MULTI-UNIT DWELLING DEVELOPMENT.

THE ENGINEER STATES AT THAT TIME, NO, WE UNDERSTAND AND IT'S SHORT TERM.

LIKE, I NEED YOU TO GO BACK TO YOUR OWNER AND ASK AND HE GOES BACK TO THE OWNER AND ASKS AND CONFIRM THAT, YES, IT WAS IT WAS SHORT TERM 30 DAYS OR LESS. THEY UNDERSTOOD.

I DID RECEIVE FROM NEARBY RESIDENTS.

EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT THE NOT THE ORIGINAL PART BECAUSE THAT WAS GRANDFATHERED AND DONE YEARS AND YEARS AGO, BUT THE EXPANSION WAS NOT, IN FACT, SHORT TERM.

AND THERE WERE RVS THAT WERE OVERSTAYING AND RECEIVED COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE HERE'S TODAY, HERE'S THE PICTURES, THE SAME ONES 30 DAYS LATER. HERE'S A PICTURE, THE SAME 160 DAYS LATER.

SO IN THAT DISCUSSION, I WENT BACK TO THEM, THE ENGINEER AGAIN, AND SAID, OKAY.

AND THIS WAS HAPPENING CONCURRENTLY WITH ADDRESSING THE TECHNICAL COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION.

WENT BACK TO THE ENGINEER AND SAID, LOOK, I NEED YOU TO CONFIRM THAT THIS IS SHORT TERM BECAUSE I'M HEARING FROM NEIGHBORS AND HAVE PHOTOS OF STUFF THAT APPEAR THAT THESE ARE STAYING AS LONG TERM RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, NOT REALLY RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND TRANSIENT USE.

AT THAT TIME, THE ENGINEER CAME BACK AND CONFIRMED THAT AND HE ASKED HE SAID, THE CLIENT, I'LL READ THIS AND PASS IT OUT. THE CLIENT ASKED IF I'LL READ MY EMAIL.

HOW IS HE GOING TO ENSURE THESE SPACES, SHORT TERM RENTALS, THEIR NEIGHBORS CLAIMING THAT THE EARLIER SECTION WAS PRESENTED AS SHORT TERM AS STAYS EXCEEDING 30 DAYS WITH PHOTOS TO PROVE IT. THE ENGINEER'S RESPONSE SAYS THE CLIENT ASKED IF WE COULD ADD A NOTE TO THE COVER SHEET, OR IF LANGUAGE CAN BE ADDED TO THE PERMIT WHEN ISSUED.

[00:35:09]

SO AT THAT POINT WE'VE HAD ANOTHER INSTANCE OR TWO I BELIEVE IN WHICH APPLICANTS WERE MAKING STATEMENTS TO US THAT WE QUESTIONED THEIR VERACITY OF THE STATEMENTS.

AND WE HAD JJ WORK UP AN AFFIDAVIT, MR. WELLS, WORK UP AN AFFIDAVIT THAT BASICALLY FOR THE APPLICANT TO ATTEST TO SOMETHING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT A NOTE PUT ON THIS SET OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS BY THE ENGINEER IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE OWNER, WHO COULD JUST TURN AROUND AND SAY, WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW MY ENGINEER PUT THAT ON THERE.

I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. I DON'T READ THE PLANS.

SO I CONTACTED MR. WEBER IN THE DA'S OFFICE AND ASKED BECAUSE I WAS NOT ABLE TO LOCATE THE AFFIDAVIT THAT WE'VE DONE TWICE BEFORE.

I WASN'T ABLE TO LOCATE IT.

ASK MR. WEBER IF HE COULD LOCATE IT.

ASSUME THAT THE DA'S OFFICE HAD RECORDS, COPIES OF JJ'S EMAILS AND STUFF.

THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO LOCATE IT.

SO WE WORKED UP A NEW AFFIDAVIT, AND I SENT IT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ASKING HIM TO SIGN IT SINCE THERE WAS CLEAR EVIDENCE BOTH IN 2021 AND 2024 THAT HE HAD HE WAS AWARE THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

AT THAT POINT I GOT AN EMAIL BACK FROM HIM ASKING WHY AND WHERE.

I CITED TO HIM THE TWO DIFFERENT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS, AS WELL AS WHAT THE DEFINITIONS WERE OF A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK.

GOT SEVERAL PHONE CALLS WHICH I'M Y'ALL IN THE COURT WHO REACHED OUT TO ME REGULARLY, KNOW I'M ON THE PHONE A LOT.

I ENCOURAGE HIM TO SET UP A MEETING THROUGH KC SO THAT THE COMMISSIONER COULD BE INVOLVED IN THE CONVERSATION THAT WAS GOING ON.

THAT WAS THE LAST I KNEW ABOUT IT, UNTIL I RECEIVED AN EMAIL THAT WAS COMING ON THE AGENDA.

IN TERMS OF TECHNICAL COMMENTS THEY HAVE, AS OF FEBRUARY 22ND, ADDRESSED ALL OF THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. AS LONG AS IT IS A TRANSIENT RV PARK, IF IT'S REALLY A MULTI UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THEN IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH OUR RULES.

AND SO THAT'S THE REMAINING ITEM FOR THEM IS TO CONFIRM WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SHORT TERM OR WHAT FRANKLY, WHETHER THEY'VE BEEN TRANSPARENT AND FORTHRIGHT IN THEIR APPLICATION TO DATE.

OKAY, TRACY, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

NO PROBLEM. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK COREY TO COME UP IF THAT'S.

COREY OR LOGAN, EITHER ONE.

GOOD MORNING Y'ALL.

GOOD MORNING.

COULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF, PLEASE? I'M LOGAN MCMINN.

MY FATHER OWNS THESE PARKS THAT WE WERE JUST SPEAKING OF.

WE HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH MR. BRATTON CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS THIRD RV PARK ON WESTWOOD ROAD.

SO PRETTY MUCH AND I HAVE AN EMAIL HERE I'VE ALREADY GIVEN TO MR. HADEN. JUDGE HADEN.

WE GOT AN EMAIL DECEMBER 15TH, 2023 FROM KASI MILES SAYING TRACY BRATTON HAS NOW APPROVED THE OPC FOR WESTWOOD RV PARK.

FEES ARE NOW OWED.

SO WE WENT AHEAD.

WE PAID THE COUNTY FOR OUR PERMITS.

WHAT WAS INTERESTING IS, IS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES UP UNTIL NEIGHBORS HEARD OF THE PARK BEING BUILT.

I'M SURE MANY OF Y'ALL ARE FULLY AWARE THAT ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS IS A FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE.

THAT'S WHEN WE WERE TOLD, OH, HOLD ON, THERE'S SUPPOSEDLY PHOTOS OF PEOPLE OVERSTAYING AT THE PARK.

IT JUST FEELS A LITTLE CONCERNING THAT THIS WASN'T THAT THE TRANSIENT USE, THE DEFINITION OF TRANSIENT USE.

HIM PUTTING IN THERE 30 DAYS WAS NOT MENTIONED WHEN WE FIRST SUBMITTED OUR PAPERWORK FOR THIS RV PARK.

IT WAS KIND OF JUST THROWN ON US A FEW MONTHS LATER AFTER WE HAD PAID FEES TO YOU GUYS.

AND WE'RE JUST I MEAN, WE RUN TWO NICE PARKS ALREADY.

THERE'S NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES ATTACHED TO CAMPERS.

I GUESS WE'RE JUST KIND OF CONFUSED ON HOW THIS CAME ABOUT TWO MONTHS IN.

SO I'VE GOT JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

SO WE'VE GOT THESE TWO EMAILS AND THAT SEEM TO SHOW THAT IT WAS MENTIONED BACK IN, LET'S SEE, JANUARY OF 2021 AND THEN AGAIN IN FEBRUARY OF 2024.

THAT WHAT I'M SORRY? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A COPY OF THESE, BUT I'LL SHARE THEM WITH YOU.

[00:40:02]

SO THERE'S A FROM YOUR ENGINEER, TRACY BRATTON HAD CONTACTED Y'ALL'S ENGINEER ON LOOKS LIKE JANUARY 25TH, 2021 AND ASKED ABOUT THE SHORT TERM ISSUE.

YES, YOU GUYS WERE COPIED.

AND THEN AGAIN ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22ND, 2024.

SO WE DID SIGN SAYING IT WAS SHORT TERM.

THERE WAS NO DEFINITION AT THE TIME OF WHAT SHORT TERM OR TRANSIENT USE MEANT.

IT IS TRANSIENT USE.

WE HAVE SO MUCH DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA THAT BRINGS IN WORKERS, AND THAT'S THE BULK OF THE TENANTS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE THAT COME AND GO.

SO I DID NOT SEE OR RECEIVE THIS EMAIL ON, I GUESS, FEBRUARY 22ND OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO ENSURE THE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

BUT THAT WAS NEVER DEFINED UP UNTIL FEBRUARY, ALTHOUGH WE HAD SUBMITTED THIS LAST YEAR AND GOTTEN THAT OPC APPROVAL IN DECEMBER.

THERE WAS JUST NO VERBIAGE STATING WHAT TRANSIENT USE WAS GOING TO BE.

AND THERE'S NOTHING NOT AN ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, IN THE COUNTY THAT DEFINES WHAT TRANSIENT USE IS.

SO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. AND I SEE I'M SORRY, I'LL CORRECT THAT.

I DO SEE THAT YOU WEREN'T COPIED ON THE SECOND ONE.

YES, SIR. OKAY.

OKAY. COMMISSIONERS.

I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT IT WAS DISCUSSED AS WELL TOO, TRACY BROUGHT UP A SPECIFIC POINT THAT THERE WAS A CONVERSATION ABOUT ENTERING INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AT ONE POINT SIMILAR TO OTHER ONES THAT WE HAVE DONE WITH OTHER RV PARK DEVELOPMENTS.

THAT WAS NOT THE WISH OF THE APPLICANT, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT IT STILL REMAINS THE WISH TO NOT ENTER INTO ONE.

CORRECT. OKAY. CHASE, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS AS FAR AS THE STANDING AS FAR AS THE THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND THE TIMELINE, SO TO SPEAK, WHAT THE COUNTY'S OBLIGATIONS ARE IN REGARDS TO THAT.

SO ANY PLAT APPLICATION IS REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED OR DENIED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ITS SUBMITTAL.

SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENIAL.

IN THE EVENT THAT A PERMIT IS REQUIRED, THE COUNTY IS REQUIRED TO PASS TO APPROVE ANY PERMIT WITHIN 30 DAYS, OR DENY WITH SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENIAL IN THE EVENT THAT THE COUNTY DOES NOT MAKE A DETERMINATION WITHIN THOSE 30 DAYS, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED.

OKAY. IT WAS AUTOMATICALLY WHAT? APPROVED? AT THIS JUNCTURE, I KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN IN MY OPINION, HAS HAD DIFFICULTY WHEN IT COMES TO THE WAY THAT IT'S BEEN HANDLED.

I THINK. I THINK ACROSS THE BOARD AT THIS POINT.

IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR MORE DISCUSSION, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PERMIT FOR THIS RV PARK AT THIS TIME.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PERMIT.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WELL, WE GOT TO GET A SECOND ON THE MOTION FIRST, AND THEN WE CAN DO IT AND AMEND IT.

SECOND. OKAY, NOW YOU CAN COMMISSIONER.

OKAY. MOTION AND A SECOND.

IS THIS A PERMIT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE COURT TO APPROVE? I ASSUME IT IS, BUT NO, TRACY SAYS NO.

SO. ALL RIGHT, TRACY, CAN YOU COME UP OR CHASE AND EXPLAIN WHY WE CAN'T APPROVE IT? THAT WAS ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD IN ORDER TO DRIVE THIS, THE ABILITY FOR US TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.

MY RESPONSE WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT AT THIS POINT, IT'S BEEN APPROVED AS A MATTER OF LAW.

AND IT'S NOT THAT THE COURT CAN'T APPROVE IT, IT'S JUST THAT THE COURT CAN'T DENY IT.

SO YOUR HAND IS FORCED AT THIS POINT.

THIS IS A SITE PLAN PERMIT APPROVAL.

THIS IS NOT A PLAT OR SUBDIVISION CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND THE STATE LAW CHANGED IN 2023 RELATED TO THE TIME PERIODS FOR APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANS OR SITE PERMITS.

AND I BELIEVE IT'S 30 DAYS AFTER IT'S COMPLETE AND THEY WERE NOT TECHNICALLY COMPLETE AND NOT ADDRESSED THE TECHNICAL COMMENTS UNTIL FEBRUARY 22ND.

OUR ORDINANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A COMMISSIONERS COURT APPROVING SITE PLAN PERMITS OR FLOODPLAIN PERMITS.

THOSE ARE STAFF LEVEL.

THE APPLICANTS DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPEAL A DECISION, A STAFF DECISION TO COMMISSIONERS COURT.

SO YOU COULD YOU COULD VIEW THIS IN THAT WAY.

THE COURT HAS OVERARCHING JURISDICTION TO OVERRIDE ANYTHING THAT THAT STAFF DOES.

I'M NOT DISPUTING THAT, BUT WE'VE NOT BROUGHT SITE PLANS EVER OR SUBDIVISION CONSTRUCTION PLANS TO TRACY, HAVE YOU APPROVED THIS PERMIT ALREADY? NO, I WE THE LAST THING WAS FOR THEM TO CONFIRM.

[00:45:05]

WAS IT THE CONVERSATIONS EVERY TIME WE'VE TALKED WITH THEM IN A PRE-APPLICATION MEETING OR INTAKE MEETING HAS EMPHASIZED IS IT SHORT TERM, 30 DAYS OR LESS, OR IS IT REALLY LONG TERM? WE'VE DONE THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

NOW, MANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS ONLY THEIR ENGINEER WAS ON.

I KNOW THAT IN THIS EMAIL FROM 2021 THAT THE APPLICANT WAS COPIED ON THAT.

AND SEVERAL TIMES THE ENGINEER COMES BACK AND SAYS, I TALKED TO MY CLIENT.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE VERACITY OF THAT.

SO OUR LAST REMAINING ISSUES, IS IT COMPLIANT WITH THE ORDINANCES TO BE APPROVED? IS IT REALLY SHORT TERM AS IT'S BEEN REPRESENTED REPEATEDLY OR IS IT NOT? SO YOU HAVE A COMPLETE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU AS OF FEBRUARY 24TH? 22ND. YES.

22ND. YEAH. SO A DECISION HAS TO BE MADE BY MARCH? YES. MARCH 22ND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I BELIEVE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION PLAN STANDARD IS 45 DAYS BUT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO TRACY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU HAVEN'T GOT A CLEAR CLARIFICATION IF IT'S 30 DAYS OR? I BELIEVE I GOT A CLEAR CLARIFICATION FROM THEIR ENGINEER WHO SAID IT WAS 30 DAYS.

AND I WAS LIKE, I WANT GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THIS ONE, I WOULD LIKE SOMEONE ON THE OWNER'S SIDE TO ATTEST TO THAT.

AND AGAIN IT WE HAVE IN MANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS BEEN ON THESE CALLS WITH DIFFERENT RV PARKS.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE I COULD PLAY A TAPE RECORDER.

WE SAY IT SO MANY TIMES, 30 DAYS OR LESS TRANSIENT USE.

AND LONGER THAN THAT WE TREAT IT LIKE A SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT.

AND THERE ARE COURT CASES AND GA OPINIONS OUT THERE TO SUPPORT THAT.

JUDGE, COULD I ASK LOGAN A QUESTION? ABSOLUTELY, YES. LOGAN, COULD YOU COME BACK UP? OKAY. SO WHAT WHAT ARE THE AVERAGE STAYS OF THE FOLKS? IT CAN VARY.

I MEAN, HONESTLY. VARY FROM WHAT TO WHAT? WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO COME IN AND RENT FOR A WEEK TO TWO WEEKS BECAUSE THEY'RE ON A PIPELINE IN THE AREA.

AND THEN WE HAVE SOME GUYS THAT ARE HERE AT TESLA THAT ARE SAYING MONTH TO MONTH, THEY'RE NOT SURE.

I MEAN, IT'S THEY'RE JUST USING US AS A HOME BASE FOR NOW WHILE THEY'RE WORKING IN THE AREA.

AND THEN THEY LEAVE AND WE HAVE RETURNING ONES THAT COME BACK.

SO WOULD YOU CONSIDER ENTERING INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DISCUSSION WITH THE COURT OR THE COUNTY? I MEAN.

TO KIND OF ESTABLISH SOME PARAMETERS AROUND THOSE STAYS AND THEN ALSO MAYBE SOME DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IMPROVEMENTS? I'M DEFINITELY WILLING.

AND MY DAD'S RIGHT THERE AS WELL TO SPEAK WITH YOU GUYS ABOUT IT.

I GUESS I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME.

THIS IS MY ONLY QUESTION, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE CONDESCENDING TOWARDS YOU GUYS OR TRACY BRATTON OVER THERE, BUT WHAT DID IT MEAN? BECAUSE HE SAYS WE'RE ENTERING IN FEBRUARY 22ND INTO THIS 30 TO 45 DAY PERIOD.

WHAT DID IT MEAN IN DECEMBER WHEN WE GOT THAT? TRACY BRATTON HAS NOW APPROVED THE OPC.

WHAT? WHY DID WE PAY FEES? WHAT WAS THAT APPROVAL IF HE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE PAID Y'ALL THE $3,700 AND SOME CHANGE THINKING THAT OUR APPLICATION WAS ACCEPTED, THAT WE WERE DONE.

AND IT WASN'T UNTIL FEBRUARY THAT THIS WAS AN ISSUE ONCE, LIKE I SAID, ONCE NEIGHBORS GOT WIND OF IT AND STARTED CALLING, ASKING US QUESTIONS AS WELL AS CALLING SOME PEOPLE WITHIN THE COUNTY.

COREY MCMINN, I ACTUALLY OWN THE PARKS.

IN 21, THERE WERE NEVER ANY CLEAR PARAMETERS ON WHAT SHORT TERM WAS.

SHORT TERM TO ME IS LESS TIME ON THIS EARTH THAN I'VE BEEN HERE.

OKAY, SO THAT'S SHORT TERM.

NOTHING CLEAR WAS EVER STATED AT THAT POINT.

WE CONTINUED TO BUILD.

WE DID WHAT WE WERE ASKED.

BUSINESS WAS GOOD.

PEOPLE COME AND GO. THAT'S THE NATURE OF OUR BUSINESS.

WE PROVIDE LAUNDRY FACILITIES AND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU SPEAK OF.

WE WERE GIVEN A LIST OF REQUIREMENTS WHEN WE STARTED THIS.

WE FULFILLED THOSE REQUIREMENTS, TURNED IT BACK IN, WAITED, WAITED, WAITED, CHECKED WITH PEOPLE, PUSHED FORWARD, AND WE GOT AN APPROVAL.

AND THEN WE GOT MORE HEAT.

DIDN'T EVEN START. NEIGHBORS CALLED.

I SPOKE WITH THEM DIRECTLY.

A FEW. SOME WERE A BIT EVASIVE.

THE MAIN THING IS THAT WE DID WHAT WAS ASKED SET FORTH BY THIS COUNTY, AND NOW THERE'S MORE QUESTIONS.

AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR.

[00:50:02]

NOT THAT THE WORLD'S A FAIR PLACE, BUT WE DID WHAT WAS ASKED.

WE PROVIDED WHAT WAS NEEDED, SPENT THE MONEY, GOT THE ENGINEERING.

MR. BRATTON IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO GET A HOLD OF.

I ATTEMPTED TO GET A HOLD OF HIM FOR PROBABLY TWO MONTHS THROUGH KASI, THROUGH MY ENGINEER.

NOTHING. OKAY.

I'M A VERY, VERY DETERMINED PERSON.

SO THE COMMENT OF BUILDINGS BEING ATTACHED TO THE PERMANENT.

NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

WE HAVE SOME NEIGHBORS THAT OBVIOUSLY DON'T LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT, BUT WE OWN PROPERTY THAT'S UNRESTRICTED, GUYS.

AND THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE BEAST.

WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING BAD, BUT WE DO OWN PROPERTY.

BUT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

I'VE BEEN THERE ALMOST 20 YEARS.

SO IN MY OPINION, SOMEBODY SAYING 30 DAYS IF NEIGHBORS ARE NERVOUS WOULD MEAN MORE OF A TRANSIENT USE LESS IF YOU WILL, NEIGHBORLY TYPE THINGS.

AND THE FIRST PARK I BUILT STILL OPERATING WONDERFULLY.

WE PROVIDE A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO STAY THAT POSSIBLY CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE IN THIS AREA.

I APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT.

Y'ALL, ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

OKAY. THANK Y'ALL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THAT'S IT. NO. OKAY.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

COMMISSIONER YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT OR BASED ON WHAT WAS SAID OR I THINK WE CAN I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN APPROVE IT OR NOT.

CHASE WE'RE GONNA NEED SOME GUIDANCE.

SO TO ADDRESS TRACY'S COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT THE 45 DAY THING THAT IS IN TWO, ONE SECOND. I THINK THAT'S IN CHAPTER 245 IT ALLOWS FOR A COUNTY TO BASICALLY HAVE UP TO 45 DAYS.

OUR ORDINANCE IS ALLOWED FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANS TO BE APPROVED, HAS REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PLANS TO BE APPROVED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIVING A COMPLETE APPLICATION.

I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENT ON WHEN A COMPLETE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED, BUT IT'S STILL 30 DAYS BY COUNTY ORDINANCE.

SO THE LETTER THAT THEY HAVE THAT SAYS THE OPC'S APPROVED, WOULD THAT START THE SHOT CLOCK OR NO.

SO IT'S AS SOON AS IT WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE.

I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT JUST BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ENGINEER AND I CAN'T SAY WHAT WAS SUBMITTED AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

IF THEY SUBMITTED THE COMPLETE APPLICATION MORE THAN 30 DAYS AGO, IT'S JUST IT'S DONE.

AND IT'S APPROVED BY A MATTER OF LAW IF FOR THESE MANY ROUNDS OF DISCUSSIONS, IF IT WAS A CONTINUAL DRIP FEED OF DOCUMENTS TO BE ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE, THEN IT WOULD START WHENEVER THAT LAST DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED.

I DO NOTE THAT WHENEVER THE PROCESS WAS STARTED, THE COUNTY HAD TEN DAYS FROM THAT INITIAL APPLICATION TO RESPOND WITH A LIST OF DEFICIENCIES, AND THEN IT GOES BACK AND FORTH WITH ON BASICALLY SEVEN DAY WINDOWS.

PART OF THE REASON THAT WE ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS IS BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ACTS AT THAT REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ACTS AS A WITHDRAWAL OF YOUR APPLICATION, WHICH GIVES US TIME TO DISCUSS THINGS.

BUT IN THE EVENT THAT A PERSON WANTS TO PRESS ONWARD, WE'RE ON VERY TIGHT SCHEDULES.

I WOULD THINK THAT AFTER FOUR YEARS OF DISCUSSIONS IT WAS PROBABLY COMPLETE SOME TIME AGO, BUT I COULDN'T ACTUALLY SPEAK TO THAT.

WE HAD ONE CHANGE THAT TOOK PLACE.

THE ENGINEERING FIRM ASKED MY ENGINEER ABOUT DRAINAGE OR RUNOFF.

THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION THAT WAS TAKEN.

I CALLED KASI AFTER ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF OF NOTHING, AND SHE SAID, OH, MR. [INAUDIBLE] ASKED MR. WESTMORELAND IF YOU WERE ENTERING IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

I HAD NO IDEA WHAT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS.

NO IDEA. AND THAT'S WHAT THEY HAD BEEN WAITING FOR.

I SAID, KASI, I HAVE NO CLUE AS TO WHAT THAT EVEN IS.

I JUST WANT TO PURSUE WHAT I'M DOING NOW.

OKAY? HE SAID, OH, WELL, WE WERE HAVING IT HOLD UP ON YOUR PERMIT BECAUSE YOU WERE GOING TO DO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

SO I UNDERSTAND SOME OF WHAT HE'S SAYING.

SOMETHING WAS GOING ON.

WE'RE MONTHS AND MONTHS INTO THIS GUYS, AND WE DID EVERYTHING THAT WAS ASKED.

OKAY. SO THE REAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE.

CORRECT CHASE. YES.

AND OUR ORDINANCE HAS A LIST OF THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED.

I LIKE I SAID, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS SUBMITTED.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT WAS REQUIRED.

IS THIS AN AFFIDAVIT THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR OF ONE OF THOSE THINGS.

NO. IT SOUNDS AS IF THIS IS A MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING WHEN IT COMES TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROVED.

SO MY SO HERE'S SORT OF MY POSITION I MY POSITION THIS IS ME I FEEL LIKE THIS ONE SHOULD BE APPROVED BECAUSE WE NEED IF WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE A 30 DAY AFFIDAVIT, YES OR NO, THEN THAT NEEDS TO BE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY SUBMIT UP FRONT.

[00:55:02]

WAITING UNTIL WE'RE HALF A YEAR DOWN THE ROAD AND THEN ASKING FOR IT SEEMS LATE TO ME, THAT'S MY OPINION ONLY.

I WOULD LIKE I AGREE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT GET PUT INTO OUR ORDINANCE.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT BE A REQUIREMENT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS RIGHT NOW.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS LISTED AS A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT EITHER.

I JUST HAVE CONCERNS THAT YOU KNOW, A PREVIOUS PERMIT WAS ISSUED BASED ON VERIFICATION THAT IT WAS SHORT TERM RENTALS. AND YOU KNOW, THE EVIDENCE THAT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THAT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY UNTIL VERY RECENTLY.

I DON'T KNOW. THE ENGINEER IS INDICATING THAT THE PERMIT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED YET, AND THAT COMPLETENESS OCCURRED IN FEBRUARY.

SO I DON'T KNOW.

THERE'S CONFLICTING STATEMENTS.

KASI IS IT IS THE PERMIT PAID FOR THE OPC? EVERYTHING THEY'RE PAID IN FULL.

PART OF THE APPLICATION PACKET IS WHEN YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT AN OPC THEIR ENGINEER WOULD PROVIDE THE ENGINEER COST ESTIMATE.

AND PART OF THAT TO ACTUALLY BE A COMPLETE PACKET IS FEES DO HAVE TO BE PAID.

SO ONCE IT'S PAID I MEAN THAT'S PRETTY MUCH A GO AHEAD THERE.

NO SIR. IT'S JUST PART OF THE APPLICATION.

APPLICATION OKAY.

THE CLARIFICATION TRACY, YOUR OPINION AT THIS POINT IS THAT IT'S NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE.

IT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE.

IT WASN'T TECHNICALLY COMPLETE.

LAST TECHNICAL COMMENT WAS NOT ADDRESSED UNTIL FEBRUARY 22ND.

WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PLANS TO SEE IF THE OPC MAKES SENSE.

AND IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A COMMENT BACK AND FORTH WITH ENGINEER ON THE OPC.

WE APPROVE IT ONLY ONCE THE FEES GET PAID DO WE START THE REAL TECHNICAL REVIEW.

WE DON'T. WE DON'T START THE TECHNICAL REVIEW UNTIL AFTER THE FEE WAS PAID.

OKAY. SO I GUESS WE HAVE PROBABLY NEED TO GET YOU TO RESCIND YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION, COMMISSIONER, BECAUSE WE CAN'T.

I'LL RESCIND MY ORIGINAL MOTION BECAUSE IT'S NOT NEEDED AT THIS POINT.

OKAY, SO WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE US? I'M STILL.

I'M STILL IN THE DARK, SO.

I'M GONNA TAKE OFF MY COMMISSIONER THAT FOR A MINUTE, PUT ON MY [INAUDIBLE] HAT.

I WOULD BE NOT HAPPY IF THIS AFFIDAVIT CAME UP THIS LATE IN THE GAME.

IF WE'RE TECHNICALLY COMPLETE ON FEBRUARY 22ND, THE SHOT CLOCK EXPIRES ON MARCH 22ND.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT REQUIRING AN AFFIDAVIT THAT'S NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN OUR ORDINANCE OR IN OUR REGS OR ANYWHERE.

IF IT WAS, I WOULD SAY TOUGH LUCK.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS CLEARLY, CLEARLY A REQUIREMENT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH.

I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I DON'T KNOW.

I CAN UNDERSTAND.

WELL, YOU'RE RIGHT I WOULD PREFER THAT THAT AFFIDAVIT BE A WRITTEN REQUIREMENT.

SO EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT UP FRONT.

BUT I THINK AN AFFIDAVIT IN THIS CASE IS A NEXT STEP UP FROM THE PROMISE IN THE EMAIL THAT WE HAD ALREADY RECEIVED THAT WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH.

AND SO WE GOT AN EMAIL SAYING WE'RE SHORT TERM NOW WE HAVE EVIDENCE YOU'RE NOT SHORT TERM.

SAYS YES, WE'RE SHORT TERM.

SO ALL RIGHT.

WELL, GIVE ME AN AFFIDAVIT TO THAT EFFECT.

IT'S JUST AN ESCALATION OF THE PROOF BEING REQUESTED.

THE 30 DAYS WAS THE FIRST TIME I WAS EVER CLEAR ON SHORT TERM.

YEAH, WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHEN THE EVIDENCE CAME UP, YOU KNOW, OF THE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WAS AGREED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE.

IF I HAD KNOWN WHAT THE INTERPRETATION WAS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER TO FOLLOW.

WE NEVER KNEW WHAT THAT WAS.

I UNDERSTAND.

SO THAT'S MY POSITION AND I'D LIKE TO LET IT PLAY OUT.

AND IF WE HAVE UNTIL MARCH 22ND TO MAKE A DECISION I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE APPROVED OR DENIED BY THAT POINT. HAVE TRACY COORDINATE WITH CHASE AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD AS REQUIRED BY LAW.

[01:00:08]

AND IF IT'S DENIED AND YOU GUYS APPEAL IT BACK TO US, THEN WE CAN ACT.

SO IS IT APPROVED OR IS IT NOT APPROVED? I'VE HEARD BOTH WAYS.

SO I DON'T I MEAN I'M WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THE SHOT CLOCK STARTS ON FEBRUARY THE 22ND.

SO WHEN YOU APPLIED FOR IT, THAT STARTED ALL THE TECHNICAL REVIEW.

THAT WASN'T AN APPROVAL OF YOUR PERMIT.

SO AND THAT'S NORMAL IN ANY DEVELOPMENT.

SO AND THEN WE GET TO THE 22ND.

AND SO NOW WE'RE SAYING THAT THAT THAT HAS STARTED THE SHOT CLOCK FOR YOUR DEVELOPMENT.

SO THE COURT HAS I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S TODAY THE 12TH TEN MORE DAYS THE AFFIDAVIT STARTED.

NO THE APPLICATION BEING TECHNICALLY COMPLETE.

TECHNICALLY COMPLETE WAS ON FEBRUARY THE 22ND.

THIS IS MONTHS OLD.

SO SO THERE'S.

I KNOW BUT.

WHAT JUDGE IS TRYING TO SAY IS THE OPC PAYMENT DID NOT.

THAT'S NOT THE START OF THE TIME.

THAT DIDN'T START YOUR SHOT CLOCK.

BUT THE TECHNICALLY COMPLETE DID START YOUR SHOT CLOCK.

WHAT WAS IT THAT MADE IT THAT WAS BRATTON? BECAUSE WE'VE APPLIED FOR THIS, WE'RE ABOUT FIVE MONTHS IN.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

DATE AT WHICH WE HAD RECEIVED WE'D MADE COMMENTS THAT WERE MISSING FROM THE TECHNICAL PART OF THE APPLICATION WAS A COPY OF THE HYDROLOGY MODEL FOR THE DETENTION POND AND THE DRAINAGE THAT WAS SUPPLIED.

WE REVIEWED THAT AND FOUND IT TO BE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE.

THAT'S THE POINT IN WHICH WE COMPLETED THE TECHNICAL REVIEW.

THAT WAS LONG BEFORE THAT.

MY ENGINEER HAD. NO, THAT WAS THAT WAS IN JANUARY THAT WE ASKED, WE SAID, HEY, WE'RE MISSING THE HYDROLOGY MODEL.

WE NEED TO REVIEW IT.

HE SUPPLIED MIGUEL SUPPLIED THE HYDROLOGY MODEL AND THEN WE REVIEWED IT.

PART OF THE ISSUE WITH TIMELINES HERE IS THAT AND IT'S ACTUAL, YOU KNOW, APPLICATION, THE WAY WE APPLY, WE'RE NOT TO REUSE THE WORD APPLICATION IN SOME PEOPLE'S ATTEMPT TO INTERPRET TIMELINES, SOMEONE COULD SIMPLY SAY, HEY, WE GAVE YOU AN APPLICATION.

WE GIVE A COMMENT SAYING, HEY, PER SECTION, WHATEVER ORDINANCE THIS PART'S MISSING.

IF THEY FAIL TO REPLY FOR 30 DAYS, IS IT DEEMED APPROVED AT THAT POINT? NO. WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM THROUGH THE TECHNICAL THINGS TO MAKE IT TECHNICALLY COMPLIANT AND COMPLETE.

AND AT THAT POINT, THERE IS A PERIOD OF TIME IN ORDER TO ISSUE THE PERMIT.

AND TO THAT ACTUALLY OUR ORDINANCE HAS TEN DAYS RESPONSE REQUIREMENT.

AFTER TEN DAYS OF NON-RESPONSE BY A APPLICANT, IT IS DEEMED WITHDRAWN.

SO WE'VE BEEN AS YOU KNOW, CHASE, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE SINCE 2020 BECAUSE STATE LAW HAS CHANGED TWICE IN TERMS OF CHAPTER 245 AND THE TIMELINES, AND THAT LANGUAGE NO LONGER MATCHES STATE LAW.

OKAY, SO WHAT DAY DID WE SUBMIT THAT HYDROLOGY REPORT OR WHATEVER TO YOU GUYS? IT WAS IN LATE JANUARY.

SO IT DOESN'T DEPEND ON WHEN WE'VE COMPLETED OUR APPLICATION OR OUR SIDE OF IT.

IT DEPENDS ON WHEN Y'ALL WERE ABLE TO GET TO IT.

YEAH. WE'RE NOT SITTING THERE WAITING FOR IT TO COME IN.

IT TAKES SOME TIME TO.

WE ARE SITTING WAITING ON YOU RIGHT.

OKAY I GOT IT. AT THIS POINT.

I'LL PROPOSE A MOTION TO TABLE AT THIS POINT AND LET THE TIME CONTINUE TO PLAY OUT TILL.

AND THAT'S GOING TO BE TEN DAYS FROM TODAY.

CORRECT. THEN YOU GUYS CAN APPEAL IT AND THEN IT COMES BACK TO THE COURT AND WE CAN APPROVE OR DENY AT THE NEXT COMMISSIONERS COURT.

SO WE BRING THIS BACK UP NEXT.

YES, SIR. AND JUST THE SAME THING.

WELL AT THAT POINT WE'LL BE ABLE TO APPROVE OR DENY OURSELVES.

WE CAN'T DO IT RIGHT NOW.

BUT THIS THE WAY THE LAW IS.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE.

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

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

NOW I GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE ARE.

H 11. H 11.

ITEM H 11.

[H.11 To approve the Final Plat for Clayton Addition consisting of 7 residential lots on approximately 13.177 acres located on Callihan Road and Bugtussle Lane.]

DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR CLAYTON ADDITION, CONSISTING OF SEVEN RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 13.177 ACRES, LOCATED ON CALLIHAN ROAD AND BUGTUSSLE LANE.

GOOD MORNING. THIS IS JUST A FINAL PLAT.

THIS WAS ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY CALLED CALLIHAN, A CALLIHAN ADDITION.

[01:05:03]

MATTHEW ALLEN CAME FORTH AND SAID THAT AT THE LAST MINUTE THAT THAT WASN'T GOING TO WORK, THAT WE ALREADY HAD ENOUGH DEVELOPMENTS WITH CALLIHAN IN THE NAME SO THAT THEY'VE ACTUALLY CORRECTED IT TO CLAYTON ADDITIONS.

AND IF YOU'LL SEE IN ALL THE ATTACHMENTS, EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED.

AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR A FINAL FROM THE COURT SO THEY CAN GET THE PLAT FILED.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR CLAYTON ADDITION? SO MOVED MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT.

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

AYE. OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM H 12 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR COOL WATER ACRES, CONSISTING OF 124 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY

[H.12 To approve the Final Plat for Cool Water Acres consisting of 124 residential lots on approximately 155.951 acres located on Taylorsville Road and FM 86. ]

155.951 ACRES, LOCATED ON TAYLORSVILLE ROAD AND FM 86.

OKAY, THIS SUBDIVISION ACTUALLY GOES A WHILE BACK.

BACK ON DECEMBER 14TH OF 2021, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED.

THEY HAD SOME FINANCIAL ISSUES AND ENDED UP SELLING THE SUBDIVISION TO ANOTHER DEVELOPER.

AT THIS TIME THE NEW DEVELOPER HAS MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR A FINAL SO WE CAN GET IT FILED AND RECORDED.

OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SO MOVE JUDGE.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER HORNE FOR ITEM H 12.

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. ITEM H 13 TO APPROVE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN TUMBLEWEED ESTATES PHASE ONE FOR PERMANENT COUNTY MAINTENANCE AND RELEASE OF THE TWO YEAR MAINTENANCE