[A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER ]
[00:00:02]
THANK YOU FOR COMING TO CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT.
WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER TUESDAY, APRIL 8TH, 2025, AT 9:00 AM AND WE HAVE COACH HOWARD THOMPSON FROM ST.
MARK'S UNITED METHODIST TO LEAD US IN THE INVOCATION THIS MORNING. WOULD YOU COME UP, SIR?
>> LET US GIVE OUR ADORATION AND REVERENCE TO LORD JESUS CHRIST.
OH, OUR GRACIOUS GOD, WE JUST THANK YOU FOR ANOTHER DAY. WE THANK YOU FOR TODAY.
WE THANK YOU FOR TOMORROW. WE THANK YOU FOR YESTERDAY, LORD.
WE THANK YOU FOR OUR HEALTH AND OUR STRENGTH.
WE THANK YOU, GOD, FOR LIFE, FOR OPPORTUNITIES AND BLESSINGS THERE GOD.
WE PRAY TO GOD FOR YOUR TOUCH AND HAND ON THE CITY OF LOCKHART.
WE PRAY TO CONTINUE TO GOD AND DIRECTORS IN THE WAY WE SHOULD GO, THAT YOU ORDER OUR STEPS HERE IN LOCKHART GOD.
WE PRAY AND ASK YOU TO BLESS THOSE WHO ARE OFFICIALS HERE IN LOCKHART, GOD, OUR BUSINESSMEN, THOSE WHO HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR OTHERS.
WE PLAY TO TOUCH THEIR HEARTS AND THEIR MINDS AND THEIR SOULS, THAT YOU BE WITH THEM AS THEY MAKE THESE DECISIONS.
DEAR LORD, WE ASK FOR EXTRA BLESSINGS FOR THOSE WHO CALL ON YOUR NAME, THOSE THAT NEED YOU IN SOME FORM OR FASHION, DEAR GOD.
WE PRAY THAT YOU WILL INTERVENE IN THE WORLD AFFAIRS.
YOUR INTERVENTION IS DESPERATELY NEEDED.
GOD, WE PRAY THAT YOU WILL STEP IN AND INTERVENE WHERE DESPERATELY NEEDED.
THAT YOU WOULD GUIDE OUR LIVES IN THE RIGHT WAY WE SHOULD GO.
DEAR GOD, WE JUST THANK YOU FOR THE MANY BLESSINGS YOU BESTOWED UPON US.
THESE THINGS WE ASKED AND PRAY IN YOUR MOST HOLY AND PRECIOUS NAME, AND WE PRAY FOR THIS MEETING, DEAR GOD, THAT IT MAY BE DECENT AND IN ORDER.
THESE THINGS WE ASKED AND PRAY, GIVE ME Y'ALL THE HONOR GLORY AND PRAISE THAT EVERYONE SAYS AMEN.
[D. ANNOUNCEMENTS ]
>> OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS THIS MORNING?
>> THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE ONE SAP ANNOUNCEMENT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
JUST WANT TO INFORM THE COURT THAT WE ARE AT 90% COMPLETION FOR CYBERSECURITY.
OUT OF THE 241 USERS THAT ARE ENROLLED, WE HAVE 23 LEFT TO TAKE IT.
IF YOU NEED A REMINDER EMAIL, CONTACT MY OFFICE, CONTACT ME, STEPHANIE, AND WE WILL GET THAT WORKING ON SOME OF THE ONES THAT ARE MISSPELLED, BUT THERE'S 23 OF THEM LEFT.
[E. CITIZENS' COMMENTS ]
IF NOT, WE'LL GO TO CITIZENS' COMMENTS.I'M HERE AGAIN TO TALK ABOUT THE STOP SIGNS IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE A TRAFFIC ENGINEER STUDY THAT WAS DONE A FEW YEARS AGO.
APPARENTLY, THE COMMISSIONERS HERE AREN'T GOING TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY.
I LIVE AT THE INTERSECTION OF ST. JOSEPH STREET AND SCHOOL STREET, AND ACCORDING TO THIS TRAFFIC SAFETY STUDY, ONLY 16 VEHICLES PER HOUR PASS THROUGH THIS INTERSECTION.
IN ORDER TO HAVE THESE TYPES OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, MY PROPERTIES, ACTUALLY, I OWN TWO OF THE THREE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THIS INTERSECTION.
ANYWAYS, IN THIS TRAFFIC SAFETY STUDY, THE ONLY PART THAT WAS UNDERLINED IN THIS STUDY ARE UNWARRANTED STOP SIGNS, AND IT SAYS, UNWARRANTED STOP SIGNS INCREASES STOPS, CAUSES DELAYS, AND INCREASES FUEL CONSUMPTION AND POLLUTANTS.
FURTHER, AND THE REASON THAT'S WHY I'M GOING TO STAY HERE AND ALWAYS BE HERE EVERY TWO WEEKS IS BECAUSE IT SAYS INSTALLATION OF UNWARRANTED TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES BREEDS DISRESPECT AND CAN RESULT IN POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR.
LET ME READ IT AGAIN BECAUSE MAYBE YOU GUYS DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH THAT I'M SPEAKING.
>> MR. MCCLISH, IT'S OKAY TO TALK, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO INSULT THE COURT, PLEASE.
>> DON'T DO IT OR I'LL HAVE YOU SIT DOWN.
>> ANYWAYS, THESE STOP SIGNS BREEDS DISRESPECT AND CAN RESULT IN POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR. I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
[00:05:01]
WOULD ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A INTERSECTION IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE THAT BREEDS DISRESPECT AND CAN RESULT IN POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR, BECAUSE I DON'T.I HAVE MY NEPHEWS THAT ARE GOING TO BE VISITING THIS SUMMER AND RIDING THEIR BIKE AROUND TOWN.
I REALLY DON'T WANT THEM TO GET HURT.
THERE'S JUST WAY TOO MANY STOP SIGNS OUT THERE.
WHEN I MOVED TO PRAIRIE LEE, THERE WAS EIGHT STOP SIGNS.
WHY DO WE NEED 16 STOP SIGNS? WE ONLY NEED EIGHT.
ANYWAYS. IT'S A SHAME YOU'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY AND BREEDING CHILDREN TO RUN STOP SIGNS.
THEY'VE BEEN UP THERE EIGHT YEARS.
I'VE WATCHED MANY CHILDREN THAT WERE EIGHT YEARS OLD EIGHT YEARS AGO, AND NOW THEY'RE 16, AND THEY COME BY WITH THEIR TRUCKS AND THEY JUST RUN THE STOP SIGNS.
I'VE SHOWED YOU THE VIDEOS, COMMISSIONER.
ANYWAY, YOU ALL HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY.
>> WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO CONSENT, COMMISSIONERS.
[F. CONSENT AGENDA]
IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I'D LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT.>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORN. WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.
[G.1 2024 Pre-Trial Bond Program Report - Romelia Elizondo, Adult Probation Deputy Director ]
WE HAVE A PRESENTATION THIS MORNING AT 20:24 PRETRIAL BOND PROGRAM REPORT. MIA, ARE YOU HERE?>> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE HAYDEN AND COMMISSIONERS.
I'M THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE COLDWELL COUNTY COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT.
I'M HERE WITH ME TODAY IS OUR PRETRIAL BOND OFFICER MIRANDA KELLY, ALSO PRESENT IN THE AUDIENCE, AT THE OFFICE SUPERVISOR IVON TRIANO.
WE ARE HERE TODAY TO PRESENT THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE PRETRIAL BOND PROGRAM, WHICH MISS KELLY WILL DO THE PRESENTATION.
BUT BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO HER, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO RECOGNIZE HER FOR ALL THE WORK THAT SHE PUTS INTO THE PRETRIAL BOND PROGRAM.
THIS IS HER THIRD YEAR WORKING ON THIS CASE.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE ALL THE HARD WORK THAT SHE PUTS IN.
SHE DOES WORK CLOSELY WITH JUDGE HICKS, JUDGE MONTGOMERY, FORMERLY, JUDGE SCHNEIDER, THE DA'S OFFICE, AND SEVERAL JAIL PERSONNEL TO HELP IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS THAT QUALIFY TO BE RELEASED ON THE BOND PROGRAM.
PART OF HER DUTIES INCLUDE SUPERVISING THESE INDIVIDUALS AND ENSURING THAT THEY APPEAR IN COURT AS SCHEDULED.
SHE IS ABLE TO DO THAT NOW WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF A PRETRIAL BOND CLERK, AND BETWEEN THE BOTH OF THEM, THEY ENSURE THAT THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE RELEASED DO APPEAR IN COURT AS NEEDED.
AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO MISS KELLY FOR HER PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING. I'M OFFICER KELLY WITH PRETRIAL BOND.
I HAVE THE 2024 BOND REPORT FOR YOU TODAY.
THE PRIMARY GOALS OF THE PRETRIAL PROGRAM ARE TO ALLEVIATE THE JAIL POPULATION AND ENSURE A COURT APPEARANCE.
IN ALL THE YEARS THE PROGRAM HAS RUN, WE'VE NEVER GONE OVER CAPACITY IN THE CALDWELL COUNTY JAIL OR HAD TO PAY TO HOUSE INMATES IN OTHER COUNTIES.
THIS IS THE DATA FOR THE 2024 INMATES RELEASED.
WE HAVE 419 CASES THAT ARE SUPERVISED.
232 OF THOSE CASES ARE NEW DEFENDANTS THAT WERE REPLACED THIS YEAR, THIS LAST YEAR IN 2024.
SEVENTY-TWO OF THOSE DEFENDANTS WERE REPLACED BY EITHER THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OR THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW JUDGE, AND 160 OF THOSE DEFENDANTS WERE OFFICER-INITIATED.
THAT JUST MEANS THAT I WENT OUT TO THE JAIL.
I IDENTIFIED THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE COMING UP ON THEIR 30 DAYS FOR MISDEMEANORS OR 90 DAYS WITHOUT INDICTMENT FOR FELONIES, AND I DID THEIR PAPERWORK TO PRESENT TO THE JUDGE.
THERE WAS AN AVERAGE OF 13 DEFENDANTS RELEASED EACH MONTH.
HERE'S THE FIGURES FOR THE SAVINGS TO THE COUNTY.
THESE FIGURES ARE THE AMOUNT OF OFFICER-INITIATED BONDS TIMES THE NUMBER OF DAYS AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE JAIL HAS SAVED.
IT'S $77 TO HOUSE AN INMATE IN THE CALDWELL COUNTY JAIL.
THAT'S FOR A HEALTHY INDIVIDUAL THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY MEDICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH.
WE GOT SEVERAL PREGNANT WOMEN OUT OF THE JAIL THIS YEAR AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE CANCER DIAGNOSES AND OTHER DIAGNOSES.
SO THAT NUMBER IS GREATLY INCREASED.
[00:10:01]
HERE'S THE FINANCIALS OF THE MONEY THAT WE COLLECTED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.THAT TOP FIGURE IS THE $30 PER MONTH SUPERVISION FEE.
THE SECOND FIGURE IS THE COUNTY TREASURY FEE, AND THE THIRD FIGURE IS THE PRETRIAL DRUG TESTING FEE, THAT IS A ONE-TIME FEE.
EACH DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE SOME CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION.
THEY'RE REQUIRED TO REPORT TO OFFICE VISITS, TAKE RANDOM DRUG TESTS.
THERE'S RESTRICTIONS TO TRAVEL.
WE DO HAVE FEES TO REIMBURSE THE COUNTY.
THERE IS A GPS IN IGNITION INTERLOCK FOR DWI, AND WE DO HAVE NO CONTACT WITH THE VICTIM FOR ASSAULT.
HERE, YOU'LL SEE THE FAILURE TO APPEAR RATE ON PRETRIAL FOR THE YEAR 2024, AND OUT OF 232 DEFENDANTS, WE HAD THREE FAILED TO APPEAR IN COURT FOR THE YEAR.
WE HAD CLOSE TO 80% OF DEFENDANTS MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE ON THE PROGRAM.
OUT OF 232 DEFENDANTS, 47 VIOLATED THEIR CONDITIONS.
THESE ARE THE TYPES OF VIOLATIONS.
WE HAVE FAILURE TO REPORT, FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT, SUBSTANCE USE AND NEW OFFENSES, AND OUT OF 232 INDIVIDUALS, 185 MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE.
WE ALSO HAVE PROGRESSIVE SANCTIONS.
INSTEAD OF REVOKING THE BOND, WE COULD INCREASE REPORTING, INCREASE UAS, OR HAVE OTHER SANCTIONS IMPLIED.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> NO, MA'AM. WE APPRECIATE THE SAVINGS AND THE HARD WORK THAT YOU GUYS DO FOR THE COUNTY.
>> THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD DAY.
>> WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GO TO DISCUSSION ACTION.
WE'VE GOT SOME PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 9:30, BUT WE'LL SKIP THOSE FOR THE MOMENT.
[I.1 To discuss and take possible action regarding the approval of the Minutes for the March 25, 2025, regular meeting. ]
DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, MARCH 25TH, REGULAR MEETING.COMMISSIONERS, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS, I LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HORN. SECOND.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> WE'LL SKIP I2 AND 3 UNTIL WE HAVE THE HEARINGS,
[I.4 To discuss and take possible action regarding the Short Form Plat for Leona Acres 2, a single lot subdivision on approximately 2.265 acres located on FM 713 and Cattlemens Row. ]
AND GO TO I4.DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A SHORT FORM PLAT FOR LEONA ACRES 2, A SINGLE LOT SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 2.265 ACRES LOCATED ON FM 713 AND CATTLEMAN'S ROAD.
>> GOOD MORNING. THAT'S JUST WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE.
ALL COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CLEARED, AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM I4 BY COMMISSIONER WEST MORLAN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORN. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.
>> OPPOSE HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.5 To discuss and take possible action regarding the Preliminary Plat for OCLA Acres consisting of five residential lots on approximately 10.010 acres located at Old Colony Line Road and FM 86. ]
ITEM I5, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OCLA ACRES CONSISTING OF FIVE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 10.1 ACRES LOCATED AT OLD COLONY LINE ROAD IN FM 86.>> THIS PRELIMINARY PLANT WAS TABLED BACK ON JANUARY 14 OF 2025.
CHRIS AZANDO WITH QUATRO CONSULTING IS ACTUALLY THE REVIEWER ON THIS PROJECT.
THEY ENDED UP HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THEIR GROUNDWATER STUDY.
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS PULLED, AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT IT BECAUSE NOW IT'S APPROVED, AND WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD AND GO TO FINAL PLAT.
>> THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONERS.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HORN. WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NO. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[I.6 To discuss and take possible action regarding the Amended Preliminary Plat for Romans Road Subdivision consisting of four residential lots on approximately 21.671 acres located on Bugtussle Ln. and Mineral Springs Rd.]
ITEM I6, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE AMENDED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ROMANS ROAD SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 21.671 ACRES LOCATED ON BUG TUSSLE LANE AND MINERAL SPRINGS ROAD.>> WE DID DO AN APPROVAL ON THIS BACK IN FEBRUARY.
IT HAS BEEN AMENDED WITH A FEW POSSIBLE CHANGES.
TRACY PROBABLY COULD ELABORATE IF YOU'LL NEEDED TO, BUT OTHERWISE, WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD UNLESS YOU WANT TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.
>> DO YOU REMEMBER? [BACKGROUND]
>> GOOD MORNING. THIS ONE IS NOT CHANGED IN CONFIGURATION AT ALL.
THEY ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED AS FOUR LOTS, JUST LISTED AS ONE THROUGH FOUR.
THEY ACTUALLY DESIRE TO PHASE THE SUBDIVISION HAVE PHASE 1, IT'S LOTS 1 AND 2 OF PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2, LOTS 1 AND 2 OF PHASE 2.
[00:15:02]
THE REASON FOR THAT IS TWO OF THE LOTS REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OF A SHARED ACCESS DRIVEWAY ACROSS FEMA FLOODPLAIN.THE OTHER TWO LOTS HAVE A BILLABLE SITE AREA THAT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE ROAD, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPLETE THAT CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO ACCESS THOSE LOTS, SO THEY'LL BE BACK IMMEDIATELY TO RECORD THE FIRST PHASE SUBDIVISION, AND THEY'LL USE THAT CAPITAL BASICALLY TO HELP FUND THE SHARED ACCESS DRIVEWAY IN THE FEMA WORK.
>> MOTION TO APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT.
ANY DISCUSSION? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE.
>> CLOSED. HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.7 To discuss and take possible action regarding the Short Form Plat for Pettytown Meadows consisting of two residential lots on approximately 9.956 acres located at FM 86 and Pettytown Road. ]
ITEM I7, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A SHORT FORM PLAT FOR PETTYTOWN MEADOWS CONSISTING OF TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 9.956 ACRES LOCATED ON FM86 AND PETTYTOWN ROAD.>> AGAIN, ALL COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CLEARED.
FEES HAVE BEEN COLLECTING AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL TO FINALIZE THIS.
>> COMMISSIONERS. MOVE TO APPROVE.
MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.8 To discuss and take possible action regarding a variance request from the Caldwell County Development Ordinance, Section 3.7, Subsection (A3), for Mr. Tom Owens for a single lot Short Form Plat for approximately 2.0 acres out of 54.151 acres. ]
ITEM I8, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A VARIANCE REQUEST FROM CALDWELL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, SECTION 3.7 SUBSECTION A3 FOR MR. TOM OWENS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY SHORT FORM PLAT FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OUT OF 54.151 ACRES.>> ALL I CAN REALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THIS CONVERSATION IS I DID COLLECT THE FEES FOR THE VARIANCE.
I'M GOING TO LET COMMISSIONER HORNE TAKE OVER FROM HERE.
>> JUDGE, I BROUGHT THIS TO FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
MR. OWENS HAS TWO ACRES AND HE HAS 40 OR 50 PLUS ACRES BEHIND IT.
HE DIDN'T WANT TO REPLAT THE WHOLE 50 ACRES, AND THIS GOES AGAINST OUR ORDINANCE.
SO MR. OWENS NEEDED A VARIANCE.
>> AND THE VARIANCE IS A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE?
>> SO I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS OTHER THAN COMMISSIONER THERIOT?
>> I THINK THERE'S UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE ON THIS.
>> I THINK THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS ONE ME?
>> IT'S TAKEN UP THE ROAD FRONTAGE OF THAT PLACE.
HE OWNS BOTH SIDES BEHIND THAT, THAT 51.6 ACRE TRACT BEHIND IT.
HE OWNS 2017 ACRES TO THE LEFT OF IT AND HIS RESIDENCE.
SO ALL OF IT ADJOINS HIS PLACE TO THE BEHIND IT.
>> THE ROAD ADJOINS ALL OF IT?
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NOT WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND FOR APPROVAL.
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.9 To discuss and take possible action regarding the Preliminary Plat for Southern Meadows subdivision consisting of 674 lots on approximately 120.75 acres located at FM 1984 and William Pettus Road. ]
ITEM I9, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SOUTHERN MEADOW SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 674 LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 120.75 ACRES LOCATED AT FM 1984 AND WILLIAM PETTUS ROAD.>> THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT IS READY TO MOVE FORWARD.
ALL FEEDS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED.
COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CLEARED AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL.
>> JUDGE, THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR RECENTLY AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
TRACY, COULD I ASK YOU ONE QUESTION? REAL QUICK. YESTERDAY, WE MET WITH THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS AND DISCUSSED THE AIRPORT HEIGHT AND LAND USE REGULATIONS THAT EXTEND OFF THE RUNWAYS.
>> I KNOW THEY HAVE A DENSITY LIMIT OF SIX UNITS PER ACRE, AND THIS IS LESS THAN THAT.
>> WHEN I DID THE MATH WHILE I WERE ON THAT CALL, I CAME WITH 5.6 UNITS TO THE ACRE. THAT'S RIGHT.
>> IS THERE ANY REASON WE SHOULD GET CLEARANCE FROM THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS.
IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T HURT TO SEND IT TO THEM.
THAT WAS NEWS TO ME THAT THEY HAVE ZONING AUTHORITY OUTSIDE OF THEIR ETJ UNDER THE AIRPORT ZONING RULES.
WE CAN CERTAINLY SEND IT TO THEM.
>> IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE DEVELOPER HERE?
[00:20:02]
>> I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T SEE BEN OR NO.
>> I THINK I MIGHT FEEL BETTER.
I'D HATE FOR US TO APPROVE SOMETHING AND THEN THERE'D BE SOME ISSUE COME UP WITH SOMEONE BEING ABLE TO BUILD. ON A LOT.
>> MAKE A MOTION TO THE TABLE UNTIL WE CHECK THAT.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE.
>> SORRY. I'M NOT PROBABLY SUPPOSED TO SPEAK AT THIS POINT. I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
>> MOTION TO THE TABLE COMMISSIONER THERIOT, DO WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND, GO AHEAD.
>> I PROBABLY JUST NEED CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS.
DO YOU WANT ME TO SEND IT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE MLU FINALIZED WITH THE CITY YET.
DO YOU WANT ME TO SEND IT TO THEM? DO YOU WANT TO SEND IT? YOU WANT RICHARD TO SEND IT? WE JUST I THINK THAT WE SHOULD PROACTIVELY MAKE SURE THAT WE SEND IT AND START THE COORDINATION.
>> IF YOU COULD SEND THAT TO THE FOLKS WE WERE MEETING WITH.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TABLE THIS UNTIL WE FIND OUT ABOUT THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT, AND POSSIBILITY OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS OR THE AIRPORT, REGULATING THAT.
ANY MORE FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED HERE AND NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.10 To discuss and take possible action regarding a variance request from the Caldwell County Development Ordinance, Section 4.3, to allow restroom facilities to be built on to the St. John's Civic Center, an existing structure located at 189 Carter Road in Dale, Texas. ]
ITEM I10, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING VARIANCE REQUESTS, FROM CALDWELL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, SECTION 4.3 TO ALLOW RESTROOM FACILITIES TO BE BUILT ON THE ST. JOHN CIVIC CENTER, AN EXISTING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 189 CARTER ROAD IN DALE, TEXAS.>> I WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO DEFER TO COMMISSIONER THOMAS ON THIS.
WE DID HAVE A PRELIMINARY MEETING WITH MARSHALL HILL, CONCERNING THE ST. JOHN CIVIC CENTER, CONCERNING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO NOT HAVE TO DO THAT, TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH DOING THE SEPTIC TO ADD THEY'RE ADDING ON ADDITIONAL BATHROOMS TO THE EXISTING BUILDING.
BUT I'M GOING TO LET COMMISSIONER THOMAS TAKE IT FROM HERE.
>> JUDGE, THIS IS THE ST. JOHN COMMUNITY CENTER BUT THE WHOLE JUNETEENTH CELEBRATION.
>> THERE'S NO OUTDOOR FACILITY, SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO GET GET CONDONATIONS AND EVERYTHING TO FACILITATE THE TWO RESTROOMS IN SEPTIC TANKS.
>> THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO PAY THE PERMIT FEE?
>> THEY DON'T TO PAY THE PERMIT FEES.
>> ALL PERMIT FEES WILL BE PAID.
>> SOMETHING I WILL STATE ON THIS.
IN OUR ORDINANCE CURRENTLY FOR COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION, THERE'S NO, DE MINIMIS THRESHOLD.
MOST PEOPLE HAVE SOME THRESHOLD, TECHNICALLY IN OUR ORDINANCE, IF YOU'RE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND YOU WANT TO PUT DOWN ONE PAVING STONE, YOU NEED A PERMIT.
IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD PROBABLY LOOK AT IN FUTURE REVISIONS TO CREATE SOME IF YOU'VE GOT A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY, AND YOU'RE TRYING TO ADD 50 SQUARE FEET, MAYBE THERE'S A DIMINISHED THRESHOLD THAT THIS WOULD LIKELY FALL UNDER IF WE LOOK TO ESTABLISH SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THAT'S REALLY THE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE HERE.
>> BUT THE VARIANCE IS TO WAIVE THE PERMIT.
>> NO. IT'S TO ACTUALLY WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO MAKE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN APPLICATION.
ALONG WITH THAT, WOULD CERTAINLY BE THAT THERE'S NO FEE COLLECTED BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REVIEWING ANY.
>> YES, SIR. I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE ANY IF WE WAIVE THIS REQUIREMENT, BUT WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO COMMISSIONER?
>> I MOVE FOR THE VARIANCE TO BE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE ON ITEM I10. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.
ANY DISCUSSION? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
MOTION CARRIES. WE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.
ITEM I11. DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION.
WE'RE GOING TO SKIP THAT ONE BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A MINUTE.
DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION.
THAT ONE'S GOING TO TAKE A MINUTE.
I GOT LIKE THREE MINUTES TILL THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO SOME OF THESE THAT ARE GOING TO TAKE A BIT.
ITEM I13, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTIONS ON PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 26, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE GOING TO RECESS BECAUSE EVERYTHING FOR THE NET SIX ITEMS. IT'S GOING TO TAKE A MINUTE. WE'LL RECESS FOR ABOUT SIX MINUTES AND COME BACK AND DO OUR PUBLIC HEARING.
[H.1 Regarding the consideration of Replat of Carpol Subdivision, Lot 4 in Block A located off Political Road ]
WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND RESUME[00:25:02]
COMMISSIONERS COURT AT 9:30 AND GO INTO OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING.ITEM H1 REGARDING THE CONSIDERATION OF REPLAT OF CARPOOL SUBDIVISION, LOT 4 AND BLOCK A, LOCATED OFF POLITICAL ROAD.
WE'LL LEAVE THIS OPEN FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
>> LINDA HINKLE, 1109 SOUTH MAIN STREET.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS A LONG TIME.
WE WERE GOING TO VACATE THE LOT.
AND THEN THERE WAS SO MUCH CONTROVERSY ON HOW TO VACATE IT THAT WE JUST APPLIED TO REPLAT IT.
IT WAS PART OF A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION TO BEGIN WITH.
BUT HE WANTS TO HIS INTENT ORIGINALLY, WAS TO TAKE THE LARGER TRACK AND SELL IT OR MAKE A RV PARK OUT OF IT OR RESET IT.
THAT WAS BEFORE ALL THE FOUR LOTS AND COULDN'T RESUB THEM.
THAT WAS NEVER IN THIS EQUATION.
SO HE HAS DONE A PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S QUITE READY YET BECAUSE THEY'RE WAITING ON THE GO REPORT ACCORDING TO KASI THIS MORNING.
HE GOT LETTERS FROM THE NEIGHBORS, IT'S BEEN IN THE PAPER.
MR. CORRELA IS HERE, YOU NEED TO SPEAK TO HIM.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT DETAIL. WE APPRECIATE IT.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING THIS PUBLIC HEARING? NO, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:32 AND OPEN THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING,
[H.2 Regarding the consideration of Replat of Paz Acres, Lot 1B and Lot 2A located off Homannville Road ]
ITEM H2 REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF REPLAT OF PAZ ACRES, LOT 1B AND LOT 2A LOCATED OFF HOMANNVILLE ROAD.>> HINKLE 1109 SOUTH MAIN STREET.
THIS ONE TOO IS SIMPLY A REPLAT OF A REPLAT OF A REPLAT.
THE FATHER AND SON OWN THE TWO LOTS.
THE SON WANTS MORE ACREAGE, SO HE'S TAKEN SOME FROM THE DAD.
I THINK THIS HAS BEEN IN THE PAPER TOO.
WE'VE WORKED REALLY HARD TO TRY TO MAKE IT WORK AND COMMUNICATING BACK AND FORTH WITH DUST I'M IN FAVOR. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER CITIZENS PUSH TO MAKE COMMENTS? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THAT PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:33.
RE ENTER OUR REGULAR MEETING AND GO TO ITEM I2.
[I.2 To discuss and take possible action regarding the Replat of Carpol Subdivision, Lot 4 in Block A located off Political Road. ]
DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE REPLAT OF CARPOL SUBDIVISION, LOT 4 BLOCK A LOCATED OFF POLITICAL ROAD, COMMISSIONERS KASI, GO AHEAD.>> YES, IF I COULD JUST REFERENCE OFF OF MS. HINKEL'S COMMENTS.
AT THIS TIME, THIS IS THIS REPLAT IS NOT READY FOR APPROVAL.
WE'RE VERY CLOSE. WE'RE JUST AT THE END OF IT.
JUST NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME TO GET EVERYTHING CHECKED OFF.
REPLAT THE ACTUAL PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD AS JUST PART OF THE CHECK OFF TO GET TO THIS POINT.
AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO TABLE THIS ITEM.
>>COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE I2?
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.
ANY DISCUSSION? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.3 To discuss and take possible action regarding the Replat of Paz Acres, Lot 1B and Lot 2A located off Homannville Road. ]
ITEM I3, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING REPLAT OF PAZ ACRES, LOT 1B, AND LOT 2A LOCATED OFF HOMANNVILLE ROAD.>> AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO TABLE THIS ITEM AS WELL.
>> COMMISSIONER. MOTION TO TABLE I3.
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT SECOND.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.11 To discuss and take possible action regarding the rewrite of the Caldwell County Development Ordinance. ]
>> WE'LL GO TO ITEM I11, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE REWRITE OF CALDWELL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. TRACY.
>> GOOD MORNING. WE WERE NOT SURE WHERE AND WHAT WE WANT THE DISCUSSION TO CONSIST OF.
[00:30:03]
THERE WAS AN RFQ LATE LAST YEAR FOR THIS.WE SUBMITTED, WERE SELECTED BY THE COURT.
WE HAD A MEETING IN YOUR OFFICE, JUDGE HADEN BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.
IT DID TAKE ME A LITTLE WHILE TO FINALIZE A SCOPE AND GET IT OVER TO YOU.
GOT IT OVER AND HAD INTENDED FOR THAT TO BE ON THE MARCH 25, COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETING, BUT IT TURNED OUT I WAS IN DC THAT WEEK.
SUBMITTED IT TO YOU BREAKS THE REWRITE AND THE UPDATES DOWN IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PHASES.
BASED UPON COMMENTS. WE HAD REVISE THAT AND CHANGE IT TO BE HOURLY SERVICES RATHER THAN FIXED FEES BASED UPON SOME COMMENTS.
>> HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THE TAKINGS ASSESSMENT.
I KNOW BACK, COMMISSIONER THERIOT, YOU'LL HAVE TO REMIND ME ON HOW FAR BACK THIS WAS IT'S SEVERAL YEARS, WE DID TAKING ASSESSMENTS BACK WHEN WE WERE REDOING THE ORDINANCE, AND IT WAS NOT NEAR AS MUCH AS WHAT'S BUILT INTO THIS, SO I WAS WONDERING WHAT ELSE WAS INCLUDED.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE LOOKED AT THE REVISION WE SENT OVER.
THE COMMENTS REPRESENTED A GOOD LESSON TO ME.
THAT'S THAT PEOPLE TEND NOT TO GO THROUGH THE COMPLETE SCOPE AND DROP DOWN TO THE FEE SUMMARY TABLE.
WE HAD A ROW HYPED PROBLEM THERE, AND THAT ROW DID BEGIN, AND IT SAID THE SIGN AND TAKINGS IMPACT ASSESSMENT.
THAT'S ACTUALLY THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE AND THE TIA ALL IN ONE TASK.
I CAN BREAK THAT OUT IF YOU WANT.
COMPREHENSIVE TIA FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS I EXPECT TO BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $15,000-$20,000.
THAT'S ABOUT HOW MUCH OF THAT $91,000 I ATTRIBUTE TO THE TIA.
I WAS HOPING TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW AND READ THROUGH THIS TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY SUGGESTIONS THAT SOMEONE COULD MAKE, ONE OF THEM BEING TXDOT.
THE COUNTY REQUIRES PEOPLE TO GET A TXDOT PERMIT IF THEY'RE ON TXDOT HIGHWAY.
>> IT GETS OPPOSED BY THE ENGINEERING FIRM BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE 325 FEET OR WHATEVER THE CRITERIA IS THAT THE COUNTY HAS.
I HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS AND WROTE DIANA SCHULTZ AND MICHAEL SHARP AND CHRIS CADELL AND SOME OTHERS AT TXDOT, AND THEN I'VE TALKED TO RUSTY ABOUT IT.
THEY HAVE MADE IT PLAIN, IT'S THEIR HIGHWAY.
NOW, THE LATEST CONTROVERSY WAS ON CANO ACRES.
THEY WENT THROUGH ALL THE STEPS TO MOVE DRIVEWAYS BECAUSE DOLLAR GENERAL NEEDED LINE OF SIGHT.
TXDOT WAS HAPPY TO MOVE THE DRIVEWAYS AND MAKE A JOINT ACCESS.
THE CLIENT HAD TO PAY FOR A VARIANCE TO THE COUNTY BECAUSE OUR RULES SAID HE HAD TO DO THIS.
IT WAS CONTROVERSIAL WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND CONTROVERSIAL WITH THE GUY THAT OWNED THE LAND.
I ALSO HAVE ONE ON 713 THAT'S FIXING TO COME UP.
THAT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER ONE.
IT'S GOING TO BE CONTROVERSIAL.
THAT'S WHEN THE LETTER WENT OUT TO TXDOT THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK TO COME TO COMMISSIONERS COURT, GET ON THE AGENDA THAT TXDOT RULES OVERRIDE WHAT WE HAVE AS FAR AS DISTANCE BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING THE WORK.
THEY'RE OUT THERE MEASURING IT.
THEY'RE OUT THERE SEEING WHAT THEIR LINE OF SIGHT IS, WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS ON THE HIGHWAY, WHETHER THERE'S A CURVE INVOLVED.
THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. THEY OWN THAT HIGHWAY.
>> THEY ISSUE THE DRIVEWAY PERMIT. WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> TO GET A DRIVEWAY PERMIT, WE INSIST THAT PEOPLE DO THAT IN A SURVEY, IN A BIG SUBDIVISION, A MINOR SUBDIVISION, WHATEVER.
THAT SHOULDN'T COME UP EVERY TIME AND PEOPLE HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE FOR IT.
IT SHOULD BE FIXED IN THE ORDINANCE.
THERE ARE A FEW OTHER LITTLE THINGS THAT MAYBE SOMEBODY DOESN'T SEE BECAUSE THEY DON'T WORK. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU,
[00:35:01]
BUT THAT'S WHY WE'RE PART OF THE REWRITE.>> I GOT IT, BUT NOBODY SEES IT, BUT YOU AND HIM.
>> NO, MA'AM. WE HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED REWRITING IT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE HAD A COMMITTEE AND IT GOT RESOLVED.
>> I LET YOU TALK, AND IT'S MY TURN.
PLEASE. THIS IS TO APPROVE A SCOPE OF WORK TO REWRITE THE ORDINANCE.
THIS ISN'T APPROVING THE ORDINANCE BEING REWRITTEN.
THIS IS JUST TO APPROVE ALLOWING DOUCET TO BEGIN THE WORK.
>> BUT IT SHOULD BE MORE THAN THE THREE THAT WERE APPOINTED TO LOOK AT IT.
THEN IT WAS DECIDED THAT ED, CLARE PETERSON, AND TRACY BE ON THE COMMITTEE TO REWRITE THE RULES.
>> IT WILL BE BROUGHT TO COURT FOR APPROVAL AND THEN YOU CAN COMMENT ON IT AT THAT TIME.
>> THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ON THAT COMMITTEE AND THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY GET OUT THERE AND DO THE WORK.
>> ALL THAT INFORMATION, LINDA, THAT CAME OUT OF THAT COMMITTEE, WE HAVE THAT, AND THAT ALL GETS TRANSFERRED OVER THERE.
THAT WILL BE PART OF WHAT'S LOOKED AT.
>> I NEVER KNOW THE COMMUNICATION THERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT AVAILABLE ANYWHERE FOR ME TO SEE IT AND HELP.
I WANT TO HELP. I DON'T WANT TO BE THE ENEMY HERE.
>> I WANT TO HELP SEE THINGS SMOOTHER FOR PEOPLE.
NOT EVERYBODY HAS A 401(K) THEY CAN RELY ON.
WHEN A GUY THAT HAS FIVE ACRES WANTS TO SPLIT IT OR SELL OFF A PIECE, THEY'RE NOT A DEVELOPER.
THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT THROUGH LIFE.
PEOPLE ARE BEING TAXED OUT OF THEIR HOMES.
IF THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN LIVE THERE IS TO MAYBE SELL SOME OF THEIR INVESTMENT, BECAUSE THAT IS THEIR INVESTMENT.
>> WE JUST GAVE TWO VARIANCES TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO DO THAT AT COURT TODAY.
>> I GOT IT AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> WE DON'T DO THAT EVERY DAY.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THAT IT'S BETTER TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO FIVE DIRECTIONS ON GETTING A VARIANCE AND WHAT NEEDS A VARIANCE AND WHAT DOESN'T.
>> IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO WRITE AN ORDINANCE THAT ADDRESSES EVERY POSSIBLE CONDITION THAT MIGHT COME UP.
>> WE USED TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE, PUT IN AMENDMENTS.
>> WELL, WE'RE LOOKING AT REWRITING AND AMENDING THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.
>> WHEN YOU USED TO BE COMMISSIONER, YOU WERE IN ON SOME OF THAT.
>> I JUST WANT TO BE OF HELP AND I WANT TO SEE SOME OF THE THINGS ADDED THAT NEED TO BE ADDED AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN AWAY.
>> YOU'LL GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW BEFORE WE APPROVE.
>> JUST WANTED TO BE ON RECORD FOR THAT. THANK YOU.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE WANT TO APPROVE THE SCOPE OF WORK SO THAT DOUCET CAN BEGIN TO DO THEIR WORK? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> WOULD THAT BE SUBJECT TO ME REVISING THAT SECTION, BREAK IT INTO SEPARATE ITEM?
>> YES, SIR. ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SCOPE AND PROCEED WITH THE REWRITE.
>> WITH TRACY AMENDING THAT TO SEPARATE, THE TAKINGS ASSESSMENT OUT.
WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.12 To discuss and take possible action regarding flag lots. ]
DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING FLAG LOTS.>> GOOD MORNING AGAIN. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT I REQUESTED WE PUT ON THE AGENDA.
I'VE GOTTEN A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS OVER THE YEARS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ABOUT FLAG LOTS.
THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIKE THEM.
I UNDERSTAND THAT VERY MUCH WHY.
I WANT TO READ A SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE.
AS MUCH AS I USUALLY HATE PLAYING THE READ LONG GAME, I WANT TO READ A SECTION, TALK ABOUT WHAT IT IS WE'VE BEEN DOING IN PRACTICE AND WHERE THAT ORIGINATED FROM.
IN APPENDIX A6, ITEM D, A6 IS ABOUT FLAG LOTS.
ITEM D IN A6 SAYS, "FLAG LOTS SHALL GENERALLY BE USED ONLY WHERE TOPOGRAPHY AND OR DRAINAGE CONSTRAINTS REQUIRE THE USE OF FLAG LOTS TO DEVELOP PROPERTY AT SIMILAR INTENSITY ENJOYED BY SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES.
THE NUMBER OF FLAG LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 5% OF THE TOTAL LOTS CREATED." WHEN THIS PROVISION WAS ADDED TO THE ORDINANCE, IT SAYS, NOT EXCEED 5% OF THE TOTAL LOTS CREATED.
THE WAY THAT WAS APPLIED WAS YOU HAD TO GET TO 20 LOTS BEFORE YOU HAVE ONE FLAG LOT.
[00:40:06]
ONE IS 5% OF 20.YOU HAD TO GET TO 40 LOTS TO HAVE TWO.
AT SOME POINT, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS WHEN THERE WAS A ON STAFF COUNTY ENGINEER IN THE COUNTY, IT STARTED TO BE YOU COULD HAVE ONE FLAG LOT UNTIL YOU GOT TO 20.
BASICALLY, ROUNDING UP INSTEAD OF DOWN THE NUMBER YOU COULD GET.
THEN WHEN I WAS NOT AT BOWMAN ANYMORE AND THE COURT CONTINUED FOR A LITTLE WHILE TO USE BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP, THAT STARTED TO BE APPLIED BY BOWMAN ON THE COUNTY'S BEHALF AS COUNTY ENGINEER.
MY READ OF IT IS THAT THE WORD SAY WHAT IT SAYS.
IT SAYS, NOT EXCEED 5% OF THE TOTAL LOTS CREATED.
I HAVE BEEN HESITANT AS NOT ACCOUNTING POLICYMAKER, BUT AS THE STAFF ENFORCING THE RULES TO CHANGE THE INTERPRETATION THAT HAD BEEN APPLIED, I THINK GOING BACK PROBABLY TO THE 2016, 2017 ERA, I THINK IS ABOUT WHERE THAT BEGAN.
I'M REALLY HERE LOOKING FOR SOME GUIDANCE FROM THE COURT IN TERMS OF, IS IT THE COURT'S DESIRE THAT WE ENFORCE THAT PROVISION AS WRITTEN, PEOPLE CAN STILL CERTAINLY APPLY FOR VARIANCES IF THEY WOULD LIKE, OR IF IT'S THE COURT'S INTENT THAT WE KEEP CONTINUING APPLYING IT AS THE WAY IT HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, AT LEAST UNTIL THERE'S A MORE COMPREHENSIVE ORDINANCE UPDATE?
>> YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW, AS WE'RE DOING IT, IF I HAVE FOUR ACRES, I CAN PUT A FLAG LOT, BUT IN THE ORDINANCE, IT'S STATING THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE 20 BEFORE WE GET ONE.
>> IF YOU WERE DOING A SMALL CURB AND GUTTER SUBDIVISION OF WOULD BE QUARTER ACRE LOT, YOU'D HAVE TO GET TO 20 LOTS, 19 OF THEM TYPICALLY AND ONE FLAG.
WHAT WE'RE REALLY SAYING IS PEOPLE USING IT TO SQUEEZE IN ONE MORE LOT THAN THEY'RE OTHERWISE ALLOWED BASED UPON THE AMOUNT OF FRINGE THEY HAVE ON ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION FRONT.
THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT HOW IT'S BEING USED, IS JUST TO GET ONE MORE LOT OUT OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
VERY RARELY ARE WE SEEING IT APPLIED IN CASES WITH FLOODPLAINS.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE ONE, COMMISSIONER THERIOT, IT'S IN YOUR PRECINCT, ACORN SOMETHING.
THEY ACTUALLY HAD LEGITIMATE FLOODPLAIN ISSUES THAT TO GET OVER THERE, IT MADE MORE SENSE TO CONSTRUCT A FLAG WITH SHARED ACCESS DRIVEWAYS AND CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET THAT THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN FOR THAT.
THAT'S ONE OF THE FEW EXCEPTIONS WE'VE SEEN THAT IT'S ACTUALLY APPLIED AS WRITTEN.
MOST OF IT IS JUST SQUEEZING OUT ONE MORE LOT FROM THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
>> THE PURPOSE AS I SEE IT OF RESTRICTING FLAG LOTS IS WHEN THEY'RE USED TO AVOID BUILDING A ROAD.
IN THE PAST YEARS IN CERTAIN CASES, THERE'D BE EIGHT OR NINE LITTLE STRIPS COMING UP TO A WHOLE BUNCH OF LOTS IN THE BACK AND AN EASEMENT OVER THOSE SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO BUILD A ROAD.
BUT I SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IF SOMEONE DID A FOUR LOT PLAT AND HAD TWO LOTS IN THE BACK AND TWO LOTS IN THE FRONT AND WERE ABLE TO PUT A FLAG LOT TO ACCESS THE LOTS IN THE BACK.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S A BIG ISSUE COMPARED TO A MODERN SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION WHERE THEY'RE JUST SQUEEZING LOTS INTO EVERY LITTLE SPACE BY USING FLAG LOTS.
I GUESS I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ONE AND DO WITH THE OTHER.
THAT MAY BE A DIFFICULT INTERPRETATION.
>> I'M STRUGGLING WITH IT RIGHT NOW.
>> MAYBE HOLDING ON TO OUR CURRENT INTERPRETATION WHERE YOU GOT TO HAVE 20 IN ORDER TO HAVE ONE ON SUBDIVISIONS THAT HAVE SMALLER LOTS, RELAXING THAT INTERPRETATION A BIT ON THE SMALLER LOT DEVELOPMENT.
>> YOU MEAN ON THE LARGER LOTS? THE ONE ACRE LOTS.
>> YEAH. THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS AND REWRITE.
[00:45:04]
>> ON THE LIST OF THINGS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.
>> TRACY, RIGHT NOW, IS THE INTERPRETATION YOU CAN HAVE A FLAG LOT FOR UP TO 20, NOT THAT YOU HAVE TO GET TO 20?
>> CORRECT. I CAN'T EXPLAIN THE LOGIC BEHIND IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW REALLY HOW IT CAME ABOUT.
WHAT'S BEEN APPLIED, YOU STILL NEED 40 IN ORDER TO GET TO TWO.
BUT INSTEAD OF YOU HAVING TO GET TO 20 TO GET ONE, IT'S BEEN BY DEFAULT, YOU GET ONE.
YOU HAVE A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, ONE'S A REGULAR LOT AND ONE'S A FLAG.
>> IT'S NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I STRUGGLE WITH BECAUSE USUALLY, A LOT OF THE FLAG HAPPENS RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT DRIVEWAY SPACING HAS AN IMPACT ON THE NEXT LOT.
THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET A DRIVEWAY WHERE THEY WANT IT BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS PUTTING IN A FLAG RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
NOW, DRIVEWAY SPACING IS 75 FEET OR 125 FEET BASED ON YOUR ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION.
PUSHES THEIR DRIVEWAY OVER AND AFFECTS HOW THEY MIGHT DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY.
IT'S A LITTLE EASIER IF YOU IMAGINE FOUR LOTS WITH TWO HERE AND TWO FLAGS UP THE MIDDLE AND SHARED ACCESS DRIVEWAY IN THE MIDDLE AND YOU'RE NOT REALLY AFFECTING THOSE OTHER PEOPLE.
BUT IF YOU PUT THE FLAGS IN THE EDGE, IT HAS MORE OF AN IMPACT.
THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER, AND I KNOW THE COURT DOES NOT LIKE TO SPEND ALL OF ITS TIME APPROVING VARIANCES.
>> IF WE WERE TO APPLY THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN AT LEAST SO WE CAN GET A MORE COMPREHENSIVE REWRITE THAT ADDRESSES A BUNCH OF IF-THEN SCENARIOS, PEOPLE COULD STILL COME TO THE COURT AS A VARIANCE AND ASK FOR THAT CONSIDERATION.
IF IT MADE SENSE IF IT'S 10 ACRES BEING CHOPPED INTO FOUR LOTS AND THEY'RE WILLING TO SHARE ACCESS DRIVEWAY IN THE MIDDLE, MAYBE IT MAKES ALL SENSE IN THE WORLD.
THAT LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY IS NOT IN THE ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW.
I JUST HAVE THAT TWO SENTENCES I READ YOU TO ENFORCE THAT ARE VERY BINARY, WE'RE EITHER ALLOWING IT OR NOT.
I DON'T GET A WHOLE LOT OF SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT IN, BUT YOUR FLAG IS NEAR THE EDGE AND IT AFFECTS THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT THING.
>> WHEN YOU SAY AS WRITTEN, YOU'RE SAYING, YOU DON'T WANT FLAG LOTS UNTIL THEY GET TO 20 LOTS OR VICE VERSA.
>> YES. AGAIN, CERTAINLY PEOPLE CAN COME ASK THE COURT AND THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY VERY WELL MAKE SENSE, AND THEY'RE NOT IMPACTING THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS IN ANY WAY.
>> FOR MY I GUESS, PREFERENCE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, WOULD BE THAT THE ORDINANCE IS AS WRITTEN, AND MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO INTERPRET IT AS WRITTEN.
THEN IF THERE IS CERTAIN SITUATIONS, AT LEAST UNTIL THE REVISION IS ALLOWED TO GO THROUGH ITS PROCESS, IF THERE ARE CERTAIN SITUATIONS THAT AS COMMISSIONER THERIOT WAS DESCRIBING COULD POTENTIALLY BE ADVANTAGEOUS IN ORDER TO ISSUE A VARIANCE, BUT LET THOSE COME TO THE COURT ON A BASIS OF A REQUEST, AND THEN WE CAN CONSIDER THEM AS THOSE INDIVIDUALS REQUESTED TO BE PLATTED IN THE WAY THAT THEY WANTED.
I THINK THE OTHER WAY, IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE, IT SOUNDS LIKE IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE LIKE WE HAVE BEEN, THAT THERE'S A LITTLE MORE NUANCE IN THAT THAN I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH AT THIS POINT.
THAT'S THAT'S JUST MY PREFERENCE.
>> CAN YOU MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT? MAKE THAT INTO A MOTION.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE INTERPRET THE ORDINANCE AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT FLAG LOT VARIANCES ARE ALLOWED TO COME TO COMMISSIONER'S COURT FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[I.13 To discuss and take possible action on a Proclamation designating April 26 - May 4, 2025, as Caldwell-Travis Soil &Water Conservation District (SWCD) Stewardship Week. ]
ITEM I13, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 26TH THROUGH MAY 4TH, 2025 AS CALDWELL-TRAVIS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, SWCD STEWARDSHIP WEEK.I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THE PROCLAMATION.
COME ON UP. SOIL AND WATER STEWARDSHIP WEAK PROCLAMATION.
WHEREAS HEALTHY, FERTILE SOIL, AND CLEAN WATER IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF NUTRITION AND SUSTENANCE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD AND SOIL CONSERVATION IS A BENEFIT TO EVERYONE; AND WHEREAS EFFECTIVE CONSERVATION PRACTICES ENSURE SOIL, WATER, ANIMALS, PLANTS, AND AIR CAN PROVIDE A RICH STANDARD OF LIVING;
[00:50:04]
AND WHEREAS OUR SURVIVAL AND CONTINUED PRODUCTION AND ACCESS TO QUALITY FOOD AND WATER DEPENDS UPON THE ROBUST MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSE NATURAL RESOURCES WIDE, AND WHEREAS STEWARDSHIP CALLS UPON EVERY INDIVIDUAL TO HELP CONSERVE THESE PRECIOUS RESOURCES TO ENSURE THEIR PROSPERITY FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.THEREFORE, I DO HEREBY PROCLAIM THE WEEK OF APRIL 27TH THROUGH MAY 4TH, 2025, AS TEXAS SOIL AND WATER STEWARDSHIP WEEK.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION? > SO MOVED.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. GO AHEAD, SIR.
>> YES. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE CALDWELL-TRAVIS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
I HAVE HERE ANN SCHROEDER, PARDON ME, WHO'S ALSO A MEMBER OF THE CALDWELL-TRAVIS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
THEN WE HAVE ASHLEY COLBERT AND LAILA [INAUDIBLE].
ASHLEY IS A TECHNICIAN FOR US FOR THE DISTRICT AND LAILA IS THE DISTRICT CONSERVATIONIST FOR THE NRCS.
SHE'S THE ACTING DISTRICT CONSERVATIONIST NOW FOR OUR COUNTY.
I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
AS A BOARD MEMBER, AND AS ALL BOARD MEMBERS, WE STRIVE VERY HARD TO WORK AT CONSERVATION EFFORTS FOR SOIL AND WATER.
IT'S A VERY PRECIOUS RESOURCE, AND WE THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ALL SUPPORT AND FOR PASSING THE PROCLAMATION. THANK YOU ALL.
>> DID YOU GUYS WANT A PICTURE?
[I.14 To discuss and take possible action on a Proclamation recognizing April 2025 as Caldwell County Child Abuse Prevention and Awareness Month. ]
ITEM I14, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2025 AS CALDWELL COUNTY CHILD ABUSE AND PREVENTION AWARENESS MONTH.WHEREAS MORE THAN 34,994 CASES OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT WERE CONFIRMED IN TEXAS IN 2024 RESULTING IN 9,754 CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE IN TEXAS AND THE DEATH OF 99 CHILDREN IN TEXAS IN 2024, WHEREAS 82 CHILDREN WERE CONFIRMED VICTIMS OF ABUSE IN CALDWELL COUNTY IN 2024, WHEREAS CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION IS A COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY AND FINDING SOLUTIONS DEPENDS ON INVOLVEMENT AMONG ALL PEOPLE; AND WHEREAS LOCALLY, REPRESENTATIVES FROM CALDWELL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, HAYS-CALDWELL WOMEN'S CENTER, AND ROXANNE'S HOUSE, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES, CASA, LOCKHART, LULING, AND MARTINDALE POLICE DEPARTMENTS, CALDWELL COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, BLUEBIRDS HOPE, AND CHRISTUS SANTA ROSA, SAN MARCOS, HAVE JOINED FORCES TO PROVIDE PREVENTATIVE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES TO CHILD VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES; AND WHEREAS EVERY CHILD IN CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS DESERVES A SAFE, NURTURED AND SUPPORTED, AND CARING RELATIONSHIPS, AND NOW THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT THAT THE MONTH OF APRIL 2025 IS RECOGNIZED AS CHILD ABUSE AND PREVENTION AWARENESS MONTH, AND DO HEREBY CALL UPON ALL CITIZENS OF CALDWELL COUNTY TO WORK TOGETHER TO RAISE AWARENESS AND PREVENT CHILD ABUSE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND BEYOND.
PROCLAIM THIS EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL 2025.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION?
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. SECOND.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
>> ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[00:55:02]
I LOOK FORWARD TO A DAY WE DON'T HAVE THESE ANYMORE. YES, MA'AM.[I.15 To discuss and take possible action on a Proclamation recognizing April 2025 as Caldwell County Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month. ]
>> ITEM I15, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2025 AS CALDWELL SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH.
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2025 AS CALDWELL COUNTY SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH.
WHEREAS 6,300,000 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, AGES, GENDERS, AND ECONOMIC SITUATIONS; AND WHEREAS HAYS-CALDWELL WOMEN CENTER PROVIDED DIRECT SERVICES TO 667 ADULT VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN HAYS AND CALDWELL COUNTIES LAST YEAR; AND WHEREAS CALDWELL COUNTY IS INTOLERANT OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN ANY FORM AND RECOGNIZES THAT EDUCATION AND AWARENESS MAY PREVENT SEXUAL ASSAULT; AND WHEREAS EFFORTS TO REDUCE SEXUAL ASSAULT CAN ONLY BE SUCCESSFUL THROUGH CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT, AND THE SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS OF CALDWELL COUNTY DEPENDS UPON OUR ACTIONS TO END SEXUAL ASSAULT.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT THAT THE MONTH OF APRIL 2025 IS RECOGNIZED AS SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH PROCLAIMED THIS EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL 2025.
COMMISSIONER'S, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT.
>> ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. YES, MA'AM.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS ASHLEY RIOS.
I'M THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR AT ROXANE HOUSE, THE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER AT THE HAYS-CALDWELL WOMEN CENTER.
I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND RECOGNITION OF APRIL AS BOTH CHILD ABUSE AWARENESS MONTH AND SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH.
>> COMMISSIONER, DO YOU WANT TO STEP UP THERE ONE MORE TIME [BACKGROUND]?
[I.16 To discuss and take possible action regarding the Mass Gathering Permit Application for the Old Settler's Music Festival scheduled to be held on April 24-27, 2025, at 1616 FM 3158 Dale, Texas 78616. ]
ITEM I16, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE MASS GATHERING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR OLD SETTLERS MUSIC FESTIVAL SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON APRIL 24TH-27TH, 2025, AT 1616 FM 3158, DALE, TEXAS 78616.RICHARD IS NOT HERE, SO I GUESS I'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT.
WE'VE HAD A MASS GATHERING PERMIT FILLED OUT, SUBMITTED, GONE TO ALL THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE REGARDING THE MASS GATHERING PERMIT.
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, HEALTH AUTHORITIES, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HAVE ALL REVIEWED AND APPROVED THIS MASS GATHERING PERMIT.
THIS WOULD BE THE FORMAL APPROVAL BY THE COURT TO ALLOW THE MASS GATHERING PERMIT BE APPROVED.
I LOOK FOR A MOTION, COMMISSIONERS.
>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, JUDGE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM I16. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THAT HERE AGAIN. THANK YOU.
[I.17 To discuss and take possible action regarding Animal Shelter Fees. ]
ITEM I17, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ANIMAL SHELTER FEES.COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS JUST AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE'RE AT.
[01:00:01]
WE'RE GATHERING SOME DATA AND WE'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING SOME OF THAT.I KNOW I SAW SOME EMAIL TRAFFIC BETWEEN DANNY AND CHIEF WILLIAMSON YESTERDAY.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY DOGS TOTALLY ARE GOING IN OVER SAY, A 12-MONTH PERIOD OF TIME, HOW MANY IN CATS, HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE GENERATED OUT OF THE COUNTY, HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE GENERATED OUT OF THE CITY, WHAT'S THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ANIMAL SHELTER PER DOG AND CAT.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DRILL DOWN AND GET SOME OF THAT DATA, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO EXPLORE SOME OPTIONS WITH THE COURT ONCE WE GET THAT DATA.
ONE OF THEM IS JUST CARRY ON WITH THE ANIMAL SHELTER AND NEGOTIATE FEES WITH THE CITY.
ONE OF THEM MAY BE TO TRY TO TAKE SOME OF THE PRESSURE OFF OF THAT SHELTER AND LOOK AT POSSIBLY USING PAWS OR SOMEBODY LIKE THAT IN HAYS COUNTY WHERE IT MAKES SENSE GEOGRAPHICALLY TO TAKE A FEW OVER THERE AND SEE WHAT THEIR FEES WOULD BE.
A THIRD OPTION MIGHT BE, WE'RE STARTING TO APPROACH A POINT TO WHERE THIS IS STARTING TO TURN INTO A $600,000-A-MONTH VENTURE FOR THE COUNTY.
AT SOME POINT, WHEN YOU START GETTING INTO THOSE NUMBERS, IT MAY MAKE SENSE TO LOOK AT DOING A COUNTY SHELTER.
BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT JUST YET.
WE'RE TRYING TO GATHER DATA SO THAT WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS BASED ON DATA AND NOT JUST INVOICES THAT WE'RE GETTING FROM THE CITY.
THIS IS REALLY MORE OF AN UPDATE.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION TODAY.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE AN UPDATE TO THE COURT WHERE WE ARE ON THIS, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT AND BRING BACK MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS FOR YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER.
>> I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION, JUDGE IF THAT'S OKAY.
>> IN THE ANIMAL SHELTER ADVISORY BOARD MEETING LAST WEEK, THE FEES THAT WERE DISCLOSED TO THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT OUR PRIOR MEETING, THAT WAS DISCUSSED.
IT WAS ASKED AT THAT BOARD TO LOOK AT IF THOSE NUMBERS WERE ACCURATE BECAUSE ONCE CHIEF WILLIAMSON STARTED LOOKING AT THEM, HE HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON THEM.
IS THAT RELATED TO WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, DANNY, AT THIS POINT?
>> MA'AM, WOULD YOU MIND COMING UP SO WE CAN HEAR YOU IF WE'RE GOING SOME QUESTIONS?
>> NO, I WAS JUST ASKING, DANNY.
>> DANNY. [LAUGHTER] I THOUGHT YOU ASKED SOMEBODY. SORRY.
>> I THOUGHT YOU'RE POINTING TO SOMEBODY BEHIND HER [OVERLAPPING]. [LAUGHTER]
>> I CAN STAND UP IF YOU WANT. [LAUGHTER]
>> A LITTLE BIT, WE'RE RECEIVING INVOICES WHERE IT SHOWS THE DOG AND CAT RATE TO BE FAR MORE THAN WHAT THE LAST FORM OF COMMUNICATION WAS WITH THE ANIMAL SHELTER BY OVER $100 PER ANIMAL.
>> ACTUALLY, CATS [OVERLAPPING] WENT UP $407 A CAT.
>> THE CAT NUMBER WAS WHAT CAUGHT CHIEFS ATTENTION.
HE JUST TOLD US THAT HE WOULD GO BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS COMPOUNDED CORRECTLY.
I [OVERLAPPING] WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT WHEN WE DO GET THOSE THAT HE'S GONE BACK AND DONE [INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL, THERE'S A BIG CONCERN THAT THERE'S NOT EVEN AN ILA OR CONTRACT OR ANYTHING FOR THIS.
THEY'RE SENDING US INVOICES, AND THEY'RE EXPECTING US TO PAY.
WE'VE HAD ISSUES TOO, WHERE I KNOW JUDGE HAS ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE US THE RATES OR SOMEWHAT A BUDGET PRIOR TO US ADOPTING OUR BUDGET, AND THAT'S NOT HAPPENING AND WE'RE JUST SHELLING OUT MONEY.
THE ONLY CONTRACT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS WITH THE ANIMAL SHELTER LEASE.
BUT NOTHING AS FAR AS THE DOG AND CAT RATE AND WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS ARE COMING FROM, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS SINCE IT CAME UP LAST WEEK AS WELL.
>> IN THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THEIR VERSION OF WHAT IT COSTS PER DOG AND PER CAT.
>> THE GENERAL CONSENSUS IN THAT MEETING WAS THAT OBVIOUSLY, THE INCREASE WAS MENTIONED, BUT THEN THE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE BOARD MEMBERS WAS THE NUMBER RELATED TO CATS BEING AS HIGH AS IT WAS.
THERE WAS SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THAT NUMBER WAS ACCURATE.
>> I DID MEET WITH ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, AND I JUST ASKED THEM WHAT THEY FELT WAS BUILT INTO THAT NUMBER, MEDICATIONS, COST OF RUNNING THE FACILITY.
BEAR IN MIND THAT NOT ONLY ARE WE BEING ASKED TO PAY $267 A DOG AND $407 A CAT.
WE ALSO PAY $2,000 OF THE LEASE ADDITIONALLY TO THAT.
IT'S NOT LIKE THOSE FUNDS ARE BEING USED TO PAY OPERATING EXPENSE OF THE LEASE.
>> JUST THE LEASE ALONE IS $240,000 A YEAR.
[01:05:03]
>> THE LEASE IN SPECIFICITY WASN'T COVERED, BUT IT WAS THE ONLY ITEM [OVERLAPPING].
>> THERE'S A LOT BAKED INTO THOSE NUMBERS.
ONE OF THE THINGS I QUESTION IS, WE HAVE TWO ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS THAT PATROL THE ENTIRE COUNTY.
THE CITY HAS THREE TO DO THE CITY THAT WE'RE BEING CHARGED FOR.
IF THEY WANT TO HAVE THREE, THAT'S FINE, BUT I FEEL LIKE THAT'S EXCESSIVE FOR THE CITY LIMITS OF LOCKHART WHEN WE'RE DOING IT WITH TWO FOR THE ENTIRE INCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE JUST SOME JUSTIFICATION OF THOSE NUMBERS AND HOW THEY'RE COMING UP WITH THEM BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT PRECIPITATED THIS WHOLE THING IS WE'RE HALFWAY THROUGH OUR BUDGET CYCLE AND WE GET AN INVOICE THAT'S EQUATING TO 30-$40,000 MORE A QUARTER WITH NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER ABOUT WHY THOSE RATES WENT UP, AND WE CAN'T DO THAT.
WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO THE CONSTITUENTS THAT WE REPRESENT, BOTH WITHIN LOCKHART, LEWING, AND MARTINDALE, AND ALL THE OTHER INCORPORATED CITIES AND OUTSIDE, SO THE CITY LIMITS.
WE WE OWE IT, I FEEL LIKE TO THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS COUNTY TO AT LEAST INVESTIGATE THOSE COSTS BEFORE WE JUST PAY THEM.
>> YEAH. I AGREE. THAT WAS THE CHARGE THAT WAS GIVEN TO CHIEF WILLIAMSON OUT OF THAT MEETING AS WELL.
>> THAT'S IT. IT'S JUST UPDATE, NOT LOOKING FOR ANY ACTION TODAY.
IF THAT'S ALL THE DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS,
[I.18 To discuss and take possible action regarding a Caldwell County Burn Ban. ]
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO TO ITEM I18, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CALDWELL COUNTY BURN BAN, HECTOR.>> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE, COMMISSIONER, STAFF, AND GALLERY.
SINCE THE BURN BAN WAS LIFTED, THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY MAJOR INCIDENTS OUT THERE INVOLVING FIRES.
EVERYBODY THAT'S BEEN BURNING HAS BEEN MAINLY CONTRACTORS AND LANDSCAPERS AND PEOPLE WHO OWN SMALL PROPERTIES OUT IN THE DALE AREA.
THEY DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER AND CALLING THIS OUT AND INSPECTING THEM.
IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS, IT SHOWS THAT WE MIGHT GET A LITTLE RAIN.
THERE'S DIFFERENT PREDICTION MODELS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, BUT WE'RE LOOKING ABOUT THE 18TH THROUGH THE 25TH POSSIBLE CHANCES OF RAIN.
CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, THE KBDI, THE MINIMUM IS 300, AND MAX IS 481 WITH AN AVERAGE OF 381 WITH A CHANGE OF PLUS 1.
I THINK WITH THE GREEN AGE THAT WE GOT OUT THERE, I CAN SAY THAT WE CAN SAFELY KEEP THE BURN BAN OFF AND LET PEOPLE KEEP BURNING AS LONG AS THEY DO IT CAUTIOUSLY AND THEY REPORT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BURN TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO KEEP THE BURN BAN OFF?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
>> AYE. OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.19 To discuss and take possible action to adopt Resolution 13-2025 expressing intent to reimburse project expenditures from proceeds of future tax-exempt obligations, in connection with all roadways and related expenditures approved in the November 2024 election as the Caldwell County Road Bond Proposition (Proposition A), in an amount not to exceed $150,000,000.00. ]
>> ITEM I 19. DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 13 2025, EXPRESSING INTENT TO REIMBURSE PROJECT EXPENDITURES FOR PROCEEDS OF FUTURE TAX OBLIGATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH ALL ROADWAYS AND RELATED EXPENDITURES APPROVED IN NOVEMBER 2024 ELECTION, AS THE CALDWELL COUNTY ROAD BOND PROPOSITION A, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $150 MILLION, COMMISSIONERS, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THAT RESOLUTION.
RESOLUTION 13 2025, EXPRESSING INTENT TO REIMBURSE PROJECT EXPENDITURES FROM PROCEEDS OF FUTURE TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS, WHEREAS CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS, THE ISSUER IS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AUTHORIZED TO FINANCE ITS ACTIVITIES BY ISSUING DEBT OBLIGATIONS.
THE INTEREST ON WHICH IS EXCLUDABLE FROM GROSS INCOME UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 HAS AMENDED THE OBLIGATIONS.
WHEREAS THE ISSUER WILL MAKE OR HAS MADE NOT MORE THAN 60 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE HERE OF PAYMENTS FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES WITH RESPECT TO THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION PROJECT LISTED ON EXHIBIT A, ATTACHED HERE TO THE FINANCE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS, WHEREAS THE ISSUER HAS CONCLUDED THAT IT DOES NOT CURRENTLY DESIRE TO ISSUE OBLIGATIONS TO FINANCE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINANCE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS, AND WHEREAS THE ISSUER DESIRES TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FINANCE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE PROCEEDS
[01:10:01]
OF OBLIGATIONS TO BE ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE HEREOF, WHEREAS THE ISSUER REASONABLY EXPECTS TO ISSUE OBLIGATIONS TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FOR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FINANCE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT SECTION 1, THE ISSUER REASONABLY EXPECTS TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, THAT HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE PAID SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE THAT IS 60 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE HEREOF, BUT NOT MORE THAN 18 MONTHS AFTER THE LATTER OF THE DATE OF EXPENDITURE OR THE DATE, THE PROJECT IS PLACED IN SERVICE.
BUT IN THE LATTER CASE, NO MORE THAN THREE YEARS AFTER THE EXPENDITURE AND THAT ARE TO BE PAID IN CONNECTION WITH THE FINANCE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS, FROM THE PROCEEDS OF OBLIGATIONS TO BE ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE HEREOF.
SECTION 2, SOMEBODY SILENCE THEIR PHONE.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.
SECTION 2, THE ISSUER REASONABLY EXPECTS THAT THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF OBLIGATIONS ISSUED TO REIMBURSE THE ISSUER FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FINANCE FACILITIES, AND IMPROVEMENTS WILL NOT EXCEED 150 MILLION.
IN SECTION 3, THIS RESOLUTION WILL BE KEPT IN THE BOOKS AND RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY WITH RESPECT TO THE TAX ADVANTAGED OBLIGATIONS.
ADOPTED THIS EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BY CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER? ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.20 To discuss and take possible action to execute HNTB Work Authorization Agreement to provide engineering management services required to initiate and monitor production of contract documents and required to initiate and monitor construction of projects in Caldwell County regarding the 2024 Road Bond. ]
ITEM I 20 DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION TO EXECUTE HNTB WORK AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, REQUIRED TO INITIATE AND MONITOR PRODUCTION OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND REQUIRED TO INITIATE AND MONITOR CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS IN CALDWELL COUNTY REGARDING 2024 ROAD BOND.COMMISSIONERS, WE NEGOTIATED THIS WITH THEM BEEN BACK AND FORTH.
FEW TIMES BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS, WE REACHED AN AGREEMENT, JUST LOOKING FOR AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE THIS CONTRACT WITH HNTB.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO TO APPROVE ITEM I 20. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.21 To discuss and take possible action to authorize PCT. 1 Constable and PCT. 2 Constable to adjust one part-time position to a full-time position. ]
ITEM I 21 TO DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE PRECINCT 1 CONSUL AND PRECINCT 2 CONSTABLE TO ADJUST ONE PART TIME POSITION TO FULL TIME POSITION.COMMISSIONER, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE.
ADJUSTING POSITION IN EACH OF THOSE OFFICES TO FULL TIME.
DANNY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD?
>> YEAH. OTHER THAN JUST THE MONIES THERE.
ONE, JUST DUE TO LACK OF BEING ABLE TO PUT SOMEBODY IN THOSE PART TIME POSITIONS, AS WELL AS THAT SUPPLEMENT REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE SCHOOL FOR THE SCHOOL PROGRAM, WHICH SAVES US ON OUR SALARY LINE ITEMS QUITE A BIT.
THE JUSTIFICATION THAT 1 AND 2 ARE THE ONLY TWO OUT OF THE FOUR THAT DO NOT HAVE FULL TIMES, 3 HAS TWO FULL TIME EMPLOYEES, AND THEN FOUR HAS ONE FULL TIME AS WELL AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT.
THEY'RE OUT THERE TRYING TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO, BUT ONLY WORKING WITH HALF THE STAFF.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM I 21 BY COMMISSIONER HORN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.22 To discuss and take possible action regarding Budget Amendment #06 transferring $9,600.00 from 001-3201-1060 (Investigator) to 001-3201-1043 (Constables ETF Stipend). ]
>> THANK YOU. ITEM I 22, DISCUSS TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 6, TRANSFERRING 9,600 FROM 001-3201-1060 INVESTIGATOR TO 001-3201-1043 CONSTABLE ETF STIPEND.
THIS WAS WHAT WAS APPROVED LAST COURT WHEN WE HAD DISCUSSED THE STIPEND FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM.
WE'RE JUST DOING OUR PROTOCOL OF MOVING THAT MONEY FROM THE CODE INVESTIGATOR OR THAT ENVIRONMENTAL TASK FORCE BUDGET OVER TO THE NEW STIPEND GL CODE, WHICH I CREATED.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
[01:15:01]
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.23 To discuss and take possible action to add two additional Equipment Operator positions for the Unit Road Department. ]
>> ITEM I 23, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR POSITIONS FOR UNIT ROAD.
THIS IS ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH THE REORGANIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT UNIT.
WE'RE SETTING THIS UP SO THAT THEIR PRIMARY JOB WILL BE WHAT WE DISCUSSED AND GOING OUT AND PICKING UP ANY ILLEGAL DUMPING SITUATIONS.
BUT ALSO, WE'RE LEAVING THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THAT JOB DESCRIPTION IN SO THAT IF DONALD NEEDS THEM TO DO SOMETHING ELSE THAT DAY AND THEY'RE NOT BUSY HE CAN USE THEM IN THAT MANNER.
WE JUST LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM I 23.
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS TO APPROVE I 23. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO.
ANY DISCUSSION? GO AHEAD, DANNY, SORRY.
>> NO WORRIES. I WAS JUST GOING TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT SINCE THIS IS APPROVED, THEN NEXT COMMISSIONERS COURT, I'LL BRING THE BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ADD THOSE FUNDS IN THERE.
>> AWESOME. WE HAVE MOTION IN A SECOND.
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.24 To discuss and take possible action regarding Budget Amendment #08 transferring funds from Contingency to Unit Road - Road Workers, for the new Construction Inspector position. ]
ITEM I 24, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT 8, TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM CONTINGENCY TO UNIT ROAD ROAD WORKERS FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.>> WELL, THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT. THIS ONE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S RIGHT. THIS IS THE INSPECTOR.
>> THE INSPECTOR YOU GUYS APPROVED, I THINK, A COUPLE OF COURTS AGO, AND THIS WAS JUST MOVING THAT MONEY OVER THERE.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.25 To discuss and take possible action regarding Budget Amendment #07 transferring $63,000.00 from Contingency to Building Maintenance Courthouse expense GL for lawn care and repair. ]
ITEM I 25 DISCUSSED AND TAKES POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT 7, TRANSFERRING 63,000 FROM CONTINGENCY TO BUILDING MAINTENANCE, COURTHOUSE EXPENSE, GL FOR LAWN CARE REPAIR.COMMISSIONERS, CURTIS AND I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DOING THIS FOR SOME TIME.
AS ANYBODY CAN SEE HERE WE HAVE NO LAWN LEFT.
ONCE WE FINISH THE CONSTRUCTION OUT THERE, WHICH HOPEFULLY WILL BE HERE SHORTLY.
WE CAN PUT OUR IRRIGATION SYSTEM BACK IN AND THEN WE WOULD LIKE WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, EXTEND THESE FUNDS TO COMPLETELY REDO THE GROUNDS, GET THE SOIL PREPARED AND THEN RESAW OUT THERE.
WHAT THIS WILL MEAN, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS AND THIS IS PROBABLY PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT FOR THE FARMERS MARKET AND COURTHOUSE NIGHTS AND TO MAKE THE CITY AWARE AND WE'LL CALL.
ONCE WE DO THAT, WE'LL HAVE TO ROPE THAT OFF FOR A PERIOD OF TIME SO THAT WE DON'T LAY DOWNSIDE AND THEN HAVE 300 PEOPLE AT COURTHOUSE NIGHTS TRAMPLE IT INTO A MUD-HOLE.
WE'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT WHEN WE GET THERE.
HOPEFULLY THAT'LL BE THIS SUMMER RENT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I SAID THAT OUT LOUD.
>> I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.
I WOULD HAVE SOME CONCERNS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE USE OF THE COURTHOUSE LAWN.
I UNDERSTAND ROPING IT OFF, WHILE IT'S GROWING IN.
WE DEFINITELY NEED TO DO THAT, BUT,, LONG RANGE, I HOPE IT'S HARDY ENOUGH TO WHATEVER PLANTED CAN STAND UP TO THE USE BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT TO GET IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE COURTHOUSE.
>> NO. THAT'S DEFINITELY NOT THE INTENT AT ALL.
>> WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM I25.
>> I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE?
>> OPPOSED HERE AND THEN. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.26 To discuss and take possible action regarding a deposit to Good Neighbor Lawn & Landscaping in the amount of $17,174.98 for start of Caldwell County Courthouse Landscaping. ]
ITEM I26, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A DEPOSIT TO GOOD NEIGHBOR LAWN AND LANDSCAPING IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,174.98 FOR THE START OF CALDWELL COUNTY COURTHOUSE LANDSCAPING.AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS WILL WAIT TO DO THIS UNTIL THEY FINISH THE SIDEWALKS, BUT I JUST WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GET ALL THIS HOUSEKEEPING DONE.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION IF THAT WAS OKAY.
>> ON THE BID SHEET AND I COULD BE MISSING IT.
THAT'S DEFINITELY A POSSIBILITY.
ON IT SAYS, UNDER THEIR CURRENT SIDE ASSESSMENT, NUMBER ITEM 2 IS TREE TRIMMING, AND THEN ARE WE TRIMMING THE TREES IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE SIDE INSTALLATION?
[01:20:05]
THE REASON I ASKED THAT IS THE NOW THE SCOPE.I DON'T SEE THE TREE TRIMMING.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
>> BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO, [LAUGHTER] THAT WEST SIDE IS MOSTLY BARREN DUE TO LACK OF LACK OF SUNLIGHT, AND THEY MENTIONED THAT IN THEIR SIDE ASSESSMENTS.
I'D HATE TO EXPEND THE FUNDS AND THEN NOT ADDRESS THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF WHY IT'S BEING SO THIN.
>> WE DID NOT, I DID NOT PUT THAT INTO THE TREE TRIMMING.
I DID HAVE IT IN THERE AT FIRST, BUT IT WAS VERY COSTLY.
BUT WE'RE ABOUT TO SPEND $60,000.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY ADD THAT.
>> I JUST DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A SITUATION.
I'M NOT GOING TOOT MY OWN HORN, BUT I HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN TURF MANAGEMENT, AND SO I JUST DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE THE COURT EXPENDS $43,000, AND THEN IT LOOKS FINE FOR ABOUT THREE MONTHS, AND THEN IT GOES INTO A STEADY STATE OF DECLINE.
>> WELL, WE JUST APPROVED IT, SO WITHOUT THAT.
I'M NOT SURE. CAN WE JUST DO A CHANGE ORDER, DANNY, WHEN WE GET THERE?
>> ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU WANT TO TABLE THIS ITEM, TO HAVE BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND PURCHASING GO BACK OUT FOR ANOTHER ESTIMATE AND PUT THE TREE TRIMMING IN THERE AS WELL. CAN I DO THAT?
>> I JUST MENTIONED IT BECAUSE I WAS GOING OVER, IT'S OBVIOUSLY THE REST OF THE WILL OF THE COURT.
IT WAS JUST SOMETHING I NOTICED AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I SEE AS MOTION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I AGREE. I THOUGHT IT WAS IN THE BID.
>> I DID HAVE IT IN THE BID AT THE FIRST.
>> IT'S MENTIONED IN THEIR SIDE ASSESSMENT.
THAT'S WHAT TEED ME OFF TO IT.
>> THEN WHATEVER THAT ADDITIONAL IS, WE CAN DO ANOTHER BUDGET AMENDMENT TO, I GUESS WE CAN TABLE THIS ITEM I26 FOR STARTING, AND THEN, WE'LL DO AN AMENDMENT TO THE QUOTE THAT WE JUST APPROVED, AND WE CAN APPROVE THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE WE JUST APPROVED IT.
>> NO. THE BUDGET AMENDMENTS FINE.
THEN WHAT WE CAN DO IS ONCE WE GET THE NEW QUOTE, I'LL BRING BACK ANOTHER BUDGET AMENDMENT WITH THE ADDITIONAL COST OF THAT AND THEN HAVE YOU GUYS APPROVE THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FIRST BEFORE THE ESTIMATE.
>> I HATE TO BE THE FLY IN THE WIND.
>> NO. THAT'S OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE I26?
>> MOTION TO TABLE I 26. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.27 To approve or reject award for RFQ24CCP03Q Public Improvement District (PID) Administration Consulting Services to P3 Works, LLC. ]
ITEM I27, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT AWARD FOR RFQ24CCP03Q, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION CONSULTING SERVICES TO P3 WORKS, LLC.>> YES. JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS.
WE ACTUALLY WENT FOR A RESOLICIT ABOUT A MONTH AGO.
WE GOT THIS PROPOSAL FROM P3 WORKS, AND IT WAS SCORED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE WHICH INCLUDED YOURSELF, DANNY, THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND JENNIFER RITTER.
IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE HIGHLY QUALIFIED TO COMPLETE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
THEREFORE, MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO GO AHEAD AND GET THIS AWARD TO THEM.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM I27 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.
[I.28 To discuss and take possible action on submitting a grant application for Caldwell County Constable PCT. 3 to the Texas Department of Transportation Traffic Safety - 2026 STEP Comprehensive Grant. ]
DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON SUBMITTING GRANT APPLICATION FOR CALDWELL COUNTY COST PRECINCT 3 TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC SAFETY 2026 STEP COMPREHENSIVE GRANT.>> MORNING. WE DID THIS WITH PRECINCT 3 BACK IN JULY OF 2024.
IT IS BASICALLY A PAY ROLL REIMBURSEMENT GRANT.
THIS ALLOWS US TO HAVE OUR DESIGNATED CONSTABLES THAT ARE SELECTED FOR THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE OUTSIDE OF THEIR NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND ANYTHING THAT WE PAY THEM FOR THAT EXTRA TIME AND OVERTIME IS REIMBURSED THROUGH THE GRANT.
THE ONLY MATCH FOR IT IS THE LITTLE BIT OF FRINGE THAT'S ATTACHED TO THAT.
IT DOESN'T AMOUNT TO A LOT, SINCE IT'S JUST FOR THAT PIECE OF OVERTIME THAT THEY'D BE GETTING.
>> COMMISSIONERS. HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
[01:25:02]
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND, HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.
DISCUSSION. NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
>> AYE. OPPOSE HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[I.29 To discuss and take possible action regarding an agreement with Ford, Powell & Carson Architects and Planners, Inc. (FPC), for the planning and development of the Caldwell County Courthouse Master Plan. ]
ITEM I29, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN AGREEMENT WITH FORD, POWELL AND CARSON ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, FPC FOR THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT OF CALDWELL COUNTY COURTHOUSE MASTER PLAN.>> BACK IN JULY, WE WENT OUT FOR BID ON A PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FIRM THAT CAN PUT TOGETHER OUR MASTER PLAN FOR THE COURTHOUSE.
THIS IS REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR US TO APPLY FOR ANY OF THOSE THC RESTORATION GRANTS, WHICH WE ARE HOPING TO DO IN SPRING OF 26.
THEY ARE THE SELECTED BIDDER, AND THIS IS JUST TO SIGN OFF ON THE AGREEMENT WITH THEM.
AS LONG AS YOU ALL APPROVE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY SCHEDULED TO BE HERE THIS THURSDAY TO GET STARTED.
>> THE MOTION TO APPROVE? COMMISSIONER THOMAS?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS ITEM I29. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE?
>> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE MORE THING ABOUT THAT FOR ANY DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE HOUSED HERE IN THE COURTHOUSE, YOU NEED TO EXPECT THAT THERE WILL BE A COUPLE OF ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS WALKING AROUND AND THEY'RE GOING TO WANT IN YOUR OFFICE TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING AND DRAW UP EVERYTHING.
THEY'RE FOR SURE GOING TO COME THIS WEEK, BUT THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE MANY MORE VISITS BEFORE WE GET THE PLAN FINALIZED.
[J.1 To discuss the Development Agreement for Riata Creek, a new proposed subdivision consisting of 220 residential lots located off of Farmers Road. ]
>> COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO J.
DISCUSSION ONLY DISCUSSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR REATA CREEK, A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 320 RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED OFF FARMERS ROAD.
WE HAVE SOMEBODY HERE FROM REATA CREEK.
WE ARE PROPOSING OUR FUTURE COMMUNITY REATA CREEK.
THIS IS CHARLES. HE'S THE ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT.
[BACKGROUND] THE PROJECT IS LOCATED OFF OF FARMERS ROAD BETWEEN 2720 AND MISSY LANE.
WE ARE LOOKING TO PRESENT THE OVERALL COMMUNITY. IT IS A.
YOU'RE GOOD. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, WE HAVE OUR CONNECTIVITY OF THE PROJECT.
IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH OUR OTHER COMMUNITY HARTLAND RANCH, IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THAT AS WELL.
WE ARE LOOKING FOR A 74*120 FOOT PRODUCT.
IT IS A WITH ONE ACRE PARK AND A PLAY SCAPE OF THE DOG PARK UP HERE AT THE FRONT.
IT'S GOING TO HAVE A MONUMENTATION UP AT THE FRONT WITH A POTENTIAL POND AT THE BACK.
IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH OUR VINTAGE PRODUCT, IT'S GOING TO HAVE THAT SIMILAR PARK AS WELL.
COUNTY LINE WILL BE PROVIDING THE WATER AND SEWER.
BLUE BONNET WILL BE THE ELECTRICAL PROVIDER.
WE WILL HAVE GAS AND FIBER AS WELL IN THIS COMMUNITY.
WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT PUTTING A 2-3 CAR GARAGE OPTIONS FOR OUR PRODUCT OUT THERE.
>> WHO'S PROVIDING YOUR GAS? JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY?
>> MOST LIKELY, IT'LL BE CENTRIC.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE OTHERS THAT WERE CONVERSANT AS WELL. YES, SIR.
TODAY, WE ARE SEEKING PART OF THE DA, WE ARE GOING TO BE FORMING A MUD TO MAINTAIN THE DRAINAGE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
WE'RE GOING TO BE MEETING THE REQUIRED STANDARDS FOR THE DARK SKIES.
THE ONLY VARIANCES THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR ARE GOING TO BE FOR THE LOT SIZE.
[01:30:03]
THE CURRENT CODE STATES FOR A 0.25 OR A QUARTER ACRE.WE ARE ASKING FOR 0.2, A FIFTH OF AN ACRE.
OUR LOT FRONTAGE WILL BE 74 FOOT WITH THE COUNTY STANDARDS OF 70, AND SO WE'LL HAVE A LARGER FRONT FOOT AT THE PROJECT.
THE OVERALL SIZE, THOUGH, WE ARE ASKING FOR A FIFTH OF AN ACRE TO ALLOW US TO HAVE CONNECTIVITY AND PROVIDE AN EFFICIENT PRODUCT AND SIZING THROUGHOUT THE OVERALL.
ON THE COLLECTOR ROAD UP HERE AT THE FRONT, THE PORTION THAT IT AFFECTS 10 LOTS, WE'RE ALSO ASKING JUST FOR THE VARIANCE OF 100 FOOT ON THE COLLECTIVE ROAD TO BE REDUCED DOWN TO THAT 74 AS WELL, JUST TO HAVE CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
AS WELL AS ITEM 3 FOR THE VARIANCE TO THE DRIVEWAYS TO BE PRESENTED FROM 150 FOOT DOWN TO A 55 FOR THOSE 10 LOTS OF THE FRONT.
>> THANK YOU. WHAT THIS ITEM IS REQUESTING IS TO AUTHORIZE STAFF AND TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THESE FOLKS ON THE POSSIBILITY OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THIS IS I THINK A LARGER LOT PRODUCT THAT WE'RE PROBABLY MISSING IN A LOT OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE SEEING COME INTO THE COUNTY.
I LIKE THAT. SOME OF THE THINGS WE'LL PROBABLY BE TALKING ABOUT IT DURING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROCESS WILL BE FARMERS ROAD, WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW YOUR TRIPS WILL BE DEALT WITH AS PART OF THAT ROAD CONDITION.
>> WE WILL BE PLANNING ON IMPROVING THE PORTION FROM OUR PROJECT FROM THE SOUTH TO THE NORTH SIDE OF OUR PROJECT AS WELL.
WE WILL BE RESURFACING FARMERS ROAD.
>> WELL, WE'LL NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT IN A BROADER PERSPECTIVE AND WE WILL DURING THAT PROCESS.
BUT I THINK THIS TYPE OF SUB-DIVISION THAT WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH NEGOTIATION ON?
>> WE REALLY TRIED TO GAIN THAT BIGGER LOT COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE A LOT OF 50 FOOT PRODUCTS IN THE GENERAL AREA, AND SO WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO TRY TO BUILD A LARGER LOT COMMUNITY, MORE OF A COUNTRY FEEL.
>> WELL, WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT YOU AND TRACY AND COMMISSIONER THERIOT NEGOTIATE AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU BACK.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY ACTION BECAUSE THIS LIST IS THE DISCUSSION ONLY. THANK YOU'RE GOOD.
>> WITH THAT, WE'LL GO TO ITEM K. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> OPPOSE HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
WE'RE ADJOURNED 10:38.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.