[00:00:01]
>> EVERYBODY, GOOD MORNING. WE'RE GOING TO CALL
[A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER ]
COMMISSIONERS COURT TO ORDER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 26TH, 2024, AT 9:00 A.M. COMMISSIONER THOMAS, WOULD YOU MIND DOING THE HONORS ON THE INVOCATION?I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.
>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS?
[D. ANNOUNCEMENTS ]
>> MY ONLY ANNOUNCEMENT THIS MORNING, JUDGE, IS I JUST WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND MY CONDOLENCES AND THOUGHTS TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE BUS ACCIDENT LAST WEEK ON SH 21.
THAT'S TOUGH TO SEE FOR ANY OF US WHO ARE PARENTS SOMETIMES, BUT I KNOW THEY'RE GOING THROUGH A LOT AND THEY NEED A LOT OF SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HORNE.
>> ANY STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS? THAT WILL GO TO CITIZENS' COMMENTS.
[F. CONSENT AGENDA]
COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I'D LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT.>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. A SECOND.
>> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[G.1 To clarify the recorded vote for Items G.1, G.2, and G.3 made during the special meeting held on March 12, 2024.]
DISCUSSION ACTION TO CLARIFY THE RECORD VOTE FOR G1, G2, G3 MADE DURING THE SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 12, 2024.I THINK COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU VOTED YES OR NO, OR IF THAT WAS AN ABSTENTION, AND WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AND COULDN'T TELL.
WE JUST NEED TO CORRECT THE RECORD.
WERE YOU A NO ON THAT ONE? THAT WAS THE 312 AGREEMENT.
>> CORRECT. I CLARIFIED AFTER THE MEETING WITH TERESA THAT IT WAS AN ABSTENTION.
>> CORRECT. I BELIEVE THE MINUTES, AS I REVIEWED THEM, THAT ARE POSTED ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE REFLECT THAT.
>> IN THE FUTURE, WHAT WE'LL DO TO AVOID THIS, BECAUSE I THOUGHT YOU WERE A YES, I'LL JUST ON RESOLUTIONS, I'LL CALL FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE.
WE'LL JUST DO AN AYE, A NO, OR AN ABSTENTION.
IN THAT WAY WE GET IT CLEARLY ON THE RECORD.
THAT WAS MY FAULT. I DIDN'T HEAR THAT YOU ABSTAINED.
NOW WE'LL JUST NEED TO AMEND THAT, TERESA, TO SAY ABSTENTION FOR THE VOTE.
IT'D BE, I GUESS, A 4-0 VOTE AND AN ABSTENTION ON THE MINUTES FROM LAST QUARTER.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION. NOT A VOTE.
WE'RE JUST CLARIFYING THE RECORD.
[G.2 Regarding the burn ban.]
ITEM G2 REGARDING BURN BAND. HECTOR.>> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS, STAFF, AND GALLERY.
WE HAD A FEW FIRES, BUT THEY WERE DUE TO POWER LINES BEING TOSSED AROUND DURING THE HIGH WINDS, BUT NOTHING SEVERE.
RAIN IS IN THE FORECAST FOR TOMORROW WITH 30%, AND THEN NEXT MONDAY, WE'RE SHOWING 40, 20, AND 60%.
WE'VE GOT SOME GOOD RAIN COMING.
IT LOOKS LIKE OUR KBDI NUMBERS ARE THE MINIMUM IS 45, MAX 191, AVERAGE 131 WITH A CHANGE OF PLUS FIVE.
SINCE THE GROUND IS REAL MOIST AND EVERYTHING IS GREEN, I'LL TELL THE CITIZENS IF YOU GOT SOMETHING TO BURN, BURN IT NOW WHILE YOU CAN.
MAKE SURE YOU CONTACT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AT 512-398-6747 AND LET THEM KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO BURN, BECAUSE COME MAY LA NINA MOVES IN.
WE'RE GOING TO START GETTING DRY.
IF YOU NEED TO BURN, BURN NOW.
I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND TO COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT WE KEEP THE BURN BAND OFF ANOTHER TWO WEEKS.
>> THANK YOU, HECTOR. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO KEEP THE BURN BAND OFF?
>> A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT.
>> OPPOSED. I'M HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
>> ITEM G3, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING
[G.3 To approve a Proclamation recognizing April 2024 as Caldwell County Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.]
[00:05:01]
APRIL 2024 IS CALDWELL COUNTY SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH.DO WE HAVE ANYBODY LIKE TO COME UP? I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYBODY ON THIS ITEM.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS ASHLEY RIOS, I'M A PROGRAM DIRECTOR AT ROXANNE'S HOUSE, THE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER OF THE HAYES-CALDWELL WOMEN'S CENTER.
>> THANK YOU. CHASE, YOU'RE GOING TO READ THAT. CAN YOU SEE IT?
>> PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2024 AS CALDWELL COUNTY SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH.
WHEREAS 6.3 MILLION TEXANS HAVE EXPERIENCED SOME FORM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THEIR LIFETIME, AND WHEREAS TWO IN FIVE WOMEN AND ONE IN FIVE MEN IN TEXAS HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED IN THEIR LIFETIME AFFECTING ALL RACES, GENDERS, AND ECONOMIC SITUATIONS.
WHEREAS THE HAYES-CALDWELL WOMEN'S CENTER PROVIDED DIRECT SERVICES TO 616 ADULT VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN HAYES AND CALDWELL COUNTIES LAST YEAR.
WHEREAS CALDWELL COUNTY IS INTOLERANT OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN ANY FORM, AND RECOGNIZES THAT EDUCATION AND AWARENESS MAY PREVENT SEXUAL ASSAULT.
WHEREAS EFFORTS TO REDUCE SEXUAL ASSAULT CAN ONLY BE SUCCESSFUL THROUGH CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND THE SAFETY OF CITIZENS OF CALDWELL COUNTY DEPEND ON OUR ACTIONS TO END SEXUAL ASSAULT.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT THE MONTH OF APRIL 2024 IS RECOGNIZED AS SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH, PROCLAIMED THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2024.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZED IN APRIL 2024 AS CALDWELL COUNTY SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH?
>> A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. A SECOND?
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G4 TO THE DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE A PROCLAMATION
[G.4 To approve a Proclamation recognizing April 2024 as Caldwell County Child Abuse Prevention and Awareness Month.]
RECOGNIZING APRIL 2024 AS CALDWELL COUNTY CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND AWARENESS MONTH.>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS BRANDI RASCHKE, AND I'M THE TRAINING MANAGER WITH CASA OF CENTRAL TEXAS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY.
CASA STANDS FOR COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES.
OUR ORGANIZATION PROVIDES HIGH-QUALITY BEST INTEREST ADVOCACY FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM.
WE TRAIN AND EMPOWER DEDICATED VOLUNTEERS TO ENSURE CHILD'S NEEDS ARE MET AND THEIR VOICES LIFTED.
CURRENTLY IN CALDWELL COUNTY, 77 CHILDREN WERE CONFIRMED VICTIMS OF ABUSE OR NEGLECT AND WERE IN STATE'S CARE.
WE DO NEED MORE COST TO ADVOCATES TO BE ABLE TO HOPEFULLY COVER 100% OF THE CHILDREN IN CALDWELL COUNTY AND ALL FOUR OF THE COUNTIES THAT WE SERVE.
THANK YOU FOR HELPING US RAISE AWARENESS FOR THIS CAUSE AND FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY.
>> PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2024 AS CALDWELL COUNTY CHILD ABUSE AND PREVENTION AWARENESS MONTH.
WHEREAS MORE THAN 63,989 CASES OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT WERE CONFIRMED IN TEXAS IN 2023, RESULTING IN 9,962 CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE IN TEXAS AND THE DEATH OF 173 CHILDREN IN TEXAS IN 2023.
WHEREAS 86 CHILDREN WERE CONFIRMED VICTIMS OF ABUSE IN CALDWELL COUNTY IN 2023.
WHEREAS CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION IS A COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY AND FINDING SOLUTIONS DEPENDS ON INVOLVEMENT AMONG ALL PEOPLE.
WHEREAS LOCALLY, REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CALDWELL COUNTY CHILD WELFARE BOARD, CALDWELL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, HAYES-CALDWELL WOMEN'S CENTER AND ROXANNE'S HOUSE, THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES, CASA, LOCKHART AND [INAUDIBLE] POLICE DEPARTMENTS, CALDWELL COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND CTMC HAVE JOINED FORCES TO PROVIDE PREVENTATIVE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES TO CHILD VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
WHEREAS EVERY CHILD IN CALDWELL COUNTY DESERVES TO BE SAFE, NURTURED, AND SUPPORTED IN CARING RELATIONSHIPS.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT THE MONTH OF APRIL 2024 IS RECOGNIZED AS CHILD ABUSE AND PREVENTION AWARENESS MONTH, PROCLAIMED THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2024 AS CALDWELL COUNTY CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND AWARENESS MONTH.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. SECOND BY?
>> COMMISSIONER HORNE. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
ITEM G5, DISCUSSION ACTION TO ACCEPT $130,196.51 FOR D&B RE-MINUTES ON MARCH 5TH,
[G.5 To accept $130,196.51 for DMV remittance on March 5, 2024, and $383,521.57 to comptroller.]
2024 AND $383,521.57 TO COMPTROLLER, AND I THINK WE HAVE DARLA UP ISSUE HERE.[00:10:04]
IS ANYBODY HERE WHO WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT TODAY?>> SURE. GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS.
WITH THIS, THE TAX ASSESSOR DOES THESE PAYMENTS ABOUT ONCE A MONTH TO THE D&B AND TO THE COMPTROLLER.
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THERE CONTINUES TO BE SOME ISSUES WITH THE TAX ASSESSOR NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH ON THE COMMISSIONERS COURT AGENDA AS WELL AS HOW TO CONDUCT IT ON OUR NEW AGENDA SOFTWARE.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN CONTINUED EFFORTS BY STEPHANIE AND YOUR OFFICE.
SHE'S SHOWN HER MULTIPLE TIMES HOW TO DO IT AS WELL AS HER CHIEF DEPUTY, BUT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE ISSUES GETTING THIS SUBMITTED CORRECTLY.
WITH MY WEEK LAST WEEK, SHE DID SUBMIT IT.
IT JUST IS ON THE DISCUSSION ACTION.
THERE IS REALLY NO ACTION OTHER THAN TO ACCEPT THE PAYMENT.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PAYMENT?
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. SECOND BY?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
ANY DISCUSSION? WE'LL WORK TO CONTINUE TO WORK TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THIS WORKING PROPERLY.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING PAYMENT SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSE? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G6, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 11,
[G.6 To approve Budget Amendment #11 moving money from Subdivision Fees 001-2000-0250 to Professional Services 001-6510-4110 in the amount of $184,635.86.]
MOVING MONEY FROM SUBDIVISION FEES 001-2000- 0250 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 001-6510-4110 IN THE AMOUNT OF $184,635.86. DANNY?>> YES. THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT IS MOVING THE REMAINING DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE MAXIMUM THRESHOLD FOR THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ENGINEER CONTRACT.
WE'RE JUST MOVING THAT OVER SO WE CAN INCREASE THE PURCHASE ORDER.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 11?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO, AND A SECOND?
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSE? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G7, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVED BUDGET AMENDMENT 12 FOR JUVENILE PROBATION.
[G.7 To approve Budget Amendment #12 for Juvenile Probation budget entry. ]
BUDGET ENTRY COST IS $707,275.>> IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT. THIS IS ALREADY APPROVED.
THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT IS NEEDED BECAUSE JUVENILE PROBATION IS ITS OWN SEPARATE BUDGET THAT WAS APPROVED DURING THE BUDGET CYCLE BUT WAS NEVER ENTERED INTO OUR FINANCIAL SOFTWARE ENCODE, WHICH WAS NEEDED FOR MY POSITION AS THEIR PHYSICAL OFFICER, JUST PROVIDING ACCOUNT OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT FOR THEIR REVENUE AND EXPENSE ITEMS.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 12?
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORN. SECOND BY?
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSE? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G8, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 13.
[G.8 To approve Budget Amendment #13 updating LEOSE accounts for PCT 1, 2, 3 and 4. ]
UPDATING THE LEOS ACCOUNTS FOR PRECINCT 1, 2, 3, AND 4.THE BUDGET AMENDMENT IS FOR ALL THE CONSTABLE OFFICES FOR THEIR LEOS FUNDS.
THESE ARE ROLL-OVER FUNDS THAT ARE STRICTLY USED FOR TRAINING PURPOSES, AND WE'RE JUST NEEDING TO UPDATE THOSE ACCOUNTS.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET 13?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSE? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[G.9 To approve Budget Amendment #14 transferring $2,230.00 from Tyler Tech Training to 001-2130- 4810 Training.]
DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT 14, TRANSFERRING $2,230 FROM TYLER TECH, 001-2130-4810.>> THIS ONE, I'M JUST MOVING SOME MONEY OVER FROM MY TYLER TECH TRAINING LINE ITEM OVER TO MY REGULAR TRAINING.
THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL STAFF IN MY OFFICE AND WE HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET OUT THERE AND REALLY TRAIN, AND TRAINING IS DEFINITELY INCREASING.
I'M JUST MOVING THAT MONEY OVER FROM ONE TRAINING LINE ITEM THAT'S SPECIFIED STRICTLY FOR ENCODE OVER TO THE BIGGER BROAD TRAINING.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT 14?
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. SECOND?
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSE? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[G.10 To approve change order for Doucet PO # 02852 in the amount of $184,635.86. ]
DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER FOR DUSIT PO NUMBER[00:15:04]
02852 IN THE AMOUNT OF $184,635.86. CAROLINE?>> YES. THIS IS OUR BLANKET PO FOR DUSIT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES.
THE DUSIT CONTRACT IS FOR THRESHOLD OF $400,000.
THE ORIGINAL PO WAS CREATED FOR 200 WHILE WE WORKED WITH DUSIT TO GET OUR AGREEMENT SIGNED.
NOW WE ARE JUST WANTING TO GO AHEAD AND GET THAT PURCHASE ORDER TO THE $400,000.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER FOR DUSIT PO NUMBER 02852 IN THE AMOUNT OF $184,635.86?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSE? HEARING NONE, NOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G11, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVED $3,000 DONATION REQUESTS FROM CARTS FOR FY2024.
[G.11 To approve $3,000 donation request from CARTS (Capital Area Rural Transportation System) for FY 2024. ]
WE HAVE BEEN SENDING THESE THROUGH THE FOUNDATION AND ASKING THEM TO ASK FOR HIM, BUT CARTS IS ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS THAT THIS ONE PROBABLY NEEDS TO FLOW THROUGH US BECAUSE IT'S PART OF CAPCOG.IT'S A PROGRAM THAT CAPCOG WORKS WITH.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING IT THIS WAY.
I JUST LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE 3,000 DONATION FOR CARTS.
THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW, IT'S THE CAPITAL AREA RURAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
IF YOU SIT IN A CAPCOG MEETING, YOU'LL FIND OUT THAT THE ONE WE HAVE HERE IN CALDWELL COUNTY IS PROBABLY THE MOST USED, THE MOST ROBUST CARTS PROGRAM OUT THERE.
IT'S USED HEAVILY, ESPECIALLY HERE IN LAW COURTS.
LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DONATION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORN AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? OPPOSED HERE AND NONE MOTION CARRIES AND WE'VE GOT A NICE ONE GOING HERE, WE'LL JUST WORK THROUGH IT, PERFECT.
ITEM G12 DISCUSSION ACTION APPROVED PAYMENT OF INVOICE
[G.12 To approve payment of Invoice # CARTS-030624 in the amount of $3,000 for FY 23-24 Capital Area Rural Transportation System contribution. ]
NUMBER CARTS-030624 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000 FOR FY 2023, 2024 CAPILLA RURAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.COMMISSIONER, EXCUSE ME DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF INVOICE NUMBER CARTS-03062024?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[G.13 To approve the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) local contribution request of $1,346.00 for FY 2024. ]
DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE THE CAPITOL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CAMPO LOCAL CONTRIBUTION REQUEST OF $1,346. COMMISSIONERS, IT'S OUR NORMAL PAYMENT TO CAMPO, TO BE A MEMBER OF CAMPO EVERY YEAR.I'D LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR $1,346.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO.
>> WHO IS THE SECOND? COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> POSE, HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G14.
[G.14 To approve payment of Invoice # CAMPO-24-059 in the amount of $1,346.00 for FY 23-24 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization contribution.]
DISCUSSION, ACTION TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF INVOICE NUMBER CAMPO-24059 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,346 FOR FY 2023-2024 CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CONTRIBUTION.COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM G14.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G15.
[G.15 To authorize the County Judge to negotiate and, if necessary, execute a month-to-month services agreement with Motorola for continued emergency radio services.]
DISCUSSION, ACTION AUTHORIZED COUNTY JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE AND IF NECESSARY, EXECUTE A MONTH TO MONTH SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MOTOR O FOR CONTINUING RADIO SERVICES.COMMISSIONERS, THAT'S FOR THE MODEMS. MOTOROLA CHARGES 120 SOME THOUSAND, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER OF FEE.
WE'VE BEEN PAYING THAT MONTH TO MONTH AND WE'RE ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION OF THAT.
[00:20:03]
ONE OF THE TOWERS IS FINALLY UNDERWAY FOR THE TRANSITION TO LCRA.GROUND BROKE YESTERDAY ON THAT.
THE ONE IN LING WILL FOLLOW SHORTLY.
IN THE INTERIM, WE'RE ALSO DOING THE CO LOCATED DISPATCH CENTER.
WE'VE GOT THE LAST THING WE NEEDED TO COMPLETE THOSE PLANS IN TODAY.
WE'RE HOPING TO GO OUT FOR A BID ON THAT SHORTLY.
JUST BY WAY OF GIVING YOU AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE'RE AT ON THIS, SO WE'RE HOPING THIS MONTH TO MONTH EXTENSION DOESN'T GO MUCH PAST JULY AND THEN WE'LL SWITCH OVER TO LCRA AND THAT EXPENSE WILL GO AWAY COMPLETELY.
WE'D LOOK FOR MOTION TO AUTHORIZE COUNTY JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE AND IF NECESSARY, EXECUTE A MONTH TO MONTH SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MOTOROLA FOR CONTINUED EMERGENCY RADIO SERVICES. WE HAVE A MOTION.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO. A SECOND?
ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G16, DISCUSSION ACTION TO RATIFY A SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
[G.16 To ratify a services agreement between the County and LexisNexis for continued use of research software for indigent burial services. ]
THE COUNTY AND LEXUS NEXUS FOR CONTINUED USE OF RESEARCH SOFTWARE FOR INDIGENT BURIAL SERVICES.COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS WHAT WE USED TO DO A BACKGROUND SEARCH.
IF WE GET AN INDIGENT PERSON THAT NEEDS TO BE CREMATED, WE FIRST TRY TO FIND A NEXT OF KIN TO SEE IF WE CAN FIND SOMEBODY TO CARE FOR THAT PERSON AND ARRANGE FOR THEIR BURIAL AND PAY FOR IT.
NINE TIMES OUT OF 10, WE CANNOT FIND NEXT OF KIN.
THEY DIE INDIGENT AND ALONE, AND SO WE TAKE CARE OF THE CREMATION OF THAT PERSON AND BURIAL OF THE REMAINS, AND SO THIS IS JUST A MOTION TO RATIFY THE SERVICE AGREEMENT THAT WE'VE ENTERED INTO AGAIN THIS YEAR WITH LEXUS NEXUS.
I'D LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM G16.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. SECOND?
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G17.
[G.17 To accept award for the SB 22 Rural Law Enforcement Grant Program in the amount of $350,000, to be utilized by the Sheriff's Office for financial assistance. ]
DISCUSSION, ACTION TO ACCEPT AWARD FOR SB 22 RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $350,000 TO BE UTILIZED BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. AMBER?>> GOOD MORNING. WE APPLIED FOR THE SP 22 RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, AND WE HAVE BEEN AWARDED FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF 350,000 FOR THE SO, SO WE JUST NEED TO ACCEPT THAT FUNDING.
>> COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD ADD ONE THING.
IN YOUR BACKUP, THERE'S THE LIST THAT SHERIFF LANE CAME IN AND GAVE US THAT HE WAS GOING TO USE FOR THAT AND IN A RECENT EMAIL FROM AMBER, SHE REMINDED THEM THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE PROPER PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO GET THE EQUIPMENT PURCHASED.
I JUST WANTED TO ASSURE YOU THAT'S ALL GOING TO TAKE PLACE WITH ASSOCIATION WITH THIS GRANT.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AWARD FOR SB 22 RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $350,000?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
EXCUSE ME. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WEST MORNING.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G18.
[G.18 To accept award for the SB 22 Rural Law Enforcement Grant Program in the amount of $175,000, to be utilized by the District Attorney's Office for financial assistance. ]
DISCUSSION ACTION TO ACCEPT AWARD FOR SB 22, RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF 175,000 TO BE UTILIZED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.>> THIS IS THE SAME EXACT THING JUST FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
WE JUST NEED TO ACCEPT THE FUNDING.
THAT 175, THAT WAS THE FULL ASK AND WE DID RECEIVE THE FULL AMOUNT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE OF THE AWARD OF SB 22 REAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF 175,000.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G19 TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
[G.19 To approve an amendment to the Caldwell County Uniform Relocation Assistance (URA) Plan to include an Appeal Process. ]
THE CALDWELL COUNTY UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE URA PLAN TO INCLUDE AN APPEALS PROCESS.THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GETTING.
[00:25:01]
>> WE SENT OUT THE FINAL LETTERS FOR THE RESIDENTS PORTION OF THE URA.
WE GOT SEVERAL APPEAL REQUESTS.
WE REALIZED IN THE PLAN THAT WE HAD IN PLACE, IT DID NOT HAVE AN APPEAL PROCESS LAID OUT, SO WE WORKED WITH GLO AND LANGFORD TO ESTABLISH THAT, AND WE JUST NEED TO APPROVE THAT ADDITION TO THE PLAN SO THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS.
>> THE GIST OF THE AMENDMENT IS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL SIT AS THE FINAL APPEAL AUTHORITY ON THAT.
HOW THE PROCESS WILL WORK FOR THIS AND THE FUTURE IS THAT THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATOR WILL MAKE AN INITIAL DETERMINATION.
THEY'LL SEND OUT THE AWARD LETTERS AND WHATEVER THE APPROPRIATE AWARD AMOUNT IS IF THE PERSON WHO HAS RECEIVED THAT AWARD LETTER IS NOT HAPPY WITH THEIR RESULT, THEY WOULD THEN APPEAL TO THIS COURT WHO WOULD THEN HEAR THE INFORMATION AND MAKE ITS FINAL DETERMINATION, WHICH OF COURSE, MAY OR MAY NOT BE WHAT THE GRANT ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDED.
ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY URA PLAN TO INCLUDE AN APPEALS PROCESS? WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND, SECOND COMMISSIONER HORN.
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T KNOW, THIS WHOLE PROCESS HAS BEEN A PART OF THE GRANT THAT WE RECEIVED AND ONGOING PROCESS OF THE EVACUATION CENTER.
THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE THAT WERE LIVING THERE WHO HAD BEEN EVICTED BY THE CITY OF BLOWING, BUT MADE CLAIM AND THEN WE CAME IN LATER TO PURCHASE THE LAND FOR THE EVACUATION CENTER.
THEN THEY MADE CLAIM HUD SAID THAT THEY WERE DISPLACED BECAUSE OF A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM OR CONTRACT.
HUD SAID THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS URA PROCESS.
WE'VE DONE THAT, WE'VE ESTABLISHED AN AMOUNT THAT THEY CAN RECEIVE.
THIS IS JUST TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THAT AMOUNT IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT.
>> DOES IT GO ANYWHERE PAST US?
>> THIS ONCE IT COMES HERE, THAT'LL BE IT.
IT'S NOT HOLDING UP THE PROJECT.
WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO HAVING CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS READY TO GO OUT FOR BID.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WOULD YOU LIKE? SAME THING. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT? DO WE DO THAT?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION A MOTION IN A SECOND.
>> WE GOT A MOTION A SECOND AND THEN I START TALKING. I CALL A VOTE.
>> CLOSED. HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G20 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION OF
[G.20 To consider the submission of Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF) Abridged Application(s) through the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). ]
FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE FUND FIF ABRIDGED APPLICATIONS THROUGH THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD AMBER.>> WE'VE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT SOME APPLICATIONS TO THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT THEY'VE RECENTLY DONE STUDIES ON THIS IS THE NEXT PHASE.
WE'VE GOT LANGFORD HERE TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE DETAILS.
WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ONES THAT LOOKED LIKE THEY WOULD SCORE VERY HIGH FOR CALDWELL COUNTY, SO THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WE'RE HOPING TO PUSH THROUGH.
MY NAME IS KATHLEEN WHITE CARTON.
I'M WITH LANGFORD, AS SHE SAID.
ON TABLE ONE IN YOUR PACKETS, YOU SHOULD HAVE SOME IDENTIFIED PROJECTS AT THE TOP AND THIS IS FOR THE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE FUND OR THE FIF PROGRAM.
THE FME'S, OR THE FLOOD MITIGATION THERE AT THE TOP PORTION, THERE ARE THREE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.
THAT FUNDING LOOKS AT A 75% STATE MATCH WITH A 25% LOCAL FUND THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONTRIBUTED.
THE LOWER PORTION IS THE FMPS, AND THE FMP WOULD BE A 35% STATE MATCH, LEAVING A 65% LOCAL CONTRIBUTION.
THE FME'S ARE MORE OF A PLANNING AND DESIGN AND PERMITTING.
IT'S GETTING YOU SHOVEL READY AND THEY LOOK LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO SCORE WELL AND GET YOU READY FOR THE NEXT FUNDING TO GO INTO PROJECTS.
THE FMP PROJECT IDENTIFIED, IT DOES HAVE A HIGHER LOCAL CONTRIBUTION, BUT THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD DOES PROVIDE A 0% INTEREST OVER MANY FISCAL YEARS.
[00:30:05]
IT DOES MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE PALATABLE IN THAT SENSE.THESE SUBMISSIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE APRIL 15, SO IT'S RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER.
WE WILL NEED SOME INPUT AS TO, IF NOT ALL, WHICH PROJECTS YOU WOULD WANT TO MOVE FORWARD.
AN ABRIDGED APPLICATION IS MORE LIKE A PRE APPLICATION.
WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT BEING INVITED AFTER THEY'VE REVIEWED THESE ABRIDGED, WE WOULD BE INVITED TO DO A FINAL AND THAT WOULD BE CLOSER TO FALL THEN YOU WOULDN'T SEE IT WOULD PROBABLY BE ANOTHER SIX MONTHS BEFORE ANY FUNDING CLOSING WOULD HAPPEN.
NO FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS TODAY.
IT'S REALLY JUST LOOKING AT DO YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE PROJECTS?
DO YOU HAVE THE I DON'T HAVE THE TABLE IN FRONT OF ME AND I'M HAVING TROUBLE.
BUT WE HAVE WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE TOP. THANK YOU.
OUR TOP TWO ON THE FME'S FOR CALDWELL COUNTY BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS, AND THAT'S IN THE AMOUNT OF $256,000 WE WOULD HAVE A 25% MATCH.
THE OTHER ONE WAS THE CALDWELL COUNTY FEWS, WHICH IS THIS EARLY FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM.
THAT'S A $50,000 GRANT WITH A 25% MATCH AND THEN THE FME.
THANK YOU. THE FME WAS CALDWELL COUNTY SH 80 LOW WATER CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS AT MORRISON CREEK.
THAT ONE'S GOT A PRETTY HEFTY PRICE TAG, TWENTY MILLION THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT THE STATE WOULD ONLY MATCH 35%.
>> WE WOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR THE REST BUT THEY HAVE A 30 YEAR ZERO INTEREST LOAN, SO YOU THAT PAYMENT OUT FOR 30 YEARS, SO IT MAKES IT DOABLE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'D BE VOTING ON THIS MORNING JUST TO APPROVE FOR APPLICATION.
I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT OUT THERE EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE VOTING FOR.
MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD IT.
>> NOT COMMITTING FOR THE MATTER.
>> NOT COMMITTING FOR ANYTHING AT THIS POINT EXCEPT SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION.
>> IF WE DO THE ABRIDGED APPLICATION AND THEY COME BACK AND SAY, OKAY, WE WANT Y'ALL TO GO AHEAD AND APPLY FOR WHICHEVER ONE THEY THINK WE'RE FIT FOR, WE CAN DISCUSS FURTHER AND MAKE SURE THAT IT IS A GOOD OPTION FOR US BEFORE WE ACTUALLY SUBMIT THAT APPLICATION.
>> CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE HIGHWAY 80 PROJECT?
>> STATE HIGHWAY 80, LOW WATER IMPROVEMENTS AT MORRISON CREEK.
THAT'S IMPROVEMENTS TO SH 80 OR I MEAN THAT BEING A STATE HIGHWAY?
>> I DID GO OVER THESE WITH COLIN. HE ASKED ME TO BE HERE.
ALL OUR FLOODPLAIN PEOPLE ARE AT THE TEXAS FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATORS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK.
THEY'RE ALL TIED UP. THAT INCLUDES 80 AND THE DOWNSTREAM COUNTY ROADWAY CROSSINGS.
>> RIVER ROAD, WHERE IT CROSSES A LITTLE ROAD CROSSING.
>> I DON'T KNOW THE NAME OF THE ROAD, BUT IT'S A COUNTY ROAD DOWNSTREAM.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE'RE GOING BACKWARDS, BUT WE MIGHT AS WELL KEEP GOING LIKE THIS.
>> THE SUBMISSION ON THE FME IS ALL THREE NUMBERS, 1, 2, AND 4?
>> THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WERE SELECTED TO BE THE BEST PROJECTS FOR US THAT WE WOULD SCORE HIGHEST.
WE'D LIKE TO INCLUDE THOSE THREE IN THE ABRIDGED APPLICATION.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, LIKE I SAID, WE DON'T HAVE TO APPLY FOR ALL OF THEM.
IF IT COMES DOWN TO IT, WE CAN TAKE IT TO-
>> PULL THEM OUT OF [OVERLAPPING].
>> WHEN WE HAD OUR MEETING IN HERE THE OTHER DAY, THE TWO AT THE TOP AND THE ONE ON THE FME, THOSE ARE THE MOST LIKELY TO GET APPROVED.
>> THAT'S WHY I ONLY READ THOSE, BECAUSE I'M NOT TERRIBLY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE REST.
ANYWAY, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING AS IT POPPED IN MY HEAD.
THE MORRISON CREEK PROJECT, MAJOR COMPONENT OF IT IS CONSIDERING NEW UPSTREAM DETENTION IN THAT BASIN THAT WOULD BENEFIT 80 AND RIVER ROAD OR WHEREVER COUNTY ROAD IS DOWNSTREAM.
THE CONCERN IS IF YOU JUST OPEN UP STATE HIGHWAY 80,
[00:35:02]
YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO MOVE THOSE FLOODWATERS FURTHER DOWNSTREAM, EXASPERATING PROBLEMS. THE CONTEMPLATED PROJECT IS PRIMARILY UPSTREAM DETENTION TO MITIGATE THE FLOODING AT 80 AND DOWNSTREAM.>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SUBMISSION OF THE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE FUND, ABRIDGED APPLICATIONS THROUGH TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT, AND A SECOND BY?
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
ITEM G21, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE DONATION VALUED AT APPROXIMATELY $1.4
[G.21 To approve a donation valued at approximately $1.14 million between the County and LLTCLP, LLC, for the donation of labor and services for the construction and improvement of Martindale Lake Road. ]
MILLION BETWEEN CALDWELL COUNTY AND LLTCLP, LLC FOR THE DONATION OF LABOR AND SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT OF MARTINDALE LAKE ROAD.>> THANK YOU, JUDGE. I THINK I'LL LET CHASE EXPAND ON THIS.
THIS IS A DONATION THAT'S BEEN A WHILE IN THE WORKS ON THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT.
>> YES. FOR THE TECHNICAL STUFF, I'D ACTUALLY DEFER TO TRACY AS WE PASSED THE BUCK AROUND.
BUT THE AGREEMENT ITSELF IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT IS A DONATION FOR LABOR AND SERVICES.
RATHER THAN JUST DONATE A FLAT FEE AND THE COUNTY PAVE AND IMPROVE THIS ROAD, THEY HAVE OFFERED TO DONATE THE LABOR AND SERVICES, SO THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE DOING THE WORK, AND THE AGREEMENT BASICALLY DICTATES THE TERMS ON WHICH THEY WOULD DO IT.
IT'S GOT TO BE COUNTY STANDARDS, THEY'VE GOT TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN INSURANCES, ETC.
AS PART OF THE DONATION, EVENTUALLY, THE COURT WILL ACCEPT THE ROAD FOR COUNTY MAINTENANCE AT THE END OF THIS, JUST LIKE AS IF THEY WERE JUST NORMALLY DOING A ROAD.
>> THIS WAS A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THIS PROJECT.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT LANGUAGE, BUT IT HAD TO BE THEY HAD TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT PRIOR TO EITHER MOBILIZING FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR INITIAL PHASE OR RECORDING THE FIRST FLAT PLAT, ONE OR THE OTHER.
THEY'RE JUST FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH THE OBLIGATION OF THE CONDITION FROM THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL.
>> COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE DONATION OF $1.4 MILLION BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND LLTCLP, LLC FOR THE DONATION OF LABOR AND SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS OF MARTINDALE LAKE ROAD.
>> JUST ONE CLARIFICATION, SHOULD BE 1.14.
SORRY, I THOUGHT YOU SAID 1.4, MY MISTAKE.
>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. SECOND?
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G22, DISCUSSION ACTION TO
[G.22 To reopen a previously tabled discussion regarding approval of a permit for the development of Westwood Park #3, located at 1114 Westwood Road.]
REOPEN A PREVIOUSLY TABLED DISCUSSION ITEM REGARDING APPROVAL OF PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WESTWOOD PARK 3 LOCATED AT 114 WESTWOOD ROAD.COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND AND/OR CHASE.
>> THANK YOU, JUDGE. I'LL ADD THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY NECESSARY ACTION TAKEN BY THE COURT.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PERMIT HAS BEEN APPROVED AT THIS POINT.
>> NO FURTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY. IT'S BEEN APPROVED.
[G.23 To approve fiscal surety necessary to record the final plat for Hartland Ranch Phase 2. ]
DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE FISCAL SURETY NECESSARY TO RECORD FINAL PLAT FOR HARTLAND RANCH PHASE 2.>> I CAN SPEAK ON THIS, JUDGE, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
>> DONALD DID HAND ME THE SURETY CHECK HERE FOR THE RANCH ROAD HEARTLAND LLC.
I CAN READ THROUGH THE CASH SECURITY AGREEMENT. IT'S NOT VERY LONG.
THE ESCROW AGENT SHALL DULY HONOR ALL DRAFTS DRAWN AND PRESENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS CASH SECURITY AGREEMENT.
CALDWELL COUNTY MAY DRAW ON THE ACCOUNT OF THE DEVELOPER UP TO THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF THE SECURITY UPON PRESENTATION OF A DRAFT SIGNED BY THE COUNTY JUDGE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION EXISTS.
THE COUNTY CONSIDERS SUCH A DRAWING ON THE ESCROWED FUNDS TO BE NECESSARY FOR PAYMENT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED FOR PHASE 2 OF THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN ABOVE.
NO FURTHER SUBSTANTIATION OF THE NECESSITY OF DRAW IS REQUIRED BY THIS AGREEMENT.
PARTIAL DRAFTS AND REDUCTIONS IN THE ESCROWED FUNDS ARE PERMITTED.
DRAFTS WILL BE HONORED WITHIN FIVE CALENDAR DAYS OF PRESENTMENT.
THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE REVOKED ONLY BY THE CONSENT OF THE DEVELOPER IN CALDWELL COUNTY.
THE ESCROW FUNDS WILL BE INVESTED WITH INTEREST EARNED AT THE RATE OF CALDWELL COUNTY RECEIVES FOR
[00:40:02]
ITS 90-DAY ACCOUNTS AND WILL BE CREDITED TO THE PROJECT TO PROVIDE FOR ANY CONTINGENCIES AND CHANGE ORDERS.ANY FUNDS REMAINING IN ESCROW, INCLUDING INTEREST, UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, WILL BE RETURNED TO THE DEVELOPER.
IF THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY COVERED BY THIS CASH SECURITY AGREEMENT IS ANNEXED FOR FULL PURPOSES BY A CITY, THEN THE ESCROW AGENT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO MEAN THE CITY AND THE FUNDS PLUS INTEREST CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO THE ANNEXING CITY.
ONCE WE ACCEPT THIS, I WILL MONITOR AND MANAGE IT AND WORK WITH UNIT ROAD TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY EXPENDITURES FOR THIS ARE TRACKED.
>> CAN YOU REMIND US HOW MUCH THE FISCAL SURETY CHECK WAS FOR?
>> YES, JUDGE. IT'S $89,697.03.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FISCAL SURETY NECESSARY TO RECORD FINAL PLAT FOR HARTLAND RANCH PHASE 2.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. SECOND BY?
>> COMMISSIONER THOMAS. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[G.24 To approve a real property exchange agreement between the County and Bettie Ann Kasch Hanse, James Warren Kasch, and Maxwell Acres company for the exchange of two approximately 2.5-acre tracts located off Farm to Market 1984. ]
ITEM G24, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE A REAL PROPERTY EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND BETTY AND CASH HANS, JAMES WARREN CASH, AND MAXWELL ACRES COMPANY FOR THE EXCHANGE OF TWO APPROXIMATELY 2.5 ACRE TRACTS LOCATED OFF FARM TO MARKET 1984.>> THANK YOU, JUDGE. THE FOSTER FAMILY HAS PROPERTY ALONG 1984 OPPOSITE WHERE THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS IS REQUIRING THE DEVELOPER OF THE SMART TERMINAL PROPERTY TO PLACE A ROAD THAT IS ABOUT TO GO UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE A SMALL EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE NORTHEAST BOUNDARY OF THE FOSTER PROPERTY.
I THINK IT'S 25, 26 FEET WIDE, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THE FOSTER'S ARE ASKING US TO RELOCATE THAT FROM THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, I GUESS, IF YOU IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS MAP TO LINE UP, AND SO THAT RIGHT OF WAY WOULD BE THERE FOR THE EVENTUAL CONTINUATION OF THAT ROAD ACROSS 1984 HEADING TOWARDS SH 142.
CHASE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THEIR ATTORNEY FOR SOME TIME, AND TRACY HAS BEEN INVOLVED TO WORK OUT ALL THE CONCERNS RELATED TO SOME EASEMENTS THAT CROSS THE PROPERTY, AND I BELIEVE WE'RE THERE ON THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
I RECOMMEND THAT WE PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION.
>> THAT'S A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REAL PROPERTY EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE CASH'S AND MAXWELL ACRES COMPANY.
COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[G.25 To approve a real property exchange agreement between the County and Franklin Mountain San Marcos I, LP, for the exchange of two approximately 1.2-acre tracts located off Farm to Market Quail Run Road. ]
A REAL PROPERTY EXCHANGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND FRANKLIN MOUNTAIN, SAN MARCOS 1 LP, FOR THE EXCHANGE OF TWO APPROXIMATELY 1.2 ACRE TRACTS LOCATED OFF FARMERS MARKET, QUAIL RUN ROAD. COMMISSIONER THERIOT.>> THIS IS, CHASE, JUST MAKE SURE I'M SAYING IT RIGHT, IS THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE FOSTER'S PROPERTY?
>> THAT WILL INVOLVE THE CONTINUATION OF THAT RIGHT OF WAY TO QUAIL RUN.
>> MAKE A MOTION, COMMISSIONER.
>> MOVE APPROVAL FOR ITEM G25 BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[G.26 To approve a variance request to Section 3.6.3.C of the Caldwell County Development Ordinance for Lockhart Industrial Park, Project #1911-293-05 located at 5133 US Hwy 183 in Lockhart, Texas. ]
ITEM G26, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE REQUEST TO SECTION 3.6.3(C) OF CALDWELL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FOR LOCKHART INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT NUMBER 1911-293-05 LOCATED AT 5133SH HIGHWAY 183 IN LOCKHART. COMMISSIONER THERIOT.>> THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WE HAD APPROVED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON SOME TIME BACK.
IT'S FOR SOME OFFICE WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF 183 OR 130, JUST NORTH OF 1185 TIGER TOTE, WHERE THAT'S LOCATED.
[00:45:06]
THEY HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN WITH US AND ARE READY TO PROCEED WITH THAT.THEY HAVE AN APPLICATION FILED WITH AQUA WATER FOR SERVICE THAT'S BEEN TAKING A WHILE, WHICH IS THE NORM IN THAT SITUATION.
NOW, THEY'VE OFFERED TO PLACE ON THEIR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT A NOTE THAT SAYS THEY WILL NOT OCCUPY PRIOR TO AQUA APPROVING WATER SERVICE TO THE PROPERTY.
I BELIEVE I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT NOTE BEING ABLE TO ENSURE THAT THAT BUSINESS WON'T BE OCCUPIED.
I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT VARIANCE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM G26. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.
THE MOTION WAS BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT.
A LITTLE CONCERNED JUST THAT WE'RE OPENING A CAN HERE THAT EVERY SINGLE PART WE MIGHT AS WELL DO AWAY WITH THE ORDINANCE, BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S GOING TO SAY, WELL, I WANT A VARIANCE FROM MY WATER, AND I WANT A VARIANCE FROM MY WATER, AND I WANT A VARIANCE FROM MY WATER.
I WON'T DO IT BECAUSE I'M A COUNTY JUDGE, BUT IF I WASN'T A COUNTY JUDGE, I'D BE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR EVERY SINGLE HOUSE AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT I DO, INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR THE WATER TO GET APPROVED.
I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
IT'S SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT OUT OF THE NORM, BUT DUE TO THE PERIOD OF TIME AQUA WAS TAKING.
BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY ASKED TO COME BEFORE THE COURT.
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT, BUT IT'S UP TO THE COURT WHETHER THEY WANT TO PROCEED.
>> I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION. IF THAT WAS OKAY.
I'M ASSUMING AQUA'S INABILITY TO PROVIDE IT AT THIS TIME IS EITHER RELATED TO SUPPLY AND/OR INFRASTRUCTURE ON THEIR SYSTEM AT THIS POINT.
>> NO. FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS LIKE THIS AND FOR SUBDIVISIONS, AQUA FORCES YOU TO PAY A RATHER HEFTY FEE WHICH THEY GIVE TO THEIR ENGINEER, AND THEY DO A STUDY TO STUDY WHETHER THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY AVAILABLE.
THEY'RE NOW TAKING 6-9 MONTHS TO DO THAT.
THERE'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION OF SUPPLY, IT'S JUST THEIR PROCESS GOES THIS TIME DELAY.
I'M GOING TO ECHO JUDGE HADEN'S OPINION HERE THAT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARILY THE COURT'S BURDEN TO RELIEVE, SO TO SPEAK.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL.
>> COMMISSIONER THOMAS. YOU MADE THE MOTION.
WHO MADE THE SECOND? I DID. BUT YOU'RE A NO?
IT'S 4-1 VOTE TO DENY THE VARIANCE.
ITEM G27, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE REQUEST TO
[G.27 To approve a variance request to Section 3.6.3.C of the Caldwell County Development Ordinance for Highway 183 RV & Boat Storage, Project #1911-293-03 located at 5133 US Hwy 183 in Lockhart, Texas. ]
SECTION 3.6.3(C) OF CALDWELL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FOR HIGHWAY 183 RV PARK.>> THIS IS THE SAME BASIC PROJECT, JUDGE, BEING ON THE COURT'S ACTION IMMEDIATELY.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY ITEM G27. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A SECOND. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ALL IN FAVOR OF DENIAL SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[H.1 To consider a request to abandon Mary Lane to an adjacent property owner. ]
ITEM H, DISCUSSION ONLY TO CONSIDER REQUEST TO ABANDON MARY LANE TO AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. COMMISSIONER THERIOT.>> THANK YOU, JUDGE. WE RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM A PROPERTY OWNER ALONG 142.
HE'S RIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS FROM 142, AND THERE WAS AN OLD COUNTY LANE CALLED MARY LANE,
[00:50:02]
I THINK IT IS, THAT DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE.IT COMES OFF OF 142 AND IT CROSSES THE TRACK AND CURRENTLY SERVES AS HIS DRIVEWAY.
BASICALLY, I DON'T THINK IT SERVES ANY OTHER PROPERTY.
HE'S ASKING FOR US TO ABANDON IT TO HIM.
IT'S ON HERE JUST FOR DISCUSSION TO SEE IF THE COURT HAS CONCERNS WITH THAT.
>> I DON'T THINK I WOULD AS LONG AS IT IT'S JUST A SHORT STRETCH AND HE'S THE ONLY ONE USING IT.
>> THIS PROPERTY, IF YOU WERE TO VIEW THE SURVEY, MARY LANE IS COMPLETELY ENCOMPASSED BY HIS PROPERTY, SUCH THAT IT'S LITERALLY HIS DRIVEWAY.
THE ONLY [INAUDIBLE] HAVE IS THAT PART OF MARY LANE IS BASED ON AN OLD LOCKHART TO SAN MARCOS HIGHWAY WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE A STATE EASEMENT.
NOW THEY MAY HAVE TRANSFERRED IT TO US AT SOME POINT, BUT WE'RE PARTIALLY WAITING FOR THE REQUESTER TO PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION THAT IT IS IN FACT A COUNTY ROADWAY AND NOT A STATE ROADWAY.
THAT'S THAT ONE CAVEAT THERE, AS YOU GUYS CONSIDER THIS.
>> AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT AND AUTHORITY TO DO IT, I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY DISCUSSION?
>> AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACTUALLY GRANT IT, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH IT.
[I. EXECUTIVE SESSION ]
WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 9:51.ITEM I1, PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.087 DISCUSSION OF DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT CHESTNUT, AND WE WILL BE BACK WHEN WE'RE DONE.
EXIT EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10:07.
PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.087, DISCUSSION OF DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT CHESTNUT, AND NO ACTION WILL FOLLOW.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. SECOND?
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 10:07
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.