Dec 10, 2024 Commissioners Court

>> GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.

>> GOOD MORNING, [INAUDIBLE] HOW ARE YOU DOING?

>> GOOD MORNING.

>> HERE AT YOUR ADDRESS, DID YOU ADDRESS THE TURN LANE OFF 672?

>> DID WE REQUEST THE TURN LANE THROUGH TXDOT?

>> CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT?

>> WE'RE IN THE PROCESS. WE'VE BEGUN OUR TRAFFIC STUDY.

WE NEEDED A TIA FOR THE TURN LANE, AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT THE NUMBER OF SPACES THAT WE CAN DO, SO WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF REQUESTING THAT FROM TXDOT.

[00:30:01]

IT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED, BUT WE HAVE A MEETING ON THE SCHEDULE, AND SEVA CAN SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL.

>> COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE]

>> CAN I ASK TRACY A QUESTION?

>> SURE.

>> TRACY, COULD YOU COME UP.

>> IT'S 9:30.

>> THE BACK PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, THE TWO 10-ACRE TRACKS, THERE WOULD BE NO LOTS BACK THERE.

THAT WOULD JUST BE ONE LOT ON EACH OF THOSE.

IT'D BE LIKE A MULTI-FAMILY TYPE SITUATION.

>> GIVE YOU MY IMPRESSION, AGAIN, THIS IS ALL TO BE WORKED OUT.

THIS IS EARLY DISCUSSION.

I KNOW THAT THE TERM BUILD-TO-RENT WAS USED, AND AS I'VE SAID BEFORE IN FRONT OF COMMISSIONERS COURT, BUILD-TO-RENT REALLY AN EASIER WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT IS IT'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH THE UNITS INSTEAD OF STACKED ON TOP OF EACH OTHER, THEY'RE SPREAD OUT.

THEY'RE RENTED JUST LIKE YOU WOULD AN APARTMENT.

WHAT HE'S DOING IS TAKING THOSE BLOCKS AND SPREAD THEM.

>> THIS IS SHOWING INDIVIDUAL LOTS, BUT IT REALLY WOULDN'T BE LOTS.

>> IT'S JUST SHOWING THE INDIVIDUAL SPACES THAT A STRUCTURE WOULD BE BUILT THAT THAT'S LEASED TO SOMEONE TO LIVE IN.

>> THERE'S SEPTIC SYSTEMS THAT CAN BE PERMITTED TO HANDLE MULTIPLE UNITS.

>> YES, BECAUSE IT WOULD REMAIN AS ONE, I THINK THOSE ARE 10-ACRE TRACKS.

ONE 10-ACRE TRACK, A CONVENTIONAL SEPTIC IS ALLOWED BECAUSE IT'S NOT CROSSING PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, AS LONG AS THE SIZE OF THE FLOW REMAINS BELOW 5,000 GALLONS PER DAY, IT'S COUNTY PERMITTED.

ABOVE THAT, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO [INAUDIBLE]

>> HOW DO WE GET AROUND OUR ONE UNIT PER ACRE?

>> JUST LIKE YOU WOULD WITH AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, IT'S REALLY ONE THING.

THEY'VE JUST DETACHED THOSE STRUCTURES.

>> ON THE FRONT PORTION WHERE THE FOLKS HAVE ALREADY PURCHASED THESE PROPERTIES, THE TIMELINE OR THE SCHEDULE THERE WOULD INVOLVE WHATEVER WORK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO ON 672. [INAUDIBLE]

>> AGAIN, NOT GOTTEN INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL ON THIS.

THIS WAS AN INITIAL, LET'S PRESENT THE CONCEPT PLAN BECAUSE BEFORE THEY GO AND START MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO 672, THEY PROBABLY NEED ASSURANCES FROM THE COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT WE'RE HEADED DOWN AN ACCEPTABLE PATH.

CERTAINLY, IF THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS LIKE THAT, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT NEEDS TO SEE CERTAIN THINGS IN A CERTAIN ORDER, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO HEAR SO WE CAN INCORPORATE THOSE THINGS INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> THE PLAN WOULD BE TO DEVELOP THE LOTS FIRST BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE LESS ONEROUS TO DEVELOP THE TURN LANE.

GET THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BOUGHT, GET THEM ENTITLED FIRST.

THAT'S PHASE 1.

PHASE 2 WOULD BE THE BACK HALF OF THE PROJECT.

>> YOU'RE SAYING THE TURN LINE WOULD OCCUR WITH PHASE 2?

>> CORRECT. YES.

>> BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY 12 LOTS BEING ADDED IN PHASE 1 AND TXDOT WOULDN'T REQUIRE A TURN LANE FOR 12 LOTS OR LESS.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> SOME OTHER PEOPLE WANT TO TALK ON THIS MATTER, WE CAN COME BACK TO IT, BUT I GOT TO CLOSE IT FOR JUST A SECOND.

WE HAVE SOME PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT WE GOT TO DO REALLY QUICKLY, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS DISCUSSION IF WE NEED TO.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:33,

[H.1 Regarding the creation of Prairie Lea Public Improvement District (PID).]

ITEM H1 REGARDING THE CREATION OF PRAIRIE LEA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

WE'LL CLOSE THAT ONE AT ITEM H1, PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CREATION OF PRAIRIE LEA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AT 9:35.

[H.2 Regarding consideration of the Replat for Tinney Lake, Lot 13A on approximately 10.00 acres located on FM 713.]

OPEN ITEM H2 AT 9:35 REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF THE REPLAT FOR TINNEY LAKE,

[00:35:05]

LOT 13A ON APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES LOCATED ON 713.

[BACKGROUND] WE'LL CLOSE ITEM H2, PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF THE REPLAT FOR TINNEY LAKE, LOT 13A ON APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES LOCATED ON 713 AND MOVE TO ITEM H3,

[H.3 Regarding consideration of a request to vacate Lot #4 of Leona Acres consisting of 6.265 acres located FM 713.]

PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO VACATE LOT 4 OF LEONA ACRES CONSISTING OF 6.265 ACRES LOCATED ON 713.

THAT'S OPEN AT 9:37.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE ITEM H3, PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS TO VACATE LOT 4 OF LEONA ACRES CONSISTING OF 6.265 ACRES LOCATED ON 713 AT 9:39, AND WE'LL GO BACK TO ITEM I1.1.

[I.1 To discuss the proposed concept plan for 32 Serna Subdivision located off FM 672. (Part 2 of 2)]

IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO SAY ON THAT DISCUSSION ONLY ITEM.

>> LINDA HINKLE, 1109 SOUTH MAIN STREET.

MY CONCERN WITH THIS CONCEPT IS THERE IS A DEED FOR THAT CEMETERY.

THE FAMILY WENT THROUGH A LOT TO GET THAT DESIGNATED AND SURVEYED OUT AND SET.

I KNOW SEVERAL TIMES THAT CEMETERIES HAVE GOTTEN PUSHED OUT OF THE WAY, NOT BEEN DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN SUBDIVISIONS.

IT NEEDS TO BE FREE AND UNINTERRUPTED USE.

ACCESS, THEY DON'T NEED A FENCE THAT THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH SOMEBODY'S YARD TO GET PERMISSION.

THIS IS VERY PERSONAL TO THE SERNA FAMILY.

THE PARENTS ARE BURIED THERE, AND HAD BEEN BURIED THERE A LONG TIME.

I THINK THAT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.

[00:40:04]

WE'VE ACTUALLY SEEN THEM BULLDOZED DOWN.

NOW YOU CAN'T GO IN.

I'M NOT HOME, IF YOU WANT TO GO ON A SPECIAL BIRTHDAY, MOTHER'S DAY, FATHER'S DAY, WHATEVER.

THIS NEEDS TO REALLY BE IMPORTANT, AND IT'S ALSO STATE LAW.

THE OTHER THING IS 32 SERNA DRIVE, WE GET NOTICES ALL THE TIME AT OUR OFFICE THAT SAYS, DON'T USE ALPHABETS, NUMBERS, LIKE THE, FOR INSTANCE.

YOU CAN'T CATEGORIZE THOSE IN THE PLAQUE PAYMENTS.

IT MAKES IT VERY HARD FOR MS. RODRIGUEZ TO PUT 32 SERNA DRIVE.

IT SHOULD JUST BE SERNA SUBDIVISION.

THAT'S JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT, THE SMALL LOTS AND WHO PAYS THE TAXES ON THE LAND UNDER THAT, AND ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE AN HOA TAKE CARE OF THAT SEPTIC SYSTEM THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE, AS WELL AS THERE'S FLOODPLAIN ON THAT PROPERTY.

IT'S NOT SHOWN ON HERE.

JUST BE SURE THEY ADDRESS THOSE THINGS. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

>> YES, MA'AM. LYDIA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP?

>> YES, SIR.

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS LYDIA SERNA.

I LIVE AT 251 WILD BUFFALO KYLE, TEXAS.

I HAVE LILIES BAR & GRILL HERE IN LOCKHART, TEXAS.

I AM THE YOUNGEST CHILD OF LYDIA AND MANUEL SERNA, WHO ARE AT THE SERNA CEMETERY ON 32 SERNA DRIVE.

I KNOW EVERY INCH OF THAT PROPERTY.

I KNOW THE FLOOD ZONES, I KNOW HOW THE SEPTIC SYSTEM RUNS, HOW CURRENTLY AT THE 32 SERNA DRIVE, THE SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT'S THERE IS NOT REALLY FIT FOR THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING THERE.

THEY CURRENTLY ARE PARKING ON THE SEPTIC LINES THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PLACE TO PARK.

I HAVE PERSONALLY GONE OUT THERE AND HAD TO CALL THE CONSTABLE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET TO MY MOTHER'S CEMETERY BECAUSE THEY HAVE BLOCKED THE DRIVEWAY AND REFUSED TO MOVE.

I'VE HAD TO HIRE SOMEONE TO GO OUT THERE AND THEY'VE BEEN THREATENED TO GET OFF THE PROPERTY WHEN THEY GO OUT THERE TO VISIT MY PARENTS' GRAVE, OR WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT ARE BURIED OUT THERE, BUT THEY'VE BEEN THREATENED TO GET OFF THE LAND.

THE GUY THAT I ACTUALLY HIRED TO GO AND DO THE LAWN MOWING AND EVERYTHING, HE FINALLY JUST SAID, I CANNOT GO OUT THERE.

I FEAR FOR MY LIFE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE THREATENING ME WHEN I GO OUT THERE.

I GO OUT THERE. DO SOMETHING TO ME.

I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

WE HAVE TO CONSTANTLY PICK UP TRASH IN THE CEMETERY BECAUSE THEY DUMP THEIR TRASH OVER AT THE CEMETERY.

THEY'VE RUINED THE GATES, THEY'VE RUINED THE FENCES.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PRODUCTION OUT OF THERE.

INITIALLY, WHEN I SOLD THE LAND, I DID NOT WANT TO, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS FORCED TO FROM MY SIBLINGS, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF DIFFERENT PROMISES.

I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME GOOD OUTCOME. I REALLY WOULD.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE MY MOTHER'S LAND THAT I ALSO TOILED AND WORKED AND CLEARED ALL THOSE MESQUITES OFF THE LAND TO DO SOMETHING.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT GO TO WASTE, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MY MOTHER'S AND FATHER'S CEMETERY IS ACKNOWLEDGED, AND I DO HAVE CLEAR FRONTAGE TO BE ABLE TO GET THERE.

I UNDERSTOOD Y'ALL SAYING THAT Y'ALL ARE GOING TO LOOK AT A TURNING LANE THERE.

I ENDED UP PURCHASING A LITTLE PIECE OF LAND FROM JOE ROLAND, SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE ACCESS BECAUSE THE CURRENT AXIS GOT BLOCKED OFF.

I KNOW THERE'S MORE ACCESS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LAND WHERE THEY HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S BLOCKED RIGHT NOW.

CURRENTLY WHERE THEY GO, THERE'S FIVE WATER LINES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROBABLY MOVE SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE ACCESS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MY MOTHER'S CEMETERY IS NOT DISMISSED ON THIS.

IT MEANS A LOT TO ME AND MANY PEOPLE IN CALDWELL COUNTY THAT SHE SERVED.

ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. GOD BLESS YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[00:45:01]

ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? NOW WE'LL GO TO ITEM J DISCUSSION ACTION ITEMS.

[J.1 To consider and possibly approve Resolution 06-2025 of the Commissioners Court of Caldwell County, Texas authorizing and creating Prairie Lea Public Improvement District within the corporate limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction of Caldwell County, Texas in accordance with Chapter 372 of the Texas Local Government Code; authorizing a dissolution agreement; resolving other matters incident and related thereto; and providing an effective date.]

ITEM J1, DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER AND POSSIBLY APPROVE RESOLUTION 062025 OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING CREATING PRAIRIE LEA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS AND EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 372 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AUTHORIZING A DISSOLUTION AGREEMENT, RESOLVING OTHER MATTERS INCIDENT AND RELATED THERETO AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A RESOLUTION HERE.

IT'S BEEN PRESENTED FOR THE RECORD.

IT'S ABOUT NINE PAGES LONG.

I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE ENTIRE RESOLUTION ON THIS.

HOWEVER, IF YOU GUYS HAVE QUESTIONS OR WOULD LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS, WE HAVE COUNSEL FOR BOTH THE DEVELOPER AND THE BIT HERE.

ANY QUESTIONS? OR WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THE ITEM? NO QUESTIONS. THEN I WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION TO EITHER APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE RESOLUTION 062025.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION 062025 BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO.

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

>> [OVERLAPPING] AYE.

ITEM J2, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE THE REPLAT OF

[J.2 To approve the Replat of Tinney Lake Subdivision, lot 13A consisting of one lot on approximately 10.00 acres located on FM 713.]

TINNEY LAKE SUBDIVISION LOT 13 CONSISTING OF ONE LOT ON APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES LOCATED ON 713.

>> TRACY BRATTON, I SUBSTITUTE CASEY TODAY.

ALL THE MATERIAL FOR THIS IS IN YOUR BACKUP.

THIS WAS MULTIPLE LOTS.

SOMETIME MANY, MANY YEARS AGO, RV DEVELOPMENT WAS BUILT OVER THE TOP OF IT AND THIS PLAT IS JUST DISSOLVING AS INTERNAL LOT LINES.

I THINK I HEARD THAT MS. HINKLE MAY HAVE MORE TO ADD OR AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY.

>> VERY GOOD. MS. HINKLE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP?

>> LINDA HINKLE 1109, SOUTH MAIN.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR LITTLE PLATE, THERE YOU HAVE, IT'S AN RV PARK, AND THEY'RE PUTTING IT INTO ONE UNIT SO THAT THAT EMPTY LOT SET, WHICH WAS 17 ON THE CORNER IS NOW GOING TO BE THE SEPTIC AREA FOR THAT WHOLE PARK.

EVENTUALLY, THEY'LL ADD MORE SPACES AND WHATEVER AND COME FOR PERMITS.

IT'S ONE OF OUR NICER RV PARKS.

VERY WELL MAINTAINED AND TAKEN CARE OF, AND THEY HAVE ALL THAT CONSTRUCTION GOING ON FOR THE DAM BACK THERE AND THE PCCD LAKE.

IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY NICE WHEN IT'S ALL DONE.

BUT THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO FIX THE SEPTIC VIOLATION THEY HAD BY PUTTING IT INTO ONE LOT AND MAKING IT ONE UNIT.

THAT'S ALL. I THINK IT'S REAL GOOD. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE THE RE-PLAT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RE-PLAT BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

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

ITEM J3, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST TO VACATE

[J.3 To approve a request to vacate Lot #4 of Leona Acres consisting of 6.265 acres located FM 713]

LOT 4 LEONA ACRES CONSISTING OF 6.265 ACRES LOCATED ON FM-713.

>> TRACY BRATTON STILL.

THERE ARE TWO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS.

THE ACREAGE TRACT BEHIND THIS LOT WANTS TO ACQUIRE THE BACK PORTION OF IT.

WE HAVE A EXEMPTION IN OUR SUBDIVISION RULES THAT ALLOW ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER LAND SWAPS, BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT OUT OF A PLOTTED PROPERTY.

WHAT THEY'RE APPLYING TO DO IS TO VACATE ONLY THIS ONE SINGLE LOT OUT OF THAT PLAT.

THEY'RE GOING TO CONSUMMATE THE ADJOINING LANDOWNER SWAP, THEN COME BACK AND DO A SINGLE LOT PLAT ON THE REMAINING PROPERTY.

IT'S REALLY JUST A PROCEDURAL THING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT ADJOINING LANDOWNER SPLIT THAT'S REQUESTED.

I BELIEVE MS. HINKLE MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL THINGS TO ADD OR HERE FOR CLARIFICATION, IF ANY QUESTIONS COME UP.

>> MS. HINKLE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?

>> I DON'T HAVE [INAUDIBLE].

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS.

>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO VACATE LOT 4 LEONA ACRES.

[00:50:01]

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM J3 BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ITEM J4, DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR JENNIFER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION, SECTION 9 AND 10, TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES TO BE PERMITTED DURING INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION.

>> TRACY BRATTON. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS CLEAN UP A MISALIGNMENT, A PROCESS BETWEEN CITY LOCKHART AND CALDWELL COUNTY.

THESE SECTIONS WERE AT ONE POINT DNX FROM LOCKHART ETJ.

WE APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.

THEN IT WAS ANNEXED BACK INTO LOCKHART ETJ.

IF IT WAS PURELY IN THE COUNTY, WHAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE DONE IS POSTED FISCAL WITH US, WE'D ACCEPTED THAT PHYSICAL ALLOWED THE PLAT TO BE RECORDED AND THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO PULL RESIDENTIAL PERMITS.

LOCKHART DOES NOT ACCEPT POSTING A FISCAL FOR INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION.

THEREFORE, THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO RECORD THE PLAT AND WERE CAUGHT IN THIS JURISDICTIONAL DISCREPANCY BETWEEN WHEN PERMITS ARE ISSUED.

THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THEM TO CONSTRUCT UP TO 12 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THESE WOULD BE INTENDED PRIMARILY AS THEIR MODEL HOMES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT WHILE THEY'RE COMPLETING INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY.

FRANKLY, WHAT IT DOES IS SAVE ME HAVING TO REVIEW THE EXACT SAME MATERIAL IN A MORE EXPENSIVE REVIEW AS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN ALLOWS CASEY TO APPROVE THOSE.

ENGINEER WITH THE DEVELOPERS HERE, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS OR YOU MAY HAVE THINGS YOU WANT TO ADD.

I KNOW ONE THING THAT CAME UP DURING THIS CONVERSATION WAS WASTEWATER.

THEY ARE CLOSE TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION ON THEIR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.

THE WASTEWATER LINES ARE IN PLACE.

THE INTENTION IS TO PUMP AND HAUL OUT OF THEIR LIFT STATION WET WELL, WHICH IS ABOUT 45 FEET DEEP WELL BACK INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR WHERE THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IS GOING TO GO.

I THINK THAT THE DEVELOPER'S ENGINEER MAY BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE QUANTITY OF WASTEWATER THAT CAN HOLD, BUT IT'S QUITE SIGNIFICANT.

YOU CAN'T TURN A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.

THEY WOULD BE IN THIS SITUATION EVEN WITHOUT THE VARIANCE OF HAVING A PUMP IN A HOLE.

YOU CAN'T TURN A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ON DAY 1.

IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH FLOW INTO IT.

YOU USUALLY HAVE TO GET SOMEWHERE DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE PLANT 50 - 100 HOMES BEFORE YOU CAN EVEN TURN TO SWITCH TO TURN IT ON.

YOU HAVE TO PUMP IN A HOLE INITIALLY BECAUSE IT WON'T WORK RIGHT WITH INSUFFICIENT FLOW COMING TO IT.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COURT MAY HAVE.

JOHN, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO?

>> NO.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> JOHN PICKENS WITH KIMLEY HORNE, HE'S THE ENGINEER FOR THE DEVELOPERS IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM.

>> ON THE 12 HOMES, IS THAT 12 DIFFERENT FLOOR PLANS? ARE THEY FOR SALE TO BUY? WE GIVEN VARIANCES INSTEAD OF MODEL HOMES THAT ARE FOR SALE?

>> THERE WILL BE MODEL HOMES TO START WITH AND THEN THE PLAN IS TO HAVE THE OPTION TO BUILD UP TO 12 MODEL HOMES TO START WITH.

>> BUT THEY ARE FOR SALE?

>> THEY ARE FOR SALE, YES, SIR.

WELL, THEY CAN BE LISTED AND HOME DEVELOPERS CAN ACCEPT DEPOSITS, BUT THEY CANNOT CLOSE ON THOSE TRANSACTIONS UNTIL THAT PLAT'S RECORDED AND THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK HERE BEFORE THAT CAN OCCUR.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS A TRAP BETWEEN TWO JURISDICTIONS.

I'M NOT SURE.

WE HAVE A 1445 AGREEMENT WITH THEM, SO HOW DOES THAT PLAY IN THIS?

>> WELL, THERE ARE A FEW GAPS IN THE 1445 AGREEMENT.

FRANKLY, THE CITY ENTERED INTO A MODIFIED MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER THAT MADE REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT HOW PERMITS WERE GOING TO BE ISSUED THAT ARE NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE 1445 AGREEMENT AND IT DID NOT CONSULT CALDWELL COUNTY, NOR THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSIONERS COURT APPROVE ANY CHANGES TO THE 1445 WITH THE CITY.

THAT'S PART OF THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE STUCK IN RIGHT NOW.

I'VE BEEN HAVING SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY STAFF REGARDING THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN WHAT THEY APPROVED FOR THE DEVELOPER AND OUR 1445 AND INSISTING THAT THEY NEED TO EITHER CLEAN UP THE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER OR COME BACK AND LET'S WORK ON OUR 1445 TOGETHER TO MAKE THEM ALONE.

>> DID YOU SAY THERE ARE 12 DIFFERENT FLOOR PLANS OR IS IT 12 HOMES OF A FEW FLOOR PLANS?

[00:55:01]

>> FOR RIGHT NOW, IT'S JUST PERRY HOMES, IT'S IN THERE, BUT THEY MAY HAVE A COUPLE OTHER BUILDERS THAT COME IN, SO IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT FLOOR PLANS.

THEY HAVE A DEVELOPMENT STANDARD IN THERE WHERE YOU CAN'T HAVE THE SAME FLOOR PLAN BACK TO BACK ON ADJACENT LOTS.

>> COMMISSIONERS, DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'D FEEL A LITTLE BETTER IF WE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE CITY.

I'M FEELING A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT GRANTING A VARIANCE WHEN WE HAVE A 1445 AGREEMENT AND NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT OUR STANDING IS TO DO THAT.

>> IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, THE COUNTY ISSUES BUILDING PERMITS IN THE ETJ.

AGAIN, WHAT THIS IS DOING IS ALIGNING OUR TIMELINE WITH THEIRS.

THERE'S EMAIL TRAFFIC FROM THE CITY IN WHICH THEY SAID, WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO, GO TALK TO THE COUNTY ABOUT IT.

AGAIN, IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, WE ISSUE THE BUILDING PERMITS.

IT'S JUST THAT IN OUR RULES, WE WON'T ISSUE MORE THAN TWO BUILDING PERMITS UNTIL THE FINAL PLAT AND THEY'RE SEPARATE LOTS.

IT'S CLEANING UP THAT ISSUE IN OUR RULES SINCE THE CITY WON'T ACCEPT THE FISCAL POSTING.

>> THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO.

>> PJ, DID YOU HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH HAYDEN?

>> WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS, BUT THEY ARE NOT OF A SUFFICIENT NATURE AT THIS POINT TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT JUDGE HAYDEN BROUGHT UP AT THIS POINT.

WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO SET A MEETING TO ANSWER THOSE.

HOWEVER, THE LEADERSHIP TEAM AT THE CITY IS NOT READILY AVAILABLE OVER THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.

I WILL SAY FOR ME, THAT THE NUMBER THAT CAME THROUGH THE VARIANCE REQUEST AT 12 WAS PROBABLY HIGHER THAN WHAT I WAS EXPECTING TO SEE ON THE REQUEST.

THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION BASED UPON THE EXPECTATION THAT THAT WAS A HIGHER NUMBER THAN WHAT I WAS ANTICIPATING TO SEE ON THE REQUEST BASED UPON THE INITIAL CONVERSATIONS.

THERE'S QUITE A FEW MOVING PARTS ON THIS JUST SO THE REST OF THE COURT'S AWARE.

THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS SURROUNDING THE NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOR LOCKHART ISD 2 ON BORCHARD LOOP, AND SO THERE'S SOME OTHER MOVING PARTS WITHIN THOSE CONCERNS AS WELL.

THAT'S PART OF THE REASON TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA TODAY TO GET A SENSE OF HOW THE COUNTY WANTS TO PROCEED, GIVEN THE MULTIPLE ENTITIES JURISDICTION THAT THIS THING FALLS UNDER AND THE CONSIDERATIONS THERE IN, HOW WE WANT TO PROCEED FORWARD GIVEN THE SITUATION AT HAND.

>> WHAT WAS YOUR ANTICIPATION OF YOUR NUMBERS?

>> JUST FOR MY PERSONAL FEELINGS, MY NUMBER WAS SOMEWHERE IN THE 6-8 RANGE AT THAT POINT.

>> WE COULD GO TO 6-8 WITH YOU GUYS, BUT DO YOU ALL FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? IT'S JUST WE WERE ASKING FOR 12 JUST TO HAVE THAT OPTION.

>> IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF HOUSES.

SEEMS LIKE WE'RE BUILDING HOUSES FOR SALE TO ME TO GET GOING AND TO GET MONEY FLOWING, WHICH I GET.

I'D BE A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS IF WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE CITY OF LOCKHART FIRST AND HACK THROUGH SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

I KNOW THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS OUT OF TOWN AND WON'T BE BACK FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS.

BUT IF WE COULD GET A MEETING SET BEFORE THE NEXT COURT AND WALK THROUGH THIS WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT TEAM, I'D FEEL A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE PERSONALLY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THE REST OF YOU FEEL.

>> EVEN GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS OUT, I'VE STILL REQUESTED A MEETING WITH THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND THE MAYOR JUST TO GET THIS CONVERSATION STARTED AT THIS POINT.

>> WOULD MR. FOWLER BE IN THAT MEETING AS WELL?

>> THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BETWEEN TRACY AND I AS TO WHETHER THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT OR NOT BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT IN MY ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION, THERE NEEDS TO BE DIRECTIVE FROM THE CITY'S LEADERSHIP TO DETERMINE HOW WE PROCEED WITH THE COUNTY AS A PARTNER ON THIS.

>> I'M NOT UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE VARIANCE ITSELF AND ESPECIALLY AFTER WHAT TRACY JUST DESCRIBED.

WHAT I AM UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT BLOWING UP BECAUSE IT CAN BE STRAINED ANYWAY, OCCASIONALLY IS OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH ANOTHER ENTITY.

AS A COURTESY, I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THEY THINK.

>> I WOULD MOVE TO TABLE THE ITEM THEN UNTIL THOSE MEETINGS WITH THE CITY LOCKHART COULD COME TO A MORE CLEAR RESOLUTION ON A PATH FORWARD.

[01:00:06]

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM J4 FORWARD. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

[J.4 To discuss and consider a request for a variance for Juniper Springs Subdivision, Section 9 and 10 to allow residential structures to be permitted during infrastructure construction.]

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED IT QUITE A BIT WITHOUT A MOTION, BUT COMMISSIONER TERRIO, COMMISSIONER HORNE, YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY?

>> NO, SIR.

>> WITH THAT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TABLE ITEM J4.

NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THANK YOU. WE'LL GET BACK A COUPLE OF WEEKS.

>> THANK YOU.

>>YES, SIR. ITEM J5,

[J.5 To approve the Final Plat for Sunset Oaks, Section V, Phase 1B consisting of 226 lots on approximately 33.555 acres located on Highway 21 and CR 1966.]

DISCUSSION ACTION APPROVED FINAL PLAT FOR SUNSET OAKS, SECTION 5, PHASE 1B, CONSISTING OF 226 LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 33.555 ACRES LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 21 AND COUNTY ROAD 1966.

>> TRACY BRATTON, ALL THE BACKUP IS IN YOUR PACKETS.

THIS SUBDIVISION OR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY CITY OF SAN MARCOS UNDER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IS SENT TO DNX FROM THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, SO THE FINAL PLAT IS SOLELY UNDER COLE COUNTY JURISDICTION.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

>> COMMISSIONERS. SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM J5. WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.

ITEM J6, DISCUSSION ACTION APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SHILEY FARM SUBDIVISION, CONSISTING OF 845 LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 226.626 ACRES LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 21 AND MISTY LANE.

[J.6 To approve the Preliminary Plat for Schulle Farms subdivision consisting of 845 lots on approximately 226.626 acres located on Hwy 21 and Misty Lane.]

>> I SHOULD PROBABLY JUST STAY UP HERE THE ENTIRE TIME.

>> ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE IS YOURS.

>> THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SHILEY FARMS. THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH CALDWELL COUNTY GOVERNING THE DEVELOPMENT, THE PRELIMINARY PLATS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

TO PUT ON RECORD SOMETHING I WAS ASKED EARLIER.

THERE IS APPROVED TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROJECT THAT CALLS FOR A PRO RATA PAYMENT TO THE COUNTY FOR, IS THAT FIFTH STREET THAT RUNS BEHIND IT?

>> FIFTH STREET.

>> GOES TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIFTH STREET ONCE THEY MAKE THEIR CONNECTION TO FIFTH STREET.

THAT'S NOT IN THE FIRST PHASE.

THAT'S IN A LATER PHASE OF THE PROJECT.

>> COMMISSIONERS?

>> I MAKE MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL FAVOR SAY AYE.

ITEM J7, DISCUSSION ACTUALLY APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SOUTHERN MEADOWS CONSISTING OF 120.73 ACRES LOCATED ON FM 1984.

[J.7 To approve the Development Agreement for Southern Meadows consisting of 120.73 acres located on FM 1984.]

>> THIS IS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET.

THERE WAS A WORKSHOP PRESENTATION MADE TO COMMISSIONERS COURT, I THINK CLOSE TO A YEAR AGO ON THIS.

AT THE TIME, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT CALLING IT A SECTION OR PHASE OF SUNSET OAKS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP IN THE DISCUSSION HERE IN COMMISSIONERS COURT WAS TO NOT REUSE THAT NAME BECAUSE THIS IS NOT PHYSICALLY CONNECTED TO SUNSET OAKS, ALTHOUGH IT'S IN THE SAME VICINITY AND THE SAME DEVELOPER.

I CAN READ HERE.

IF I CAN FIND IT, I WAS JUST GOING TO GIVE A VERY QUICK SUMMARY OF THE LOT DENSITY.

THERE'S ONE COMMERCIAL LOT UP IN THE FRONT OF IT.

AGAIN, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

WE WORKED THROUGH THIS EXTENSIVELY WITH COMMISSIONER TERRIO.

>> I THINK IT'S 40S, 45 AND 50S.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> COMMISSIONER, YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> COMMISSIONER TERRIO HAS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM J7. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ITEM J8, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR TUMBLEWEED RANCH CONSISTING OF 11 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 24.426 ACRES LOCATED ON WITTER ROAD AND TUMBLEWEED TRAIL.

[J.8 To approve the Final Plat for Tumbleweed Ranch consisting of 11 residential lots on approximately 24.426 acres located on Witter Road and Tumbleweed Trail.]

[01:05:01]

>> I THINK I'LL GET TO ACTUALLY SIT DOWN AFTER THIS ONE, STAY SEATED DOWN.

INFORMATION IS IN YOUR BACKUP.

THESE ARE 11 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, EACH SERVED BY INDIVIDUAL SEPTICS.

THEY FRONT WITTER ROAD AND TUMBLEWEED TRAIL AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONERS COURT.

>> COMMISSIONERS?

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> COMMISSIONER THOMAS MAKE MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM J8. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

ITEM J9, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 072025, SUPPORTING COUNTY MOTOR FUEL TAX EXEMPTION.

[J.9 To approve Resolution 07-2025 supporting County Motor Fuel Tax Exemption.]

COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MOST OF THE COUNTIES ARE WEIGHING IN ON.

IT IS A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A BILL TO GRANT COUNTY TAX EXEMPTION ON THE MOTOR FUEL TAX.

I'LL JUST READ THE RESOLUTION AND THEN I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION.

RESOLUTION 072025, RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR COUNTY MOTOR FUEL TAX EXEMPTION, WHEREAS TEXAS COUNTIES ARE THE ACTION ARM OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF MANY VARIOUS STATE GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS AS REQUIRED OR AUTHORIZED BY STATE LAW.

WHEREAS TEXAS COUNTIES PROVIDE ESSENTIAL STATE SERVICES TO CONSTITUENTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AND ARE FULLY OR PARTIALLY SUPPORTED WITH FUNDS DISPERSED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS PURSUANT TO THE STATE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS, AND WHEREAS TEXAS COUNTIES PROVIDE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND SERVE AS FIRST RESPONDERS DURING DISASTERS TO CLEAR ROADS AND PROVIDE LIFESAVING RESCUE AND RECOVERY SUPPORT TO LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL AGENCIES, AND WHEREAS RISING FUEL COSTS HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON COUNTY BUDGETS, AND WHEREAS THE STATE OF TEXAS HAS AUTHORIZED A MOTOR FUEL TAX EXEMPTION FOR VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS WOULD PARTNER WITH TEXAS COUNTIES TO PROVIDE LIFESAVING FIRE RESPONSE AND MITIGATION TO CITIZENS OF TEXAS, AND WHEREAS THE STATE OF TEXAS HAS AUTHORIZED A MOTOR FUEL TAX EXEMPTION TO TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR MOTOR FUEL TAX, WHICH HELPS REDUCE EXPENSE TO LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND ALLEVIATE THE IMPACT OF LOCAL SCHOOL PROPERTY TAXES TO THE CITIZENS OF TEXAS AND WHEREAS, EXEMPTING TEXAS MOTOR FUEL TAXES FOR TEXAS COUNTIES WILL REDUCE TAX TURN IN THE STATE AND FURTHER ALLEVIATE THE IMPACT OF LOCAL COUNTY PROPERTY TAXES TO THE CITIZENS OF TEXAS.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, THAT IT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, IT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF TEXAS COUNTIES AND THEIR TAXPAYERS TO SUPPORT AND FAVOR PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION THAT EXEMPTS COUNTIES FROM CERTAIN MOTOR FUEL TAXES RESOLVED THIS TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024.

COMMISSIONERS, I THINK THAT COVERS IT.

SOMEBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

ITEM J10, DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER RESCHEDULING DECEMBER 24, 2024 REGULAR COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETING.

[J.10 To discuss and consider rescheduling the December 24, 2024, regular Commissioners Court meeting.]

COMMISSIONER, THAT'S OF COURSE CHRISTMAS EVE, TUESDAY, AND WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER MOVING IT TO MONDAY THE 23RD, IF POSSIBLE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE COMMISSIONERS COURT TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 23.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

ITEM J11, DISCUSSION ACTION REGARDING THE BURN BAN. HECTOR.

[J.11 Regarding the burn ban.]

>> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS, STAFF, AND GALLERY.

GIVE YOU A BRIEF UPDATE.

WE HAD A FEW FIRES THROUGHOUT THE LAST TWO WEEKS, NOTHING MAJOR.

IT'S JUST PEOPLE WANTING TO BURN.

THEY GET A LITTLE SHOWER AND THEY GO TO LIGHTING FIRES, BUT THEY WERE SMALL FIRES.

SO FAR THIS WEEK, WE HAVE RAIN PREDICTED ALL THE WAY UP TO SUNDAY, WHICH LOOKS PRETTY GOOD.

WITH THE PAST RAIN WE HAD THIS PAST WEEKEND, SOME PEOPLE GOT INCH AND A HALF TO JUST A LITTLE UNDER AN INCH ALL OVER CALDWELL COUNTY.

LIKE I SAID, THE RAIN CHANCES LOOK PRETTY GOOD FOR THE REST OF THE WEEK, AND I FEEL SAFE AND RECOMMEND THAT WE TAKE THE BURN BAN OFF.

>> WHAT WAS THE KBDI, HECTOR?

>> YES. THE KBDI NUMBERS.

THE MINIMUM IS 491.

MAX IS 625 WITH AN AVERAGE OF 562 MINUS TWO FOR THE CHANGE.

NUMBERS ARE GOING DOWN AS WE'RE GETTING MOISTURE.

[01:10:02]

>> COMMISSIONERS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO TAKE THE BURN BAN OFF?

>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> THANKS, HECTOR. ITEM J12,

>> THANK YOU, JUDGE.

[J.12 To discuss and grant County Judge permission to enter into negotiations with Unified Strategic for the technical assessment of IT systems and IT-driven processes in Caldwell County.]

DISCUSSION ACTION TO DISCUSS AND GRANT COUNTY JUDGE PERMISSION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNIFIED STRATEGIC FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OF IT SYSTEMS AND IT DRIVEN PROCESSES IN CALDWELL COUNTY, COST IS $49,999.

COMMISSIONERS, I'M WANTING TO DO THIS BECAUSE WE CONTINUE TO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THREAT ACTORS ACCESSING OUR SYSTEM, MOST OF THE TIME VIA SOME TYPE OF PHISHING EMAIL.

THEY'RE GETTING BETTER AND BETTER AT GETTING IN AND THE LAST CASE THEY RESIDED IN OUR SYSTEM FOR OVER A MONTH BEFORE THEY DID ANYTHING.

THIS WOULD BASICALLY BE AN OUTSIDE AUDIT ON OUR EXISTING IT GROUP JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN TO MAKE SURE OUR SYSTEM IS AS HARDENED AS IT CAN BE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE HACKERS NEVER SLEEP AND THEY HAVE GOTTEN VERY GOOD AT GETTING AROUND DUAL FACTOR AUTHENTICATION NOW.

WE'RE GOING TO BE FACED WITH PROBABLY SPENDING ANOTHER $50,000 A YEAR FOR ANOTHER LAYER OF PROTECTION ON TOP OF DUAL FACTOR AUTHENTICATION, BUT I JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH AND HAVE A SECOND SET OF EYES JUST GO THROUGH AND MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS NOT ONLY FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, BUT IS MAKING SURE THAT OUR SYSTEM IS AS HARDENED AS IT CAN BE.

THESE GUYS ARE PRETTY GOOD.

I'VE GOTTEN JUST FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THEM WAS ABLE TO GET IN VIA A FALSE DOCU SIGN.

IT LOOKED VERY REAL, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN EVERY DOCU SIGN I DO.

I'M NOT CALLING SOMEBODY TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS THEM THAT SENT IT.

BEFORE I DOCU SIGN IT, I DON'T JUST DOC YOU SIGN WITHOUT VERIFYING THAT THE SENDER ACTUALLY SENT THAT TO ME.

THAT'S THE REASON THIS IS ON THE AGENDA AND I WOULD HOPE FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE IT SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THIS FIRM COME IN AND JUST GO THROUGH OUR SYSTEM WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT MISSING SOMETHING.

>> MOVE APPROVAL, COMMISSIONER?

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO.

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

>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.

[J.13 Requesting approval to award Armstrong, Vaughn and Associates the contract opportunity for the Caldwell County External Audit Services RFP24CCP05P.]

ITEM J13, DISCUSSION ACTION REQUESTING APPROVAL TO AWARD ARMSTRONG VON AND ASSOCIATES THE CONTRACT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CALDWELL COUNTY EXTERNAL AUDIT SERVICES RFP24CCP05.

>. GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS.

WHEN I TOOK OVER IN THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, WE HAD A FIRM ARMSTRONG VON AND ASSOCIATES AS OUR EXTERNAL AUDITOR.

THEY WERE ON A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT TERM.

THAT TERM CAME UP THIS YEAR.

WE WENT BACK OUT FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE SAME SERVICES.

WE HAD TWO THAT CAME IN THAT WERE PRETTY WELL QUALIFIED, BUT ARMSTRONG AND VON DID COME UP 10 POINTS HIGHER.

I'VE HAD SOME SCHEDULING ISSUES OR JUST TIMELINESS ISSUES WITH ARMSTRONG AND VON ON GETTING THE AUDIT REPORTS TURNED BACK INTO THE COUNTY BUT I THINK IF WE COMPOSE OUR NEW CONTRACT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S SOME CONTRACT VERBIAGE IN THERE AS FAR AS KEEPING THEM ON THE SCHEDULED TIMELINE.

I THINK THAT WILL SOLVE THAT ISSUE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S REALLY NOTHING HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO GETTING THAT AUDIT TURNED IN A TIMELY FASHION.

OTHER THAN THAT, THEY'VE BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH.

THEY'VE HELPED US THROUGH A LOT OF JUST GETTING OUR BOOKS BACK IN ORDER, GETTING OUR CASH BALANCING, HELPING BANK RECONCILIATIONS.

THEY DON'T CHARGE US FOR HELP.

THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, I CONSTANTLY CALL THEM FOR ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THEY ANSWER IMMEDIATELY AND ARE WILLING TO HELP, SO WHICH IS GREAT.

THEY ALSO DON'T CHARGE FOR ASSISTANCE ON JOURNAL ENTRIES AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WHICH MOST FIRMS DO.

OTHER THAN THAT ONE ISSUE AS FAR AS JUST GETTING THOSE REPORTS TURNED IN,

[01:15:02]

I THINK WE CAN SOLVE THAT WITH A TIGHTER CONTRACT.

>> BUT AS FAR AS PENALTIES GO, WOULD THEY BE MONETARY PENALTIES OR WOULD IT BE PENALTIES OF LIKE TERMINATION OR MONETARY FIRST AND THEN TERMINATION?

>> WE CAN DISCUSS THAT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T EVEN DRAFTED THE CONTRACT YET.

THIS IS JUST THE AWARD PHASE.

DEFINITELY WOULD LOVE TO SIT WITH YOU, RICHARD, IN THE ROOM, AND COME UP WITH SOME GOOD TERMS THAT WE CAN HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

>> YEAH. THAT'S BEEN REALLY THE ONLY COMPLAINT WITH THAT FIRM.

IF WE HAVE AN ABILITY TO HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE, I THINK IT'D BE HELPFUL.

>> ALSO KEEP IT ON A YEARLY INSTEAD OF THE FIRST CONTRACT WAS AN AUTOMATIC THREE AND THEN ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS TO RENEW.

I THINK IF WE KEEP IT ON AN ANNUAL, IF WE HAVE THOSE ISSUES AGAIN, EVEN WITH US TIGHTENING UP THE CONTRACT.

>> MOVE ON, NOT TERMINATE, BUT JUST GO BACK OUT.

VERY GOOD. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM J12?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE?

>> YES, SIR.

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.