Mar 11, 2025 Commissioners Court

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TARIO.

ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MESQUITE MEADOWS CONSISTING OF 22 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 32.90 ACRES LOCATED ON FM 672 ON BARTH ROAD.

ITEM G3.

[G.3 To approve the Preliminary Plat for Mesquite Meadows consisting of 22 residential lots on approximately 32.90 acres located on FM 672 and Barth Road.]

>> SAME SCENARIO. ALL COMMENTS OF MCCLARE FEES HAVE BEEN COLLECTED AND WE'RE READY TO MOVE TO FINAL PLAT.

>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

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

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WEST MORLAN.

ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> APPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ITEM G4.

[G.4 To discuss and take possible action regarding a Conveyance Agreement between the City of Luling and Caldwell County for two tracts of approximately 13.737 and 15.458 acres of land.]

DISCUSSION ACTION TO TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LELLING AND CALDWELL COUNTY FOR TWO TRACKS OF APPROXIMATELY 13.737 AND 15.458 ACRES OF LAND.

COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS THE LAND AROUND THE EVACUATION CENTER, THE REMAINING LAND.

THE COST TO BUY THIS WOULD BE $437,925.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PLACES TO GET THE MONEY.

WE HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY TO DO THIS, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO.

THIS WOULD BE THE LAND FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RODEO ARENA WE'VE DISCUSSED AND THE SHOW BARN THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED.

WITHOUT THE PURCHASE OF THIS LAND, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO EVENTUALLY BUILD THOSE TWO THINGS.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS PURCHASE.

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

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TARIO.

ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS?

>> NO.

>> NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ITEM G5, DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER

[G.5 To discuss and consider authorizing the County Judge to go through the process of entering into an agreement that identifies future transportation corridors within the County in accordance with Section 201.619, Transportation Code.]

[00:05:01]

AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY JUDGE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT THAT IDENTIFIES FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS WITHIN THE COUNTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 201.69 OF THE TRANSPORTATION CODE.

>> MORNING, JUDGE COURT.

MY NAME IS WILL CONLEY.

MYSELF AND TRACY BRATTON ARE HERE, IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL PROGRAM, SAID PLAINLY, THIS GIVES ANOTHER NOTCH TO YOUR BELT AND WORKING WITH IN COOPERATION WITH TEXT TO PRESERVE CORRIDORS FOR FUTURE TRANSPORTATION THROUGHOUT CALDWELL COUNTY.

LONG TIME THIS HAS BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE LAW.

LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THEY WROTE SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO GIVE IT MORE TEETH, IF YOU WILL, SO COUNTIES AND STATE CAN WORK IN COOPERATION.

THE PROGRAM HAS STEPS TO IT.

WHAT YOU WOULD BE AUTHORIZING TODAY IS ALLOWING THE COUNTY JUDGE'S OFFICE TO FILE AN APPLICATION.

THAT APPLICATION IS FAIRLY CLEAR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD.

THERE ARE PUBLIC PROCESSES THAT NEED TO BE CHECKED AND ADDRESSED IN THE INTEREST OF NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC, LIKE HAVING YOUR TRANSPORTATION PLAN ON YOUR COUNTY WEBSITE GOING THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE MPO PROCESSES WITH CAMPO, ETC, SO THAT THE PUBLIC IS AWARE AND INFORMED ALWAYS OF WHAT THE INTENTIONS OF THE STATE AND THE COUNTY ARE BUT BEYOND THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR LIKE I GUESS SAID, TRACY'S HERE SOMEWHERE.

BEHIND ME. HE COULD TALK ABOUT IT.

BUT TO MY UNDERSTANDING AND WORKING WITH MR. BRATTON FOR A LONG TIME, AND IN THIS COUNTY, THIS REALLY JUST CONTINUES TO UNDERLINE THE WORK THAT ALL ARE ALREADY DOING.

>> COMMISSIONERS.

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION, JUDGE?

>> SURE.

>> WILL, COULD YOU TELL US IN THE PUBLIC WHAT THE BENEFIT OF GOING THROUGH THIS EXERCISE IS AS NEW DEVELOPMENT OCCURS?

>> YES, SIR. THIS IS AN EFFORT TO TRY TO COORDINATE WITH THE STATE AND THE COUNTY AS DEVELOPMENTS OCCUR, GOING THROUGH THE PLOTTING PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHERE THOSE FUTURE CORRIDORS ARE AND TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THOSE CORRIDORS FOR THE FUTURE.

WHAT IT MEANS IN REALITY TO THE TAXPAYERS OF CALDWELL COUNTY IS THAT YOU WILL BE SAVING THEM A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY IN THE FUTURE BY GOING THROUGH THESE DISCUSSIONS AND AGREEMENTS EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS AND STUDY YEARS LATER WHEN YOU COULD BE CONDEMNING IF YOU SAW NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSES, BUILDINGS, THINGS OF THIS NATURE.

WHICH IS VERY EXPENSIVE, VERY INTRUSIVE TO PEOPLE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND COULD BE VERY TIME CONSUMING AS WELL FOR THE COUNTY.

SO THIS IS GOOD PREPARATION.

THIS IS GETTING IN FRONT OF THIS SUBJECT MATTER INSTEAD OF REACTING TO WHAT'S OCCURRING IN YOUR COUNTY.

THIS IS BEING PROACTIVE, WORKING WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND PRIVATE LAND OWNERS TO COME TO A CONSENSUS ON THIS SUBJECT MATTER, AND EVERYBODY KNOWS WHERE IT IS VERY EARLY ON.

SO IT'S COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT IN WHICH THEY CAN THEN WORK WITH THE PRIVATE LANDOWNER IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THESE CORRIDORS.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY, WHAT THESE ARE FOR IS FOR PEOPLE IN CALDWELL COUNTY, AND FRANKLY, IN CENTRAL TEXAS IN THE STATE, TO BE ABLE TO GET AROUND AND HAVE TRADE AND COMMERCE AND TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE IN A SAFE EFFICIENT WAY THROUGHOUT CALDWELL COUNTY, WHICH I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU IS RAPIDLY CHANGING, AND THROUGHOUT OUR REGION AND STATE. TRACY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?

>> NO. WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING RIGHT AWAYS THROUGH PLATS FOR A WHILE.

WITHOUT THIS SINCE A CHANGE IN THE LEGISLATION, WE RUN THE RISK OF SOMEONE PUSHING BACK AND JUST REFUSING AND NOT HAVING THE TEETH TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO.

THIS IS A PROCESS WE NEED TO GO THROUGH TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN ENFORCE THAT SHOULD SOMEONE DECIDE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE COOPERATIVE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? I LOOK FOR A MOTION.

>> SO MOVED, JUDGE.

[00:10:01]

>> MOTION TO APPROVE, COMMISSIONER?

>> YES.

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

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.

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

>> APPOSED HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM G6, TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER TAKING ACTION REGARDING A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING

[G.6 To discuss and consider taking action regarding a Resolution supporting legislation to amend Chapter 372 of the Texas Local Gov't Code through act of the 89th Legislature of the State of Texas.]

LEGISLATION TO AMEND CHAPTER 372 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE THROUGH THE 89TH LEGISLATURE.

COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE THE RESOLUTION. I'LL READ IT.

BASICALLY, WHAT THIS DOES IS ALLOWS COUNTIES TO HAVE THE SAME AUTHORITY REGARDING IS AND HOW WE DEAL WITH PIDS AS MUNICIPALITIES DO.

RIGHT NOW, MUNICIPALITIES ARE ALLOWED TO DO IT.

ONE WAY AND OUR WAY IS MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE.

UNDER THE LEGISLATION. I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ IT.

RESOLUTION OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO AMEND CHAPTER 372 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE THROUGH ACT OF THE 89TH LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.

WHEREAS CHAPTER 372 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, CITED AS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ACT PROVIDES THE AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES, INCLUDING CALDWELL COUNTY, THE COUNTY MAY UTILIZE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS TO FINANCE CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.WHEREAS MUNICIPALITIES ARE ALREADY EXEMPT FROM BIDDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS, FINANCE, BY ASSESSMENTS UNDER THE CURRENT ACT, AND THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION SUBMITTED TO THE 89TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE WOULD AMEND THE ACT TO ALLOW FOR EXEMPTIONS TO BIDDING AND PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO COUNTIES SOLELY FOR IMPROVEMENTS, FINANCE, BY ASSESSMENT UNDER THE ACT.

AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ACT WOULD ALLOW FOR CONSISTENCY AND APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO MATCH THE CURRENT EXEMPTIONS FROM MUNICIPALITIES AND PROVIDE FOR MORE EFFICIENT OPERATING ACQUISITION AND FINANCING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THROUGHOUT TEXAS, INCLUDING WITHIN THE COUNTY.

WHEREAS COMMISSIONER COURT DECLARES ITS FULL SUPPORT FOR THE INTRODUCTION, PASSAGE OF THE 89TH LEGISLATION BY THE 89TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE AMENDING THE ACT AS MORE FULLY SET FORTH HERE IN.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY COWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, THAT SECTION ONE, COMMISSIONERS COURT HEREBY DECLARED ITS FULL SUPPORT FOR THE INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE OF THE LEGISLATION DURING THE 89TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE RELATING TO THE POWERS, OPERATION, ACQUISITION, AND FINANCING OF FACILITIES BY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AS SET FORTH HERE TOO IN EXHIBIT A, THE LEGISLATION.

SECTION TWO, COMMISSIONERS COURT RETAINS THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW THIS RESOLUTION AND ITS SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATION.

WHERE DURING THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, PROVISIONS IN THE LEGISLATION ARE SUBSTANTIVELY AMENDED.

SECTION THREE, THIS RESOLUTION TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY FROM AND AFTER ITS PASSAGE PASSED ON THIS DAY AND IT'S TODAY'S DATE.

IF WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS IT A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THE ITEM, IF YOU'D LIKE OR WE CAN HAVE A MOTION AND DISCUSS IT.

I KNOW THERE MAY BE SOME QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU'RE READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I'D LOOK FOR A MOTION.

>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE.

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

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. AN DISCUSSION?

>> NO.

>> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> OPPOSED HEARING, NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM G7 DISCUSSION ACTION TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER

[G.7 To discuss and consider Order 03-2025 regarding a Personal Service Agreement between EWEAC LLC and Caldwell County.]

ORDER 3225 REGARDING A PERSONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EW EAC, LLC AND CALDWELL COUNTY, COST NOT TO EXCEED $6,250 PER MONTH.

IN THE LAST SESSION, COUNTIES WERE GRANTED THE AUTHORITY TO SOURCE HIGHER UP TO $100,000.

I THINK THIS WOULD COME TO 75,000.

ANYWAY, OPEN FOR ANY DISCUSSION AND WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION OF SOME TYPE BEFORE WE GET INTO IT.

>> JUDGE, ON THIS ONE, PERSONALLY, I'D LIKE TO TABLE THIS MAYBE FOR ME AND YOU TO SIT DOWN SO I CAN WRAP MY HEAD AROUND WHAT THIS IS.

>> WELL, WE ARE AWARE OF OUR EMAIL THAT WENT TO THE ENTIRE COURT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU AND I CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION OUTSIDE OF COURT NOW.

>> THAT IS TRUE.

>> WE HAVE TO DO IT HERE.

[00:15:06]

IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION, YOU CAN MAKE IT.

IF YOU GET A SECOND, WE CAN DISCUSS IF YOU DON'T GET A SECOND, WE CAN GET ANOTHER MOTION AND THEN DISCUSS.

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE.

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

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

UNLESS ONE OF ALL WANTS TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION, I'VE GOT A FEW THINGS I'D LIKE TO SAY.

THESE THINGS ARE DONE TO SAVE THE COUNTY MONEY, NOT TO AVOID HIRING PEOPLE.

TO HIRE A PERSON TO DO THIS JOB WOULD COST THE COUNTY SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $200,000 ALL IN.

BY THE TIME YOU PAY THEM A SALARY, PAY FOR THEIR BENEFITS, WE HIRE CONSULTANTS TO AVOID THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED A FULL TIME PERSON FOR THIS JOB.

MR. CONLEY, WHO IS CONTRACTS FOR, HAS 20 YEARS OF TRANSPORTATION EXPERIENCE, 16 OF WHICH WERE AS COUNTY COMMISSIONER, EIGHT OF WHICH WERE AS CHAIR OF CAMPO.

I DON'T THINK WE'D FIND A MORE QUALIFIED PERSON FOR THIS TYPE OF MONEY IF WE TRIED.

WE'VE BEEN CONTRACTED WITH HIM FOR THE LAST I DON'T KNOW, PROBABLY, FOUR, FIVE, SIX YEARS AS AS OUR REPRESENTATIVE ON THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR CAMPO, WHICH EVERYBODY SITTING HERE HAD VOTED FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS.

WE'VE BEEN PAYING HIM $50,000 A YEAR.

THE WORKLOAD HAS INCREASED, SO HE'S ASKED FOR MORE MONEY.

THE REASON IT'S GOING FROM TO PERSONAL SERVICES FROM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IS THIS SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN UNDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA.

HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER. HE'S NOT AN ARCHITECT. HE'S NOT ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

HE'S A CONSULTANT. IT HAS TO GO UNDER PERSONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.

I HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE AND A SECOND, AND THAT'S ALL MY DISCUSSION.

THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

I'LL CALL THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> WE HAVE THREE NOS, TWO YESES.

>> COMMISSIONER TARIO?

>> NO.

>> I'M A NO.

>> NAY FOR ME.

THE MOTION TO TABLE DOES NOT PASS.

CAN I GET ANOTHER MOTION.

>> JUDGE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT?

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT BY COMMISSIONER TARIO? DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.

ANY MORE DISCUSSION?

>> JUDGE, THIS IS JUST A CONTINUATION OF EXISTING RELATIONSHIP THAT WE HAVE RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION, AND I THINK IT'S EASY TO CITE THE BENEFITS TO THE COUNTY THAT HAVE COME FROM THIS RELATIONSHIP.

I THINK THAT THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THIS IS BETTER ADDRESSES THE BUDGET RELATED TO THIS ITEM.

THAT'S THAT'S MY REASONING.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> NO. MISSION THOMAS. YOUR VOTE?

>> OPPOSED?

>> THE MOTION IN A SECOND WAS MADE TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT.

>> SO MOOT.

>> WELL, I'M CALLING THE VOTE.

ARE YOU A YES OR A NO?

>> I'M YES.

>> WE HAVE FOUR AYES AND ONE NO, MOTION PASSES. ITEM G8.

[G.8 To discuss and consider Change Order No. 3 for Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Radio Services and Equipment with Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA).]

DISCUSSION ACTUALLY CONSIDERED CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 3 FOR LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR RADIO SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT WITH LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY.

COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS CHANGE ORDER ASSOCIATED WITH GOING FROM THE CENTRALIZED PIECE APP TO THE THREE DIFFERENT PIECE APPS.

WE COMPLETELY HAD TO CHANGE THE WAY EVERYTHING WAS PROGRAMMED.

IT'S RESULTED IN A CHANGE ORDER THAT WE DISCUSSED, I THINK, AT THE LAST COMMISSIONERS COURT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE SO NOW WE'RE MAKING A MOTION TO CONSIDER THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR RADIO SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT WITH LOCAL COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY.

[00:20:09]

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 3?

>> MOVED MOTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER 3. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND, THE MOTION WAS BY COMMISSIONER HORN.

ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ITEM G9 DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ANIMAL SHELTER FEES.

[G.9 To discuss and take possible action regarding Animal Shelter Fees.]

CITY HAS APPROACHED US ABOUT INCREASING OUR FEES.

THEY APPROACHED DURING THE BUDGET CYCLE OF THE LAST TIME, BUT THEY ONLY GAVE US THE BUDGET FOR EXPENDITURES AND WE DID NOT GET A BUDGET FOR REVENUES THAT THEY RECEIVED.

I'VE GOT AN EXAMPLE OF THE INVOICE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SENDING AND WE'VE ONLY BEEN PAYING WHAT WE BUDGETED TO PAY IN THE LAST BUDGET.

THE LAST BUDGET AND AMOUNT, ACCORDING TO THE FEES WOULD HAVE BEEN $162.69 FOR 274 DOGS THAT THE CITY SAYS CAME FROM THE COUNTY.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO CHART AND NOW RAISE THAT TO $235.63.

THAT EQUATES TO BEFORE WE HAD PAID 4,457,706, NOW THEY'RE ASKING FOR 20,000 MORE.

ALMOST TO THE DOLLAR A MONTH.

CATS. THEY WANT TO GO FROM 16,793, THIS IS FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER TO $451.65.

THAT'S INCREASE OF ABOUT $6,000 A MONTH.

THEN THEY'RE LOOKING TO INCREASE OUR MONTHLY RATE SOMEWHERE ON THE ORDER OF $26,000 A MONTH.

YOU DO THE MAP OF WHAT THAT MEANS TO WHAT THE COUNTY WOULD BE SPENDING.

WE'RE ALREADY SPENDING.

I THINK I PUT THE BUDGET LINE ITEM IN THERE.

WE ALREADY HAVE BUDGETED 250,000, SO THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY ASKING US TO DOUBLE WHAT WE HAVE BUDGETED.

I HAVE HAD A MEETING WITH THEM AND TOLD THEM THAT IF THEY WANTED TO DO THIS, THIS IS FINE.

BUT WHAT IT WOULD FORCE US TO DO IN ORDER TO COVER THAT EXPENSE.

WE HAVE NOT INCREASED JAIL FEES FOR ANY OF OUR PARTNERS IN 20 YEARS, AND THEY SAID IT $50 PER INMATE PER DAY.

IT COSTS US MORE THAN TWICE THAT MUCH PER INMATE PER DAY TO HOUSE THEM, AND WE'VE NOT GONE UP ON OUR PRICES IN 20 YEARS.

THIS WOULD FORCE US TO DO THAT, NOT JUST FOR THE CITY OF LOCKHART, BUT FOR ALL THE OTHER CITIES IN ORDER TO COVER THAT EXPENSE.

THAT'S THE POSITION THAT PUTS US IN, AND SO I NEED I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE GOT AN EXTRA $250,000 LAYING AROUND TO JUST DO THIS IN THIS BUDGET CYCLE.

IT WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY HAVE TO COME OUT OF THE FUND BALANCE TO THE TUNE ABOUT TO GET US THROUGH.

I'M NOT HAVING DONE THE MATH, BUT IT'S A PRETTY GOOD CHUNK, A COUPLE OF $100,000.

TO GET THROUGH THE REST OF THIS YEAR, THAT IN ALL LIKELIHOOD HAVE TO COME OUT OF THE FUND BALANCE.

BUT I HAVE ASKED FOR AND THE AUDITOR HAS DONE AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST TO GET THE ENTIRE BUDGET, NOT JUST THE EXPENSES, BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW THE REVENUE.

BEFORE WE DO THIS, I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION.

>> WE BUDGET IN 250 RIGHT NOW AND THEN THEY WANT ANOTHER 250?

>> THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT THESE FEE INCREASES WOULD EQUATE TO. YES, SIR.

>> ALSO THAT MUCH BUDGETED AMOUNT, WE ALSO PAY THEIR LEASE PAYMENT?

>> THAT DOES NOT COME OUT OF THE 250.

THAT'S ANOTHER LINE ITEM.

THIS IS $2,000 A MONTH THAT WE PAY FOR THE LEASE ON THE BUILDING.

>> JUDGE, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD OFF ON UPPING THESE FEES FOR THE TIME BEING.

I KNOW IT'S AN EXPENSIVE OPERATION.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE A BETTER FEEL ON WHAT THE ACTUAL COSTS ARE, AND THE BUDGET IS COMING FROM THAT THEY'RE SPENDING ON THE SHELTER?

>> I MIGHT POINT OUT THAT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY AND IF I'M WRONG, WHEN THEY SEND THE BUDGET OVER WITH REVENUES,

[00:25:01]

IF WE CAN GET THEM TO DO THAT, THE EXPENSE FOR THE SHELTER IS ABOUT 500,000 A YEAR.

THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH ASKING US TO COVER ALL THE EXPENSES FOR THE SHELTER. PLUS THE LEASE.

>> IF THIS IS TRULY THE CASE, THERE'S SOME OTHER OPTIONS I THINK THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS.

>> I THINK SO TOO. I THINK FOR THAT MONEY, WE CAN CONSIDER DOING SOMETHING ELSE.

ANYWAY, IF IT AS PLEASURE TO TABLE IT UNTIL WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION, THEN I'LL BRING THIS BACK AND WITH HOPEFULLY SOME NUMBERS TO EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS AS WELL.

>> JUDGE, YOU JUST SAID THEY INCREASED ON THE DOGS AND CATS.

IS THAT THE RIGHT NUMBER THAT OUR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER IS BRINGING IN?

>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT EVERY ONE OF THESE IS BROUGHT IN BY THE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS.

SOME OF THEM ARE DROPPED OFF RESIDENT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GENERATED, AND THEY JUST SEND THIS NUMBER OVER TO US.

I HAVEN'T EVER CHECKED IT SEE [OVERLAPPING] HOW ACCURATE THEY ARE, BUT I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE ACCURATE.

>> I WOULD MOVE TO TABLE PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEING PRESENTED TO THE COURT AT A FUTURE MEETING.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE PENDING ME BEING I'LL TRY TO COME BACK COMMISSIONERS WITH SOME INFORMATION ON WHAT IT WOULD COST BELL OR OWN SHELTER? PLUS, HOPEFULLY WILL GET THE EXPENSES TO GO ALONG WITH THE REVENUE TO GO ALONG WITH THE EXPENSES SO WE CAN SEE HOW MUCH IS BEING COVERED BY OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE AND THEN MAKE A DECISION.

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

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> OPPOSED HEAR AND NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM G10, DISCUSSION AND TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER A CALDWELL COUNTY BURN BAN HECTOR.

[G.10 To discuss and consider a Caldwell County Burn Ban.]

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

IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS, WE'VE HAD A FEW FIRES.

WE HAD ONE STRUCTURE FIRE TO THAT, MOSTLY SMALL GRASS FIRES, JUST REALLY SMALL.

CHANCES OF RAIN ARE VERY SLIM FOR THE NEXT 15 DAYS.

WE HAVE A 20% CHANCE TONIGHT, BUT VERY SLIM.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IS STILL REPORTING THAT WE'RE HAVING HIGH FIRE DANGER FROM NOW UNTIL ABOUT FRIDAY DUE TO HIGH WINDS THAT ARE APPROACHING OUT OF THE WEST AND OUT OF THE NORTH.

THOSE WINDS BLOWING, THEY SURE DOES DRY OUR GRASSES OUT THAT ARE ON TOP OF THE GREEN GRASS.

OUR FIRE DANGER STILL REMAINS HIGH.

CURRENTLY THE KBDI NUMBERS ARE THE MINIMUM 276, MAX 478, AVERAGE 389 WITH A CHANGE OF TWO.

I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND TO COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT WE KEEP THE BURN BAN ON FOR TWO WEEKS.

NO, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO KEEP THE BURN BAN ON?

>> I'LL MOVE TO KEEP IT ON.

>> KEEP IT ON?

>> KEEP IT ON.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO KEEP IT ON BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORN.

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

ITEM G11 TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER

[G.11 To discuss and consider Order 04-2025 authorizing the sale of fireworks for San Jacinto Day.]

ORDER 042025 AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF FIREWORKS FOR SAN JACINTO DAY.

WHERE'S MY ORDER? I DON'T THINK I HAVE THAT ORDER.

LET ME FIND IT ON MY COMPUTER, UNLESS MONEY Y'ALL CAN FIND IT QUICKER.

>> THE ORDER ITSELF?

>> YEAH.

>> IT'S HERE IN A PACKET, IS THAT.

>>YEAH.

>> HERE IT IS.

>> I USUALLY CRAN THEMSELVES. I HAVE TO DIG IT OUT.

>> YOU CAN BLOW IT UP.

>> FOR THOSE OF YOU WONDERING WHAT WE'RE LAUGHING ABOUT, COMMISSIONER HORN ASKED IF HE NEEDED TO BLOW IT UP FOR ME.

[LAUGHTER] I HAVE A DISCUSSION OF ORDER 042025 AUTHORIZING SAN JACINTO DAY FIREWORKS.

WHEREAS, COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY IS AUTHORIZED UNDER OCCUPATION CODE SECTION 2154.202H.

TO ISSUE AN ORDER ALLOWING RETAIL FIREWORK, PERMIT HOLDERS TO SELL FIREWORKS TO PUBLIC AND CELEBRATION OF SAN JACINTO DAY, AND WHEREAS ON THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025, COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY HAS DETERMINED

[00:30:02]

THAT CONDITIONS ARE FAVORABLE TO ISSUE SUCH AN ORDER.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY ADOPTS THIS ORDER AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF FIREWORKS TO THE PUBLIC BY RETAIL FIREWORKS, PERMIT HOLDERS DURING SAN JACINTO DAY PERIOD BEGINNING APRIL 16TH, 2025, AND ENDING AT MIDNIGHT, APRIL 21ST, 2025, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS.

A, THIS ORDER EXPIRES ON THE DATE.

TEXAS A&M FOREST SERVICE DETERMINES DROUGHT CONDITIONS EXIST IN THE COUNTY OR MIDNIGHT, APRIL 21ST, 2025.

B, THE SALE OF RESTRICTED FIREWORKS AS DEFINED BY SECTION 352.051 TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, INCLUDING SKY ROCKETS WITH STICKS AND MISSILES WITH FINS IS PROHIBITED.

APPROVED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 BY COLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT.

COMMISSIONERS, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDER?

>> IS THIS REALLY A THING ON SAN JACINTO DAY THAT YOU POP HERS?

>> YES.

>> WE HAVE A BUNCH OF THEM.

>> NOBODY EVER POPS THEM THOUGH.

I'VE NEVER SEEN IT HAPPEN.

>> WE HAVE QUITE A FEW HOLIDAYS NOW.

[LAUGHTER].

>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

>> MOVE.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER HORN ON ITEM G11. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> APPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONERS ON ITEM G12,

[G.12 To discuss and consider an Interlocal Cooperation Contract between Caldwell County and Texas State University for Tobacco Enforcement Program FY 2024-2025.]

I JUST LOOKED FOR A MOTION TO TABLE.

THIS INADVERTENTLY GOT PUT ON THE AGENDA AND WHERE WE ARE NOT THE CONTRACT HAS NOT EXPIRED YET.

>> MOTION TABLED.

>> MOTION TABLED BY COMMISSIONER TARRIO. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM G13 TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER RATIFYING PAYMENT FOR

[G.13 To discuss and consider ratifying payment for invoice #16311 for Century Construction in the amount of $719,573.00]

INVOICE NUMBER 16311 FOR CENTURY CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $719,573.

>> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS.

THIS IS THE THIRD INVOICE THAT WE'RE RECEIVING FROM CENTURY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE EVACUATION CENTER OUT IN LEWING.

THESE INVOICES TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER TO PROCESS AS WE'RE WAITING FOR APPROVAL FROM SEVERAL PEOPLE.

THEREFORE, THAT'S WHY WE'RE ISSUING THOSE EMERGENCY CHECK REQUESTS.

WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR A RATIFICATION OF THAT PAYMENT.

>> COMMISSIONERS.

>> [INAUDIBLE] TO APPROVE?

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

INVOICE NUMBER 16311. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TARRIO.

MOTION WAS BY COMMISSIONER HORN IN DISCUSSION.

NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ITEM G14 TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CREATING

[G.14 To discuss and consider creating a Construction Inspector position for the Unit Road Department.]

A CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR POSITION FOR THE UNIT ROAD DEPARTMENT.

>> YES. GOOD MORNING.

UNIT ROAD HAS ASKED ABOUT CREATING A POSITION FOR A CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR.

IN YOUR BACKUP, YOU WILL HAVE THE JOB DESCRIPTION FOR THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THAT POSITION, AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL TO CREATE IT.

>> COMMISSIONERS, PART OF THE REASON FOR THIS IS WHEN WE HAVE OUR CONTRACT ENGINEERING COMPANY DO THIS, IT'S BEEN VERY EXPENSIVE, AND WE FEEL LIKE WE CAN JUSTIFY JUST HIRING THE POSITION.

THIS POSITION WAS NOT PLACED IN THE BUDGET.

WE'LL HAVE TO PROBABLY GET THE MONEY FOR THIS YEAR OUT OF THE FUND BALANCE.

THEN GO AHEAD AND BUDGET FOR IT NEXT YEAR.

I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT OUT THERE BEFORE YOU GUYS VOTE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE POSITION AS DESCRIBED.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE POSITION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORN.

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

ITEM H5 DISCUSSION ONLY TO INFORM OF THE RESOLUTION FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS OF

[H.1 To inform of the Resolution from the State of Texas House of Representatives recognizing February 26, 2025, as Caldwell County Day at the State Capitol.]

REPRESENTATIVE GERDES RECOGNIZED CALDWELL COUNTY DAY, FEBRUARY 26TH, 2025.

WE SEVERAL OF US FROM THE CITIES AND FROM THE COUNTY WENT DOWN.

THEY RECOGNIZED CALDWELL COUNTY ON THAT DAY AND SENATE RESOLUTION.

[00:35:01]

THIS IS ONLY ON THERE TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION TO REPRESENTATIVE GERDES AND SENATORS AFARIENI FOR HOSTING US AND FOR READING THE RESOLUTIONS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CHAMBERS AND SHOWING US AROUND AND WE GOT A CHANCE TO MEET WITH ADRIANA CRUZ WHILE WE WERE THERE, WHICH WAS VERY INFORMATIVE.

SHE'S THE GOVERNOR'S DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM. WE MADE A DAY OF IT.

IT WAS GOOD TO MAKE CONTACT WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVES OF OUR DISTRICT, AND JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION.

THAT'S IT. IT WAS DISCUSSION ONLY SO THERE'S NO VOTE.

WE DON'T HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION THIS TIME, AND SO I'D LOOK FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> MOVED.

>> MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER HORN, SECOND.