[00:00:01]
[A) INVOCATION]
ALL RIGHT EVERYONE, IT'S 11 O'CLOCK.WELCOME TO THE ROCKWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT SPECIAL MEETING.
I'M GONNA ASK COMMISSIONER LTE TO LEAD US AN INVOCATION AND THEN COMMISSIONER STACY TO LEAD US IN OUR PLEDGES IF YOU WOULD STAND AS YOU'RE ABLE.
DEAR HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL YOU'VE GIVEN US.
WE THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO LIVE IN THIS WONDERFUL THANK YOU FOR THE WONDERFUL LORD GOD, YOU MIND US TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF ALL THAT GIFTS.
YOU GIFTS REMIND US AS WE DELIVER TO DELIBERATE TODAY TO DELIBERATE AND I PRAY THAT DONE AND EVERYTHING WE GOES ON IN ACCOUNT, WE ALL THIS.
ALRIGHT, FIRST OF THE AMERICAN PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS FROM A NATION UNDER GOD, THE INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
AND NOW TEXAS HONOR, UNDER THE TEXAS FLAG, I PLEDGE TO TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.
THIS BRINGS US TO OUR PUBLIC FORUM.
[1. PUBLIC FORUM]
THIS IS A PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COUNTY ABOUT ANY COUNTY MATTERS.SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED UP.
FIRST ON THE LIST IS MR. BRIAN MCNEIL WORKING.
OKAY, GET THIS UP HERE A LITTLE BIT.
GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS AND HONORABLE JUDGE NEW.
I WISH I COULD JUST COME DOWN HERE AND NOT HAVE TO SPEAK ON DR HORTON, BUT YET HERE WE ARE.
SO IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME, I'M FORCED TO TALK ABOUT DR HORTON.
THIS HAS BECOME A SHAMPOO BOTTLE OF SORTS.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A WASH, RINSE, AND REPEAT WITH YOU AND YOUR COMPANY AND THE REPRESENTATIVES YOU SEND DOWN HERE EACH TIME YOU HAVE THE PRESUMABLY SELF-APPOINTED TITLE OF AMERICA BUILDER.
BUT IN FACT, YOU ARE SIMPLY AMERICA'S HOME BUILDING BULLY.
YOU HAVE HAD MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO COME TO THE TABLE AND RESOLVE THIS DISPUTE WE CLEARLY HAVE AND FIND SOLUTIONS YET, NOPE.
YOU SEEK TO PROVE A POINT TO THE COUNTY OF ROCKWALL AND THE CITIZENS OF MCCLENNAN CHISHOLM, WHICH EXPLAINS, OF COURSE, YOU DID NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS OR EVEN HOW TO DEFINE IT.
SO LEMME GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES TO THE COURT AND I HOPE YOU PAY ATTENTION BECAUSE THIS IS WHY YOU DO NOT HAVE A FIRE CONTRACT IN MY CITY COMMISSIONERS AND JUDGE, I THINK IT IS RELEVANT TO POINT OUT HOW DUPLICITOUS HORTON IS.
THEY CLAIM WE ARE BREACHING THE CONTRACT ON ONE HAND.
YET YOU MAY NOT BE AWARE, DR HORTON HAS A MUD ON POETRY ROAD WITHIN OUR ETJ.
DID YOU KNOW THAT MUD HAS THE VERY SAME AGREEMENT WITH MCCLENNAN CHISHOLM WHERE THEY PAY US FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES? DID YOU KNOW THEY ARE NOT MEETING THOSE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT? CURRENTLY THEY ARE TO PAY THE CITY OF MCCLENNAN CHISHOLM WITHOUT NOTICE.
THE ONLY PAYMENTS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY LATE.
AND THAT IS WITH THE CITY REACHING OUT AND REMINDING THEM NUMEROUS TIMES.
SPEAKING OF, LET ME REMIND DR HORTON.
NOW THE CITY HASN'T RECEIVED THE LAST CHECK EITHER.
BASED OFF PAST EXPERIENCES, I'M PRETTY SURE MY STAFF WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE TO REACH OUT ON LATE PAYMENTS.
AND I ASSURE YOU OF THIS, DR HORTON WOULDN'T TOLERATE LATE PAYMENTS.
A PRIVATE BUSINESS WOULDN'T TOLERATE LATE PAYMENTS YET.
DR HORTON, WOULD YOU HOLD THOSE ACCOUNTABLE FOR LATE PAYMENTS? BUT HERE'S DR HORTON CRIME FOUL AGAINST THE CITY FOR ALLEGEDLY BREACH IN A CONTRACT A YEAR AGO.
BY THE WAY, THE ALLEGED BREACH, IF IT INDEED OCCURRED, WAS A YEAR AGO OR MORE.
HOWEVER, AFTER THE ELECTIONS IN MCCLENNAN CHISHOLM IN 2024, YOU DR HORTON CHOSE TO LEAVE THE CITY AND COME DOWN HERE TO THE COUNTY.
I'M GUESSING THAT ELECTION DIDN'T GO THE WAY YOU'D HOPED BECAUSE MY FIRST ACTION IS YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED A NUMBER OF TIMES WAS TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT.
AND ON JULY 9TH IN 2024 AND A FOUR ONE VOTE, WE DID JUST THAT.
NOW, LET ME AGAIN CITE THIS FOR REFERENCE IN HOW CITIES COMMUNICATE.
WE SPEAK THROUGH ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MINUTES.
I CITE AUSTIN V WHITTINGTON AND I ALSO CITE HORTON V MILLS COUNTY.
NOW I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT THAT IS BASICALLY IN LAYMAN'S TERMS SAYING FROM ME TO YOU, WE VOTED NO, NO MORE CONTRACT.
I ALSO BELIEVE YOU HAVE HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS THROUGH EMAIL WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY ADVISING YOU OF THIS.
YOU ARE TOLD BY OUR CITY ADMINISTRATOR AT THE TIME, CONRAD HILDEBRAND, THAT WE VOTED TO TERMINATE.
I BELIEVE EVEN THIS VERY COURT HAS TOLD YOU, I HAVE TOLD YOU THE ONLY THING LACKING AT THIS POINT IS THE PONY
[00:05:01]
EXPRESS SMOKE SIGNALS IN A PIGEON BRINGING IT TO YOU ALSO PER THREE A OF THE CONTRACT.THE AGREEMENT IS NOT YET EFFECTIVE.
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS WHICH MUST OCCUR, BUT NOTE AGAIN, WE TERMINATED WHAT WOULD BE ALMOST TWO YEARS PRIOR TO ANY EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OVER A YEAR, WE HAVE BEEN, AS STATED MOMENTS AGO, NO CONTRACT.
SO THIS BRINGS US TO THE CLIMAX OF OUR POINT AS WHEN WE VOTED TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT, WE DID SO ONE AND A HALF YEARS PRIOR TO IT BEING EFFECTIVE.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE DURING THAT TIME? DEAR HORTON, I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT THAT YOUR ATTORNEY ADVISED YOU OF YOUR DUTY UNDER LAW TO MITIGATE ANY DAMAGES THAT YOU MAY HAVE, WHICH WHEN YOU HAD A YEAR'S NOTICE AND CHOSE TO SIT ON YOUR HANDS, I DON'T SEE HOW PERSONALLY YOU HAVE ANY DAMAGES.
DID YOU CONTACT ANYONE ELSE ABOUT FIRE PROTECTION? IF SO, WHO, WHEN GIMME THEIR INFORMATION.
I'M SURE THAT WE AND THE COURT WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IT.
YOU'VE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO GO TALK TO SOMEONE ELSE AND ARRANGE A FIRE PROTECTION IN GENERAL.
YOU MAY NOT KNOW THIS, BUT CITIES HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO ANYONE IN THE ETJ.
LASTLY, IF THE UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE CONTRACT, MAKING IT POINTLESS OR IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE, THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE MIGHT APPLY.
I HAVE AN OBLIGATION AND AN OATH TO THE RESIDENTS AND THE CITIZENS OF MCCLENNAN CHISHOLM.
SO AGAIN, PICK UP THE PHONE, REACH OUT, CALL SOMEONE LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THE MAYOR OF MCLENNAN CHISHOLM.
I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT I WOULD BE ON THAT CALL LIKE WHITE ON RICE, ON A PAPER PLATE IN A SNOWSTORM.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU JUST WON'T CALL.
I WILL LEAVE MY CARD ON THE PODIUM.
I'LL BE RETURNING TO THE CITY HALL FROM WHERE? FROM HERE WHERE I'LL BE SIGNING A LETTER TO SEND TO THE TCEQ ADVISING THEM OF ALL THESE THINGS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE SINCE JULY 9TH, 2024, AS WELL AS THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE OF THE TIMELINE OF ALL THESE EVENTS AND REQUEST ANY ASSISTANCE ON THESE MATTERS THAT THEY HAVE SEEMED TO DISREGARD AND IGNORED AN ACTION FROM A CITY'S COUNCIL, COMMISSIONER AND JUDGE, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I PROMISE I'LL BE SHORTER THAN THAT.
UM, AGAIN, MY NAME IS FRANK MERLINO.
I RESIDE AT 24 10 WINDCREST DRIVE, ROCKWALL, TEXAS.
I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOA AT HIGH POINT LAKE ESTATES, WHICH IS BEING AFFECTED BY THIS DR. HORTON DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ADJACENT TO OUR COMMUNITY.
AND WE'LL KIND OF STRESS OUR ROADS OUT A LITTLE BIT.
BUT I STAND BEFORE YOU TO ASK, ASK FOR YOUR COMMITMENT IN PRESERVING THE HEART AND SOUL OF ROCKWELL.
A PLACE WE CHERISH FOR ITS SMALL TOWN CHARM, TEXAS PRIDE AND FAMILY FRIENDLY VALUES.
THE VISION AS OUTLINED IN ROCKWELL'S STRATEGIC PLAN IS CLEAR TO CREATE A VIBRANT, RESILIENT, AND SAFE COMMUNITIES WHERE FAMILIES FLOURISH, SUPPORTED BY RESPONSIBLE GROWTH THAT HONORS OUR HISTORY AND NATURAL RESOURCES.
THE PROPOSED RIVER ROCK COMMUNITY, HOWEVER, THREATENS THIS VISION IN OUR WAY OF LIFE.
RIVER ROCKS, HIGH DENSITY HOUSING APPROXIMATELY CRAMMING 27,000 HOMES AND PEOPLE INTO JUST TWO SQUARE MILES.
DOES NOT ALIGN, I'M SORRY, 6,400 HOMES.
27,000 PEOPLE INTO JUST TWO SQUARE MILES DOES NOT ALIGN WITH ROCKWELL'S STRATEGIC PLAN.
THIS DEVELOPMENT LARGER THAN MANY NEARBY CITIES WOULD OVERWHELM OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.
OUR ROADS ALREADY STRAINED, CANNOT HANDLE THE SURGE IN TRAFFIC FROM SUCH A RAPID POPULATION GROWTH.
OUR SCHOOLS WOULD NEED 250 MILLION IN EXPANSIONS TO ACCOMMODATE NEW STUDENTS.
A BURDEN THAT WILL SURELY BE FELT BY ALL THE TAXPAYERS IN THIS ROOM.
EMERGENCY SERVICES, AS THE MAYOR STATED, AND INFRAS AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ARE EQUALLY UNPREPARED FOR THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
HIGH DENSITY RENTAL HOMES WOULD FURTHER ERODE THE SMALL TOWN FIELD WE HOLD DEAR, POTENTIALLY INCREASING CRIME AND DIMINISHING THE QUALITY OF LIFE WE'VE WORKED SO HARD TO NURTURE.
LOOK AT OUR NEIGHBORS, MESQUITE, GARLAND AND FORNEY.
POORLY PLANNED GROWTH HAS LED TO OVERCROWDING, STRAINED RESOURCES AND A LOSS OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY.
DO WE WANT ROCK WALL TO FOLLOW THIS PATH? I SAY NO.
WE CAN PRESERVE OUR TEXAS PROUD FAMILY FRIENDLY ATMOSPHERE BY SAYING NO TO RIVER ROCK'S CURRENT PLAN.
INSTEAD, MAYBE WE CAN SUPPORT RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT HOMES BUILT ON ONE TO TWO ACRE LOTS, UM, NOT SIX HOMES PER ACRE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING RIGHT NOW.
THIS APPROACH WOULD RESPECT OUR CORE VALUES.
ENSURING ROCK WALL REMAINS A PLACE WHERE EVERYONE HAS THE LIBERTY AND OPPORTUNITY TO THRIVE.
I URGE THIS COURT TODAY TO DENY THE RIVER ROCK PLATTING APPLICATION AND UPHOLD OUR STRATEGIC PLAN FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH.
LET'S PROTECT OUR OPEN SPACES, OUR SENSE OF COMMUNITY, AND THE UNIQUE, UNIQUE CHARACTER THAT MAKES ROCKWALL HOME.
TOGETHER WE CAN KEEP ROCKWALL A PLACE WHERE FAMILIES FLOURISH FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE TIME.
[00:10:03]
GOOD MORNING.I NORMALLY SPEAK WITH FAMILIES ONLY.
I'M A REALTOR FOR OVER 23 YEARS, SO I'M USED TO TIGHT CLOSE FSIMS WITH NOT VERY MANY PEOPLE.
I'VE BEEN A REALTOR IN ROCKWALL FOR OVER 23 YEARS.
I'M ALSO A PROUD RESIDENT OF THE COMMUNITY AT HUT POINT LAKE ESTATES.
I AM HERE STRONGLY TO OPPOSE A RIVER ROCK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ON THE AGENDA PHASES ONE A, ONE B, AND A LONG PROPOSED WATER TREATMENT PLANT.
IN MY TWO DECADES OF HELPING FAMILY SELL AND BUY HOMES, I HAVE FIRSTHAND WHAT MAKES ROCKWELL SO DESIRABLE.
IT'S NATURAL BEAUTY, PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRONG COMMUNITY OF ITS CHARACTER.
THIS PROJECT THREATENS ALL OF THAT.
OUR ROADS, SCHOOLS, EMERGENCY SERVICES ARE ALREADY STRETCHED.
ADDING THE DENSE HOUSING WITHOUT ACCU ENT SUPPORT SYSTEMS OVERWHELM.
WE HAVE CREATED A LONG-TERM ISSUE FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PUBLIC SERVICES.
SECONDLY, THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT.
AS A REALTOR, I CAN SAY WITH CONFIDENCE, NOTHING LOWERS HOME BUYERS' INTEREST.
AND THE PROPERTY VALUES FASTER THAN PROXIMITY OF THE FACILITY LIKE THIS.
IT RAISES REAL CONCERNS IN ODOR, CONTAMINATION, ENVIRONMENTAL HARM.
THIS WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT THE CURRENT FUTURE HOMEOWNERS.
THAT IS NO SECRET, BUT THE GROWTH MUST BE SMART AND RESPONSIBLE IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER.
THE RIVER ROCK DEVELOPMENT IS CURRENT FORM DOES NOT REFLECT THE VALUES THAT HAVE MADE ROCKWELL SUCH A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE AND TO RAISE MY FAMILY.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COMMISSIONER TO VOTE NO ON THESE PROPOSED, OR AT VERY LEAST PAUSE FOR FURTHER STUDY AND COMMUNITY OF THE INPUT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN LISTENING TO THE VOICES OF RESIDENTS OF ROCKWELL WHO CARED DEEPLY ABOUT THIS COUNTY.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT? SEEING NO ONE.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.
[Items 2 - 5 (Part 1 of 2)]
AND JUST SO EVERYBODY'S AWARE, WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH ITEM 2, 3, 4, AND FIVE, UH, AND SEE THE PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT IF THEY SO DESIRE.AND THEN WE'RE GONNA GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION B BEFORE WE MAKE DECISIONS ON THOSE.
SO THAT BRINGS US TO AGENDA ITEM TWO, DISCUSSING ACT ON RIVER ROCK TRAILS, PRELIMINARY PLAT RESUBMITTAL FOR PHASE ONE A AND ALL RELATED ISSUES.
COMMISSIONER TI UM, YEAH, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I DON'T KNOW, UM, WHY I'M NAMED, I DIDN'T SPONSOR THIS
UM, BUT I GUESS IT'S 'CAUSE IT'S IN MY PRECINCT.
UH, I'LL, I'LL REEL IT BACK IN.
WE, IF, IF WE HAVE HAD THIS WELL, I'VE HAPPY TO TALK.
UM, WE'VE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION ON THIS BEGINNING IN MARCH.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE HAD FOUR PLATS THAT WERE SUBMITTED.
AND ON MARCH 25TH, OUR COMMISSIONER'S COURT DISAPPROVE THOSE FOUR PLATS, UH, FOR REASONS THAT WERE SPECIFIED IN THE RESOLUTIONS AND REASONS THAT WERE GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPER.
UM, SUBSEQUENTLY WE HAD AN APPORTIONMENT HEARING.
THERE WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES IN THE INITIAL DISAPPROVAL WAS APPORTIONMENT, AND WE HAD AN APPORTIONMENT HEARING IN APRIL AND WE ISSUE A RULING ON THAT.
UM, THE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT RULING BEING ISSUED, THE DEVELOPER HAS RESUBMITTED THE FOUR PLATS THAT WERE DISAPPROVED ON MARCH 25TH, UM, FOR PHASES ONE A ONE B, UM, THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND THE REMAINDER TRACTED.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE CONSIDERING IN THESE NEXT FIVE ITEMS. AND AT THIS POINT, THAT'S MY SUMMARY.
WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? YES.
THANK YOU JUDGE ARTA ANDERSON 27 28 NORTH HARWOOD REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
UM, WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FRIDAY NIGHT FROM YOUR COUNSEL ASKING US TO PROVIDE DOZENS OF DOCUMENTS AND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION BY FIVE O'CLOCK YESTERDAY, LESS THAN ONE BUSINESS DAY.
SO WE SCRAMBLED, UH, TO BASICALLY, UM, PROVIDE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS WE COULD.
UH, I PROVIDED THAT TO MR. RAY.
I ASKED THAT HE BE FORWARD, THAT THEY FORWARD ALL THAT TO YOU.
[00:15:02]
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY GOT ALL SETS OF INFORMATION THAT WE SENT.AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, SO THAT WE HAVE IT, UH, HERE, I'M GOING TO BASICALLY JUST GIVE COPIES OF WHAT WE SENT.
UM, I THINK IT'S KIND OF SELF-EXPLANATORY, SO I DON'T WANNA WASTE PEOPLE'S TIME.
UH, I WILL SAY THAT I WAS EXTREMELY SURPRISED TO GET THAT EMAIL FRIDAY NIGHT AND TO HAVE THIS DOCUMENTATION MADE AVAILABLE BY MONDAY AT FIVE WHEN WE ASKED FOR THAT INFORMATION OVER THREE WEEKS AGO.
AND I WAS TOLD THAT IT WOULD BE PROVIDED THREE WEEKS AGO AND IT WAS NOT.
UM, I THINK THAT THAT'S UNREASONABLE.
I THINK IT VIOLATES THE STATUTE.
THERE ARE FOUR REASONS GIVEN FOR DENIAL.
THOSE REASONS DON'T MEET THE STATUTE.
WE ASK REPEATEDLY, GIVE US THE SPECIFICS OF HOW THE PLATS DON'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE AND GIVE ME THE SPECIFICS ON THE DENIAL.
MY ASSUMPTION IS FROM THE EMAIL THAT OF THE FOUR REASONS FOR DENIAL, THE OPEN SPACE PROVISION, WE SHOWED HOW WE'D MEET THE OPEN SPACE PLAN.
THAT THAT IS NO LONGER A CONCERN.
UH, IT IS NOT A VALID REASON FOR DENIAL, UH, THE PROPORTIONALITY APPEAL WE HAD.
UM, THE OTHER TWO, I THINK I'VE, I'VE ADDRESSED EACH OF THOSE.
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND.
SO A LOT OF THE INFORMATION THAT'S REQUESTED IS NOT A REQUIREMENT AT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE, ACCORDING TO YOUR ORDINANCES, IT'S, IT'S THE ITEM, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WELL SERVE LETTER, THAT'S NOT A PRELIMINARY PLAT ITEM.
THAT'S AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
SO FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE AND WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT, UH, WE'VE MET ALL OF THOSE ITEMS. AND, UH, I WILL TELL YOU, OUR ENGINEERING TEAM AND OUR CLIENT HAS JUMPED THROUGH HOOPS, UH, EVERY TIME THAT A REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION OR TO RESPOND TO, UH, ANY CONCERNS THAT THE COUNTY HAS HAD FROM A TECHNICAL PLANNING STANDPOINT, UH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR SUBDIVISION RECS.
UM, SO I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH, YOU KNOW, THE CORRESPONDENCE.
UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, HAPPY TO ANSWER 'EM.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN, UH, REGARDS TO PHASE ONE A? WE, WE ARE GONNA TAKE THIS AND, AND I'M, UH, I'M NOT GONNA BOTHER GETTING UP AGAIN.
MY GOT, SO THIS, MY COMMENTS APPLIED.
THIS IS RIGHT, BECAUSE THE REASONS THIS IS THE PRESENTATION, CORRECT.
THE REASONS FOR DENIAL ARE THE SAME IN EACH ONE, RIGHT? OKAY.
AND SO SOME OF THESE, LIKE THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PLA, WHY THAT WOULD HAVE A CONCERN REGARDING THE OPEN SPACE PLAN DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE, RIGHT? SO ANYWAY, THOSE ITEMS, THEY'RE THE SAME FOR EACH FOUR ARE COMMENTS APPLIED TO EACH FOUR? GOT IT.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UM, I DO, FIRST OF ALL, THANKS FOR THE CHANGES THAT YOU GUYS DID MAKE FROM OUR LAST MOTION FOR DISAPPROVAL.
UM, UH, TWO THINGS, UM, I WANT TO ADDRESS OR ASK YOU ABOUT AT THIS POINT, MR. ANDERSON, YOU SAY THAT THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET, OKAY? AND YET WE GOT A LETTER FROM YOUR CLIENT THAT SAYS, FIRST OF ALL, THE COUNTY HAS NO RE NO ABILITY TO REQUIRE OPEN SPACES.
AND TWO, THAT WHILE THEY WILL COOPERATE, THEY QUOTE, RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DISCONTINUE DEDICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF OPEN SPACES, HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS, AND RELATED OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS AT ANY TIME.
THAT LETTER WENT ON TO SAY THAT IN FACT, THE THE APPLICANT DOESN'T OWN THE PROPERTY THAT IS BEING IS, IS THE SUBJECT OF THE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE AMENITY.
SO MY GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU, MR. ANDERSON, IS THAT IF THE DEVELOPER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DISCONTINUE ANY, ANY DEDICATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF OPEN SPACES, HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS AND RELATED OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS AT ANY TIME, HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT THEY HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS? SO WE'VE GOT TWO THINGS GOING ON, RIGHT? WE'VE GOT TWO PHASES THERE TO BE DEVELOPED IMMEDIATELY.
UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THOSE WILL COMPLY IF WE'VE GOT A LOT OF ACREAGE THAT'S LEFT, I THINK THE PLAN IS TO COMPLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WHAT THE COUNTY WILL DO WITH REGARD TO THE PLANT.
IT'S PRETTY AMORPHOUS, RIGHT? AND IF, IF THE COUNTY IS NOT LEGALLY,
[00:20:02]
UM, ABLE TO ENFORCE THE PLAN, WE'RE JUST RESERVING OUR LEGAL RIGHTS.SO, I MEAN, I, I THINK THE INTENT IS, AND THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD, FRANKLY, THERE'S BEEN VERY LITTLE FEEDBACK BY Y'ALL, UH, TO WHAT WE'VE SUBMITTED ON OPEN SPACE.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE INDICATED THAT, WE'LL, THE CURRENT INTENT IS TO COMPLY.
UM, OKAY, WELL, BUT Y'ALL NEED TO FIND THE SPECIFICS.
I, I THINK WE PROVIDED SPECIFICS.
WE DID AN DETAILED ANALYSIS THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COURT LAST FALL AND THAT'S BEEN SENT TO YOUR CLIENT.
OKAY? UH, IN FACT, THAT'S A BASIS A LOT OF, A LOT OF THIS LETTER, I THINK, AND, AND I'VE SAID IT BEFORE AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, I'VE MET WITH MR. MILES SEVERAL TIMES ON THIS.
HE SEEMS WILLING TO TRY AND WORK WITH US, BUT I JUST DON'T GET HOW LEGALLY WHEN WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT A, WE DON'T HAVE A REQ A RIGHT TO REQUIRE ANY OF IT, AND B, YOU RESERVE THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME TO STOP HOW IT CAN, WE CAN TAKE IT TO MEAN THAT IN FACT YOU'RE COMPLYING WITH OUR REQUIREMENTS.
AND, AND AGAIN, WE'RE AT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT PHASE.
ALL THAT STUFF'S GOTTA BE ADDRESSED OUT AS, AS THE DEVELOPMENT GOES ON.
THE SECOND COMMENT I'D MAKE AT THIS POINT, UM, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY HOW YOU PUT IT, BUT SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT THESE THINGS NEED TO BE WORKED OUT AFTER THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAT IS APPROVED.
BUT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, SECTION 3.2 0.4 OF OUR SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SAYS THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT SHALL USE THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA TO EITHER APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND THEN IT GIVES FOUR ITEMS. THE SECOND OF WHICH IS THAT THE SUBDIVISION HAS ADEQUATE ACCESS TO WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES, UM, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WAS IN THE LETTER YOU FELT CAME TOO LATE.
UM, THE SEC THE ANOTHER ITEM IS THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.
AND IN YOUR EMAIL RESPONSE THAT I CAME YESTERDAY, I THINK IS WHAT YOU PUT UP THERE, UM, I THINK YOU INDICATED SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT WE HAVE NEVER RAISED THIS, OR WE DIDN'T RAISE IT IN THE, IN OUR RESPONSE TO YOU.
BUT IN FACT IN OUR MARCH 25TH COMMISSIONER'S COURT MEETING, IT WAS STATED VERY CLEARLY THAT THE FAILURE TO HAVE EMERGENCY SERVICES AND FIRE PROTECTION WAS A BIG ISSUE.
SO, UM, I MEAN, I I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN AN ISSUE FOR US AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A CONCERN.
SO THO THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THINGS I HAVE AT THIS POINT.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I, WELL, I THINK YOU ANSWERED IT BASICALLY, BUT, UH, I ASKING ART THESE QUESTIONS, BUT I'M A LITTLE, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS SOME HESITATION ON THE COURT'S PART TO TRUST ANYTHING THAT'S GOING ON WITH YOU GUYS RIGHT NOW, AND THEN FOR YOU TO COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, WITH OPEN SPACE, WE DON'T AGREE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE THIS, BUT WE AGREE TO IT, BUT YET WE'RE GONNA HOLD OUT THAT LATER WE CAN CHANGE OUR MINDS.
HOW, HOW CAN YOU EXPECT THE COURT TO AGREE TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WELL, I THINK THAT, I'M SORRY.
NO, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS THE, I'M JUST, IT'S A QUESTION.
I THINK IT WAS ALREADY ANSWERED, BUT THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA ASK.
I MEAN, I, I THINK WE DO INTEND TO COMPLY.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE SPECIFICS GONNA BE IN THE FUTURE.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE LAND THAT FRANKLY COULD FOR FUTURE PHASES, COULD BE GOOD OPEN SPACE LAND.
BUT UN UNTIL WE GET THERE, WE DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, RIGHT NOW THE SPECIFICS ARE TWO PHASES DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, THERE'S A LOT OF LAND THAT'S LEFT, SOME OF WHICH WILL BE, I THINK, GOOD OPEN SPACE LAND.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS YET.
THAT'S WHY IT'S A REMAINDER TRACK.
WHICHEVER ONE ON YOUR AGENDA IS THE REMAINDER TRACK, THAT'S THE ONE WHERE ALL THIS HAS TO BE TEED UP.
UM, MY QUESTION IS, I, AND, AND AGAIN, I THINK, UM, COMMISSIONER LI YOU ADDRESSED IT, BUT THE MAYOR OF OF MCCLENDON CHISHOLM THAT SPOKE IN REGARDS TO THE, THE FIRE PROTECTION EMERGENCY SERVICES, I'M STILL JUST A LITTLE UNCLEAR BECAUSE I, I THINK WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS, I WAS NOT AWARE OF, OF THE, THAT THEY HAD DISCONTINUED THEIR SERVICES, UM, WITH YOU GUYS.
I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A VALID CONTRACT.
MY, A LOT OF MY PRACTICE IS WHEN PEOPLE PROMISE SOMETHING AND THEN UNILATERALLY BREAK THEIR PROMISE, OUR VIEW, AND WE'VE GOT AN ATTORNEY'S OPINION LETTER IS PART OF THAT, SAYS THAT THAT
[00:25:01]
CONTRACT'S STILL IN EFFECT.AND AGAIN, THESE ARE ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE TO GET TEED UP WHEN YOU GET INTO THE FINAL PLAT STAGE, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
YOU KNOW, FIRMING UP WHERE YOUR WATER'S GONNA COME FROM.
I MEAN, THESE ARE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO FIRM UP BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT FINAL PROCESS.
BUT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THIS COURT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING DECISIONS THAT ARE GONNA SUPPORT.
AND, AND, AND, UH, I, I GET THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO STAY OUTTA THE LEGALESE AS MUCH AS I CAN.
NONE OF THAT, NONE OF THEM HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH EMERGENCY SERVICE.
ONE WAS DOES IT COMPLY WITH ENGINEERING COMMENTS? YES.
NUMBER TWO, ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY.
BLACK LAND IS DONE AT WILL SERVE LETTER THAT SAYS YES, YOU KNOW, THREE WAS PROPORTIONALITY APPEAL, I DON'T THINK'S AN ISSUE.
SO THREE AND FOUR, THE, THE EMAIL THAT WE GOT.
AND I DID NOT ADDRESS EITHER ONE OF THOSE.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE EMT STUFF, OF COURSE THAT GOT, IT GETS WORKED OUT WITH AIR DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S, WELL, IT JUST CONCERNS ME, THE, SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE MAYOR MADE, UM, HE SOUNDED LIKE HE'D BEEN TRYING TO MEET WITH YOU GUYS AND, AND THERE HAD NOT BEEN ANY MEETINGS.
AND, AND THEN THE CONCERN IS THAT THERE IS A, UM, AS FAR AS FROM A FINANCIAL STANDPOINT, THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN, BEEN PAID.
AND, AND SO, AND, AND THEY SENT A LETTER BACK, YOU KNOW, OVER A MONTH, A YEAR AND AGO, HALF AGO THAT SAID THEY WERE TERMINATING IT.
SO I, THAT CAUSES ME A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN.
AND, AND, BUT I MEAN, I KNOW IT COULD BE CHANGED LEGALLY AS WELL.
YEAH, AND I, I, I DON'T HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, SO I'M GONNA ASK JEFF MILES SINCE I SEE HIM OVER THERE ON THE SIDE, WHO'S, WHO'S GOT MORE WORKING KNOWLEDGE THAN THAT.
YEAH, I, JEFF MILES, UH, REPRESENTING DR. HORTON NOMS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED THIS PROJECT FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS NOW.
SO, UM, COUPLE THINGS, OPEN SPACE.
UM, WE DID MEET WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER LITTKY AND, UH, PRIOR TO HIM BEING A COMMISSIONER AND THE OPEN SPACE GROUP, WE TOURED A PROPERTY THAT BASICALLY OUT OF OUR 1800 ACRES WAS ABOUT 190 ACRES OR SO.
WE SHOWED THAT BOUNDARY OF THAT PROPERTY ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE REMAINDER TRACK THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED TODAY AS A OPEN SPACE RESERVE.
SO THAT IS ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE REMAINDER PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWN AS AN OPEN SPACE RESERVE.
SO WE'RE PLANNING ON MAKING THAT.
WE ALSO, IN ADDITION, LET ME FINISH.
UM, IN ADDITION TO DOING THAT, WROTE A REPORT PROVIDED THAT, UH, OVER, UH, AFTER THE MARCH, UH, END OF MARCH MEETING, UH, THAT STATED HOW OUR PHASE ONE A AND ONE B IN OUR MIND MET THE TRAIL REQUIREMENTS THERE, AN N ONE A AND ONE B.
THIS 190 ACRE OPEN SPACE THAT'S OF INTEREST, THAT DOES NOT AFFECT PHASE ONE A AND ONE B.
IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SITE.
THERE WERE THREE POINTS IN THE REPORT THAT THE OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE MADE THAT WE ADDRESSED SUCCINCTLY IN THIS LETTER BACK TO THE COUNTY ON HOW WE MET THOSE DIFFERENT CRITERIA.
ONE WAS RESERVATION OF OPEN SPACES.
OKAY? NUMBER TWO WAS, UM, THE, UM, TRAILS AND WE SHOWED, UH, SHOWED HOW WE ARE IN PHASE ONE A, ONE B OR CON OR CONSTRUCTING TRAILS AND WHERE THOSE ARE GONNA GO.
AND WE ADDRESSED THAT IN, IN THE REPORT.
SO I THINK WE ADDRESSED THE OPEN SPACE CORRECTLY AS FAR AS THE STATEMENT OF RESERVING THE RIGHT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY THING, YOU MAY CHANGE YOUR PLAN AND THAT MAY NOT BE AGREEABLE TO US TO CHANGE YOUR PLAN.
SO WE CAN'T JUST HOLD WHOLLY TELL YOU THAT IF YOU CHANGE YOUR PLAN THAT WE AGREE TO THAT WELL ALL DO.
I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.
NO, IT WAS, I THOUGHT YOU, I MEAN, ALL DUE RESPECT, JEFF AND I AGREE YOU, WE HAD WE MET OUT THERE, I THOUGHT IT WAS ACTUALLY A VERY PRODUCTIVE MEETING.
IT WAS, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT, EVERYTHING YOU SAID, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT FITS INTO A LETTER THAT SAYS, AT THE PRESENT, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY ON OPEN SPACE, BUT IN THE FUTURE, THE APPLICANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DISCONTINUE ALL THIS WORK.
AND THEN LATER ON IN THAT SAME LETTER, IT SAYS, UH, OH, BY THE WAY, THE CURRENT LANDOWNER IS DMDS LAND COMPANY,
[00:30:01]
LLC, WHICH HAS APPARENTLY NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE DEVELOPER.IT SAYS THE TWO ENTITIES ARE NOT PARTNERS, SUBSIDIARIES OR RELATED COMPANIES, AND ESSENTIALLY TELLS US WE NEED TO GO CUT A DEAL WITH THEM.
AND, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS, I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S JUST WHAT I SEE HERE.
CAN I GO AHEAD AND THEN THE, AGAIN, TO THE COMMENT THAT, THAT YOU MADE MR. ANDERSON WAS TO SAY THAT THIS WAS NOT RAISED IN THOSE REASONS.
UH, IN FACT, SECTION 3.24 WAS SPECIFICALLY RAISED IN THOSE LETTERS.
AND IN SECTION 3.2 0.4, IT TALKS ABOUT WATER, ADEQUATE WATER AND THE PRELIMINARY PLA NOT ENDANGERING PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.
I WENT BACK AND CHECKED THE MINUTES OF OUR MEETING OF MARCH 25TH AND THE MINUTES OF THAT MEETING, NOT ONLY DID THE MAYOR OF MCLENNAN CHIEN COME IN AND SAY, WE DON'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH YOU WITH RIVER ROCK TRAILS, BUT I SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THAT WAS A POINT OF CONCERN.
SO I THINK TO SAY THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE, IS A SURPRISE TO YOU OR IS NO LONGER ON THE TABLE, I, I DON'T, I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DUPLICITOUS AND NOT REALLY REFLECTING REALITY.
SO I, I APPRECIATE JEFF, YOU KNOW, HAVE MORE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE THAN I DO ON THE PARKS.
YOU, YOU NEED TO LOOK EXACTLY AT THE DENIAL LETTER.
OKAY? AND IT'S NOT DUPLICITOUS.
THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS, OKAY? REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S TALKED ABOUT AT MEETINGS, WHAT'S, PEOPLE MAY HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS UNDER THE STATUTE SHEET.
THE COUNTY'S REQUIRED TO GIVE DISAPPROVAL REASON, REASONS, AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SPECIFIC.
THEY COUNTY DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB OF THAT AT ALL.
ONE, COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEZE NICHOLS REVIEW COMMENTS, MET ALL OF THOSE FREEZE NICKELS, GREASE, EMT, THE OTHER STUFF'S NOT PART OF THAT.
NUMBER TWO, ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY, RIGHT? THAT ONE'S IN THERE, NOT, IT'S NOT AN EMT DEAL, IT'S NOT POLICE SERVICES, ET CETERA.
THERE WAS ONE QUESTION ABOUT DO YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLY FOR, YOU KNOW, FIRE FLOW? THE LETTER SAYS, YES, THEY DO THREE PROPORTIONALITY, APPEAL FOUR, OKAY.
SO WHEN IT IS NOT DUPLICITOUS COMMENTS THAT ARE MADE, I DON'T WANNA SAY THEY'RE IRRELEVANT, BUT UNDER THE STATUTE, IT'S Y'ALL'S RESPONSIBILITY, NOT OURS, TO SPECIFICALLY STATE WHAT THOSE REASONS ARE.
AND THOSE WERE THE FOUR REASONS, AND WE TRIED LIKE HECK TO GET SPECIFICITY ON THOSE.
NEVER GOT IT AFTER BEING PROMISED WE WOULD.
AND SO IT'S NOT DUPLICITOUS THAT FACT THAT THERE ARE COMMENTS MADE IN A HEARING OR A MEETING IF THEY'RE NOT REFLECTED IN THE FORMAL DENIAL LETTERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 2 32.
I HATE TO SAY IT'S IRRELEVANT, BUT IT'S IRRELEVANT IN TERMS OF WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA THAT YOU HAVE TO USE TO APPROVE THE PLAT.
SO, AND, AND NOTHING PERSONAL, BUT YOU KNOW, NOBODY'S EVER ACCUSED ME OF DUPLICITY.
I APOLOGIZE AND I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF, IF I APOLOGIZE, WOULD NOT DO THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND WHAT I SAID ABOUT WHAT WAS BEING REQUIRED AND WHATNOT.
THERE'S A PROCESS, THERE'S A STATUTE, WE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS.
THE COUNTY DID NOT, BUT THE FOUR DENIAL REASONS WE MET CLEARLY.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, ART, I'VE KNOWN YOU SINCE 1984.
I APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING YOU DIS DUPLICITOUS.
I DIDN'T MEAN IT TO BE AN INSULT.
UM, SECONDLY, THAT LETTER ITEM TWO WAS NOT WATER.
IF I REMEMBER THAT LETTER, I WAS JUST LOOKING, I DON'T HAVE IT HERE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IF I REMEMBER IT, ITEM TWO WAS SECTION 3.2 0.4 OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, WHICH INCLUDED WATER AND ALSO INCLUDES, ITS A, A DANGEROUS SITUATION.
NO, IT IS SPECIFICALLY FIRST WATER.
COULD I GET A, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF MY LETTER THERE? I CAN GO GET IT.
I HATE TO HATE TO GET HUNG UP ON THIS.
I, WHILE YOU GET THAT, I, I, I HAVE A QUESTION MAY MAYBE FOR JEFF, MAYBE FOR ART.
UH, WHAT IS DMD S'S RELATIONSHIP? YEAH, SO THAT'S, I WAS GONNA EXPLAIN THAT.
THEY'RE A, UM, RANCHING AND FARMING
[00:35:01]
OPERATION THAT'S OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR YEARS.DEER HORTON HAS THE PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT TO PURCHASE FROM THEM OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, MANY YEARS TO PURCHASE IT.
SO THEY'RE NOT PURCHASING ALL 1,867 ACRES AT ONE TIME.
THEY'RE GONNA PURCHASE IT IN CHUNKS OVER TIME.
UM, THE LAND THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT IS THE OPEN SPACE.
THE CLARIFICATION ON THAT IS WHAT WE WILL DO IS FACILITATE AND WE COULD PUT THAT IN A LETTER AND MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE, UM, FACILITATE A TRANSACTION WHERE THAT LAND IS CONVEYED FROM DMDS TO THE COUNTY.
SO DR HORTON, THAT'S PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PURCHASE IS THAT LAKE AND ALL THAT DOWNSTREAM AREA OF THE LAKE.
SO, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH, IT, IT, IT DOES.
MAY, MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME WITH ANOTHER, UH, PECULIAR SITUATION AT LAST FALL, PART OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION LAKE THAT'S ENCOMPASSED BY THIS LAND THAT DMDS OWNS AND DR HORTON IS CONTRACTING TO BUY MM-HMM
UH, WAS TRANSFERRED TO AN ATTORNEY, UH, WITH COATS AND ROSES.
WHO PUT THAT LAND IN ITS PERSONAL NAME, NOT IN THE, THE, UH, HE'S THE TRUSTEE ACTUALLY.
UH, BUT IT, IT, IT'S JUST WEIRD THAT THERE'S THESE BIG PLATS, THEN THERE'S A SWAN THAT IS, THAT, THAT IS, THAT'S THE, THE MUD DIRECTOR'S LOT, OR, WHICH IS TYPICALLY WHAT YOU SEE IN A MUD IS A DIRECTOR'S LOT.
THAT COULD BE MOVED AROUND ANYWHERE.
SO HIS, HIS LOT IS ESSENTIALLY THE MIDDLE OF THE LAKE.
UM, YEAH, IT IS, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S HOW THAT WAS DONE.
SO THAT LOT CAN BE MOVED OUTTA THE MIDDLE OF THE LAKE AND MOVED SOMEWHERE ELSE.
WELL THAT, SO THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
NEITHER HERE, NOR THERE'S JUST, AGAIN, WHAT I WOULD, I SAY, WE'VE SHOWN THIS RESERVATION, THIS RESERVED AREA ON THE PARY PLAT.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, UM, UM, UH, CALLED OUT, YOU KNOW, FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE OPEN SPACE.
IT DOES NOT AFFECT PHASE ONE A OR ONE B.
HOWEVER, WE'RE DOING TRAILS IN PHASE ONE A AND ONE B, AND WE MEET THE THREE POINT CRITERIA THAT WAS IN THE OPEN SPACE LETTER THAT WAS GIVEN TO US BY COMMISSIONER LITTKY, UH, WHICH WAS ACTED UPON BY, UH, THIS COURT.
DOES THAT ANSWER? YEAH, I THINK SO.
THE 190 ACRES, I, I JUST, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ON ANY OF THE MATERIALS THAT WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED.
ACTUALLY IT WILL BE, ITS ON THE, IT'S ON THE REMAINDER PLAT.
SO WE HAVE FOUR PLAS, IT'S ON THE REMAINDER PLATS.
AND THEN THE TRAILS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT WOULD BE IN ONE B, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND, AND ON, I'M ASSUMING YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS.
'CAUSE THIS IS WHAT COMMISSIONER LITCHI WAS READING FROM IS THE R APRIL 28TH, 2025 REPORT ABOUT HOW WE MEET THE OPEN SPACE.
WE DIDN'T GET ANY COMMENTS BACK TO THIS.
WE ESSENTIALLY TOOK THE, UH, AUGUST 9TH, 2024 ANALYSIS THAT THE COUNTY DID MM-HMM
AND THEN RESPONDED TO THEIR ANALYSIS ON HOW WE MEET, UH, THESE CRITERIA AND GAVE MAPS AND OTHER INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT.
SO WE NEVER RECEIVED ANYTHING BACK, SO WE'RE ASSUMING THAT EVERYBODY WAS GOOD WITH THAT.
AND THAT INCLUDED THE, UM, THE 190 ACRES AND ALSO INCLUDED A, A PLAN MASTER TRAIL PLAN AND A TRAIL PLAN FOR SPECIFICALLY FOR PHASE ONE A AND ONE B.
AS FAR AS THE COMMENT, AND I KNOW COMMISSIONER LITTKY, UH, HAD ISSUE WITH THE, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, RES RESERVE, THE RIGHT TO DISCONTINUE DEDICATION, CONSTRUCTION TO OPEN SAIS.
AGAIN, WE'VE GIVEN YOU A PLAN, WE SHOWED YOU WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO HERE.
WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT.
HOWEVER, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT COULD CHANGE IN THE WAY OF YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR YOUR WANTS IN OPEN SPACES.
SO WE CAN'T WHOLEHEARTEDLY JUST GIVE YOU CARTE BLANCHE AND SAY, YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE GOOD WITH ANY CHANGES THAT YOU MAKE IN THE FUTURE.
SO THAT'S ALL WE'RE TRYING TO SAY THERE.
THEY'RE NOT THE ORIGINAL LANDOWNER.
THEY, THEY BOUGHT THE LAND AND THEN ARE PARCELING IT OUT TO YOU? IS THAT HOW YEAH, THEY, THEY, THEY, THEY'VE BOUGHT THE LAND IN TWO BIG CHUNKS AND THERE'S NO RELATIONSHIP TO DR HORTON.
THERE'S NO RELATION TO THE HOME BUILDING COMPANY.
THEY'RE THE SONS OF THE FOUNDER OF DR HORTON.
MR. UM, UM, MR. HORTON WHO PASSED AWAY LAST YEAR.
THEY HAVE A LARGE FARMING AND RANCHING OPERATION.
THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED TO THE HOME BUILDING COMPANY AT ALL.
AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, RUNNING THE, THOSE ARE TYPICAL OPERATION
[00:40:01]
WHERE THEY BUY THE GIANT PARCEL OF LAND AND THEN PIECEMEAL SELL IT TO YOU OVER TIME AS YOU'RE READY TO DEVELOP.THEY MIGHT SELL IT TO DEER HORTON, THEY MAY SELL IT TO SOME OTHER BUILDER AND COULD DO SO WITH THIS PROPERTY STILL AS WELL.
WHAT'S THAT? AND COULD DO SO WITH THIS PROPERTY STILL AS WELL.
THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO SELL THE REST OF THE LAND TO YOU.
WE HAVE IT ALL UNDER CONTRACT RIGHT NOW, BUT IF, YOU KNOW, IF THE CONTRACT ENDS, THEN NO.
IT COULD BE, AND I DON'T WANNA NAME ANY NAMES, BUT IT COULD BE ANY HOME BUILDER, ANY DEVELOPER THAT'S OUT THERE.
UM, I I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE, UH, PARCEL OF LAND FOR THE MUD DIRECTOR.
IS, IS THAT PRETTY COMMON TO, TO DO THAT? YES, IT IS A MUD DIRECTOR, A PIECE OF LAND SOMEWHERE.
AND, AND IS, IS THAT DONE TO, TO SATISFY SOME LEGAL REQUIREMENT? IT, IT IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT STATE, THAT'S A STATE STATUTE THAT THE MUD DIRECTOR HAS TO HAVE A PARCEL WITHIN THE MUD.
NOT THAT THEY HAVE TO LIVE THERE, THEY JUST HAVE TO HAVE NO SIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WOULD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, AND, AND I'M PLAYING A LITTLE LOOSE HERE.
I THINK I TOLD YOU MY INTENTIONS ARE TO, TO GO THROUGH THESE AND THEN GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, AND, AND THEN COME BACK TO THESE.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU, NO, THE ONLY, I THINK THE FIRE, YOU KNOW, OUR, WE, WE, THE FIRE AGREEMENT IS BETWEEN MCLENNAN CHISHOLM AND OUR MUDS.
RIVER ROCK MUD ONE AND RIVER ROCK MUD TWO.
UM, AS FAR AS NOTICE THAT THEY CANCELED THAT I, I DIDN'T RECEIVE NOTICE.
I DON'T BELIEVE OUR ATTORNEY, THE MUD ATTORNEY FROM COACH ROSE WHO WROTE THAT LETTER, YOU GUYS HAVE A COPY OF THAT STATING THE, UH, REASONS WHY THAT AGREEMENT IS VALID.
UH, WE NEVER DID GET A PHONE CALL AND SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO, WE DON'T LIKE THE AGREEMENT, WE WANNA RENEGOTIATE THE AGREEMENT.
THEY JUST TOOK SOME ACTION ON IT.
WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S A VALID ACTION.
WE STILL HAVE A CONTRACT THAT'S IN PLACE.
WE'RE RUNNING THROUGH THE STEPS OF THAT AGREEMENT.
WE HAVE SUBMITTED TO TCEQ FOR A FIRE PLAN, UH, WHERE A PORTION OF THE DISTRICT'S TAX CAN BE USED TO PAY FOR FIRE PROTECTION IF WE WANT.
UM, RIGHT NOW THE AGREEMENT IS WHERE THE RESIDENTS PAY A MONTHLY FEE.
THAT AGREEMENT IS EXACTLY LIKE THE POETRY ROAD MUD AGREEMENT, UH, EXCEPT THAT WE'RE GONNA BUILD A FIRE STATION, UH, WITHIN OUR DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THAT AGREEMENT.
AND, UH, QUITE FRANKLY, WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO GO BACK AND TRY TO RENE RENEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT THAT WAS JUST DONE BECAUSE THE MAYOR OF MCLENDON CHISHOLM CHANGED.
BUT I I, THAT, THAT, THAT'S OUR FEELING.
AND, UH, THAT'S OUR, UH, LEGAL, UH, UH, OUR, OUR COUNCIL'S LEGAL OPINION AS WELL.
BECAUSE YOUR, 'CAUSE YOUR COUNCIL DID IN THE, IN THE MAY 30TH LETTER THAT THEY GAVE US, UM, IN REGARDS TO MUDD ONE AND MUDD TWO AND THE, UM, YEAH.
FIRE PROTECTION, THEY, THEY HAVE COPIES OF THE, UM, OF THE AGENDA AND THE MINUTES OF THAT AGENDA ON JULY 9TH THAT, THAT THE MAYOR JUST SPOKE ABOUT.
IT WAS IN MY PAPERWORK FROM COATS AND THAT ACTUALLY WAS FROM YOUR ATTORNEY.
OKAY, SO THE COACH ROSE LETTER CAME OUT, UM, YESTERDAY.
IT'S DATED MAY 30TH, SO YEAH, SO, UM, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT TO DIS THERE, THE MINUTES SAID, DISCUSS IT, CONSIDER REPEALING THE FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MCCLENDON, CHISHOLM AND RIVER ROCK TRAILS, MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTS OF ROCKWALL COUNTY.
AND THEN THEY TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHY, WHY, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS MAYOR MILL MCNEIL SPOKE, UM, TO WHY HE'S SUPPOSED TO CONTINUE WITH THE AGREEMENT.
AND HE POINTS OUT THAT RIVER ROCK RECENTLY LEFT THE ETJ AND CONTINUING AT THIS POINT IS NOT TO THE BENEFIT OF OUR CITIZENS COUNCIL MEMBER.
MCCLENDON SAYS HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE, UM, IN THE FINANCIALS ANYWAY, THE MAYOR CALLED FOR A MOTION AND THE MOTION TO REPEAL.
UM, BUT, UM, THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MCCLENDON CHISHOLM AND RIVER ROCK TRAILS MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTS, UM, WAS MADE BY MAYOR PRO TEM TUCKER, WHO I SEE HERE IN THE, IN THE AUDIENCE THIS MORNING.
AND IT WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER AND IT PASSED FOUR TO ONE.
SO I, I MEAN WE, I, IT'S, I WAS GIVEN THIS INFORMATION, SO SURE.
OBVIOUSLY I BELIEVE THAT IF THAT'S WHAT THAT COMMUNICATION IS, AND THEN BASED ON WHAT I HEARD THE MAYOR SAYING THIS MORNING, THAT SOMEWHERE THERE'S A BIG MISCOMMUNICATION, WELL, I, THEY DON'T HAVE A UNI UNILATERAL RIGHT.
SO THAT, AND THAT'S OUR, THAT'S OUR ATTORNEY'S OPINION.
SO THAT MIGHT BE, HAVE TO BE, UM, TAKEN ELSEWHERE TO MAKE THAT DECISION OR DISCUSSED, BUT THERE'S NOT A UNI UNILATERAL RIGHT.
TO, TO TERMINATE THAT AGREEMENT.
SO IT DOESN'T SAY ANYWHERE IN THAT AGREEMENT THAT THEY
[00:45:01]
CAN DO THAT.UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND, AND JUDGE, WHAT'S THE COUNTY'S OBLIGATION, REGARDLESS OF MCCLENDON CHISHOLM AGREEMENT, WHAT IS THE COUNTY'S OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY SERVICES AND FIRE SERVICES EMS AND FIRE SERVICES IN THE COUNTY FOR RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THE COUNTY? UM, SO YOU, YOU, YOU'RE ASKING A QUESTION.
UH, WE DON'T OFFER SERVICES FOR MUDS.
MUD MUDS ARE MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTS THAT HAVE TO HAVE THEIR OWN FIRE.
WE, WE DO CONTRACT WITH THE CITIES AND HAVE THEM COVER UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY, WHICH IN, WHEN YOU START BUILDING, YOU'RE NO LONGER IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY.
SO WE'VE REQUESTED FROM THE COUNTY AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE THING IN PUBLIC OPENS RACK, UH, OP OPENS RECORDS THAT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST TOLD ME.
UH, WE HAVE FOUND A COMMISSIONER COURT HEARING, UH, WHERE, UH, COMMISSIONER STACEY STATED THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SERVICES, BUT THEY JUST DON'T WANNA PAY FOR THE SERVICES.
SO THAT'S A DISTINCTION AND A DIFFERENCE THAN WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
'CAUSE WHAT YOU JUST TOLD ME IS YOU'RE NOT GONNA COVER IT AT ALL OR BE PART OF ANY COVERAGE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU'RE GOING TO COVER IT, YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT.
SO YOU WANT SOMEBODY ELSE TO PAY FOR IT, AND THAT'S OKAY.
WE'RE OPEN TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY, UH, TO PAY FOR THOSE SERVICES OUT THERE.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU HAVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
WE'VE ASKED THIS ALSO FROM MCCLENNAN CHISHOLM THAT HADN'T BEEN PROVIDED TO US IN AN OPEN RECORDS ACT THAT HAS PASSED DUE, THAT HASN'T BEEN GIVEN TO US, THAT THERE'S AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MCCLENDON CHISHOLM AND THE COUNTY TO COVER AN AREA CALLED FIRE DISTRICT 22.
AND WE'RE WITHIN THAT FIRE DISTRICT 22, THE COUNTY'S MAPS SHOW WE'RE IN THAT AREA OF FIRE DISTRICT 22.
THERE'S NOT A DONUT HOLE IN THERE FOR OUR MUDS.
AND THAT THAT AREA IS GOING TO BE COVERED BY MCCLENDON CHISHOLM, THE CITY, WHICH PRIOR TO THAT WAS A VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT IN 2018, UH, THAT, UM, ACTUALLY WE WISH WAS STILL THERE BECAUSE WE COULD GO TALK TO THEM AND REALLY HELP THEM OUT TO GET EQUIPMENT AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
HOWEVER, NOW WE HAVE A CITY THAT'S TAKEN AWAY WHAT WE BELIEVE IS FIRE COVERAGE ON OUR PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY, THAT WE BELIEVE THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO COVER OVER THERE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OUR MUD HAS A CONTRACT OR NOT, AND THAT THEY'RE USING THAT TO TRY TO NEGOTIATE WITH US ON LAND USE AND OTHER THINGS, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR ETJ.
SO YOU, YOU AND I HAVE A, UH, OKAY.
CAN I JUST SAY SOMETHING REALLY QUICK SINCE HE POINTED ME OUT? OH, YEAH.
UM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR COUNSEL, THINGS THAT ARE DISCUSSED AND NOT VOTED ON ARE IRRELEVANT.
UM, SO DID YOU AND I DISAGREE ON THAT.
SO THE COUNTY PAYS THE CITIES WHAT I WOULD CALL A, A MINIMAL AMOUNT, AND I'LL, I'LL JUST BE HONEST, WE DON'T PAY NEAR ENOUGH.
THEY, THEY SERVICE THE AREAS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY, UH, HISTORICALLY FARMS, RANCHES, UNBUILT AREAS.
THEY SERVE HIGH POINT, THEY SERVE HIGH POINT NEIGHBORHOOD.
I I, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DO OR NOT.
UM,
BUT IN A MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, I BELIEVE THE ONUS IS UPON YOU TO PROVIDE THAT.
NOW, WE DON'T PROVIDE IT, WE DON'T RUN FIRE TRUCKS.
WE JUST CONTRACT OUT AND PAY PEOPLE A NOMINAL AMOUNT TO GO OUT INTO THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS AND ESSENTIALLY WORK BRUSH FIRES AND FARM FIRES AND RANCH FIRES.
NOT URBAN AREAS, 6,000 HOMES, 400 HOMES, HOWEVER MANY HOMES.
I MEAN THAT, THAT REQUIRES A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF FIRE SERVICE THAT, THAT LET'S DISTINCT BETWEEN FIRE SERVICE AND EMS. DOESN'T A COUNTY HAVE AN EMS AGREEMENT WITH ROCKWALL EMS? THE COUNTY DOES.
AND SO THEY'RE COVERING THAT AREA TODAY, WHETHER WE HAVE ONE HOUSE OUT THERE OR 6,000 HOUSES, RIGHT? THAT THAT IS CORRECT.
SO E-E-S-E-M-S IS NOT, IS IS THAT'S COVERED.
OKAY, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FIRE SERVICE.
WE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FIRE SERVICE.
UM, SO ANYWAY, JUST
AND, UM, SO, UM, WE'RE REQUESTING COPIES OF WHAT WE'VE REQUEST OF WHAT WE'VE ASKED FOR.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? UM, I, I WANT TO GET BACK,
[00:50:01]
UH, AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND THE LETTER.I APOLOGIZE AGAIN, IT SEEMS LIKE I'M APOLOGIZING ALL MORNING, BUT I DID FIND THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING AND THAT LETTER WAS BASED UPON THOSE MINUTES.
AND WHAT ITEM TWO SAID IS THE ISSUES AND BASES SPECIFIED IN SECTION 3.2 0.4 OF THE CITY OF THE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THAT THE SUBDIVISION DOESN'T HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS TO WATER AND THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MAY ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
SO IT WAS NOT JUST ITEM TWO WAS NOT JUST A SAID WATER ONLY, IT SAID REFERENCED THE ENTIRE SECTION 3.2 0.4.
IT DID SPECIFICALLY MENTION WATER.
IT ALSO SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED AN ENDANGERMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
IT, IT ACTUALLY STATES MORE THAN THAT.
IT SAYS THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 2 32 0.032 AT THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH SAYS A SUBDIVIDED HAVING AN APPROVED PLAT FOR A SUBDIVISION SHALL FURNISH A CERTIFIED LETTER FROM THE UTILITY PROVIDER STATING THAT WATER IS AVAILABLE TO THE SUBDIVISION, SUFFICIENT IN QUALITY AND QUANTITY TO MEET THE MINIMUM STATE STANDARDS AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFICATION THAT THE WATER, UH, OF THAT QUALITY AND QUANTITY WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE POINT OF DELIVERY TO ALL LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION.
SO THE WHOLE FOCUS ON THAT DISAPPROVAL ITEM WAS WATER.
AND WHEN IT RELATES BACK TO ENDANGERED PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, THAT RELATES BACK TO THE WATER REQUIREMENT PLUS WE, PLUS WE ASKED, WE SAID, IF YOU CAN'T TELL US SPECIFICALLY WHICH ITEM IN YOUR, IN YOUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OR REGULATIONS, IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO ENDANGERED PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE THAT WE'RE VIOLATING, AND THERE WAS NO ANSWER, I, I DISAGREE THAT IT ONLY REFERRED TO WATER.
AND I GUESS THAT'S JUST SOMETHING YOU AND I'LL DISAGREE ON.
BUT, BUT, BUT AGAIN, WE ASKED FOR THE SPECIFICS IN THE COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, AND IN THAT MEETING WE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE, THE FAILURE OF THE CON, THE BREACH OR THE, THE FAILURE OF THE CONTRACT, WHATEVER THE TERM IS, OR RE REVOCATION OF THE CONTRACT WITH MCLENDON CHISHOLM AND THE FACT THAT THAT LEFT THE SUBDIVISION WITHOUT ADEQUATE FIRE SAFETY, WHICH ENDANGERS THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE IF, IF THERE'S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE BINDING AGREEMENT POTENTIALLY.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT, THE COMMISSIONER'S
[7. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
COURT OF ROCKWALL COUNTY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THIS MEETING TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE MATTERS LISTED IN THIS AGENDA IN THE ORDER DEEMED APPROPRIATE AS AUTHORIZED BY CHAPTER 5 5 1 OPEN MEETINGS TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 5 5 1 0.071 THROUGH 5 5 1 0.076, OR TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF ITS ATTORNEY AND OR OTHER ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING ROCKWELL COUNTY ON ANY MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT UNDER THEIR TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH CHAPTER 5 5, 1 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OR IS OTHERWISE MAY BE PERMITTED.UNDER CHAPTER 5 5 1, WE WILL BE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSSING POTENTIAL CLAIM AGAINST PECOS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, FATE, PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION AND OR RELATED ENTITIES.
UH, CONSIDER THE CONTRACT WITH OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING THE HOUSING FINANCING CORPORATION, HOUSING AUTHORITY CLAIMS AND INVESTIGATION AND FOR ADVICE OF COUNSEL ON PLATS RESUBMITTED FOR RIVER ROCK TRAILS AND INSURANCE COVERAGE MATTERS AT 1153, WE ARE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
[8. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION]
ALL RIGHT, AT 1 53 WE'RE GONNA RECONVENE AN OPEN SESSION PURSUANT TO THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, CHAPTER 5 5 1 TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 5 5 1 0.001.THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT WILL RECONVENE AN OPEN SESSION AND TAKE ANY ACTION NECESSARY ON MATTERS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
AND I WILL TELL YOU NO ACTION TAKEN.
[Items 2 - 5 (Part 2 of 2)]
TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS DISCUSS AND ACT ON RIVER ROCK TRAILS PRELIMINARY PLAT RESUBMITTAL FOR PHASE ONE A AND ALL RELATED ISSUES.UH, JUDGE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT ADOPT AN ORDER THAT
[00:55:01]
WAS PRESENTED TO YOU DISAPPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR THE RIVER ROCK TRAILS PHASE ONE, A PRELIMINARY PLAT VERSION SIX, NUMBER SIX.THIS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE A, RIGHT? YES SIR.
UM, VERSION NUMBER SIX BASED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 32 0.101 A OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH AUTHORIZES ROCKWALL COUNTY TO ADOPT RULES GOVERNING PLATS AND SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, OR GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COUNTY AND THE SAFE, ORDERLY, AND HEALTHFUL DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE RULES AND REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE ROCKWELL COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE FOLLOWING.
UM, ONE ISSUES AND BASIS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 3.2 0.4 OF THE ROCKWALL COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION A, THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS TO WATER NECESSARY TO SERVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND TO PROVIDE WATER FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND B, THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT MAY ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE FAILURE OF THE DEVELOPER APPLICANT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AVAILABLE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ISSUES AND BASIS FOR DISAPPROVAL WERE ADDRESSED IN AN EMAIL FROM THE COUNTY'S LEGAL COUNSEL TO DEVELOP OUR APPLICANT IN AN EMAIL SENT MAY 30TH, 2025 AND WERE THE SUBJECT OF RESPONSIVE EMAILS AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION ON MAY 2ND, 2025.
NUMBER TWO, THE FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT SUBDIVIDED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2 32 0.032 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
AND NUMBER THREE, THE FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER TO COMPLY WITH OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 1.10 OF THE ROCKWELL COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
AND IN ADDITION TO ADOPTING THE PROPOSED ORDER, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE COURT AUTHORIZED ITS COUNSEL TO SEND A LETTER TO THE DEVELOPER WITH RESPECT TO THIS DISAPPROVAL AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND ATTACHING THE ORDER ADOPTED BY THE COURT GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LTI.
I'LL SECOND WE GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
STACY, ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IF YOU'LL REGISTER YOUR VOTES NOW PLEASE? IT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO.
THAT BRINGS US TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, DISCUSS AN ACT ON RIVER ROCK TRAILS PRELIMINARY PLAT RESUBMITTAL FOR PHASE ONE B AND ALL RELATED ISSUES.
JUDGE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT ADOPT AN ORDER PRESENTED TO IT DISAPPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR THE RIVER ROCK TRAILS PHASE ONE B PRELIMINARY PLAT VERSION NUMBER FOUR, BASED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 32 0.101 A OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH AUTHORIZES ROCKWELL COUNTY TO ADOPT RULES GOVERNING PLATS AND SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, OR GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COUNTY AND THE SAFE, ORDERLY, AND HEALTHFUL DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND THE APPLICANT DEVELOPERS' FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE RULES AND REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE ROCKWELL COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE FOLLOWING, ONE, ISSUES AND BASIS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 3.2 0.4 OF THE ROCKWELL COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION A, THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS TO WATER NECESSARY TO SERVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND TO PROVIDE WATER FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND B, THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT MAY ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE FAILURE OF THE DEVELOPER APPLICANT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AVAILABLE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WHICH ISSUES AND BASIS FOR DISAPPROVAL WERE ADDRESSED IN AN EMAIL FROM THE COUNTY'S LEGAL COUNSEL TO DEVELOPER APPLICANT IN AN EMAIL SENT MAY 30TH, 2025 AND WERE THE SUBJECT OF RESPONSIVE EMAILS AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION ON MAY 2ND, 2025.
[01:00:01]
THE FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT'S SUBDIVIDED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2 32 0.032 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.AND NUMBER THREE, THE FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER TO COMPLY WITH OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 1.10 OF THE ROCKWELL COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
AND IN ADDITION TO ADOPTING THE PROPOSED ORDER, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE COURT AUTHORIZED ITS COUNSEL TO SEND A LETTER TO THE DEVELOPER WITH RESPECT TO THIS DISAPPROVAL AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND ATTACHING THE ORDERS ADOPTED BY THE COURT.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LTI.
SECOND WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GUANA.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IF YOU'LL REGISTER YOUR VOTES NOW IT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO.
THAT BRINGS US TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, DISCUSS AND ACT ON RIVER ROCK TRAILS, PRELIMINARY PLANT RESUBMITTAL FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND ALL RELATED ISSUES.
JUDGE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT OR ADOPT AN ORDER PRESENTED TO IT DISAPPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE RIVER ROCK TRAILS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN.
PRELIMINARY PLAT VERSION NUMBER THREE, BASED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 32 0.101 A OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE WHICH AUTHORIZES ROCKWELL COUNTY TO ADOPT RULES GOVERNING PLATS AND SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, OR GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COUNTY AND THE SAFE, ORDERLY, AND HEALTHFUL DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL RULES AND REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE ROCKWALL COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE FOLLOWING.
ALL MATTERS SPECIFIED IN THE LETTER FROM FRIESEN NICHOLS, INCORPORATED TO ERICA BRIDGE'S PE ROCKWELL COUNTY ENGINEER DATED MAY 29TH, 2025 WITH RESPECT TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT, WHICH ARE CONDITIONS TO APPROVAL OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT, BUT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED AS OF THIS DATE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CREATES A LANDLOCKED LOT WITH NO FRONTAGE TO ANY PUBLIC STREETS IN VIOLATION OF R-C-S-L-D-R, SECTION THREE B AND RELATED COMMENTARY FROM FREEZE AND NICHOLS INCORPORATED.
NUMBER TWO, ISSUES IN BASE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 3.2 0.4 OF THE ROCKWELL COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT MAY ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
AND THREE, THE FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT SUBDIVIDED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2 32 0.032 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
AND IN ADDITION TO ADOPTING THE PROPOSED ORDER, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE COURT AUTHORIZED ITS COUNSEL TO SEND A LETTER TO THE DEVELOPER WITH RESPECT TO THIS DISAPPROVAL AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND ATTACHING THE ORDERS, THE ORDER ADOPTED BY THE COURT.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TY.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER M**K.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IF YOU'LL REGISTER YOUR VOTES NOW PLEASE.
THIS BRINGS US TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, DISCUSS AN ACT ON RIVER ROCK TRAILS, PRELIMINARY PLAT RESUBMITTAL FOR THE REMAINDER TRACK OF RIVER ROCK TRAILS AND ALL RELATED ISSUES.
JUDGE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT ADOPT AN ORDER PRESENTED TO IT, DISAPPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR THE RIVER ROCK TRAILS REMAINDER TRACK PRELIMINARY PLAT VERSION NUMBER TWO, BASED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 32 0.101 A OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH AUTHORIZES ROCKWALL COUNTY TO ADOPT RULES GOVERNING PLATS AND SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, OR GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COUNTY AND THE SAFE, ORDERLY, AND HEALTHFUL DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND THE APPLICANT DEVELOPERS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE RULES AND REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE ROCKWALL COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE FOLLOWING.
ONE, ISSUES IN BASIS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 3.2 0.4 OF THE ROCKWALL COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND LAND
[01:05:01]
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.NUMBER TWO, THE FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT'S SUBDIVIDED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2 32 0.032 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
AND NUMBER THREE, THE FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER TO COMPLY WITH OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 1.10 OF THE ROCKWALL COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
AND IN ADDITION TO ADOPTING THE PROPOSED ORDER, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE COURT AUTHORIZE ITS COUNSEL TO SEND A LETTER TO THE DEVELOPER WITH RESPECT TO THIS DISAPPROVAL AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND ATTACHING THE ORDER ADOPTED BY THIS COURT.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LICHTY.
WE GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
STACY, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? YOU'LL REGISTER YOUR VOTES NOW IT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO.
[6. Discussion of 89th Legislative Session, Update/Overview County-related bills, action on resolution in support of or opposition to any pending actions or bills, and all related issues; (Commissioners Court)]
ITEM NUMBER SIX, DISCUSSION, DISCUSSION OF 89TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION UPDATE SLASH OVERVIEW, COUNTY RELATED BILLS, ACTION ON RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF OR OPPOSITION TO ANY PENDING ACTIONS OR BILLS IN ALL RELATED ISSUES.YOU WANNA START US OFF? COMMISSIONER GOANA?
WELL I'M GLAD TO SAY THAT THIS SESSION IS, UH, OVER, SO NO, NO SPECIAL SESSION.
MAYBE I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK SO.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT WOULD BE OVER AT THIS POINT.
UM, I MEAN IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S PRIORITIES, ALL THOSE WERE TAKEN CARE OF AND ALL.
BUT ONE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S PRIORITIES WAS, UH, HANDLED.
SO I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THEY'LL BE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD BE FOR.
SO WE HAD, UM, 8,719 BILLS FILED.
OF THOSE WE HAD 1,212 BILLS PASSED, SO 13.9%, UH, THE SENATE PASSED 5 93 AND THE HOUSE PASSED 619.
SO OVER THE LAST THREE SESSIONS ON FILED BILLS, WE'VE GONE FROM 69 27 TO 80 46 TO 87 19.
WE'RE ENTERING THE TERRITORY OF OVER LEGISLATION OR WE DID YOU SAY SAY, ENTERING ORING OR WE HAVE FULLY ENTERED IT, YES.
UM, THERE, THERE'S SO MANY BILLS OF IMPACT TO COUNTIES AND CITIES THAT IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY, UM, ALMOST POINTLESS FOR ME TO GO THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF 'EM, BUT I'LL JUST GIVE YOU A COUPLE HIGHLIGHTS.
UM, SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 PASSED, UM, SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T REGULATE CERTAIN MIXED USE AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UH, DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECTS OR THE CONVERSION OF CERTAIN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO MIXED USE, WHICH, UM, IS, IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS IN OUR MUNICIPALITIES.
UM, 'CAUSE THAT MEANS THAT IT'S, UH, IF THEY CONVERT AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING INTO APARTMENTS, YOU CAN'T REGULATE THAT.
AND SO YOU THINK WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE APARTMENTS COMING, THEN WE BETTER NOT HAVE ANY OPEN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT THEY CAN BUY AND TURN INTO THOSE.
SHE CAN'T REGULATE THAT ANYMORE.
UM, SENATE BILL 1844, UH, PASSED DESPITE, UH, BEING TOLD THAT WE WERE GONNA GET A A, EXCUSE ME.
CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? YES.
SO WHEN YOU SAY YOU CAN'T REGULATE IT, DOES IT MEAN A ZONING LAW DOESN'T APPLY IF IT'S IN AN AREA UN ZONED FOR APARTMENTS THAT WOULDN'T GOVERN ANYMORE? CORRECT.
UM, SENATE BILL 1844 PASSED, WHICH BASICALLY SAYS THAT IF A, UH, MUNICIPALITY FAILS TO PROVIDE ONE OF A LIST OF SERVICES THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE, THAT THEY CAN, UH, DIS THE ANNEX THEMSELVES FROM THE COUNTY, WHICH IN OUR, UH, NECK OF THE WOODS HERE IN ROCKWALL COUNTY WOULD MEAN LIKE, YOU KNOW, MILLION DOLLAR HOMES IN MARRA BAY WHERE MY IN-LAWS LIVE COULD JUST DE ANNEX THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY'RE ON, UH, SEWER INSTEAD OF CITY WATER.
IT WAS REALLY TARGETED AT AUSTIN IN A SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD THERE, BUT THEY, UH, PROMISED THAT THEY WERE GONNA DEFINE THAT TO THE SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD IN AUSTIN THAT WAS, UH, BEING TAXED WITHOUT ANY SERVICES FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
YOU KNOW, INTERESTING THING ABOUT THAT, UH, I THINK A LOT OF OUR LEGISLATORS ASSUMED, AND I WAS TOLD THAT THEY THOUGHT, NO, NO, NO, THIS IS SPECIFIC.
THIS HAS BEEN BRACKETED IN TO SPECIFICALLY THE BILL.
BUT, UH, UM, WHEN I GOT TO THE BILL'S AUTHOR OR THIS AUTHOR'S STAFF, THEY SAID, NO, NO, THIS DOES HAVE STATEWIDE IMPLICATIONS.
THIS IS NOT, IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE JUST FOR AUSTIN.
I MET WITH SENATOR PAXTON'S STAFF ON THIS BILL SEVERAL TIMES TO TRY TO GET IT NARROWED AND IT, AND WHILE I WAS TOLD IT WOULD BE NARROWED, IT WAS NEVER NARROWED.
EVERYBODY NARROWED WAS TOLD IT WOULD BE NARROWED.
SO JUST, IT JUST KIND OF DIDN'T, DIDN'T REALLY WORK OUT
[01:10:01]
THAT WAY AND THE IMPACT IT'S GOING TO HAVE ON LOCAL DEBT.I MEAN, SO WHO, WHO, YOU USED A GOOD EXAMPLE,
I MEAN, SO WHAT HAPPENS, I MEAN, WITH DEBT, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THESE PEOPLE DE ANNEX AND MOVE INTO THE COUNTY.
AND THEN WHO'S SO YOU CAN, YOU CAN'T DE ANNEX ON A HOUSE BY HOUSE BASIS.
YOU CERTAINLY CAN WITH THIS BILL, WITH THIS BILL CAN.
AND THAT'S THEN THAT'S HOW YOU WOULD PETITION HOUSE BY HOUSE.
IT'S NOT NEIGHBORHOOD BY NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO MY, MY LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR REQUESTING A VETO ALSO STATED THAT, UM, THE, AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE IS PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOSE THE ABILITY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
UH, SO IF YOU DE ANNEX YOUR, YOUR BY YOURSELF, YOU MAY WELL LOSE THE, THE GOOD RATES, THE TRASH RATES, THE, THE WHATEVER THAT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOUR CITY NEGOTIATED FOR YOU.
AND HOW DOES THAT WORK EXACTLY? WHEN YOU, WHEN SOME OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD CHOOSES NOT TO, AND YOU'RE A SOLE HOMEOWNER IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT CHOOSES CHEW DE ANNEX, HOW DO YOU OBTAIN SERVICES AT THAT POINT? AND THEN WHAT ARE THOSE SERVICES GONNA COST YOU VERSUS WHAT WAS HAPPENING WHEN YOU WERE WITH THE CITY? THAT, THAT THAT IS THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE THAT IT, IT VERY LIKELY, I THINK WE WOULD ALL REALIZE IT'S THEIR PRICE IS NOT GOING TO GO DOWN
I MEAN, THE PRICE IS GOING TO GO UP.
AND NOW YOU DID MAKE A GOOD POINT.
THIS HAS BEEN SENT TO THE GOVERNOR.
HE COULD STILL VETO WITH THIS.
AND I, I'VE ENCOURAGED HIM TO SEND IT BACK FOR CLARIFICATION FOR ISSUES LIKE YOU BROUGHT UP AND YEAH.
WELL, IN POLICE SERVICE, IF, IF I WERE TO DE ANNEX UHHUH AND I NEED POLICE, I CALL HEATH AND THEY SAY, SORRY CHARLIE, HOW ARE THEY GONNA DISPATCH THAT? EXACTLY.
HOW'S GONNA, HOW'S THAT GONNA WORK? YEAH, THAT'S INTERESTING TOO.
AND HOW WILL OUR DISPATCH SERVICE KNOW WHO'S IN AND WHO OUT? RIGHT.
RESPOND BET PATCH WORK EVERYWHERE.
IT'S GONNA BE VERY CONFUSING IF IT'S ALLOWED TO EXIST IN ITS CURRENT STATE.
WE'LL SEE WHAT THE GOVERNOR DOES.
UM, SENATE BILL 1253, UM, IS AN INTERESTING ONE.
IT SAYS THAT, UM, IF A, UH, DEVELOPER PUTS IN CERTAIN WATER CONSERVATION OR REUSE PROJECTS THAT, UM, THEY CAN GET CREDITS AGAINST ANY IMPACT FEES, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY DEFINE, UH,
UH, AGAIN FOR THAT, THAT'S ANOTHER ONE THAT WE HOPE WILL, WILL, UH, BE DEFINED BY THE GOVERNOR OR VETOED.
BUT IT'S DOUBTFUL THAT, THAT MOST OF THESE WILL, THE GOVERNOR'S NOT GONNA VETO MOST OF THESE.
SO, UM, ANYWAY, I'LL LET, I COULD JUST KEEP GOING.
THAT'S, BUT I'M GONNA SAVE IT FOR MY, I'M GONNA SAVE IT FOR MY TOWN HALL.
BE POSTED SOON OR YEAH, I, I, HOWEVER WE'RE WORK THAT OUT.
I THINK WE DO NEED TO HAVE A TOWN HALL.
AND I, I WANNA LEAVE THIS ON OUR AGENDA LIST FOR, FOR A LITTLE BIT TILL WE'VE PROPERLY DIGESTED EVERYTHING.
AND I'LL DANA'S GOT A LIST TOO.
WELL, MY LIST IS YOU, YOU, YOU COVERED SOME.
I WAS GONNA, I WILL, I'LL GIVE SOME GOOD NEWS.
SOME KIND OF, YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT SO GOOD NEWS, BUT OF THE TOTAL THAT, UM, BILLS THAT THE GROUP, UM, SEVERAL PEOPLE, UM, IN OUR MUNICIPALITIES AND OTHER LEADERS WE'RE LOOKING AT, WE HAD A TOTAL OF ABOUT 48 BILLS THAT WERE REALLY ONES THAT MAJORITY OF 'EM WE OPPOSED.
AND OF THOSE, UM, OF THOSE 15 THAT WE OPPOSED DID PASS.
AND HE'S GONE OVER SEVERAL OF THEM.
THERE'S A FEW OTHERS THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, UM, DID YOU DO SENATE BILL 15? UM, THAT, THAT ONE IS, YEAH.
THAT'S A BRACKET BILL, SO, OKAY.
BUT I GUESS I JUST, WE SAID THIS AT OUR LAST MEETING, A BRACKET IS JUST FOR THIS TERM.
OR MAYBE ONE MORE TERM AGAIN, AND THEN IT, IT'LL, IT'LL HIT US ALL.
SO THERE YOU HAVE THAT, UM, THE ONE THAT KIND OF CAME OUT OF A, I CALL A GRAY HORSE, UM,
AND THIS ONE IS RELATING TO THE INTEGRATION OF EARLY VOTING BY, UM, PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND ELECTION DAY VOTING.
AND, UM, IT IS, IT IS GOING TO HAVE A, A NUMBER OF, UH, I THINK EFFECTS THAT ARE GOING TO ONE, COST THE COUNTY MONEY.
OUR CITIZENS MONEY BECAUSE, UM, THIS IS, IN FACT THERE'S SOME FISCAL NOTES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN.
UM, MUCH LARGE HAYES COUNTY, ELL COUNTY, DALLAS AND WILLIAMSON.
THEY HAD ALL ON A CALL I WAS ON, UM, MON YESTERDAY.
THEY HAD ALL ALREADY TURNED IN THEIR FISCAL NOTES OF WHAT THAT IS
[01:15:01]
GOING TO LOOK LIKE IN THEIR AREAS.BUT THE STATE SAID THERE WAS NO IMPACT.
WELL, THERE IS, THERE IS BECAUSE, BECAUSE, AND, AND I, I KNOW THAT I, I TALKED TO, UM, TO CHRIS LYNCH ABOUT IT AND HE WAS, UM, PUTTING SOMETHING UP AND I EMAILED, UM, OUR AUDITOR TOO.
'CAUSE I WANNA SEE WHAT THE IMPACT IS GONNA BE FOR ROCKWELL COUNTY.
NOW THIS WON'T TAKE EFFECT, UM, UNTIL, UM, EIGHT ONE OF 2027.
SO WE GOT A COUPLE MORE YEARS TO, TO WORK ON THIS.
BUT THEY, THEY'RE ALREADY STARTING TO THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW ARE THEY GONNA CONS, THERE MAY BE SOME CONSOLIDATION OF PRECINCTS AND, AND THINGS SUCH AS THAT.
BUT, UM, I THINK THAT'S ONE THAT REALLY, I DON'T THINK THEY THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT IT'S GONNA, WHAT IT'S GONNA DO WITH SOME, SOME OF THE DIFFERENT, UM, COUNTIES THAT WE, THAT HAS TO STOP BEING THE GO-TO.
ON A, ON A, ON A POSITIVE NOTE, UM, WE HAD OUR, OUR DISTRICT JUDGES, THEY ALL GOT A RAISE.
THEY HADN'T HAD ONE SINCE 2013.
I WAS, I WAS GONNA LET YOU TELL THAT.
UM, AND I, I JUST THINK PROBABLY, AS I SAID, MANY OF THE BILLS THAT WE WERE OPPOSED TO THAT REALLY WILL AFFECT COUNTIES AND SPECIFICALLY FOR US AND, AND THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND WHAT, UM, WE'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT THIS MORNING WITH PEOPLE THAT TALKED TO 'EM AT, AT OUR, UM, OPEN FORUM.
I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA LOSE A LOT OF THAT CONTROL.
THAT CONTROL IS BEING TAKEN AWAY.
AND, AND WE SAW THAT THIS TIME.
IT MAY, IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE AS I SAID, BUT, BUT WE DID, WE DID LOSE OUT TO 13 THAT WE WERE OPPOSED THAT HAVE, UM, THAT HAVE DEFINITE, UH, IMPACTS TO ROCKWELL COUNTY AND OUR CITIZENS AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.
SO, AND I'M HAPPY TO GO OVER THEM, BUT I THINK YOU HIT SOME OF THE, THE TOP ONES.
I'VE GOT 'EM, YOUR, YOUR LIST WAS SMALLER.
I HAD TO LIKE PRINT MINE OUT REALLY BIG SO I COULD MAKE SURE I'M STAYING ON TOP OF THIS.
BUT IT WAS A, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WE, WE HAD, WE HAD A NUMBER OF MUD ISSUES THAT ARE GOING TO, WE'RE GONNA BE HAVING TO MAKE SOME CHANGES ON OVER THE NEXT, UM, YEAR OR SO.
MY CALCULATIONS ARE CORRECT, WE'RE, OH, FOR 12
UM, WE WERE MEAN WEREN'T EVEN CLOSE.
THERE, THERE, THERE'S NOTHING, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST LAST SESSION, THEY, THEY LET ME HAVE HOPE WHERE I COULD GET SOMETHING UP.
THEY GIVE, GIVE YOU HOPE THAT COULD DIE IN THE SENATE CALENDARS.
UM, THIS TIME THERE WAS, I MEAN, THEY DIED IN COMMITTEE.
UM, COMMISSIONER LICHTY, I, I, I KNOW YOU'RE ANGRY AT THIS POINT.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? REMEMBER THE BIBLE SAYS BE ANGRY AND SIN NOT
UM, I, I WOULD JUST SAY THIS, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU ALL.
I KNOW THERE'S SOME MEMBERS OF THE COURT, IN FACT, I THINK MAYBE EVERY MEMBER OF THE COURT, I SHOULDN'T ADMIT THIS, THAT WORKED HARDER ON THIS THAN I DID.
UM, BUT PEOPLE PUT IN REALLY A LOT OF EFFORT AND THE MAYORS AND EVERYBODY GOT BEHIND IT.
AND I'VE HEARD FROM SO MANY DIFFERENT, UM, PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.
I MEAN, MULTIPLE TIMES HOW THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT HAS NEVER TAKEN SUCH A DIRECT INVOLVEMENT.
AND SO TO THOSE, TO EVERYONE AND OF YOU, AND I GUESS SOME EXTENT TO ME, I'D SAY CONGRATULATIONS AND THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK.
UM, AND A REMINDER THAT WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR STRATEGIC PLAN DOESN'T GO AWAY AND WAIT TWO YEARS.
WE, AND I KNOW, JUDGE, THIS IS YOUR PLAN TO START TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS IMMEDIATELY, BUT WE'VE GOT A GOOD START.
WE HAD THE BEST YEAR WE'VE EVER HAD FOR, UM, LEGISLATIVE INFLUENCE MM-HMM
SO LET'S RAMP IT UP AND START RIGHT AWAY WITH THAT COMMITTEE AND KEEP WORKING AT IT AND START GETTING INVOLVED IN THINGS IN THE OFF SEASON.
AND SUGGESTING BILLS AND DOING WHAT WE CAN DO TO, TO MAKE IT EVEN BETTER, MAKE LEGISLATIVE ACTION GREAT.
AGAIN, THAT'S MY COMMENT FOR TODAY.
COMMISSIONER STACY, YOU NEED, YOU NEED TO START HAVING HIM GO LAST.
BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE A GOOD PUNCHLINE OR A TAGLINE.
I, I WOULD JUST SAY MY, MY, UH, MY ONLY COMMENT AS I SAW COMMISSIONER GOANA PUT ON FACEBOOK, THIS IS THE WORST SESSION AND I WOULD ARGUE IT'S NOT.
UM, THERE IS A MAJOR ATTITUDE IN AUSTIN THAT IS AGAINST LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
THERE'S A MAJOR ATTITUDE IN AUSTIN THAT IS PRO DEVELOPER.
AND IT'S OUR JOB FROM THIS POINT UNTIL NEXT OCTOBER, UH, TO ARGUE WITH EVERYONE WE CAN, UM, IN THE LEGISLATURE, YOU KNOW WHO THE POWER BROKERS ARE, WE KNOW WHO THE THINK TANKS ARE,
[01:20:01]
AND I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE IT AMONG US TO GO ENGAGE THEM.UM, NOW, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO DETERMINE EVERYTHING, UH, IN THE NEXT SESSION.
BY THE TIME NOVEMBER OF NEXT YEAR COMES AROUND, THEY WILL KNOW EVERYTHING THAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON PASSING.
UM, ALL THE PRIORITIES WILL ALREADY BE LAID OUT.
AND IF WE DON'T GET IN THERE QUICK ENOUGH, WE'LL JUST GET SWALLOWED UP AGAIN.
AND, AND AS YOU MENTIONED, THAT'S, THAT'S GONNA BE THE FOCUS.
UH, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE'S ONLY ABOUT FOUR ENTITIES THAT TRULY CONTROL WHAT LEGISLATION COMES IN INTO THE CAPITOL.
UH, SO OUR JOB BECOMES TO GET IN FRONT OF THOSE FOUR ENTITIES AND HAVE OUR POLICY DISCUSSIONS.
UM, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID AT HOLD, HOLD ON, HOLD ON.
[9. COMMISSIONERS COURT REPORTS]
GO TO COMMISSIONER COURT REPORTS AND I'M JUST GONNA SAY THAT TODAY IN FATE, TEXAS IS LUKE STACY DAY.'CAUSE MY SON GOT HIS EAGLE SCOUT AWARD, UH, ON THE 15TH OF MAY.
AND HE, UH, WENT AND GOT AWARDED BY, UH, THE MAYOR OF FATE YESTERDAY AND GOT HIS OWN DAY.
SO TODAY IN FATE, TEXAS IS LUKE STACEY DAY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT COMES WITH, UH, ANY HONORS OR PRIVILEGES OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT HE DOES, IN FACT HAVE A DAY.
LUKE STACEY, COMMISSIONER LTE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT TODAY IN PRECINCT THREE, IT'S LUKE STA DAY.
LUKE STA DAY IS GROWING, THE MOMENTUM IS GROWING.
COMMISSIONER M**K, I'M GONNA FOLLOW THAT ONE.
WELL, YOU HAVE TO, IT'S CAN BE IN PRECINCT TOO AS WELL.
THAT'S A GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT THOUGH.
I'LL JUST ECHO CONGRATULATIONS AND WE'LL JUST MAKE IT COUNTYWIDE.
NO, YOU'LL NOTE IT WAS NOT DECLARED.
LUCY, LUKE, STACEY DAY IN PRECINCT FOUR.
AND I STILL STAND BY THE RECORD.
SO YEAH, HE HAS TO UPHOLD SOME KIND OF, SO TO SAVE HIM AT TWO 20, WE'RE ADJOURNED.