G.1 To consider authorizing the County Judge to execute an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lockhart for Subdivision Regulation of Juniper Springs (Formerly Clearfork Ranch) Phases 9, 10 and 16 within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of the City of Lockhart, addressed as 3000 Borchert Loop.

[G.1 To consider authorizing the County Judge to execute an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lockhart for Subdivision Regulation of Juniper Springs (Formerly Clearfork Ranch) Phases 9, 10 and 16 within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of the City of Lockhart, addressed as 3000 Borchert Loop.]

ACTION ITEM G 1 TO DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER AUTHORIZING COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LOCKHART FOR SUBDIVISION

[00:05:06]

REGULATION OF JUNIPER SPRINGS, FORMERLY CLEARFORK RANCH, PHASES 9, 10, AND 16, WITH THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF LOCKHART. ADDRESS IS 3000 BORCHERT LOOP . COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND, YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT ONE? AND THEN WE CAN GIVE US A LITTLE BACKGROUND AND WE CAN.

YES. MAKE A MOTION AND GET SOME DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONERS, YOU'LL PROBABLY REMEMBER BACK AT OUR FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER, WE TABLED A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE CONSIDERATION ON THIS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT.

AT THE TIME IT WAS TABLED, THE DISCUSSION WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION HAD BEEN DONE WITH THE CITY OF LOCKHART, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T, THAT WE WERE BEING PRUDENT IN OUR DECISION MAKING AND NOT EXCLUDING THEM FROM ANYTHING THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER.

THAT THOSE MEETINGS OCCURRED FAIRLY QUICKLY PRIOR TO CHRISTMAS, BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

TRACY BRATTON AND MYSELF MET WITH THE CITY MANAGER, THEIR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COORDINATOR, STAFF AND THE MAYOR AND EXPLAINED THE ISSUE THAT HAS ARISEN AT JUNIPER SPRINGS.

TRACY PROPOSED WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US TODAY, WHICH IS A PROJECT SPECIFIC INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT HAS A VERY NARROW SCOPE THAT ADDRESSES THE ISSUES ON THREE PHASES WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AND THE CITY WAS WAS OPEN TO ENTERING INTO THIS VERY NARROW, SPECIFIC AGREEMENT AT THIS TIME TO SOLVE THESE SPECIFIC ISSUES.

BUT THE UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THERE ARE OTHER CONFLICTS WITHIN A COUPLE OF OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT EXISTS AT THE CITY THAT WILL NEED TO BE FIGURED OUT OVER THE COMING MONTHS. BUT THIS, AGREEMENT AT LEAST ALLOWED SOME OF THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO GET UNDERWAY THAT IS PRUDENT TO A COUPLE OF OTHER ISSUES WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT, PRIMARILY THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION UPON BORCHERT LOOP AS WELL AS MAKING SURE THAT THE APPROPRIATE INFRASTRUCTURE IS BEING PUT IN TO SURROUND THE NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, THAT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED RIGHT NOW.

SO THAT IS WHERE IT SITS RIGHT NOW. AS FAR AS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, THE CITY PASSED THIS AT THEIR COUNCIL MEETING LAST TUESDAY. SO PENDING APPROVAL BY THIS BODY TODAY, IT WOULD BECOME AN APPROVED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AT THAT STAGE.

SO I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT, PROBABLY A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THIS.

SO TO ALLOW FOR DISCUSSION, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE IT.

AS LISTED IN THE BACKUP. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM G 1 AS LISTED BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.

DO WE HAVE A HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? HAVE A SECOND.

BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT. I HAVE JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

IS THERE SOME REASON THAT THE OTHER THAT THESE PARTICULAR ISSUES COULDN'T APPLY TO ALL THE SECTIONS? SO THE PRIMARY ISSUE THAT THAT AROSE IS DUE TO THE THE MODIFIED MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY ENTERED INTO WITH THE DEVELOPER.

THEY DID THAT WITH AT THE END OF 2023. AND IN THAT AGREEMENT, IT SEPARATES THESE THREE SECTIONS OUT FOR COUNTY REVIEW AND COUNTY APPROVAL. THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT THEY NEVER CONSULTED THE COUNTY WHEN THEY ENTERED INTO THAT AGREEMENT.

AND SO THAT MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT IS IN CONFLICT WITH OUR OUR OVERARCHING OR UMBRELLA INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT THE COUNTY AND THE CITY HAVE FOR REVIEW AND PERMITTING WITHIN THE ETJ. AND SO THE REASON WHY THESE THREE SECTIONS ARE CALLED OUT IS BECAUSE THIS ONE AGREEMENT CAN ALIGN THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS, AT LEAST TEMPORARILY, TO ALLOW FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO BEGIN TO BE MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO BEGIN TO BE MADE IN ADDITION TO THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY.

IT ALLOWS US TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THOSE IN AS THE COUNTY REVIEW PROCESS AND PERMITTING, KNOWING THAT THE REMAINDER OF THE SECTIONS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED TOO, AND THE CITY IS AWARE OF THAT. THOSE WERE BROUGHT UP IN THE MEETING THAT WE HAD WITH THEM ABOUT COMING UP WITH THIS DOCUMENT.

THEY ARE AWARE THAT THOSE THOSE PROBLEMS NEED TO BE SOLVED AS WELL, ON HOW THAT PERMITTING IS, IS PROCEEDING FORWARD AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE WE WE HAD NO CONSENT TO THAT MODIFIED MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT.

AND THERE'S THERE'S ISSUES WITHIN THAT DOCUMENT THAT PERTAIN TO COUNTY REVIEW THAT WILL NEED TO BE SOLVED AS WELL GOING FORWARD AT THIS TIME.

SO THAT MUD AGREEMENT APPLIES TO ALL THE SECTIONS, NOT JUST THESE THREE.

THAT. CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THAT'S. THAT'S WHY I'M.

[00:10:03]

THAT WAS DISCUSSED. I THINK THE THE TIMELINE IS THE MAIN ISSUE.

HOWEVER, IF THE COURT FEELS THAT THAT'S NOT THE APPROPRIATE ACTION, THEN THE NEXT WAY TO SOLVE IT AT THIS POINT WOULD BE EITHER A COUPLE OF OPTIONS. EITHER WE GO TO A PROJECT SPECIFIC AGREEMENT THAT HAS ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN IT, WHICH WOULD BE THE CITY, THE COUNTY, AND THE DEVELOPER TO ULTIMATELY LAY OUT HOW THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT WOULD BE DEVELOPED OR THE INTERLOCAL. THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED NO MATTER WHAT AT THIS POINT.

SO THOSE WOULD BE THE OTHER TWO OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD.

IF THIS ISN'T THE PREFERRED METHODOLOGY OF THE COURT AT THIS TIME.

I GUESS, I MEAN, I'M JUST I STILL HAVING TROUBLE AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID, BUT I JUST HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING WHY THE CITY WOULD BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET OUR CONSENT FOR ALL THE SECTIONS.

WHY THEY JUST WANT THESE THREE AND THEY WANT TO DEAL WITH THE REST LATER THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE A 1 LINER IN THE AGREEMENT TO SAY THIS INCLUDES SECTIONS ONE THROUGH 16 OR WHATEVER, HOWEVER MANY SECTIONS THERE ARE. THESE THREE SECTIONS WERE CALLED OUT IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE THEY WERE.

THE ETJ DID NOT ENCOMPASS THE ENTIRETY OF THE DEVELOPMENT, AND THESE THREE SECTIONS WERE OUTSIDE OF THE ORIGINAL ETJ FOR THE CITY.

AND SO THOSE WERE ADDED IN VOLUNTARILY AND ENCOMPASSED INTO THE WHOLE MUD AT THAT POINT.

SO THAT'S WHY THESE THREE WERE CALLED OUT TO BE SEPARATED, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ORIGINALLY WITHIN THE ETJ YEARS AGO.

SO THAT'S THE REASON BEHIND IT. THIS IS INHERITING A LOT OF ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP OVER THE LAST 5 OR 6 YEARS.

SO THAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND IT. I, YOU KNOW, I FULLY UNDERSTAND IF IT WAS THE WILL OF THE COURT TO SOLVE IT ALL IN ONE DOCUMENT.

NORMALLY THAT WOULD BE MY OPINION AS WELL. THE ONLY REASON THAT I ENTERTAINED MR. BRATTON'S IDEA OF OF PURSUING IT THIS WAY WAS THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN SO MUCH CONFUSION OVER THIS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT THAT IN ORDER TO KIND OF SOLVE JUST ONE PROBLEM AND THEN MOVE ON TO THE REST, BUT I CAN RESPECT THE DESIRE TO SOLVE IT ALL IN ONE FELL SWOOP.

SO, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. SO IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL CALL THE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF PROCEEDING WITH ITEM G 1, AS STATED SAY AYE.

AYE. I'M GOING TO BE A NAY, SIMPLY BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THIS COULD BE RESOLVED FAIRLY QUICKLY.

AND I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE WHY WE'RE NOT TRYING TO GET IT ALL DONE AT ONCE.

BUT MOTION PASSES. ITEM G 2 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CLEMENTINE RANCH SUBDIVISION,

[G.2 To approve the Preliminary Plat for Clementine Ranch subdivision consisting of 12 residential lots on approximately 20.198 acres located on State Hwy 304 and Cardinal Road.]

CONSISTING OF 12 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 20.198 ACRES, LOCATED ON STATE HIGHWAY 304 AND CARDINAL LOOP ROAD.

KASI. OKAY. GOOD MORNING. THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT YESTERDAY COMMISSIONER HORNE AND I AND KIM FROM DOUCETTE WERE ON CALLS FOR SUBDIVISIONS, AND AN EMAIL CAME UP FROM MATTHEW ALLEN AT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT JUST STATING ABOUT SOME BEARINGS AND SOME DISTANCES JUST WEREN'T VISIBLE ON THE PLAT.

WE DID INTERVENE AND TALK TO TRACY, AND HE SAID, SINCE IT IS ONLY A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, IT IS OKAY TO MOVE FORWARD AND ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED COULD BE DONE BEFORE FINAL.

OKAY. SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO MOVE FORWARD.

ALRIGHTY. SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION COMMISSIONERS.

MOVE TO APPROVE. A MOTION TO MOTION APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

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

AYE. OPPOSED. HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G 3.

[G.3 To approve the Final Plat for Tumbleweed Ranch subdivision consisting of 11 residential lots on approximately 24.426 acres located on Witter Road and Tumbleweed Trail.]

DISCUSSION ACTION FOR POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR TUMBLEWEED RANCH SUBDIVISION, CONSISTING OF 11 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 24.426 ACRES, LOCATED ON WITTER ROAD AND TUMBLEWEED TRAIL.

OKAY, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT AT THIS TIME THAT A FINAL PLAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE ON THIS SUBDIVISION BACK IN DECEMBER 10TH.

AT THIS TIME, TWO AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, AND WE'RE JUST MOVING FORWARD TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT AT THIS TIME.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED. MOTION TO APPROVE. COMMISSIONER. YES.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? HEARING.

NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM G 4 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 2025 AS DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS AND

[G.4 To approve a Proclamation designating February 2025 as Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month.]

[00:15:08]

PREVENTION MONTH. I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THE PROCLAMATION.

PROCLAMATION RECOGNITION OF FEBRUARY 2025, AS DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH.

WHEREAS IN 1 IN 3 ADOLESCENTS IS A VICTIM OF PHYSICAL, SEXUAL, EMOTIONAL OR VERBAL ABUSE FROM A DATING PARTNER.

AND WHEREAS THE EFFECTS OF DATING VIOLENCE IMPACT YOUTH IN ALL COMMUNITIES AND CUTS ACROSS ECONOMIC, RACIAL, GENDER AND SOCIETAL BARRIERS. AND WHEREAS, RESPECTFUL, SUPPORTIVE AND NONVIOLENT RELATIONSHIPS ARE KEY TO SAFETY, HEALTH AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS. AND WHEREAS, BY PROVIDING TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS WITH EDUCATION ABOUT HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS, AND BY CHANGING ATTITUDES THAT SUPPORT VIOLENCE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT DATING VIOLENCE CAN BE PREVENTED.

AND WHEREAS FAMILY, FRIENDS, TEACHERS, COACHES, FAITH LEADERS, COMMUNITY MEMBERS, AND OTHER IMPORTANT PEOPLE IN YOUNG PEOPLE'S LIVES HAVE THE POWER TO INFLUENCE YOUTH IN POSITIVE WAYS.

AND WHEREAS LAST YEAR, HCWC PROVIDED 61 DATING, VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP PRESENTATIONS TO 02,430 TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS. AND WHEREAS LAST YEAR, HCWC REACHED AN AUDIENCE OF MORE THAN 790,000 THROUGH PREVENTION EDUCATION TOOLKIT AND DOWNLOADS.

AND WHEREAS WE MUST WORK TOGETHER TO RAISE AWARENESS AND PROMOTE HEALTHY DATING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ACTIVITIES AND CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MUTUALLY RESPECTFUL AND NONVIOLENT RELATIONSHIPS IN OUR HOMES, SCHOOLS, AND COMMUNITIES.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT IT DOES HEREBY RECOGNIZE FEBRUARY 2025 AS DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH AND DO HEREBY CALL UPON THE CITIZENS OF CALDWELL COUNTY TO WORK TOGETHER TO RAISE AWARENESS AND PREVENT DATING VIOLENCE AMONG TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS IN OUR COMMUNITY AND BEYOND. PROCLAIM THIS 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025.

COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION.

SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT I MEAN COMMISSIONER HORNE TO APPROVE.

WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. SECOND.COMMISSIONER THERIOT. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED. HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G 5.

[G.5 Regarding the burn ban.]

DISCUSSION. ACTION REGARDING THE BURN BAN. JUDGE CAN WE GET A OH, YEAH. HANG ON ONE SECOND HECTOR. IS THERE SOMEBODY HERE FROM HCWC THAT WOULD LIKE TO DO A PICTURE? OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

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

IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS, WE'VE HAD A FEW FIRES, A COUPLE OF STRUCTURE FIRES, AND A COUPLE OF GRASS FIRES OUT THERE.

ONE CONSUMING 40 BALES OF HAY. BOTH OF THOSE THE TWO GRASS FIRES WERE FIRES THAT WERE CONTROLLED BURNS THAT GOT OUT OF HAND.

BUT WE GOT THEM BACK UNDER CONTROL. BUT THE FARMER LOST 40 BALES.

WE JUST LET THEM BURN. THE CHANCES FOR RAIN FOR THIS WEEK AND THE NEXT COUPLE OF COUPLE OF DAYS LOOK REALLY GOOD.

ANYTHING FROM 10% UP TO 90% TONIGHT. SUPPOSED TO GET SOME HEAVY RAIN TONIGHT AROUND PROBABLY AROUND 10, 11:00. RIGHT NOW THE KBDI THE MINIMUM IS 231 MAX 537 AVERAGE 394 WITH A CHANGE OF ONE.

I'M RECOMMENDING TO THE COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT WE KEEP THE BURN BAN OFF.

OKAY. THANK YOU, HECTOR. COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO KEEP THE BURN BAN OFF.

SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE TO KEEP THE BURN BAN OFF.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

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

AYE. OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU JUDGE.

THANK YOU. ITEM G 6. DISCUSSION ACTION REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR CURRENT PATROL CIVIL DEPUTY VICTIM SERVICE COORDINATOR POSITION CHANGE TO

[G.6 Requesting approval for current Patrol Civil Deputy/Victim Service Coordinator position change to Victim Service Liaison position in accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure Title 1. Ch. 56 A. Subchapter 203 Designation of Crime Victim Liaison.]

VICTIM SERVICE LIAISON POSITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TITLE 1 CHAPTER 56 A CHAPTER 203.

[00:20:02]

DESIGNATION OF CRIME VICTIM LIAISON. GO AHEAD CHIEF.

GOOD MORNING JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS, GALLERY. WE ASKED THIS MOVE BE VOTED ON TO HELP BOLSTER OUR VICTIM SERVICES.

CURRENTLY, WE DON'T HAVE A VICTIM SERVICES COORDINATOR.

SHE LEFT AND WENT TO AUSTIN SCHOOL DISTRICT. OUR CIVIL DIVISION ORIGINALLY HAD THREE PERSONS ASSIGNED TO IT THREE SWORN OFFICERS ASSIGNED TO IT.

SINCE THEN, IT HAS DROPPED DOWN TO TWO. IN SPEAKING WITH THEM THE CORPORAL OVER CIVIL BELIEVES THAT WHILE IT WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE A LITTLE BUSIER FOR THEM, THEY'RE WELL WITHIN THE ABILITY TO HANDLE THAT CIVIL PROCESS SIDE, THAT FREEING UP SO THAT WE CAN SERVE THESE CRIME VICTIMS BETTER, GET THESE PHOTOS THAT WE NEED TO GET THEM FOLLOWED UP WITH, AND HELP THE CID SIDE OF THIS GET THEM PROCESSED THROUGH.

OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ITEM G 6.

MOTION TO APPROVE. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.

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

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

AYE. OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.