[00:00:01]
THANK YOU FOR COMING TO CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT.
CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH, 2026 AT 9 A.M.
AND IF YOU'LL JOIN US FOR THE INVOCATION, PASTOR HARDWAY IS HERE TO DO IT FOR US.
PLEASE BOW YOUR HEARTS AND YOUR SPIRITS IN PRAYER.
HEAVENLY FATHER, IN THE NAME OF JESUS, WE THANK YOU FOR WHO YOU ARE.
AS THE GOD WHO EVER LIVETH TO INTERCEDE FOR US, LORD FATHER, NOW SEARCH OUR HEARTS.
KNOW OUR THOUGHTS AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY ERROR WITHIN US AND LEAD US INTO YOUR WAY EVERLASTING, LORD FATHER.
I THANK YOU, LORD GOD, FOR YOUR PRESENCE, LORD FATHER, THAT YOU WILL GIVE US YOUR MOUTH AND WISDOM IN WHICH ALL OF OUR ADVERSARIES WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GAINSAY NOR RESIST.
AS YOU SAID, TO MAKE OUR REQUESTS KNOWN WITH SUPPLICATION AND WITH THANKSGIVING.
AND THE GOD OF PEACE WILL GRANT OUR HEARTS, WILL GUARD OUR HEARTS AND OUR MINDS THROUGH PRAYER, LORD FATHER.
AND I THANK YOU, LORD FATHER, THAT YOU KNOW EVERY HEART, THAT YOU KNOW EVERY UNSPOKEN PRAYER, LORD FATHER.
WE ASK THAT YOU ALLOW US TO SPEAK THE TRUTH TO ONE ANOTHER IN LOVE AS WE REMEMBER YOUR WORD, LORD FATHER, FOR OUR LIVES, LORD FATHER.
AS WE GO IN THE STRENGTH OF YOU, LORD FATHER, THE WHOLE ARMOR OF LIGHT AND LIFE THAT YOU GIVE US.
THAT THE JOY OF THE LORD IS OUR STRENGTH.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE CITY OF TEXAS, ONE STATE, UNDER GOD, ONE INDIVISIBLE.
[D. ANNOUNCEMENTS]
OKAY, I KNOW WE HAVE A COUPLE OF STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, BUT COMMISSIONERS, DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY FIRST? NONE FOR ME, JUDGE.MR. TERRIO? NONE FOR ME, JUDGE.
ALL RIGHT, IZZY? OKAY, THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
I JUST WANT TO UPDATE EVERYBODY ON THOSE WITH CYBERSECURITY TRAINING SO FAR.
WE'VE HAD 223 EMPLOYEES SIGN UP TO TAKE THE TRAINING AND 128 HAVE COMPLETED, SO THAT'S ABOUT A 57% COMPLETION RATE.
WE'VE GOT 95 EMPLOYEES LEFT, SO I WILL BE SENDING OUT EMAILS TO THOSE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND INDIVIDUALS TO TAKE THE TRAINING AS WELL.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE EVERYBODY BE IN COMPLIANCE AND 100% COMPLETED BY JULY THE 1ST, BECAUSE I HAVE TO SEND WORD TO THE STATE THAT WE HAVE COMPLETED BY AUGUST 1ST.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, EMAIL ME, CALL ME.
THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT WILL BE HOSTING THE INAUGURAL MEETING OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE, THE LEPC, ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17TH AT 10.30 A.M.
AT THE CALDWELL COUNTY JUSTICE COMPLEX IN THE TRAINING ROOM.
THE LEPC IS A STATE AND FEDERALLY MANDATED GROUP OF LOCAL OFFICIALS AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES THAT EDUCATE THE PUBLIC, TRAIN FIRST RESPONDERS, AND COORDINATE RESOURCES FOR EFFECTIVE, ALL-HAZARDS PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY.
THE LEPC IS THE LINK BETWEEN LOCAL CITIZENS, INDUSTRY, AND GOVERNMENT.
LOCAL OFFICIALS, FIRST RESPONDER LEADERSHIP, HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL INDUSTRY TIER 2 REPORTERS, AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS IN CALDWELL COUNTY HAVE BEEN INVITED TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE.
THE MEETING IS ALSO OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
THE AGENDA CAN BE FOUND POSTED HERE AT THE COURTHOUSE.
OUR FIRST MEETING WILL HAVE A PROGRAM FROM A TETAM REPRESENTATIVE WHO WILL DISCUSS THE IMPORTANCE OF AN ACTIVE LEPC IN THE COUNTY AND ON THE HAZARDS OF LITHIUM BATTERIES.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO OFFERING THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL EDUCATION TO OUR LOCAL FIRST RESPONDERS AND COMMUNITY.
ANY OTHER STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS? STEPHANIE, WOULD YOU, CHRIS JUST WALKED IN, YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE HIM SINCE YOU WORKED SO HARD TO HELP US FIND HIM? GOOD MORNING.
I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR NEW IT DIRECTOR, CHRIS CUNNINGHAM, AND I'LL LET HIM SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HIMSELF WITH THE COURT.
MY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER CUNNINGHAM.
PRIOR TO THIS ROLE, I WAS WORKING WITH THE
[00:05:01]
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AS THE DEPUTY TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL FOR 7TH CENTRAL COMMAND.I'VE BEEN DOING CYBER AND IT WORK FOR ABOUT THE PAST 14 YEARS.
I'M A NATIVE TEXAN BORN IN SAN ANTONIO WITH THE JUSTIN HIGH SCHOOL, SO I'M READY TO GET TO WORK, SERVE THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS, SERVE THE PEOPLE OF COLVILLE COUNTY.
[E. CITIZENS' COMMENTS]
ALL RIGHT.WITH THAT, WE'LL GO TO CITIZENS' COMMENTS.
LAST MONTH, I LEFT OFF AT THE POINT WHERE JUDGE HAYDEN ASSUMED CONTROL OF THE PRAIRIE LEE ALWAYS STOP SIGN PROJECT, AND HE EMPHASIZED THAT THIS DECISION SHOULD BE DRIVEN BY DATA, SPECIFICALLY TRAFFIC VOLUME NUMBERS.
AND AT THE TIME, THE COURT AGREED THE ORIGINAL TRAFFIC STUDY DID NOT REFLECT TYPICAL SUMMERTIME TRAFFIC VOLUMES, AND IT SHOULD BE REDONE.
HOWEVER, THAT DECISION WAS BASED ON A MISUNDERSTANDING.
JUDGE HAYDEN TOLD THE COURT THAT IF TRAFFIC NEARLY DOUBLED, THE ALWAYS STOP SIGNS WOULD BE JUSTIFIED.
THAT WAS A TEN-FOLD DISTORTION OF THE FACTS.
INSTEAD, AS ENGINEER TRACY BRATTON EXPLAINED, TRAFFIC VOLUME WAS ONLY 5% OF WHAT IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE WARRANTS FOR AN ALL-WAY STOP.
AND TRAFFIC WOULD NEED TO INCREASE BY 20 TIMES, NOT BY DOUBLE, TO JUSTIFY THESE SIGNS.
AND IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT I BELIEVE MR. BRATTON IS HERE TODAY, BUT HE CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT IT.
YOU SILENCE HIM WITH COURT RULES BY REFUSING TO PUT IT ON THE COURT AGENDA.
DESPITE FAILING TO GRASP MR. BRATTON'S EXPLANATION, JUDGE HAYDEN TOOK CONTROL OF THE PROJECT FROM COMMISSIONER SHELTON.
HE PERSUADED AMERICA'S STRUCTURE POINT TO REDO THE STUDY, AND TRAFFIC DATA WAS COLLECTED IN THE SUMMER ON JULY 2ND OF 2022, A BUSY HOLIDAY WEEKEND, NOT A TYPICAL DAY.
JUDGE HAYDEN MUST HAVE BEEN CONFIDENT THIS NEW COUNT WOULD SUPPORT THE ALWAYS STOP SIGNS.
REMEMBER, HE TOLD THE COURT, TRAFFIC ONLY NEEDED TO INCREASE BY 95%, AND YOU'RE THERE.
NOW THIS MATTERS, BECAUSE JUDGE HAYDEN HAS A LONG-STANDING REPUTATION FOR ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE IN HIS CONCLUSIONS.
AND WHEN THOSE CONCLUSIONS ARE QUESTIONED BY FACTS, INSTEAD OF CORRECTING THEM, PEOPLE SAY HE CONTROLS THE PROCESS UNTIL THE OUTCOME FITS HIS ORIGINAL POSITION.
AND KNOWING THAT COMMISSIONER SHELTON HAD LOST RE-ELECTION, AND THAT RUSTY HORN WOULD REPLACE HER, JUDGE HAYDEN APPEARS TO HAVE DELIBERATELY DELAYED THE PROJECT UNTIL COMMISSIONER SHELTON LEFT OFFICE.
IN FACT, SIX MONTHS LATER, ON HER LAST DAY IN OFFICE, COMMISSIONER SHELTON ADDRESSED THE COURT.
SHE SAID THIS TRAFFIC STUDY WAS THE ONLY UNFINISHED BUSINESS SHE WAS LEAVING BEHIND, AND ASKED THAT IT BE COMPLETED.
JUDGE HAYDEN RESPONDED THAT THE REPORT WAS NOT FINISHED YET, AND THAT WITHOUT THE REPORT, THERE WAS NO ACTION TO TAKE.
AND HE ASSURED HER THE REPORT WOULD BE RELEASED ONCE HE RECEIVED IT.
NOW, AMERICAN STRUCTUREPOINT IS NOT THE KIND OF COMPANY THAT OPERATES THIS WAY.
THEY ARE A NATIONAL-RECOGNIZED ENGINEERING FIRM ESTABLISHED IN 1966, WITH MORE THAN 750 PROFESSIONALS ACROSS 11 DISCIPLINES.
AND THEY ARE EXPERIENCED IN MOVING TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PROJECTS FROM CONCEPT TO COMPLETION.
AND THEY ARE THE PREFERRED REPEAT PROVIDER FOR THE COUNTY AND CONTINUE TO DO SIGNIFICANT WORK HERE.
AND IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THAT AFTER THEY COLLECTED THE DATA, AMERICA'S STRUCTUREPOINT WOULD TAKE SIX MONTHS OR MORE TO COMPLETE A SIMPLE REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY.
AFTER ALL, IT ONLY TOOK ONE MONTH TO DO THE ORIGINAL STUDY.
JUDGE HAYDEN SPOKE WITH THEM, MET WITH THEM, AND EVEN DINED WITH THEM MANY TIMES DURING 2022 AND 2023.
THEIR CEO EVEN CONTRIBUTED $5,000 TO HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
SO THE QUESTION MUST BE ASKED, DID THEY TELL HIM THE INCREASED TRAFFIC WAS STILL FAR BELOW WHAT WAS REQUIRED? COULD THIS BE ANOTHER CASE OF CONTROLLING THE PROCESS TO AVOID THE FACTS? A LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THAT THIS DELAY CAME AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNTY, SPECIFICALLY FROM THE NEW PROJECT LEADER, JUDGE HAYDEN.
I'M RUNNING OUT OF TIME, SO I'M GOING TO WRAP UP HERE.
AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE'LL SEE IF THIS PROJECT FINALLY PICKS UP SPEED AS COMMISSIONER HORN REPLACES COMMISSIONER SHELTON.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING, AND GO TEAM USA! OKAY, ANY OTHER CITIZENS' COMMENTS? THERE ARE NO OTHER CITIZEN COMMENTS.
[F. CONSENT AGENDA]
RIGHT, WITH THAT, WE'LL GO TO CONSENT.COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ON CONSENT, I LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE.
MOVE APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
[00:10:01]
WESTMORELAND.ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE
[G.1 To discuss the proposed development agreement for Wild Roots Getaways & Gatherings Event Venue located at 10201 FM 86 in Luling, Texas on approximately 44.75 acres.]
DISCUSSION ONLY THEN.G1 DISCUSS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WILD ROOTS GATEWAYS AND GATHERING EVENTS VENUE LOCATED AT 10-201 FM 86 IN LULING, TEXAS ON APPROXIMATELY 44.75 ACRES.
NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE, SO I THINK I'M HERE WITH RACHEL HARTZLER FROM HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING, SO MY GOAL IS TO CREATE A PLAN WITH THE COUNTY TO BE COMPLIANT WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE.
I'LL MAKE ONE NOTE ON THE DOCKET.
IT SAYS WE'RE IN LULING, BUT OUR ADDRESS IS ACTUALLY IN LOCKHART.
OKAY, SO MY NAME IS JOE ELLIOTT.
I'M THE OWNER WITH MY WIFE OF WILD ROOTS, AND WE LIVE ON THE PROPERTY.
SO WE ARE DEVELOPING A LIMITED EVENT CENTER, MAINLY WEDDINGS.
ON THE PROPERTY IS THE GOAL HERE, SO WE'LL GO THROUGH, I GUESS, WHAT IS EXISTING AND WHAT WE INTEND TO USE IT FOR.
THE CAPACITY IS 200 INDIVIDUALS, ALTHOUGH MOST OF OUR EVENTS ARE WELL BELOW THAT.
WE HAVE PARKING FOR ABOUT 100 CARS ON A GRASS FIELD THAT IS IN THE FRONT OF THE PARKING, OR IN THE FRONT OF THE LOT.
THERE IS LIMITED LODGING ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE PROPERTY.
IT'S PREDOMINANTLY CONTAINER, LITTLE TINY CONTAINER HOMES, AND SOME GLAMPING TENTS.
WE HAVE TWO PAVILIONS THAT CAN BE USED AS PART OF THE SPACE, AND THEN WE HAVE SPORTS AMENITIES LIKE A SPORT PICKLEBALL COURT, SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT, AND MUCH OF THE STORAGE ON THE, MUCH OF THE, MANY OF THE CONTAINERS ON THE BUILDING OR ON THE PROPERTY ARE JUST STORAGE, TABLES AND CHAIRS AND SO FORTH.
SO OUR, WE, THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO BUILD IN THE FUTURE IS A 1,500 SQUARE FOOT HOME FOR MY WIFE AND I ON THE PROPERTY.
AND SO IN OUR PRELIMINARY MEETINGS WITH THE COUNTY, WE'VE, IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DEVELOP AND ADD TO THE PROPERTY, ALL OF WHICH IS DOCUMENTED ON OUR PLAN.
SOME OF THAT IS RELATED TO A RETENTION POND, POTENTIAL RIGHT-HAND TURN LANE, AND WE NEED TO UPGRADE A SEPTIC SYSTEM.
SO THOSE ROUND ABOUT THE THREE MAJOR THINGS ANYWAY THAT WE NEED TO IMPROVE OR DO TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, PARKING AND TRAFFIC, AGAIN, IT'S, WE HAVE A FRONT LOT FIELD WHERE THERE IS, YOU KNOW, PARKING IS, IS EVERYBODY ARRIVES AT STAGGERED TIMES AND LEAVES AT STAGGERED TIMES.
WE DO HAVE AN EVENT MANAGER THAT'S ON SITE AT ALL TIMES WHILE PEOPLE ARE OCCUPYING THE PROPERTY, AND WE HAVE CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL, ALTHOUGH WE DON'T REALLY SEE MUCH OF THAT.
THE WATER SOURCE ON THE PROPERTY IS AQUA.
THEN WE HAVE THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS, AND THEN BLUE BONNET PROVIDES ELECTRICITY.
YEAH, ULTIMATELY, WE'RE HERE TO FIGURE OUT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND, YOU KNOW, COMPLY WITH WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO AND WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE COUNTY OUT THERE.
SO I'LL KIND OF PAUSE AND SEE IF THERE'S SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
SO ALL THIS STUFF IS ALL OUT THERE ALREADY, SO WE'RE JUST TRYING, YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO GET COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE? YES, SIR, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE 1,500-SQUARE-FOOT HOME.
SO WHAT ARE WE DOING TO GET, WHAT ARE WE,
[00:15:01]
SO WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO TRY TO, OR TO COME IN COMPLIANCE? I KNOW WE SPOKE A FEW TIMES IN MEETINGS.SO I HAVE, SO I HAVE ALL MY BIDS AND THINGS READY TO GO.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, I HAVE TO HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SETTLED FIRST BEFORE I CAN TAKE ACTION ON BUILDING, YOU KNOW, THE SEPTIC AND THE ROAD AND EVERYTHING, SO.
TRACY, YOU WANT TO ADD? NOPE, SORRY.
YES, SO COMMISSIONER HORN, YOU'RE CORRECT, AND TO KIND OF BRING THE ENTIRE COURT UP TO SPEED, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND YOU NOTICE THE WORD PAST TENSE THERE, ALL THAT THAT'S OUT THERE NOW IS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT.
SOME OF WHAT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED IS NOT ALLOWED BY RIGHT UNDER ORDINANCE, SO WE CAN'T ACCEPT AN APPLICATION IN BECAUSE THE ONLY THING WE COULD DO IS DENY IT.
SO WE NEED TO WORK WITH YOU AND THEM THROUGH A POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND THEN IF IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THE COURT, THEN THAT AGREEMENT CAN BE APPROVED, AND THEN WE CAN REVIEW THE ACTUAL DETAILS ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? NO, I THINK IT'S IN GOOD HANDS TO GET IT SOLVED.
CAN I ASK WHAT, SO NEXT STEPS ON OUR END, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE FROM US? I GUESS YOU WOULD GET WITH CASEY AND GET ANOTHER MEETING, AND WE'LL GET WITH TRACY AND START THE PROCESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
[I.1 To discuss and take possible action regarding the approval of the Minutes for the January 22, 2026, regular meeting. ]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.AND IT IS ONLY 9-16, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO TO ITEM 1-1, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE JANUARY 22, 2026 REGULAR MEETING.
MOVE APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[I.3 To discuss and take possible action regarding the approval of a Second Amendment to Development Agreement for Juniper Springs, Phau-Lockhart 450, LLC pertaining to approximately 22.42 acre tract of land situated in the J.B. Gray Survey, Abstract 116, and W. House Survey, Abstract 15, Caldwell County, Texas.]
MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-3, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR JENNIFER SPRINGS, PILE LOCKHART 450 LLC PERTAINING TO APPROXIMATELY 22.42 ACRES, TRACK OF LAND SITUATED IN THE J.B. GRAY SURVEY ABSTRACT 116, WEST HOUSE SURVEY ABSTRACT 15, CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS.
I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT, BUT PROBABLY NOT AS WELL AS HE CAN.
SO THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR JUNIPER SPRINGS, AND IT SPECIFICALLY TAKES THE PORTION THAT IS AT THE CORNER OF PORTRAIT LOOP AND JUNIPER SPRINGS AND REVISES THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLYING TO THAT PORTION IN ORDER TO CREATE WHAT I THINK IS EASIEST TO REFER TO AS A BUILD-TO-RENT PRODUCT.
IT WOULD BE A SITE PLAN PRODUCT.
IT IS A COMBINATION OF MOSTLY SINGLE-FAMILY, FOUR-RENT STRUCTURES.
THERE'S A LIMITED NUMBER OF DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, ATTACHED-LIKE STRUCTURES ALLOWED WITHIN THE AREA.
THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO A PARTNERSHIP THAT'S DEVELOPED BETWEEN, I BELIEVE IT'S UPWARDS OR UPLIFT COMMUNITIES AND LOCKHART ISD, AND IT PROVIDES FIRST OPPORTUNITY ON THOSE UNITS FOR SCHOOL TEACHERS WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
I BELIEVE THERE'S A MECHANISM, IF THOSE ARE NOT FILLED BY THE SCHOOL, TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, BUT RIGHT NOW MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE WAITING LIST BY THE ISD IS LONGER, THE NUMBER OF UNITS WOULD BE AVAILABLE.
SO IT ALLOWS FOR THAT INCREASED DENSITY IN WHAT WAS OTHERWISE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF BENEFITS WITHIN THE AGREEMENT, INCLUDING AMENITY CENTER FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA, A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE COMBINED WITH TRAILS AS WELL.
THE AGREEMENT IS STIPULATED AS ONLY BEING EFFECTIVE UPON THE COMPLETION OF A ROADWAY DONATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OVERALL MASTER TRACK DEVELOPER IN CALDWELL COUNTY ADDRESSING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ON BORSCHE LOOP THAT WERE REQUIRED AS PART OF THEIR TIA, BUT NOW AT THIS POINT MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE COUNTY TO FOLD IN UNDERNEATH THE ROAD BOND PROGRAM TO CREATE MORE SYNERGY AND BUYING POWER AND COMPLETE THAT IN A WAY THAT'S MORE EFFICIENT.
OKAY, BUT THEY ARE STILL GOING TO...
YES, SIR, AND WE HAVE STARTED TO CIRCULATE DRAFT ON THAT.
I'VE ENGAGED HNTB TO REVIEW THE PLANS OR PREPARE THE OPC BASED UPON THE 30% DESIGN THAT HAD BEEN COMPLETED ON BEHALF OF PERRY HOMES, AND THE DISAGREEMENTS BEFORE YOU TODAY SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT'S NOT
[00:20:02]
EFFECTIVE UNTIL THAT SECONDARY AGREEMENT IS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY.OKAY, YEAH, BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO GET A YES OUT OF ME.
ANYTHING ELSE? NO, THAT'S, I THINK, SUFFICIENT.
I JUST WOULD ADD THAT WE MET ON...
JUDGE AND I MET WITH THE ISD AND THE DEVELOPER QUITE A FEW MONTHS AGO AT THIS POINT.
INITIALLY, I HAD SOME SEVERE SKEPTICISM ABOUT IT, BUT THE ISD HAS ENGAGED THEM IN A WAY THAT MAKES A LOT OF THOSE FEARS GO AWAY, AND I THINK IT'S A MECHANISM THAT WE CAN SOLVE THE KIND OF HANGING ISSUE OF THE ROADWAY DEDICATION ISSUE FOR FUNDING AS WELL.
SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD SOLUTION TO PUT A FEW ITEMS TO BED.
IT IS, AND IT'S A GREAT PROJECT.
I MEAN, THERE'S A HUNDRED AND SOME ODD UNITS IN THERE, AND THERE ARE OVER 200 TEACHERS THAT HAVE APPLIED TO LIVE IN THEM, SO IT SOLVES, AT LEAST GOES A LONG WAY TOWARDS SOLVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUE THAT WE HAVE HERE FOR OUR TEACHERS.
SO IN THAT RESPECT, IT'S A GREAT AGREEMENT.
WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM I-3.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM I-3.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THERIAULT.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[I.4 To discuss and take possible action regarding the Preliminary Plat for Tenney Creek Estates consisting of seven lots on approximately 13.083 acres located at FM 86 and Tenney Creek Road.]
MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-4, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TENNEY CREEK ESTATES, CONSISTING OF SEVEN LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 13.083 ACRES, LOCATED AT FM 86 AND TENNEY CREEK ROAD.
AT THIS TIME, WE'RE ASKING TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
ALL COMMENTS AND CONCERNS HAVE BEEN CLEARED.
ALL OF THE LOTS HAVE EITHER FM 86 OR COUNTY ROAD FRONTAGE, AND WE'RE JUST READY TO MOVE FORWARD.
COMMISSIONERS? MAKE MOTION TO APPROVE.
MOVE APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
[I.5 To discuss and take possible action regarding a variance request concerning an 80.072-acre tract located on FM 713, which was denied an exemption approval due to adjacent flags which are not allowed under the requirements outlined in the Caldwell County's Development Ordinance section A.6 (C).]
MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-5, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION.
IS THIS ONE YOU THINK GOING TO TAKE A BIT, COMMISSIONER? IT MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE.
WHAT TIME IS IT NOW? IT'S 9.22.
IT MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE DISCUSSION.
I MIGHT SKIP THAT ONE FOR A MINUTE AND COME BACK TO IT BECAUSE I WANT TO GIVE IT THE TIME IT DESERVES AND NOT CUT IT SHORT BECAUSE OF THIS HEARING WE HAVE COMING UP.
ITEM I-6, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE FINAL PLAT FOR SUNSET ACRES CONSISTING OF SIX LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 11.507 ACRES LOCATED ON SUNSET TRAIL AND UNION HILL ROAD.
THIS WAS A VERY SMALL DEVELOPMENT.
IF YOU CAN RECALL, WE APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TWO MEETINGS AGO.
EVERYTHING HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AND ALL CONCERNS ARE CLEARED AND WE'RE JUST READY FOR THE FINAL APPROVAL.
COMMISSIONERS? MOVE TO APPROVE.
MOVE APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[I.7 To discuss and take possible action regarding the Short Form Plat for Bob White Subdivision consisting of two lots on approximately 93.3479 acres located at 1026 Bob White Road in Lockhart, Texas.]
HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-7, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SHORT-FORM PLAT FOR BOB WHITE SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF TWO LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 93.3479 ACRES LOCATED AT 1026 BOB WHITE ROAD IN LOCKHART, TEXAS.
SEEDS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED AND WE'RE JUST READY FOR APPROVAL.
COMMISSIONERS? CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION, JOSH? YES.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IF WE NEED TO DO THAT.
MOVE APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT.
TRACY, WHILE YOU'RE HERE, WE'RE GOING TO WEAR YOU OUT TODAY.
I'LL ASK YOU ONE MORE QUESTION.
HE'S GOING TO EARN HIS PAYCHECK TODAY.
WE'VE GOT A 60-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY ON BOB WHITE AND I SEE THERE'S A ROADWAY RESERVATION THAT'S THERE, BUT IT'S NOT A DEDICATION.
IT'S A RESERVATION, THE AREA BETWEEN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE COUNTY LINE, I BELIEVE IT'S THE COUNTY LINE SUD WATER LINE EASEMENT THAT'S THERE.
SOME OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY, THERE'S A PROJECT I KNOW YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT'S ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF BOB WHITE FROM THERE AND THAT PORTION GETS KIND OF TURNED DOWN TO TURN TO THE ANGLE MORE TO THE SOUTH TO TIE IN WITH FM 2720 IN THE FUTURE.
SO WE'RE NOT NEEDING TO GET ADDITIONAL LAND DEDICATED? THERE IS A RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVE TO BE ACQUIRED WITH 2720
[00:25:02]
CONSTRUCTION IF NECESSARY.THOSE PLANS ARE NOT COMPLETE, SO EXACT DETAILS OF BOB WHITE, FLARE FOR RIGHT-OF-TURN LANES AND LEFT-TURN LANES AND THE EXACT ANGLES IT COMES OVER TO 2720 IS NOT COMPLETE AT THIS TIME.
I MEAN, WE'RE NOT PASSING UP AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET LAND DEDICATED RATHER THAN HAVE TO PURCHASE IT LATER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOW WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
[I.8 To discuss and take possible action regarding a Proclamation designating February 2026 as Black History Month in Caldwell County. ]
HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-8, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 2026 IS BLACK HISTORY MONTH IN CALDWELL COUNTY.
I'M GOING TO READ THE PROCLAMATION.
BLACK HISTORY MONTH OBSERVED EACH FEBRUARY WHERE IT STANDS AS A TIME OF REFLECTION AND CELEBRATION, HONORING THE LEGACY, ACHIEVEMENTS, AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF BLACK AMERICANS TO THE HISTORY AND FUTURE OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND WHEREAS, THE BLACK COMMUNITY HAS PLAYED AN ESSENTIAL ROLE IN SHAPING THE CHARACTER, CULTURE, AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OF CALDWELL COUNTY.
THROUGH THIS LEADERSHIP, LABOR, SERVICE, FAITH, CREATIVITY, AND THE STRENGTH OF OUR INTERSECTING VALUES, THE OBSERVING OF BLACK HISTORY MONTH PROVIDES A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO HONOR THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE US.
TO RECOGNIZE THE EFFORTS OF TODAY AND TO INSPIRE FUTURE GENERATIONS THROUGH EDUCATION, REMEMBRANCE, AND SHARED UNDERSTANDING.
AND CALDWELL COUNTY AFFIRMS THE EMBRACING DIVERSITY AND HONORING OUR SHARED HISTORY STRENGTH THE BONDS OF OUR CENTRAL TEXAS COUNTRIES AND REFLECT OUR COMMITMENT TO DIGNITY, RESPECT, AND UNITY FOR ALL RESIDENTS.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT THAT ALL RESIDENTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO OBSERVE THIS MONTH BY PARTICIPATING IN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS, COMMUNITY EVENTS, AND THE ACT OF REFLECTION AND SERVICE THAT CELEBRATE AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY, HONOR ITS LASTING IMPACT, AND PROMOTE UNITY, TOLERANCE, AND ACCEPTANCE OF ONE TOWN NEIGHBOR THROUGHOUT CALDWELL COUNTY.
PROVIDED THIS DATE, 12 FEBRUARY, 2026.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION? SO MOVED.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
YOU WANT TO TAKE A PICTURE? YEP.
COMMISSIONER, I MIGHT SKIP THE NEXT TWO PROCLAMATIONS BECAUSE WE'RE REALLY ONE MINUTE AWAY FROM THE HEARING. SO IF Y'ALL WOULD JUST KIND OF BEAR WITH ME. I'M GOING TO HOLD UP AND WE'LL OPEN THAT HEARING IN ABOUT 30 SECONDS.
OKAY, WE'RE GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CONCERNING DESIGNATION OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY, 142 RE-INVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER 1.
[00:30:02]
LOCATED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING AREA, NORTH CORNER WEST 97 DEGREES, 49 FEET, 19.96 INCHES.NORTH 29 DEGREES, 51 FEET, 34.36 INCHES.
EAST CORNER, WEST 97 DEGREES, 48 FEET, 09.03 INCHES.
NORTH 29 DEGREES, 51 FEET, 13.37 INCHES.
SOUTH CORNER, WEST 97 DEGREES, 48 FEET, 40.09 INCHES.
NORTH 29 DEGREES, 50 FEET, 55.37 INCHES. WEST CORNER, 97 DEGREES, 48 FEET, 48.3 INCHES.
NORTH 29 DEGREES, 51 FEET, 56.86 INCHES. OKAY, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN.
WE'LL REMAIN OPEN FOR A MOMENT IF THERE ARE THOSE THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON IT.
OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
[I.2 To discuss and take possible action regarding Order 03-2026 designating by ordinance an area as the Caldwell 142 Reinvestment Zone #1, located within the following area - North Corner: W 97° 49' 19.16"; N 29° 51' 34.36"; East Corner: W 97° 48' 09.03"; N 29° 51' 13.37"; South Corner: W 97° 48' 40.09"; N 29° 50' 55.37"; West Corner: W 97° 48' 48.38"; N 29° 51' 56.86"]
AT 9.32 AND MOVE TO ITEM ITEM TO UNDER DISCUSSION ACTION DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ORDER 032026, DESIGNATING BY ORDINANCE AN AREA OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY REINVESTMENT ZONE, LOCATED AT THE FOLLOWING AREA. I WON'T REREAD ALL THOSE COORDINATES. AND COMMISSIONERS, JUST LOOK FOR A MOTION.MOVE APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.
[I.10 To discuss and take possible action regarding a Proclamation and Certificate of Acknowledgment for Vessie Davis Tutt's 100th Birthday.]
CARRIES.OKAY. NOW WE'LL GO BACK TO ITEM I-10. DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROCLAMATION AND CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR BETSY DAVIS-TUTTS' 100TH BIRTHDAY.
COMMISSIONER? WE'RE GOING TO DO NINE OR JUST GOING TO DO ONE OF THEM? DID I SKIP ONE? OH, NINE.
OH, I DID. SORRY. YEAH, LET ME DO THAT REAL QUICK. I FORGOT WE SKIPPED IT. DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A VARIANCE REQUEST CONCERNING 80.072 ACRE TRACK LOCATED AT FM 713, WHICH WAS DENIED AN EXEMPTION APPROVAL DUE TO ADJACENT FLAG LIGHTS, WHICH ARE NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINE OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY'S DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE SECTION A6C.
OKAY. JUDGE BROUGHT THIS TO THE COURT'S DECISION. HE HAS APPROVED TECH STOP RIGHT-OF-WAYS, BUT BY OUR ORDINANCE, HE HAS BACK-TO-BACK FLAG LIGHTS, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BACK UP, AND WAS DENIED 10-POINT EXEMPTION LETTERS.
I'VE DRIVEN OUT THERE. I'VE SEEN IT.
THEY'RE 30-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAYS, AND TECH STOP GAVE ME.
[00:35:01]
SIGHT DISTANCE, BUT I PERSONALLY DO NOT AGREE WITH IT.I'VE DRIVEN OUT THERE. 713 IS A BUSY ROAD, AND EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE THE SIGHT DISTANCE, I THINK IT COULD BE A PROBLEM WITH THE BACK-TO-BACK DRIVEWAYS WITH 120, 30, OR THEY'RE 30-FOOT DRIVEWAYS.
SO, I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING THEY CAN DO IN THE BACK-TO-BACK THERE. IF THIS DOES GET APPROVED, THEY CAN'T DEVELOP IT ANY FURTHER.
SO, I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THIS. IF THE THREE FLAG LIGHTS TOGETHER, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH FRONTAGE TO HAVE A SECONDARY ENTRANCE? I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT LAYOUT AND CONFIGURATION OF THIS. THEY WANTED A STAFF APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION, AND THE ORDINANCE LAYS OUT THE ADJACENT FLAGS HAVE TO BE FLATTED, SO WE WERE NOT AS STAFF ABLE TO APPROVE THAT, AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HERE BEFORE THE COURT.
THERE'S TWO SPECIFIC REASONS THAT THE ORDINANCE ADDRESSES IT THE WAY IT DOES. ONE, TXDOT WILL GIVE PERMITS FOR THREE TRACKS TAKING ACCESS OFF ONE SHARED DRIVEWAY OFF OF A STATE FACILITY.
HOWEVER, THEY'RE GIVING THAT ISSUANCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THERE'S ONE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON EACH ONE.
ANY ADDITIONAL HOMES OR USES COMMERCIAL OR REQUIRES A COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PERMIT.
THE NUMBER OF TIMES PEOPLE ARE IN OUR OFFICE AFTER THEY ACQUIRE THESE 10-ACRE TRACKS, UNDER THE BELIEF THAT THEY CAN MOVE OUT THERE WITH THEIR EXTENDED FAMILY AND INSTALL TWO, THREE, FOUR, OR FIVE HOMES, AND THEY COME BACK TO US, AND WE'RE LIKE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPROVE THAT. YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO TXDOT.
AND THEN THEY GET IN ALL THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH TXDOT. AGAIN, OVER AND OVER AND OVER, WE SEE THAT.
ADDITIONALLY, IT IS, AND ALL THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE BEEN ON OUR PRE-APPLICATION CALLS.
IT HAPPENS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. PEOPLE, THEY BUY THESE 10-ACRE TRACKS, AND NOW THEY WANT TO RE-SUBDIVIDE IT.
THEY WANT TO DEVELOP IT IN SOME WAY. AND AGAIN, THE MECHANISM IN WHICH THE DRIVEWAY PERMITS WERE ISSUED WERE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THAT.
WE HAVE NO ABILITY TO ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS OR TO CONTROL WHAT'S COMMUNICATED FROM THE DEVELOPER TO THE BUYERS SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND YOU'RE BUYING 10 ACRES, BUT YOU'RE ONLY EVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT ONE HOME ON IT BECAUSE OF THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS.
THAT'S WHY THE ORDINANCE IS SET UP THE WAY IT IS. IT'S A CONTINUAL PROBLEM FOR US.
SO IF THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT APPROVES IT, AGAIN, WE'RE PROBABLY, COMMISSIONER HORN AND I OR FUTURE COUNTY ENGINEERS, FUTURE PRECINCT TWO COMMISSIONERS ARE GOING TO BE FACED WITH LATER BUYERS WANTING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT PROPERTY.
AND IT'S REALLY NOT A GREAT USE OF FRONTAGE ON A STATE HIGHWAY TO ONLY HAVE ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND REALLY ONLY BEING ABLE TO DO THAT WITH IT.
ADDITIONALLY, I MEAN, I SAID ON THE COMMITTEE WHEN THAT WAS PUT IN, THE ADDITIONAL PROBLEM THAT THAT RESULTS IN IS YOU HAVE THREE SIDE-BY-SIDE 30-FOOT DRIVEWAYS AND NOBODY MAINTAINS THEM, OR ONE PERSON DOES AND THE OTHER PEOPLE DON'T, AND THEN WE WIND UP WITH A HUGE MESS.
YEAH, THEY ALSO END UP TALKING ABOUT THE GUY IN THE BACK, YOU KNOW, WHO WAS RUNNING A HOME-BASED BUSINESS OR HE'S IN CONSTRUCTION AND PULLING A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN AND OUT, AND HE'S GOT A BIG TRUCK, SO HE DIDN'T CARE THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE CAN'T GET IN AND OUT OF IT AND NO ONE WILL MAINTAIN IT THERE AGAIN.
THAT'S WHY SHARED ACCESS DRIVEWAYS USUALLY, AND THAT'S WHEN YOU END UP WITH ADJACENT FLAGS WHERE YOU HAVE THEM COME ON A PLATTED SUBDIVISION WHERE WE HAVE MORE CONTROL AND CAN PUT NOTES ON SUBDIVISION PLATS THAT SPEAK TO THE MAINTENANCE.
AGAIN, WE'RE NOT A PARTY TO THAT, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE IN THERE TRYING TO COLLECT MONEY FROM ONE TO ANOTHER, BUT AT LEAST IT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR, AND THE BUYERS CLEARLY ON NOTICE WHEN THEY BUY IT, THEY GET A COPY OF THE PLAT, AND THEY SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, I MEAN, I MAKE A MOTION TO NOT APPROVE.
GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS, JUDGE.
MY NAME IS BEN WILLIAMS, AND I REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNER, RIGHT? THE...
WELL, MR. BRATTON WAS KIND ENOUGH TO LAY OUT THOSE FACTS REGARDING THESE SHARED DRIVEWAYS AND SUCH.
ALL OF THE TRACKS PROPOSED ARE GREATER THAN 10 ACRES, RIGHT?
[00:40:02]
AND UNDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 232, I MEAN, UNDER, WHAT TO SAY, UNDER STATE LAW, THEY SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE PLATTING REQUIREMENT ALL BY ITSELF.THE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT LAYING OUT ANY FURTHER STREETS OR PARKS OR DEDICATING ANYTHING, SO THAT SHOULD MEET THE EXEMPTION ALL BY ITSELF.
BUT, I MEAN, FURTHER THAN THAT, THIS IS HOW TXDOT WANTED, YOU KNOW, THESE DRIVEWAYS LAID OUT.
YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY OWNER, MR. BOYD, AND JAMES GUERIN, A LONG-TIME SURVEYOR WHO YOU PROBABLY KNOW.
WE'RE ON A CALL WITH, YOU KNOW, TXDOT'S ENGINEER, MICHAEL SHARP, SAYING, HOW DO YOU WANT THESE DRIVEWAYS TO GO, RIGHT? AND THAT IS HOW THEY WANT TO GO.
YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE APPROVED PERMITS.
IT'S GOING TO BE MAINTAINED BY TXDOT.
YOU KNOW, AND AS SUCH, THEY, I'LL SAY, SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE PLATTING REQUIREMENT, YOU KNOW, UNTO ITSELF.
AND FACILITATING THE, I'LL SAY, GRANTING OF THIS EXEMPTION, WHICH MR. BRATTON, AS I UNDERSTAND, IS UNABLE TO DO ON HIS OWN AND IS REQUIRED TO, YOU KNOW, COME BEFORE YOU TO GRANITE, WOULD BE THE, I'LL SAY, EASIEST AND MOST APPROPRIATE MECHANISM TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, FACILITATE THAT EXEMPTION.
COMMISSIONER? SO HAS, SO HAS MR. BOYD DEVELOPED PROPERTY IN, IN COLWELL COUNTY BEFORE? YES, SIR.
SO HE PROBABLY KNOWS THAT HE NEEDS TO REACH OUT TO OUR, OUR PERMIAN DEPARTMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S 10-POINT, WE'RE REQUIRED, ALL OUR 10-POINT-PLUS STATE, 10-POINT ACRES HAVE, ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE THIS EXEMPTION LETTER, RIGHT? THROUGH OUR ORDINANCE? YES.
SO IT WAS REQUIRED TO HIM TO REACH OUT.
GOT TXDOT APPROVAL, WHICH I AGREE.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HE STILL NEEDED OUR APPROVAL FOR, IT DOESN'T MEET OUR ORDINANCE.
DID, DID, I HAVE A, YOU, YOU SAID THAT TXDOT TOLD HIM TO DO THOSE DRIVEWAYS SIDE BY SIDE BY SIDE? IS THAT, OR IS THAT, DID THEY SAY THAT BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROAD FRONTAGE TO ALLOW FOR THREE DRIVEWAYS? I WOULD SAY YES TO THE SECOND.
THE, MEANING, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER ENTRANCES TO OTHER TRACKS, RIGHT? THERE IS THE, BUT IN TERMS OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM, THE TXDOT WAS PREFERRING OR REQUIRING, AS THEY DO IN MANY COUNTIES, THE, I'LL SAY THAT IS THE, THAT'S THE END RESULT.
MR. BOYD DID REACH OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE AND, YOU KNOW, DID APPLY FOR THIS.
AND THEN, I DON'T KNOW, AFTER ABOUT 60 DAYS OR SO, KIND OF BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN, YOU KNOW, HEY, WAS EVERYTHING GOING TO BE FINE? AND THEN IT WAS, OH, WAIT, WE'VE GOT THIS ISSUE.
THE, AND THAT THIS WAS THE APPROPRIATE MECHANISM TO, SAY, MOST EASILY HAVE THAT EXEMPTION BE GRANTED BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE BEING SOMETHING THAT MR. BRATTON COULDN'T APPROVE ALL BY HIMSELF.
SO, I'M, I'M A LITTLE, SO, I'M STILL A LITTLE UNCLEAR ON THE ANSWER.
SO, THERE ISN'T ENOUGH ROAD FRONTAGE IN FRONT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT HERE, THIS, HOWEVER MANY ACRES IT IS, 80.082 ACRE TRACK TO SEPARATE THOSE DRIVEWAYS.
IT'S 30, THAT'S A PRETTY BIG TRACK TO LAND.
THE, I BELIEVE IT'S A SEPARATION, TRACY, WHAT'S THE SEPARATION ON DRIVEWAYS? I GET CONFUSED.
IS IT 270 FEET? FOR TXDOT? I, I'VE BEEN, I HAVE A LITTLE TROUBLE FOLLOWING, YOU'RE MR., YOU'RE VERY TALL, MR. WILLIAMS, I'M NOT ABLE TO HEAR YOU IN THE BACK.
THE TXDOT DRIVEWAY SPACE SEPARATION, I BELIEVE, IS 375 FEET ON THAT CLASSIFICATION ROADWAY BASED UPON THE SPEED.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A MATTER OF HAVING ENOUGH DRIVEWAY SPACING PER SE.
IT'S A MATTER OF HAVING ENOUGH DRIVEWAY SPACING IN ORDER TO MAKE 80 ACRES INTO 8, 10 ACRE LOTS OR 80 ACRES INTO 7, 10 ACRE LOTS OR WHATEVER IT IS HE'S TRYING TO DO BECAUSE THAT ENDS UP WITH LESS FRONTAGE.
AND SO THEY'RE TRYING TO GAIN THOSE TOGETHER TO GET MORE LOTS OFF THE LIMITED NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS OF TXDOT PERMIT.
OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT.
AND IF THE DRIVEWAYS ARE 375 FEET APART SERVING A SINGLE LOT, THEN ESSENTIALLY EACH ONE OF THOSE TRACKS CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO.
THEY CAN RE-SUBDIVIDE IT IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THEY HAVE ENOUGH FRONTAGE.
THEY COULD CONVERT IT TO A, WELL, THEY CAN GET UP TO THREE HOUSES ON A TANKER TRACK BEFORE IT BECOMES A COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY.
[00:45:01]
THE PERMITTING LOG JAMS LATER WHEN THEY'RE SERVING THEIR OWN SEPARATE TRACKS.WE DO HAVE OUR ORDINANCE THAT'S ALSO AT PLAY HERE, AND IT PROHIBITS FLAG LOTS LIKE THAT.
SO TXDOT HAS THEIRS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AND THEN WE HAVE OUR ORDINANCE.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE SITUATION WE'RE IN.
AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE'S THIS PROCESS TO CONSIDER VARIANCES, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE CODE CALLS FOR THERE TO BE SOME UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT'S NOT THE DOING OF THE PERSON REQUESTING THE VARIANCE.
YOU KNOW, IT'S SOME UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT DEALS WITH THE LAND OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
I MEAN, THERE'S ENOUGH SPACE TO SEPARATE THESE DRIVEWAYS IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT BY TXDOT STANDARDS.
ARE THE, YOU WERE ASKING IF THERE IS ENOUGH FRONTAGE TO SEPARATE? YES, SIR.
I DON'T, NOT NECESSARILY GET THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF LOTS YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE'S ENOUGH ROAD FRONTAGE THERE TO SEPARATE THESE DRIVEWAYS INTO SPECIFIC ENTRANCES RATHER THAN BLACK LOT DRIVEWAYS.
THE, IF THEY'RE SEPARATED INTO 10 ACRE PARCELS, YOUR HONOR, THEN I BELIEVE THE ANSWER WOULD BE NO.
THAT, I'M NOT AS CONCERNED WITH THAT AS I AM FOLLOWING OUR ORDINANCE AND NOT HAVING THREE FLAG LOTS.
AND SO IF THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM THERE TO SEPARATE THOSE LOTS AND MAYBE THE LOTS HAVE TO BE BIGGER, THAT'S A, THAT'S A DEVELOPER'S PROBLEM, NOT NECESSARILY OURS.
WE'RE TRYING, WE'RE TRYING, WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP FROM HAVING THREE FLAG LOTS TOGETHER.
RIGHT, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, I GUESS, UH, WELL, YOU'RE TRYING TO AVOID SOME PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE THAT MAY NOT OCCUR.
WELL, THEY HAVE OCCURRED MANY, MANY TIMES.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE JUST WORRIED THAT IT MIGHT HAPPEN.
WE'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN OVER AND OVER.
THERE'S A LOT OF, A LOT OF, UH, SITUATIONS AND THAT'S WHY THAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAS OCCURRED.
AND THEN THE CONVERSATION THAT INEVITABLY HAPPENS MULTIPLE TIMES ON DEVELOPMENT CALLS IS WE HAVE TO TELL INDIVIDUALS THAT THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO TEXTOT TO APPLY FOR A COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PERMIT OR, WHICH IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND WHOLE PROCESS THAN A RESIDENTIAL.
AND THAT, THAT IS LEAVING US WITH THE, WITH THE FALLOUT, SO TO SPEAK, OF THIS DECISION, UH, TO GO FORWARD WITH IT.
AND THAT'S NOT, UH, THAT'S NOT IN SPIRIT OF OUR ORDINANCE EITHER, I DON'T THINK.
AND SO I, I, YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE TRYING TO PLAY OUT THAT IT MIGHT HAPPEN, IT MIGHT NOT HAPPEN, BUT HISTORICALLY WHAT WE HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH TELLS US THAT WE, WE PROBABLY SHOULD AVOID THESE ISSUES AT, AT THE START OF THE PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO THE MIDDLE.
I WANT TO OFFER ONE, ONE, SOMETHING BEFORE THE COURT OTHER THAN A BINARY CHOICE.
UM, VARIANCES CAN BE GRANTED BASED UPON CONDITIONS.
UM, WE DO HAVE, UH, AN INCIDENCE OR TWO THAT NUMBER OF YEARS AGO THAT I BELIEVE WE ENTERED INTO KIND OF LIKE A MINI DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON, ON SOME TRACKS LIKE THIS.
THEY WERE NOT ON A STATE HIGHWAY, BUT THEY WERE ON A, OFF A COUNTY ROADWAY.
UM, THERE MAY BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN A BINARY CHOICE.
IT'S WHAT WAS PRESENTED US HERE SO FAR BY THE APPLICANT WAS VERY MUCH A TEXT NOT APPROVED IT, ERGO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO INSIST YOU APPROVE IT.
THERE, THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY IF THE COURT SO DESIRED FOR US TO, UH, HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS AND LOOK AT WHAT STIPULATIONS MIGHT, MIGHT BE AGREEABLE TO THE DEVELOPER TO MITIGATE THE, THE COUNTY'S CONCERNS.
I MEAN, I'M, I'M, I'M OPEN TO THAT.
THAT REQUIRES TO TABLE THIS AND FOR THEM TO COME BACK AT A LATER TIME.
THE, UM, I SUPPOSE THAT WOULD BE THE PREFERRED CHOICE, I GUESS, AT THE MOMENT THEN.
SO I GUESS WE HAVE FUTURE CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. BRATTON HERE.
AND WOULD THAT SEND US BACK TO COMMISSIONER'S COURT OR WOULD THAT BE A PROCESS THAT, I GUESS, WOULD OTHERWISE.
IF WE, IF WE, IF WE TABLE THIS AND YOU WOULD GO BACK AND WORK WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO COME UP WITH A BETTER WAY TO DO IT OTHER THAN THREE FLAG LOTS.
[00:50:02]
WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM I-5 BY COMMISSIONER HORN.SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THERIAULT.
WE'LL TABLE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS, UH, YOU GUYS WORK WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT, UH, DEPARTMENT AND ENGINEERS TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SOLUTION.
[I.9 To discuss and take possible action regarding a Proclamation for the Caldwell County Progressive Club.]
HEARING NONE.I WAS TRYING TO SKIP ONE THERE, I THINK.
UH, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PROCLAMATIONS FOR THE CALDWELL COUNTY PROGRESSIVE CLUB.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
THE CALDWELL, CALDWELL COUNTY PROGRESSIVE CLUB.
CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT OBSERVED BLACK HISTORY MONEY AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REFLECT ON BLACK HISTORY IN TEXAS.
AND TO COMMEMORATE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS AND NON-PROFIT TO OUR CALDWELL COUNTY AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY.
WHEREAS CONTRIBUTIONS AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE A CENTRAL PART OF OUR TEXAS HISTORY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, FEBRUARY BLACK HISTORY MONTH PROVIDED A DESIGNATED OPPORTUNITY TO HIGHLIGHT THE UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCKHART HIGH SCHOOL AFRICAN-AMERICAN GRADUATE COLLEGIATE EDUCATIONAL GROWTH BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY PROGRESSIVE CLUB.
AND WHEREAS IN 1974, FOUR AFRICAN-AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, AMY CARTER JR., HAWATHA FRANK SR., NATHANIEL BENNETT JR. AND HOMER WILLIAMS SR. LEARNED THAT THERE WERE DISPARITIES IN THE OPPORTUNITIES TO COLLEGIATE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS GRADUATING FROM LOCKHART HIGH SCHOOL.
THEREFORE, IN ANSWER TO THE SCHOLARSHIP CHALLENGE, A NON-PROFIT, THE CALDWELL COUNTY PROGRESSIVE CLUB, WAS ORGANIZED AS A NON-PROFIT.
PROGRESSIVE CLUB PROVIDES FIVE SCHOLARSHIPS TO LOCKHART HIGH GRADUATES WHO APPLY AND MEET ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SCHOLARSHIP CRITERIA.
THIS CLUB HELD ITS FIRST SCHOLARSHIP BANQUET AT LOCKHART INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL, NOW NAVARRO ELEMENTARY, IN FEBRUARY 1975.
THAT MADE STEVE MANNING, JOHNNY WINN JR., RECEIVE THE FIRST CALDWELL COUNTY PROGRESSIVE CLUB SCHOLARSHIPS.
AND WHEREAS IN 1978, DURING THE PROGRESSIVE CLUB'S THIRD ANNUAL BANQUET, MARSHALL HILL, A GRADUATE OF LOCKHART HIGH SCHOOL, WHO IS A CURRENT MEMBER OF THE PROGRESSIVE CLUB, AND WHO IS PRESIDENT OF THE ST. JOHN 19TH BODY OF ST. JOHN COLONY, TEXAS, WAS THE RECIPIENT OF ONE OF THE FOURTH ROUND OF THE YEARLY CALDWELL COUNTY PROGRESSIVE CLUB.
THEREFORE, IN ALIGNMENT WITH THEIR REALIZED VISION TO IMPROVE AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENT EDUCATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP EQUITY, THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY OBSERVES AND HONORS INITIATIVES OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY PROGRESSIVE CLUB, WHOSE ONGOING SIMPLISTIC GOAL FOR 52 CONTINUOUS YEARS HAS BEEN PROVIDED SCHOLARSHIPS TO AFRICAN-AMERICAN GRADUATES FROM LOCKHART HIGH SCHOOL THAT HAS A TOTAL OF 200 SCHOLARSHIPS REWARDED.
THEREFORE, DURING THE BLACK HISTORY MONTH OF FEBRUARY, THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT ENCOURAGED EDUCATORS, STUDENTS, AND CITIZENS TO LEARN ABOUT THE HERITAGE AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND ENCOURAGED COMMUNITY SUPPORT TO THE EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES OF ORGANIZATIONS' WORK, SUCH AS CALDWELL COUNTY PROGRESSIVE CLUB, SCHOLARSHIP, SCHOLASTIC SCHOLARSHIP.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT DOES HEREBY ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION, ACKNOWLEDGE, AND HONOR 52 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS SCHOLASTIC SCHOLARSHIP SUPPORT BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY PROGRESSIVE CLUB FOR THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN GRADUATE OF LOCKHART HIGH SCHOOL, CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS, AND HIS INITIATIVES WILL CONTINUE UNTIL INFINITY, PROCLAIM THIS DAY, 12TH OF FEBRUARY, 2026.
SO MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PROCLAMATION.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS TO ACCEPT THE PROCLAMATION ON ITEM I-9.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM I-10, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROCLAMATION AND CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR VESSIE DAVIS-TUCK'S 100TH BIRTHDAY.
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZED ON FEBRUARY 15, 2026 AS VESSIE DAVIS-TUCK DAY IN CALDWELL COUNTY.
VESSIE DAVIS-TUCK WAS BORN IN RURAL ST. JOHN COLONY, CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS IN 1926, AND VESSIE DAVIS-TUCK IS A DIRECT DESCENDANT OF ANDREW AND LAURA DAVIS.
THEY WERE AMONG THE ORIGINAL TRAILBLAZERS WHO SETTLED AT THE ST. JOHN COLONY IN CALDWELL COUNTY IN 1870.
[00:55:01]
AND VESSIE TUCK WAS THE LAST CHILD DELIVERED BY HER GRANDMOTHER, LAURA DAVIS, WHO SERVED AS A MIDWIFE IN THE COMMUNITY PRIOR TO HER PASSING.AND VESSIE DAVIS WAS BORN TO REVEREND S.L. DAVIS AND HIS WIFE, WILLIE, ALSO KNOWN AS WIMBLE, CORA THOMPSON DAVIS, BOTH OF WHOM WERE BORN AND RAISED IN ST. JOHN, ALSO KNOWN AS ST. JOHN COLONY NEAR DALE, CALDWELL COUNTY, AND REVEREND S.L. DAVIS AND WILLIE CORA DAVIS, WAS MARRIED IN 1916.
SHARED 72 YEARS OF MARRIAGE AND TOGETHER REARED 11 CHILDREN.
AND VESSIE DAVIS-TUCK WAS THE FIFTH CHILD OF REVEREND S.L.
AND WILLIE CORA DAVIS OF THOSE THAT LIVED AND SPENT HER FORMATIVE YEARS IN ST. JOHN COLONY IN CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS.
VESSIE DAVIS-TUCK ATTENDED SCHOOLS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL CHURCH COMMUNITY AND WAS RAISED WITH A STRONG FOUNDATION OF FAITH, SERVICE, AND RESPONSIBILITY TO CARE FOR NEIGHBORS AND UPLIFT THE BROADER COMMUNITY.
AND VESSIE DAVIS-TUCK TRAVELED ESSENTIALLY, DEVELOPED MEANINGFUL CARE PATHS, RAISED SUCCESSFUL CHILDREN, AND PROVIDED AID AND SERVICE TO COMMUNITIES WHERE SHE RESIDES.
AND VESSIE DAVIS-TUCK HAS LIVED THROUGH PIVOCAL, HISTORICAL EVENTS AND CHALLENGES HERE THAT SHAPED HER INTO A RESPECTED EXAMPLE OF RESILIENCE, PERSEVERANCE, AND INSPIRATION WITHIN HER COMMUNITY.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY THAT FEBRUARY 15, 2026 IS HEREBY RECOGNIZED AS VESSIE DAVIS-TUCK'S DAY IN CALDWELL COUNTY PROCLAIMED THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026.
SO MOVE TO ACCEPT THE PROCLAMATION.
OKAY, MOVE TO ACCEPT THE PROCLAMATION ON I-10 BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THERIAULT.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[I.11 To discuss and take possible action regarding Resolution 21-2026 supporting legislation to exempt Texas counties from the State of Texas Hotel Occupancy Tax.]
MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-11, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESOLUTION 21-2026, SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO EXEMPT TEXAS COUNTIES FROM STATE OF TEXAS HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX.
OKAY, ORDER 03-2026, WHEREAS CHAPTER 312 TEXAS TAX CODE ALLOWS COUNTIES TO DESIGNATE AREAS AS- OOP, NO ALL RIGHT.
AND RESOLUTION 21-2026, COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION TO EXEMPT TEXAS COUNTIES FROM STATE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX.
WHEREAS TEXAS COUNTIES ARE THE FUNCTIONAL ARM OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NUMEROUS STATE PROGRAMS AS REQUIRED AND AUTHORIZED BY STATE LAW.
AND WHEREAS TEXAS COUNTIES PROVIDE ESSENTIAL STATE SERVICES TO CONSTITUENTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, MANY OF WHICH ARE FULLY OR PARTIALLY SUPPORTED WITH FUNDS DISBURSED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS THROUGH THE STATE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS.
AND WHEREAS TEXAS COUNTIES ARE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO PROVIDE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, OFTEN REQUIRING TRAVEL AND OVERNIGHT STAYS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE STATE OF TEXAS HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX.
AND WHEREAS THE STATE OF TEXAS CURRENTLY EXEMPTS FROM HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX, SEVERAL ENTITIES, INCLUDING FEDERAL AGENCIES, STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, AND CERTAIN CHARITABLE EDUCATION, CHARITABLE, EDUCATIONAL, OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, BUT DOES NOT EXEMPT COUNTY GOVERNMENT, THEIR OFFICIALS, OR EMPLOYEES.
AND WHEREAS WHEN COUNTIES AS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AS A STATE PAY STATE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX FROM REVENUES GENERATED THROUGH LOCAL PROPERTY TAX, IT RESULTS IN AN INEFFICIENT PRACTICE KNOWN AS TAX CHURN IN WHICH ONE TAXING ENTITY COLLECTS TAX FROM ANOTHER TAXING ENTITY, ULTIMATELY INCREASING THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON LOCAL PROPERTY TAX PAYERS.
AND WHEREAS EXEMPTING TEXAS COUNTIES FROM STATE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX WOULD REDUCE THIS INEFFICIENCY, IMPROVE GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY, AND HELP ALLEVIATE THE IMPACT OF RISING LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES ON TEXAS CITIZENS.
AND WHEREAS THE EXEMPTION WOULD FURTHER ALIGN COUNTIES WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT AND NONPROFIT ENTITIES IS ALREADY RECOGNIZED UNDER STATE LAW AS EXEMPT FROM THIS TAX, ENSURING CONSISTENT AND EQUITABLE TAX TREATMENT ACROSS ALL PUBLIC ENTITIES.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT DOES HEREBY FIND IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF TEXAS COUNTIES AND THEIR TAXPAYERS TO SUPPORT AND FAVOR THE PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION THAT EXEMPTS COUNTIES, THEIR
[01:00:01]
OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES FROM PAYING THE STATE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX WHEN TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL COUNTY BUSINESS, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION BE FORWARDED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE REPRESENTING THIS COUNTY AND THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES FOR DISTRIBUTION AND ADVOCACY IN SUPPORT OF THIS LEGISLATION.SIGNED THIS 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.
COMMISSIONERS? I MOVE TO APPROVE.
MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM I-11 BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
[I.12 To discuss and take possible action regarding authorizing the Caldwell County Constable Office, PCT. 2 to impose and collect a fee, as permitted by law for FORM VTR-68-A vehicle inspections pursuant to Texas Transportation Code §501.0321(d), and to establish parameters for implementation]
OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-12, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AUTHORIZING THE CALDWELL COUNTY CONSTABLE'S OFFICE PRECINCT 2, IMPOSE AND COLLECT A FEE AS PERMITTED BY LAW FOR FORM VTR-60AA VEHICLE INSPECTION PERCENTED TO TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE 501.0321D AND TO ESTABLISH PARAMETERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS AND JUDGE.
JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS.
THESE INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED AT SPECIFIC TIMES BY THE TEXAS DMV IN ORDER TO HAVE THE VEHICLE PROPERLY REGISTERED.
OUR AUTO THEFT DIVISION, OUR UNIT, WORKS CLOSELY WITH GONZALES COUNTY, HAYES COUNTY, AND GUADALUPE COUNTY.
AND WHILE I WAS TALKING TO SOME OF THE GUYS, THEY'RE SAYING, WHY ARE CALDWELL COUNTY CITIZENS, RESIDENTS, COMING HERE TO GET THESE DONE? WELL, BECAUSE THERE WAS NOBODY HERE ABLE TO DO THAT.
AS AN EXPERIENCED AND TRAINED AUTO THEFT INVESTIGATOR, I'M CREDENTIALED TO DO THAT.
SO I STEPPED INTO THE VOID TO DO THAT.
WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHARGE UP TO $40.
IT DEPENDS ON WHAT WE'RE INSPECTING.
FOR CALDWELL COUNTY RESIDENTS, I'M PROPOSING THAT THERE IS NO FEE.
BUT IF IT'S A COMMERCIAL ENDEAVOR, WE PARTICULARLY HAVE A BUSINESS THAT'S IMPORTING VEHICLES.
AND THOSE ARE EXTENSIVE, SOPHISTICATED INSPECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE DONE.
THE REASON FOR THE FEE IS THERE'S SPECIALIZED TOOLS, SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT.
THERE'S CONSUMABLE MATERIALS THAT WE'RE USING TO GET TO, AND THIS IS LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE, BUT THERE'S THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO VERIFY THAT THIS IS NOT A STOLEN VEHICLE.
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT.
IN THIS DAY AND AGE, THERE'S A LOT OF CLONED VEHICLES.
THEY TAKE A WRECKED, TOTALED VEHICLE, AND THEY CLONE IT WITH SOMETHING THAT THEY STOLE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ORIGINALLY.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF BIN SWAPPING GOING ON.
SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT LEVEL OF CREDENTIALS AND EXPERIENCE TO FIND THAT, THEN THESE GET INTO OUT IN THE PUBLIC, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU BOUGHT SOMETHING OFF FACEBOOK OR SOMETHING OR, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE GETTING STOPPED ON THE INTERSTATE, AND THEY FIND OUT YOU'RE IN A STOLEN VEHICLE.
SO THAT'S THE REASON AND THE BACKGROUND BEHIND ALL THAT.
COMMISSIONERS? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY 12 BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THERIAULT.
ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO DO THEM FREE FOR THE CITIZENS, BUT THE COMMERCIAL ONES, HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT THE FEE AT? IT'LL BE UP TO $40.
IT DEPENDS ON WHAT WE'RE INSPECTING.
TRAVEL TRAILERS ARE REALLY, REALLY TOUGH.
IT'LL TAKE A LOT OF TIME TO GET THROUGH.
CAN WE, CAN I ASK THAT WE, THAT WE KIND OF ARE, YOU KNOW, FOR THEIR HELP, SAY, YOU KNOW, TRAVEL TRAILERS ARE THIS MUCH, VEHICLES THIS MUCH, SO THAT THEY KNOW WHAT TO CHARGE WHEN IT COMES IN AND THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO WAIT FOR YOU TO CHARGE THEM EVERY TIME? OKAY.
SO WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.
DO YOU WANT TO AMEND IT WITH THAT CAVEAT? IF YOU EVER MADE THE MOTION, I FORGOT.
MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE ON THE AMENDMENTS OF THE COST OF EACH.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THERIAULT.
[I.13 To discuss and take possible action regarding a Caldwell County Burn Ban.]
MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-13, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE CALDWELL COUNTY BURN BAND.
[01:05:04]
GOOD MORNING, JUDGE, COMMISSIONER, STAFF, AND GALLERY.AS OF THIS MORNING, THE TEXAS FOREST SERVICE ANNOUNCED THAT THERE'S HAYES, TRAVIS, BASTROP, LEE, AND CALDWELL COUNTY WERE UNDER A MODERATE DROUGHT.
AND THAT THE FIRE DANGER WAS EXTREMELY HIGH FOR OUR AREA.
WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY RAIN, EVEN THOUGH SOME DRIZZLE WAS THE OTHER DAY, BUT IT WASN'T SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO COVER THE GROUND.
NOW, THERE IS AN 80% CHANCE OF RAIN ON SATURDAY AND A 10% CHANCE ON SUNDAY, BUT THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAYS IT'S GOING TO MOVE TO THE EAST OF THOSE COUNTIES I JUST ANNOUNCED.
I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND TO COMMISSIONER'S COURT THAT WE KEEP THE BURN BAND ON, BUT FIRST LET ME GIVE YOU THE KBDI NUMBERS.
THE MINIMUM, 498, THE MAX, 663, THE AVERAGE OF 605 WITH A PLUS ONE AND RISING.
I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND TO COMMISSIONER'S COURT THAT WE KEEP THE BURN BAND ON.
MOVE TO KEEP THE BURN BAND ON.
MOTION TO KEEP THE BURN BAND ON BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
[I.14 To discuss and take possible action regarding Budget Amendment 04-2026 moving $5,739.25 from 001-6510-4860 Contingency to 001-6510-4850 Miscellaneous. ]
HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.I-14, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT 042026, MOVING $5,739.25 FROM 00165104860, CONTINGENCY TO 00165104850.
GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS.
THIS ONE IS FOR OUR OLD COUNTY CREDIT CARD.
IT WAS HERE PRIOR TO SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS AGO.
I THINK IT'S ABOUT 10 YEARS OLD.
BUT WHEN I WENT INTO PURCHASING, THIS CARD HAD A BALANCE ON IT, AND IT'S JUST ACCUMULATED OVER TIME.
WE'VE TRIED TO GO BACK AND RECONCILE IT AND AUDITED IT, BUT WE JUST, WE CAN'T GO BACK THAT FAR.
WE'VE EVEN REACHED OUT TO THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS ON CERTAIN COSTS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY, AND WE DON'T HEAR ANYTHING BACK.
SO INSTEAD OF CONTINUALLY COLLECTING INTEREST ON THIS BALANCE, WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND GET IT TAKEN CARE OF.
AND THAT WILL START AS FRESH, AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THAT.
COMMISSIONERS? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM I-14.
MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM I-14 BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[I.15 To discuss and take possible action regarding the immediate payment of outstanding Card Service balance in the amount of $5,739.25. ]
OPPOSED, HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-15, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING CARD SERVICE BALANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,739.25.
YEP, THIS IS JUST TO GET IT PAID.
I BELIEVE THE DUE DATE FELL IN BETWEEN NOW AND BEFORE THAT PAYMENT COULD GET THERE ON TIME, SO WE JUST WANT TO GET IT CUT NOW.
MOVE APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER THERIAULT FOR ITEM I-15.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[I.16 To discuss and take possible action regarding Final Draft for RFB 26CCP01B Restroom/Lavatory Remodel.]
OPPOSED, HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-16, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING FINAL DRAFT FOR RFB-26-CCP-01B, RESTROOM LABORATORY REMODEL.
DOMINIQUE? GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS.
I'M REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT A REQUEST FOR BIDS FOR CALDWELL COUNTY RESTROOM LABORATORY REMODEL AT 405 EAST MARKET STREET.
THE FUNDING HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED FROM THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUDGET, SO AT THIS TIME, I'M JUST ASKING FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PUBLISH THE LEGAL NOTICES AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT.
COMMISSIONERS? SO MOVE TO APPROVE.
MOVE APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
ANY DISCUSSION? I JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE DOMINIQUE FOR DOING THIS.
THIS WAS HER FIRST ONE, AND I KNOW THAT RICHARD CAN ATTEST THAT SHE DID AN AMAZING JOB, AND I KNOW IT WAS PAINFUL, BUT SHE DID A REALLY GOOD JOB, AND I JUST WANTED TO TELL HER I APPRECIATE HER.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[I.17 To discuss and take possible action to adopt Resolution 07-2026 authorizing the submittal of a grant application to the Office of the Governor (OOG), Public Safety Office (PSO) for the FY 2027 Body-Worn Camera Grant Program.]
OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-17, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 072026, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE, PSO, FOR FY2027, BODY-WORN CAMERA GRANT.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE'VE GOT THIS GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR SOME BODY-WORN CAMERAS, BUT IT DOES COME WITH A MATCH REQUIREMENT.
SO I'VE REACHED OUT TO ALL OF THE CONSTABLES' OFFICES, AS WELL AS THE SO, AND GOT A LIST OF THEIR REQUESTS, AND IN YOUR BACKUP, YOU'LL SEE A BREAKDOWN.
[01:10:02]
IF WE DO THIS THROUGH AXON, OR A-X-O-N, I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY SAY THAT, AND MOTOROLA, BECAUSE THE DIFFERENT OFFICES USE DIFFERENT DEVICES.SO IF WE WERE TO GO WITH ALL OF THE REQUESTS, IT WOULD PUT US AT A TOTAL PROJECT COST OF $99,346.40.
THAT WOULD REQUIRE A $24,836.60 MATCH.
SO THE TOTAL GRANT FUNDS WOULD END UP COMING TO $74,000 AND SOME CHANGE.
IF Y'ALL DON'T WANT TO APPLY FOR ALL OF IT, WE CAN SCALE IT BACK TO FIT INTO WHAT Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO COVER.
WE CAN ALWAYS LOOK FOR OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THAT DON'T REQUIRE A MATCH AS THOSE COME ALONG.
THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT ON THIS ONE IS THAT WITH AXON AND MOTOROLA, THEIR CONTRACTS REQUIRE AN ANNUAL COST.
IT'S FIVE YEARS, AND IT'S FOR THE SOFTWARE AND STORING OF THE FILM.
SO WE WOULD ALSO BE LOOKING AT THAT ANNUAL RECURRING COST THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO PLAN FOR IN THE COMING BUDGET CYCLE.
HOW MANY BODY CAMS IS IT TOTAL? THAT WOULD GET US 45 CAMERAS.
THAT'S PRETTY CHEAP FOR 45 CAMERAS.
COMMISSIONERS? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE FOR THE FULL REQUESTED AMOUNT.
MOVE APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND.
WHAT IS THE ANNUAL FEE? IT'S GOING TO VARY BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT OFFICES BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON HOW MANY CAMERAS THEY'RE EACH GETTING.
BUT AVERAGE, THEY'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 7,000.
ONE OF THE OFFICES DID REQUEST MORE, SO THERE'S GOING TO BE HIGHER.
BUT THE TOTAL COST FOR THE COUNTY WOULD BE 43,000.
A YEAR FOR THE SOFTWARE RENEWAL? THAT'S SOFTWARE.
AND SO WE'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR SOFTWARE CONTRACTS FOR ALL OF OUR ALREADY OWNED CAMERAS.
SO THAT WOULD JUST BE AN INCREASE TO THAT.
I DO, REAL QUICKLY, SO THESE ARE GOING TO BE REPLACING SOME, THOUGH? YES.
THE OUTDATED ONES THAT WILL REPLACE SOME AND THEN ALSO EQUIP THE OFFICERS THAT DON'T ALREADY OR THAT ARE HAVING TO SHARE.
AND THEN THE BATTERIES END UP GOING DEAD BEFORE THEIR SHIFTS ARE OVER, THAT KIND OF THING.
SO SOME OF THAT FEE WILL WASH AGAINST WHAT WE'RE ALREADY PAYING? YES.
AND ONE OTHER THING, WHENEVER I WAS WORKING WITH THE VENDORS ON THE QUOTES, WE DID TRY TO PUT AS MANY OF THOSE COSTS IN THAT FIRST YEAR BECAUSE THE GRANT ONLY COVERS THE FIRST YEAR.
THEY USUALLY WILL SPLIT THE FULL CONTRACT BY THE FIVE YEARS, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO GET ALL THOSE ONE-TIME COSTS AND HARDWARE INTO THAT FIRST YEAR.
THAT WAY, ALL THE RECURRING COSTS ARE JUST THE SOFTWARE THAT YOU CAN'T PAY FOR AHEAD OF TIME.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[I.18 To discuss and take possible action to adopt Resolution 19-2026 authorizing participation in the Guadalupe County Drainage Plan under the Texas Water Development Board Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF), Flood Management Evaluation (FME) Program. ]
OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-18, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT, EXCUSE ME, RESOLUTION 19-2026, AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE GUADALUPE COUNTY DRAINAGE PLAN UNDER THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE FUND, FIF, FLOOD MANAGEMENT EVALUATION, FME PROGRAM.
SO THIS IS JUST AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
WE SHARE THE LINE WITH THEM, THE RIVER, AND SO THEY ARE DOING THIS GRANT APPLICATION AND LANGFORD COMMUNITY SERVICES SENT THIS OVER TO US TO ASK THAT WE ACCEPT IT AS ACKNOWLEDGMENT AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION.
COMMISSIONERS? MOVE TO APPROVE.
MOVE APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER HORN.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THERIAULT.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[I.19 To discuss and take possible action to adopt Resolution 20-2026 authorizing the submittal of a grant application to the Office of the Governor (OOG), Public Safety Office (PSO) for the FY 2027 Rifle- Resistant Body Armor Grant Program.]
OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-19, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 026, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE GRANT APPLICATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE, FOR FY 2027 RIFLE-RESISTANT BODY ARMOR GRANT PROGRAM.
[01:15:01]
THROUGH OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT BETTER.IT'S, AGAIN, A ONE-YEAR GRANT TERM, AND I REACHED OUT TO ALL OF THE CONSTABLE'S OFFICES AS WELL AS THE SO, AGAIN, ON THIS TO GET THEIR REQUESTS FOR THE VESTS THAT THEY'RE IN NEED OF.
AND THAT'S WHETHER IT'S BECAUSE SOMETHING, THEY DO EXPIRE AFTER TWO YEARS, SO LOTS OF THEM ARE REPLACEMENT AND THEN ALSO TWO EQUIPPED OFFICERS THAT DON'T HAVE OR THAT ARE HAVING TO SHARE.
SO WE HAVE A TOTAL REQUEST OF 52 VESTS, AND THAT WOULD MEAN WE'RE GOING TO BE REQUESTING $159,305 AND SOME CHANGE.
AND, AGAIN, THERE'S NO MATCH, SO THERE'S NOTHING MORE TO IT OTHER THAN HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET AWARDED FOR THE FULL AMOUNT.
COMMISSIONERS? SO MOVED TO APPROVE.
MOVED APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[I.20 To discuss and take possible action to ratify the submission of a grant application to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts for the HB 3000 Rural Ambulance Service Grant Program and the execution of a Letter of Agreement with Caldwell County ESD No. 5.]
OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.ITEM I-20, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION TO RATIFY THE SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION OF THE TEXAS COMPTROLLER'S ACCOUNT FOR HB 3000 RURAL AMBULANCE SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM AND THE EXECUTION OF A LETTER AGREEMENT WITH CALDWELL COUNTY ESD NO. 5.
THIS DEADLINE CAME REALLY QUICK, AND WE DID NOT HAVE ANOTHER COURT DATE BEFOREHAND, SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING TO RATIFY IT.
IF THE COURT DOES CHOOSE, WE CAN PULL THE APPLICATION.
THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE SB-22 LAW ENFORCEMENT AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY FUNDING THAT WE'VE RECEIVED TO HELP WITH SALARIES.
THIS IS JUST SPECIFIC FOR ESDS, AND THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY CAN USE IT IS TO PURCHASE OR MODIFY OR RECOVER AN AMBULANCE.
SO ESD-5 IS THE ONLY ONE IN OUR COUNTY THAT QUALIFIES, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO GO AFTER THIS FUNDING, AND WE WOULD ALMOST ACT AS A PASS-THROUGH FOR THEM.
WE'VE GONE AHEAD AND DID A LETTER OF AGREEMENT THAT WAS REQUIRED WITH THE APPLICATION.
HOWEVER, IF WE GET AWARDED, WE WOULD GO BACK THROUGH WITH A MORE FORMAL AGREEMENT TO OUTLINE ALL THE DETAILS OF THE GRANT AND THE REQUIREMENTS.
THEY ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE UP TO $350,000.
WE WOULD HAVE TO FIRST SUBMIT QUOTES TO THEM, AND IT IS GOING TO BE VERY MUCH LIKE A REIMBURSEMENT GRANT, SO WE WON'T GET AWARDED THAT AND THEN NOT KNOW HOW TO SPEND IT.
WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE QUOTES, AND THEY WOULD REIMBURSE US FOR THAT EXACT AMOUNT ONCE IT'S SPENT.
OKAY. HEY, SEAN, DO YOU MIND COMING UP JUST FOR A SECOND? I'VE GOT ONE QUICK QUESTION.
SO HOW MUCH IS A NEW AMBULANCE GOING FOR THESE DAYS? RIGHT NOW, THE ONE THAT WE GOT, WHAT, TWO YEARS AGO? THAT ONE WAS $279 OUT THE DOOR. THAT SAME EXACT TRUCK WITH NOTHING ON IT IS $321 TODAY.
OKAY, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT TO GET THEM OUT FOR IT, TOO.
EVERYTHING ELSE, ROLLING DOWN THE ROAD, IT'S ABOUT $570, $550 TO $570 TOTAL.
OKAY, AND YOU GUYS GOT THE DELTA, YOU GET THE GRANT, AND YOU GOT THE DELTA? OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT. OKAY, ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM I-20.
I MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM I-20 BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORNING.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE.
OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL SKIP ITEM I-21
[J. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
FOR THE MOMENT AND GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10-19 FOR SENATE TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551087. DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT BUMBLEBEE. POSSIBLE ACTION MAY FOLLOW IN OPEN COURT.WE ARE GOING TO EXIT EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR SENATE TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, 551087. DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH POJECT BUMBLEBEE. NO ACTION WILL FOLLOW IN OPEN COURT.
[01:20:01]
TO TABLE I-21. SO MOVED.MOTION TO TABLE I-21 BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORN. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE.
OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL GO TO ITEM K, ADJOURNMENT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I'M NOT.
MOVED TO ADJOURN. OKAY, THANK YOU. MOVED TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORLAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. AYE.
OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. WE'RE ADJOURNED AT 10-36. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.