1.1 Discussion, consideration, and action authorizing the County Judge to execute a road improvement agreement for Weakley Branch Road between Ellis County and Legacy Land MG, LP through their authorized agent, Travis Tekell.

[1.1 Discussion, consideration, and action authorizing the County Judge to execute a road improvement agreement for Weakley Branch Road between Ellis County and Legacy Land MG, LP through their authorized agent, Travis Tekell.]

OKAY. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA. AND FIRST UP IS THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT, WHICH HAS ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA. AND WE'LL ASK OUR DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT, ALBERTO JUAREZ, TO COME SPEAK TO US ON ITEM 1.1, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE A ROAD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR WEEKLY BRANCH ROAD BETWEEN ELLIS COUNTY AND LEGACY LAND, L.P. THROUGH THEIR AUTHORIZED AGENT, TRAVIS TEAKLE. ALBERTO. YES. GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS PART TWO OF THE OF THE PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S OCCURRING OFF OF WEEKLY BRANCH AND AND FM 66, AS YOU RECALL LAST COURT, THE COURT DID APPROVE A VARIANCE. ONE OF THOSE CONDITIONS WAS TO GET A ROAD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT IN PLACE. DEVELOPERS PROPOSING TEN TOTAL LOTS TO OFF OF THE FM ROAD AND EIGHT OFF OF WEEKLY BRANCH. THIS AGREEMENT IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WE DID A FEW MONTHS AGO WITH JUDY'S LANE. THE AMOUNT OF THE FUNDS IS GOING TO BE $28,779. THAT WILL BE DEPOSITED INTO AN ESCROW ACCOUNT, AND THERE ARE EIGHT CONDITIONS IN THE AGREEMENT THAT'S SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT GOT APPROVED IN JUDY'S DRIVE.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. OKAY, ALBERTO, WHAT'S THE PROCESS? ONCE

[00:05:02]

APPROVED, IS THE MR. TEAKLE JUST COME TO YOUR OFFICE NEXT WEEK? AND YES. SO ONCE THE DOCUMENT GETS SIGNED BY THE COUNTIES END, I'LL GET A COPY FROM CRYSTAL. THEN WE'LL HAVE IT EXECUTED ON OUR ON OUR SIDE. IT'LL HAVE TO BE NOTARIZED, WHICH WE HAVE NOTARIES IN OUR OFFICE. OKAY. AT THE SAME TIME, HE'LL BRING THE CHECK TO US AND WE'LL TAKE THAT CHECK OVER TO THE TREASURER, AND THAT'LL BE PUT IN ESCROW. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.1 FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING NO OPPOSITION? ITEM 1.1 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

[2.1 Discussion, consideration, and action to award RFP Number RFP-2026-002 Substance Use Disorder Assessments and Intervention for the Veterans Treatment Court with Homeward Bound, Inc. and authorization for the County Judge to execute the contract upon final legal review.]

ALBERTO. WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO THE PURCHASING PORTION OF OUR AGENDA, AND WE'LL ASK OUR DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING, EJ HARBIN, TO PLEASE SPEAK TO US ON THE ONE AND ONLY ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM 2.1, DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO AWARD RFP NUMBER RFP DASH 2026.

DASH 002. SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER ASSESSMENTS AND INTERVENTION FOR THE VETERANS TREATMENT COURT WITH HOMEWARD BOUND, INC. AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT UPON FINAL LEGAL REVIEW. EJ JUDGE COMMISSIONERS. ON DECEMBER 1ST, WE RELEASED THE RFP 2026 002. THE RFP WAS ADVERTISED TWO TIMES IN THE PAPER AND CONTINUOUSLY ON OUR E-PROCUREMENT SYSTEM I AND WAVE UNTIL THE DUE DATE, JANUARY 8TH. WE RECEIVED TWO RESPONSES FROM PROVIDERS THE POLO GROUP LLC AND HOMEWARD BOUND INCORPORATED. AFTER EVALUATION REVIEW OF THE PROPOSALS BY THE FIVE MEMBER EVALUATION TEAM CONSISTING OF CAITLIN WILKINSON, DIRECTOR OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, BRANT DARROW, VETERANS TREATMENT COURT PROGRAM MANAGER DEANNE JONES, VETERANS TREATMENT COURT CASE MANAGER, HALEY VALLEY VETERANS TREATMENT COURT COORDINATOR.

AND VERONICA RAYFIELD, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH MANAGER. HOMEWARD BOUND INCORPORATED WAS THE HIGHEST RATED PROVIDER. STAFF WAS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE AWARD TO HOMEWARD BOUND INCORPORATED. AND CAITLIN WILKINSON IS HERE TODAY TO PROVIDE MORE IN DEPTH INFORMATION AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR WANT TO COME UP? OKAY. YEAH. WE'D LIKE FOR YOU TO. SURE. COME ON UP, CAITLIN, IF YOU'LL THERE MAY BE A QUESTION OR TWO. CAITLIN WILKINSON, OUR DIRECTOR OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH. GOOD AFTERNOON. WE DID DO A THOROUGH MARKET RESEARCH TO DETERMINE THAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE SERVICES WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO OUR VETERANS THROUGH HOMEWARD BOUND. SO WE DO HAVE THE MONEY IN OUR BUDGET, AND WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR SHARING. SO MOVED. YEAH. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 2.1 FROM COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER GRAYSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION, ITEM 2.1 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, CAITLIN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PORTION OF OUR AGENDA. AND WE WILL START WITH ITEM 3.1 WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO ALLOW THE LOCALLY ASSIGNED TEXAS GAME WARDEN TO UTILIZE OFFICE 112 H IN THE ELLIS COUNTY CONSTABLE PRECINCT TWO SUB COURTHOUSE DEPARTMENT, LOCATED AT THE ELLIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE PRECINCT TWO AT 2675 BUSINESS TO 87 WAXAHACHIE AND CONSTABLE BORDERS. DO YOU WANT TO LEAD US OR MR. TEST? EITHER ONE. I'LL JUST GO AHEAD. AND SO THIS IS A REQUEST CAME FROM CONSTABLE BORDERS. I THINK IT'S A SIMILAR ARRANGEMENT THAT THE COUNTY HAD FOR MANY YEARS WITH JEFF POWELL OVER AT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. I THINK WHEN THEY RAN OUT OF ROOM, HE KIND OF HAD TO MOVE ON. AND I THINK THERE'S A NEW GAME WARDEN NOW, AND I THINK HE KIND OF TALKED WITH CASEY AND YEAH, HE JUST HE JUST NEEDS SOME OFFICE SPACE. AND I DIDN'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO GO. AND WE HAVE AN EXTRA OFFICE CURRENTLY. SO I TOLD HIM WITH Y'ALL'S APPROVAL, I WOULD LET HIM COME OUT WITH US FOR A WHILE. AND IF WE GREW AND HIRED SOME MORE DEPUTIES, WE'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN THE SPACE FOR ELLIS COUNTY. BUT WE'D LIKE TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS NOW AND HELP THEM OUT. SURE SOUNDS GOOD. SO, COMMISSIONERS, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A LITTLE EXTRA SPACE AT THE MOMENT IN THAT SUB COURTHOUSE FOR THE GAME WARDEN TO USE AS AN OFFICE, BUT WE WOULDN'T WE WOULDN'T BE COMMITTED IF OUR COUNTY'S PERSONAL NEEDS. SO THIS WOULD BE SIMILAR, LIKE WHEN TATUM WAS DOWNSTAIRS IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. THERE'S NO COST.

WOULD YOU SHARE THAT? SINCE WE'RE ON THE RECORD TODAY, THAT THERE'S NO COST INCURRED BY THE COUNTY FOR HOSTING SOMEONE? IT'S JUST IT'S JUST A PLACE TO COME IN AND HAVE A LITTLE OFFICE SPACE. THERE'S NO SUPPORT STAFF, THERE'S NO MONIES. ALL HIS OWN EQUIPMENT

[00:10:03]

OTHER THAN JUST THE LIGHTS. THAT'S ABOUT IT. SO. YES, SIR. YOU'LL CONFIRM THAT DESK I TALKED TO HIS BOSS, SAID THERE'S NO KIND OF AGREEMENT. AND THEY SAID AS LONG AS WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE ASKING FOR UTILITIES OR ELECTRIC BILLS OR THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT A GENTLEMAN IS AGREEMENTS. FINE. AND SO I THINK HE JUST REALLY LOOKING FOR SOMEWHERE TO OFFICE OUT OF MAINLY GAME WARDENS ARE LICENSED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. THEY ARE, YES, SIR, CONSIDERED PART OF THE STATE POLICE. SO TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE PRESENT, DOES ADD AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF SECURITY TO THE BUILDING. IT DOES. AND HE ALSO HAS SOME PROGRAMS HE CAN TEACH WITH THE FOUR H. YOU KNOW, AGRILIFE CENTER. SO I THINK IT'LL BE A GOOD PARTNERSHIP TO HAVE THEM AROUND. ANYWAY, ALL I WOULD ASK WAS THAT DURING THIS REQUEST, WOULD YOU PUT A DURATION ON IT SO THAT THE COUNTY JUDGE WHO HAS OVERSIGHT FOR THAT, KNOWS THAT THE REQUEST WAS MADE FOR THIS PERIOD OF TIME AND THAT IF HE WANTS TO DO IT AGAIN, HE'LL NEED TO COME AND ASK AGAIN. OR YOU COME ASKING AGAIN SO THAT WE HAVE A START AND STOP UNTIL IT'S. YES, SIR. NOT FEASIBLE. IS THAT OR THE RESOLUTION TODAY IS ENOUGH TO DO THAT, DON'T YOU THINK? I THINK SO, I THINK THAT IF SOMEONE WANTED TO MOVE TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 3.1 FOR A PERIOD FROM TODAY THROUGH X DATE, YEAH, LET'S JUST GIVE IT A YEAR'S TIME. THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. AND I WILL TELL YOU, COMMISSIONER, WHAT I DID. I TYPED UP A LITTLE MEMO FOR HIM TO ISSUE OUT A KEY TO THE BUILDING, AND TOLD HIM THAT THIS AGREEMENT WOULD STAY IN EFFECT UNTIL EITHER WE TERMINATED IT OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS WERE MADE. AND AND SO I WAS GOING TO BRING YOU ALL A COPY OF THAT ONCE HE SIGNED IT. AND AND THAT WAS KIND OF THE WAY I WAS LEAVING IT SO IT WOULDN'T BE OPEN ENDED. I WOULD JUST ASK THAT IT JUST DO IT EVERY YEAR. I THINK IT'D BE GOOD PRACTICE IF IT WAS BROUGHT EVERY YEAR, DON'T YOU THINK? DO IT FOR A YEAR. TENTATIVE TO THEM NEEDING THE SPACE IF THEY NEED THE SPACE AND IT'S ENDS BEFORE YEAR. YEAH. THAT WAY WE HAVE A TERMINATING POINT WITHOUT WITHOUT HAVING TO ASK.

YES, SIR. IF I IF I MAY SUGGEST, SINCE WE ARE KIND OF IN THE YEAR ALREADY, MAYBE WE JUST STARTED ON DECEMBER, YOU KNOW, 31ST TODAY WE, WE APPROVE IT THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST. AND THAT WAY IT KIND OF ROLLS EVERY CALENDAR YEAR. YEAH. OKAY. IF YOU'LL JUST BRING THAT BACK AND THE COUNTY JUDGE WILL, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THOSE DATES AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ON AN AGENDA ITEM THAT WE HAVE IT DOCUMENTED. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. WORK FOR ME. SO WE'LL WE'LL TAKE NO ACTION ON THAT TODAY. BUT BRING IT BACK NEXT TIME. IS THAT KIND OF THE GENERAL SENTIMENT. DO WE NEED TO TAKE NO ACTION OR CAN WE TAKE IT? IF YOU WANT TO BRING BACK I'VE GOT THE LETTER TYPED UP. I WAS GOING TO MEET WITH HIM. HE'S ACTUALLY ON A JUST BRING IT BACK. HE'S NOT IN A HURRY. JUST BRING IT BACK THE NEXT TIME. SO WE'LL HAVE THE DATE. ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE ISSUING A KEY AND SOMEONE ELSE HAS ACCESS TO OUR BUILDING. LOOK, I'M ALL ABOUT THE COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS, BUT LET'S JUST HAVE IT DOCUMENTED BEST WE CAN BEFORE WE GO FORWARD. OKAY? FAIR ENOUGH. WE'LL GET THAT ON THE NEXT AGENDA. CONSTABLE BORDERS WITH THAT WITH THAT ADJUSTMENT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU SIR. WE'LL TAKE NO ACTION ON

[3.2 Discussion, consideration, and action to approve additional renovation work at the Courts & Administration Building to accommodate for jury processes in an amount of $80,000 and to pay any remaining retainage fee in an amount not to exceed $30,000 with The Christman Company to be funded from the Court Facility Fee Fund. - Ellis County Judge John Wray]

ITEM 3.1 TODAY. THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS ITEM 3.2 WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO APPROVE ADDITIONAL RENOVATION WORK AT THE COURTS AND ADMINISTRATION BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE FOR JURY PROCESSES IN AN AMOUNT OF $80,000, AND TO PAY ANY REMAINING RETAINAGE FEE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,000. WITH THE CHRISTMAN COMPANY TO BE FUNDED FROM THE COURT FACILITY FEE FUND. AND WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF RETAINAGE LEFT TO PAY AND A FEW ADJUSTMENTS. CHANGE ORDERS REQUESTED BY, I BELIEVE, ONE OR MORE OF THE TRIAL JUDGES. THERE IS A COURT FACILITY FEE THAT THE CLERK'S OFFICE HAS COLLECT THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS TYPE OF PURPOSE. SO THESE CHANGES WOULD BE FUNDED OUT OF THAT FEE AND NOT OUT OF THE COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND. AND THAT'S THAT'S IN A NUTSHELL. WHAT'S GOING ON. THERE'S ABOUT, I THINK, 390,000 BUDGETED IN THAT ACCOUNT. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SPENT A DOLLAR OUT OF IT, AND IT CAN ONLY GO TO THE COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION OR IMPROVEMENTS. AND THESE ARE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY HAD ASKED FOR, KIND OF AFTER THE FACT. TO ACCOMMODATE HOW THEY ENDED UP RUNNING THE JURIES THROUGH THE BUILDING. OKAY. YEAH. SO MOVED AFTER THE FACT. AFTER THE FACT. THIS IS 2 OR 3 TIMES TO THE WILL. YEAH. SO I IMAGINE THIS IS THE LAST ONE. WE FEEL LIKE KNOCK ON WOOD THIS WILL BE THE LAST, LAST ONE. THESE ARE REAL DEATHS TOO.

THESE ARE OLD. WE WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 3.2 FROM COMMISSIONER GRAYSON.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING OR IS IT 80 PLUS 30 IS HOW NOT TO NOT TO EXCEED OVER THAT 120. RIGHT. SO IT'S 110 10,000. YEAH. YEAH OKAY. JUST JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR AGAIN WE HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 3.2 FROM COMMISSIONER GRAYSON AND A

[00:15:04]

SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. DOES ANYONE OPPOSED

[3.3 Discussion, consideration, and action to approve an easement with the City of Waxahachie and Alpine Start Development for utility work on Ellis County owned property, Parcel ID No. 193411. - Ellis County Judge John Wray]

HEARING NO OPPOSITION? ITEM 3.2 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE WILL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 3.3, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO APPROVE AN EASEMENT WITH THE CITY OF WAXAHACHIE AND ALPINE. START DEVELOPMENT FOR UTILITY WORK ON ELLIS COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY, THAT BEING PARCEL ID NUMBER 193411, WHICH IS A PORTION OF THE ELLIS COUNTY FARM. TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS, COMMISSIONERS, THERE'S A DEVELOPER WHO OWNS A TRACT OF LAND ROUGHLY WHERE FM 878 AND FM 879 SPLIT IN THAT LITTLE TRIANGLE, AND THEY INTEND TO DEVELOP SOME HOUSING, I BELIEVE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING, PERHAPS OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT THAT LOCATION. THEY WANT TO CONNECT THEIR SEWER LINE DOWN FM 879, AND THEN THEY WANT TO CROSS RIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE COUNTY FARM DOWN INTO COAL CREEK, WHERE THERE IS A CITY OF WAXAHACHIE SEWER MAIN LOCATED IN THAT CREEK BOTTOM. I BELIEVE POSSIBLY AS LONG AGO AS TWO YEARS AGO, THE COUNTY AGREED TO GRANT AN EASEMENT TO THE DEVELOPER, AND I THINK THERE WAS A MINUTE ORDER ENTERED BY THE. I THINK IT WAS JUNE 27TH, 2023, I BELIEVE.

YEAH, THERE'S ALREADY A MINUTE ORDER ON THIS. IT WAS JUST, FOR WHATEVER REASON, NEVER. YEAH, WE DISCUSSED IT IN LENGTH AND IT ALSO HAD SOME RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION ON EIGHT, SEVEN, NINE. IS THAT CORRECT OR IS IT JUST THE THERE'S THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE IT GOES IN THE CREEK.

IT DOES GO JUST 879, BUT THERE IS OTHER PROPERTY THAN JUST OURS. WASN'T THAT WASN'T THAT A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ALONG 879 AND THEN THE OKAY. SO DID THAT HAPPEN? DID THEY DO IT? NO. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO RIGHT NOW. WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT AT LENGTH AND WE TALKED ABOUT EASEMENT MEASUREMENTS. AND IT WAS ALL WITHIN WHAT WE WERE, WHY THEY DIDN'T EXECUTE I'M NOT REAL SURE, BUT THE DEVELOPER IS COMPENSATING THE COUNTY FOR THE EASEMENT. AND WE KIND OF UNDERSTOOD IT WAS ALL BUTTONED UP, BUT THE EASEMENT WAS NEVER ACTUALLY SIGNED AND RECORDED. WE'VE BEEN ADVISED TO TO BRING IT BACK JUST TO IS IT DIFFERENT? WE KNOW IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT. IT'S I MEAN IT'S THE EXACT SAME EASEMENT. ISN'T THAT WHAT TED WORKED UP FOR US? YEAH, WE HAD WE HAD THE CONSTRUCTION SITE ON 879. THEIR TAP WAS GOING TO BE INTO THE CITY'S PORTION. YEAH, IT WAS ALL APPROVED. AND WE AND TED MADE AN ASK, AND I THINK EVERYBODY AGREED IT JUST NEVER GOT EXECUTED FOR SOMETHING. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING IT TWO AND A HALF YEARS LATER THAT I. THAT I DON'T HAVE TO LIE LEGAL. ARE Y'ALL GOOD WITH IT? LIKE 250,000 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I MEAN, IT SAYS WE CAN WE CAN CONVEY EASEMENTS BASED ON PROPERTY VALUES. YEAH. THE PROPERTY VALUES IN THE WAS ESTIMATED 88,000. NOW IT'S MINE'S WENT UP TWICE SINCE THEN. SO I DON'T KNOW DO WE. CAN WE GO WITH WHAT WE WENT WITH BEFORE. OR DO WE HAVE TO REEVALUATE WHAT PROPERTY VALUE IS? IT. IT WAS IT WAS IN THE I DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE VALUE THAT TED GOT FOR US. IT WAS 88,000. YEP. YEAH, YEAH.

I'M NOT I'M NOT DISPUTING WHAT YOU SAY. ABSOLUTELY. BUT IT IS. IT'S A DITCH. YEAH, IT DOES IT IT DOES. I MEAN IT WAS I GET IT OKAY. BUT IT DOES PARALLEL THE PROPERTY LINE. CORRECT. CAN WE TIE INTO IT IF WE NEED TO BUILD ANYTHING OVER BY THERE. SO THAT'S A WHOLE NOTHER CONVERSATION ON FOR THE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE WASTEWATER LINE. YEAH. WE CAN TIE INTO THE MAIN ONE. I THINK THE LINE WE HAVE BELONG TO THE DEVELOPERS OR IS THE LINE. NO. THE LINE WILL. YEAH BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY. END UP WITH IT. YEAH. IT'S IT'S REALLY AN EASEMENT TO THE CITY AT THE END OF THE DAY. YEAH. CORRECT. THE CITY'S HELPED US OUT TREMENDOUSLY. SO WE PROBABLY SHOULD GO AHEAD WITH IT. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON ITEM 3.3. SO SO ONE MORE THING. I THINK THEY DO WANT TO HAVE ONE LAST LOOK AT THAT AGREEMENT THOUGH BEFORE THE LEGAL REVIEW. YEAH. SO SO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE EASEMENT SUBJECT TO FINAL LEGAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL. I'M NOT OPPOSED. I'M USUALLY OPPOSED TO THAT BECAUSE WE DID IT TOO MUCH TOO OFTEN. BUT IN THIS CASE I'M NOT. SO I WOULD SECOND THAT. IF THAT'S A MOTION TO TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO LEGAL BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME ARRANGEMENT, IT'S THE SAME FINANCIAL COST. I'M OKAY AS LONG AS YOU GUYS LIKE IT AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT'S TAKEN TO COME BACK TO US AND DO IT AGAIN. SO I'M OKAY. SUBJECT TO LEGAL. OKAY. COMMISSIONER GRAYSON, I'LL. MAY I TAKE THAT AS YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 3.3, SUBJECT TO

[00:20:01]

FINAL LEGAL REVIEW. AND THEN DOES ANYONE CARE TO SECOND IT? I'LL SECOND IT. AND WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING NO.

OPPOSITION. ITEM 3.3. WE WILL NOW TAKE UP. WELL, LET ME BACK UP. ITEM 3.4 IS DISCUSSION,

[MOTION TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION]

CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY DIRECTOR POSITION. AND I WOULD LIKE TO PASS ON THIS ITEM BECAUSE AT THE MOMENT AND RETAKE IT UP AFTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE WE HAVE ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM 4.1, WHICH IS PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 55 1.04, I'M SORRY, SECTION 551.07 4A1 DELIBERATION OF THE APPOINTMENT. EMPLOYMENT EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT DUTIES, DISCIPLINE OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY DIRECTOR POSITION. WE DO HAVE A CANDIDATE HERE TO TO DISCUSS TODAY IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND THAT IS ALSO WHAT RELATES TO ITEM 3.4. SO, COMMISSIONERS, IF ANYONE IS SO INCLINED, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ENTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO MOVED. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO ENTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION FROM COMMISSIONER GRAYSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL NOW STAND IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE TIME VERY GOOD. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE BACK IN THE COURTROOM AND

[ADJOURNMENT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION]

I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO MOVE. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION. THE MOTION TO ADJOURN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, AND THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS ADJOURNED. THE TIME IS NOW 3:07 P.M. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, WE DID PASS EARLIER ON AGENDA ITEM. EXCUSE ME, AGENDA ITEM 3.4, WHICH WAS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY DIRECTOR POSITION. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL BE NO ACTION TAKEN TODAY ON AGENDA ITEM 3.4.

UNLESS SOMEONE CARES TO MAKE A MOTION OKAY, NO ONE CARES TO MAKE A MOTION, SO WE WILL TAKE NO ACTION ON AGENDA ITEM 3.4. AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR ITEMS FOR TODAY'S AGENDA. SO I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN FROM COMMISSIONER GRAYSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION. THE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Feb 13, 2026 Commissioners Court

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item