May 26, 2026 Commissioners Court

[OPENING COURT]

[CONSENT AGENDA]

[00:03:53]

THROUGH F EIGHT. AS NOTED WITH THE AMENDMENT ON F2. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. SECOND. OKAY.

I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. I IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA, AS NOTED, PASSES 4 TO 0. COMMISSIONERS. WE WILL NOW LET ME MENTION ON ITEM A11, I HAVE. I HAVE ALSO HAD A REQUEST TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING ITEM A11. SO WE WILL HOLD THAT OFF AND DO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AT THE END OF THE REGULAR AGENDA. AND THEN IF WE NEED TO ACT UPON ITEM A11, WE WILL DO THAT AFTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. OKAY. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO ITEM A13. A13

[A.13 Approval of a final plat of Greystone Estates, Phase 4. The ± 46.832-acre site is located ± 3,135 feet northeast of the intersection of Campbell Road and Singleton Road, partially located within the extraterritorial jurisdictions (ETJs) of the City of Maypearl and the City of Midlothian, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 3. — Department of Development Director Alberto Mares]

[00:05:02]

ALBERTO, DO YOU WANT TO LEAD US OR SPEAK TO US ON THIS ITEM? YES, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS, GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS A A FINAL PLAT FOR A PRIVATE SUBDIVISION, GREYSTONE ESTATES PHASE FOUR. IT WILL HAVE APPROXIMATELY 32 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. TWO LOTS FOR A TOTAL OF 34. THE COURT DID ACCEPT A PERFORMANCE BOND BACK ON AUGUST 19TH OF LAST YEAR. OVERALL, THE.

THE PLOT HAS 27 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. AFTER SPEAKING WITH COMMISSIONER PONDER, WE WANTED TO ADD A 28TH CONDITION IN HERE. MOST OF THE CONDITIONS ARE MINOR AND TECHNICAL. I'M JUST GOING TO READ OUT THE MAJOR ONES. THEY'RE STILL SHORT OF THE FILING FEE PAYMENT OF $132.

THERE HAS TO BE SOME ADJUSTMENT, A LOT LINES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T ENCROACH WITHIN THE EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEMS. THEY ARE MISSING SOME TEMPORARY TURNAROUND EASEMENTS. THEY STILL NEED TO SHOW THE RIGHT OF WAY. DEDICATION FOR CAMPBELL ROAD. ONE LOT DOESN'T MEET THE 150 FOOT ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT, AND THEY NEED TO UPDATE THE PLAT TO SHOW A 150 FOOT RADIUS FOR A SANITARY CONTROL EASEMENT. THOSE ARE THE MAJOR CONDITIONS. THE LAST ONE THAT WE'RE ADDING IS, AND I'LL READ IT INTO THE RECORD PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THIS PLOT, A ROAD USE AGREEMENT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT FOR REPAIRS TO SINGLETON ROAD AND CAMPBELL ROAD. CAUSED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT AND PAYMENT TO THE COUNTY. FINALIZED FOR THE AMOUNT LISTED ON SAID AGREEMENT. OKAY, ALBERTO, WE HAVE HAD A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC PLEASE HANG AROUND FOR A SECOND BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT WE DO HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, AND THAT WOULD BE MERLE ABBOTT. MR. ABBOTT, WOULD YOU WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK? MR. ABBOTT? DO YOU NEED A PLACE TO SIT OR A CHAIR? NO. I'M GOOD, I'M GOOD. THANK YOU. MR. ABBOTT, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN SHARE WITH US WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO TO SAY. LOUIS ABBOTT, MY ADDRESS IS 190 GREYSTONE PARKWAY, MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS. I'M REFERRING TO THE ADDITION TO THE PLAT ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR MR. PONDER ON THE ROAD WORK. RIGHT. I HAVEN'T USED SINGLETON ROAD FOR THE SUBDIVISION FOR OVER A YEAR EXCEPT FOR TWO WEEKS. I HAD TO MOVE 600 YARDS OF DIRT AND MY CONCRETE WAS GREEN. OTHERWISE EVERYTHING HAS BEEN MOVED WITH ON THE PROPERTY AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT COMES TO PHASE FOUR AND PHASE FIVE IS COMING IN ON CAMPBELL ROAD, SO WE AREN'T EVEN USING SINGLETON ROAD AT ALL. AND WHEN THERE WAS A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE DUMP TRUCKS THAT I HAD. SO THERE WAS A COUPLE PLACES THAT THE DUMP TRUCKS GOT TOO FAR CLOSE TO THE SHOULDER. AND SO I BROUGHT IN SOME REAL ASPHALT INSTEAD OF WRAP. AND I DID SOME REPAIRS TO THOSE SPOTS. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THERE IS I LITERALLY OTHER THAN THOSE TWO WEEKS HAVEN'T HAD ALL ALL THE TRUCKS.

I USE CHISHOLM TRAIL FOR THE CONCRETE. THEY COME FROM VENUS. THEY COME DOWN CAMPBELL ROAD AND ALL THE TRUCKS THAT I GET OUT OF WAXAHACHIE COME IN OFF OF CAMPBELL ROAD. SO I'M REALLY NOT EVEN USING SINGLETON ROAD FOR ANYTHING ANYMORE. AND THE THE TRAFFIC ON SINGLETON ROAD, THE MAJORITY OF IT IS GOING TO THE ELMWOOD HOMES SUBDIVISION OFF OF ARMSTRONG, AND SO YOU CAN GO DOWN SINGLETON ROAD RIGHT NOW. I PASSED A LOWBOY THIS MORNING COMING HERE WITH A TRACKHOE ON. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ME AND SO FOR TO PUT A BURDEN ON MY OPERATION BASED ON ROAD MAINTENANCE WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE ONE, WE'RE NOT EVEN USING IT. I KNOW MR. PONDER HAS PICTURES OF THOSE DUMP TRUCKS, BUT THAT WAS FOR THE TWO WEEK PERIOD WHEN I HAD TO HAUL THAT DIRT, AND I JUST MOVED IT FROM ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE OTHER, AND ALL THE REST OF THE DIRT THAT WE MOVE, WE'RE MOVING IT ON THE PROPERTY FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER BECAUSE ALL THE ROADS ARE IN NOW. AND SO WE CAN ACTUALLY TRANSPORT ACROSS THE CREEK, WHICH WE HAD TO BUILD A BRIDGE FOR, AND IT WAS TOO GREEN TO DO IT AT THIS ONE PERIOD OF TIME.

BUT THAT'S THE ONLY ROAD TRAFFIC THAT'S THAT WE'RE UTILIZING SINGLETON ROAD FOR.

[00:10:05]

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST 15 TO 20 CEMENT TRUCKS PER FOUNDATION, YOU KNOW, AND HOWEVER MANY HOMES THEY'RE BUILDING, THEY'RE ALL THAT TRAFFIC'S GOING TO COME DOWN SINGLETON ROAD NO MATTER WHAT, HOW YOU WANT, HOW YOU PLAN IT. SO I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE A BURDEN ON ME AND I'M NOT EVEN USING IT ANYMORE. OKAY. MR. ABBOTT, THANK YOU, I THANK YOU, THANK YOU SIR. UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. YEAH. NO. YEAH. COMMISSIONERS, I WASN'T SURE IF YOU HAD ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR ALBERTO OR IF THERE'S. YEAH. I'LL I'LL. SO WHEN WE NOTICE THESE DUMP TRUCKS COMING DOWN, THEY WERE PRETTY LARGE TANDEM AXLE DUMP TRUCKS. THEY HAD THE THE DUAL OVERLOAD AXLES. THESE TRUCKS WERE LOADED ABOVE THE SIDEBOARDS. THEY WEREN'T USING THE OVERLOAD AXLES. AND THE BREAKDOWN OF THE ROAD HAPPENED AROUND. AND DURING THAT TIME THAT THEY WERE TRAVELING BACK AND FORTH WITH THOSE OVERLOADED TRUCKS. THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THE INITIAL BREAKDOWN. THERE MAY BE MORE TRUCKS DRIVING UP AND DOWN THERE. THAT'S MAKING IT WORSE. BUT THE INITIAL DESTRUCTION OF THE ROAD HAPPENED DURING THAT TIME FRAME. WE PUT A LOT OF EXTRA MONEY INTO REDOING THAT ROAD LAST YEAR SO IT COULD HOLD UP. AND JUST THIS, THIS EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF WEIGHT ON THESE TRUCKS IS WHAT CAUSED THIS, THIS PROBLEM, OR IT APPEARS TO BE WHAT CAUSED THIS PROBLEM. AND THERE WAS THERE WAS A LOT OF THEM THERE WERE THERE. THERE'S ALSO SIGNAGE ON SINGLETON AT THE NORTH END OF THAT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE. I THINK IT'S THE RED RIVER TRUCKING COMPANY TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE. THERE'S A LOT OF SAND AND A LOT OF GRAVEL BEING SPILLED AT THAT TURN. AND AT THE TOP OF THE HILL. ARMSTRONG. THE WAY. ARMSTRONG ANGLES INTO SINGLETON WAY FURTHER NORTH. I'M NOT SURE HOW THE. I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING THESE TRUCKS AREN'T COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE, BUT IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE FOR THEM TO COME ALL THE WAY DOWN TO GREYSTONE TO GO INTO THIS ELMWOOD DEVELOPMENT ON ARMSTRONG. THEY MAY BE, BUT THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE, SO I STILL THINK IT'S NECESSARY. IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT WE GET AN AGREEMENT TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE THAT'S BEEN DONE. AND AND THEY WERE ALSO DRIVING ON, ON CAMPBELL AS WELL. I MEAN, THEY WERE COMING OUT ON CAMPBELL OVERLOADED. THEY WERE COMING DOWN TO SINGLETON. THEY WERE TAKING A RIGHT, GOING NORTH ON SINGLETON TO THAT FIRST TURN AND THEN TURNING BACK INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCRETE MAY HAVE BEEN GREEN, BUT MY ROAD WAS ONLY A YEAR OLD AND IT'S ALREADY BREAKING DOWN. AND AGAIN, WE PUT A LOT OF EXTRA MONEY INTO THAT ROAD TO GET IT TO HOLD UP. AND NOW WE'VE GOT SOME SOME PRETTY GOOD ISSUES. SO WE NEED WE NEED TO HOLD WITH THAT CONDITION. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS? OTHERWISE, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM A13 AS PRESENTED WITH THOSE CONDITIONS? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THOSE CONDITIONS. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM A13 WITH THE STAFF CONDITIONS AS MENTIONED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER STENSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING NO OPPOSITION ITEM. A13 PASSES 4 TO 0 WITH THOSE CONDITIONS. OKAY. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO

[1.1 Discussion, consideration, and action on a replat of Green Acres North Addition, Lot 36A & Lot 36B. The ± 6.248-acre site is located ± 3,370 feet northwest of the intersection of FM 878 (West Jefferson Street) and Frances Street, in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of the City of Palmer, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 1.]

[00:15:02]

THE CITY CONTINUES TO PROVIDE WATER AND SEWER TO THIS PROPERTY, JUST LIKE IT'S IN THE CITY LIMITS. CORRECT. AND WE DO HAVE TWO CONDITIONS IN THERE. IN THE EVENT THE SEWER IS EVER DISCONNECTED, THEY'LL HAVE TO APPLY FOR A SEPTIC TO OUR TO OUR DEPARTMENT. AND IF IN THE FUTURE THERE'S ANY REPLANTS OR ANY OTHER SUBDIVISION THAT HAPPENS WITHIN THIS PROPERTY, IT HAS TO MEET THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME. OKAY, SO WE DID PUT IN SOME SOME CONDITIONS THERE IN CASE SEWER EVER GETS DISCONNECTED ON THAT PROPERTY.

MOTION TO ACCEPT. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.1 FROM COMMISSIONER STENSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I I, I IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING NO. OPPOSITION ITEM 1.1 PASSES 4 TO 0. WE'LL NOW TAKE

[1.2 Discussion, consideration, and action on a variance request to Volume I, Section IV (A) regarding the minimum public road frontage requirements for Parcel ID No's 198223, 243076. This ± 35.881-acre site is located ± 4,725 feet northwest of the intersection of Stevens Road and Dunkerley Road, partially located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of the City of Ennis, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 2.]

ALBERTO. YEAH. EVEN THOUGH THIS PROPERTY IS ABOUT 36 ACRES, THEY FALL SEVEN FEET SHORT OF THE 150 FOOT REQUIREMENT. SO THEY'RE AT 143, ROUGHLY, AND THEY CANNOT ACQUIRE ANY MORE PROPERTY. WE DID SEND OUT SIX LETTERS ON MAY 15TH, AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT VARIANCE OF SEVEN FEET, SUBJECT TO THE TWO CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE REPORT. OKAY. ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON THERE? THERE'S NOT NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AS MOST ALL OF THIS. IN ANY EVENT, WE APPROVE THIS. THEN THERE THERE'S NO MORE SUBDIVISIONS CAN BE MADE ON THIS WITHOUT COMING BACK TO COURT. CORRECT. OKAY. MOTION TO ACCEPT. OKAY. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.2 FROM COMMISSIONER STENSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION HEARING? NO. OPPOSITION ITEM

[1.3 Discussion, consideration, and action on a variance request to Volume l, Section IV (A) regarding the minimum paved public road frontage requirements for Parcel ID No. 192487. This ± 1.5909-acre site is located ± 5,080 feet northeast of the intersection of Zmolek Road and Main Street, in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of the City of Alma, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 2.]

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THREE CONDITIONS. SAME TWO CONDITIONS AS THE PREVIOUS ONE WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT SINCE THIS FALLS UNDER TEN ACRES, THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS TO BE PLOTTED. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. WITH THOSE THREE CONDITIONS. COMMISSIONERS. ANY DISCUSSION? DOES ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION WITH CONDITIONS. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.3 WITH THE STAFF

[00:20:03]

OPPOSITION ITEM 1.3 PASSES 4 TO 0. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 1.4 WHICH IS DISCUSSION,

[1.4 Discussion, consideration, and action on a replat of Judy's Addition, Lot 1R, Block A. The ± 5.640-acre site is located at the intersection of Judy's Lane and S US Highway 77, Italy, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 3.]

HIGHWAY 77, ITALY ROAD AND BRIDGE. PRECINCT NUMBER THREE ALBERTO. BACK WHEN THE COURT APPROVED THIS PLOT ON NOVEMBER 25TH OF LAST YEAR. THIS WAS GOING TO BE SIX LOTS. SINCE THEN, WE'VE HAD AN APPLICANT COME IN AND THEY WANT TO COMBINE THOSE TWO LOTS INTO ONE TO MAKE IT A PART OF THEIR LARGER NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE DID SEND OUT A NOTICE TO THE NEWSPAPER ON APRIL 29TH, MAY 6TH AND THE 13TH. WE DID SEND OUT ONE NOTICE VIA CERTIFIED MAIL ON APRIL 23RD. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS. A LOT OF THEM ARE MINOR. WE DID PUT. ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IS THAT IN CASE TXDOT DOES NOT GRANT ACCESS OFF OF US 77, THAT EITHER AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER OR THE PRECINCT COMMISSIONER, THEY WILL DETERMINE THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION ALONG JUDY'S LANE. OKAY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.4 FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. ALL THOSE IN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I, I IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING NO. OPPOSITION ITEM 1.4 PASSES 4 TO 0 BEFORE TAKING UP ITEM 1.5, WE WILL FIRST CONDUCT

[P.1 Conduct a public hearing for discussion regarding proposed amendments to the Ellis County Quality Growth Initiatives, Volume l, last amended via Minute Order 398.23, primarily updating procedures, establishing authority for certain plats, updating regulations on: lot depth; detention lots; setbacks; special districts; bonding requirements; variance criteria; clarification on infrastructure development plans (IDPs) and definitions, and any other changes in related articles, sections, and paragraphs.]

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. ALBERTO, WILL YOU JUST GIVE US A LITTLE BACKGROUND? YES. SO WE STARTED, I GUESS, WORKING ON THESE AMENDMENTS BACK IN SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.

AND OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE'VE WE'VE COLLECTED INPUT FROM VARIOUS COMMISSIONERS, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, THE PUBLIC, JUST TO KIND OF LOOK AT OUR REC TO SEE WHAT ELSE CAN CAN BE DONE TO, TO CLARIFY OR TO STREAMLINE OUR PROCESS EVEN EVEN MORE. AND WE DO HAVE A, A TEN I GUESS MAJOR CHANGES IN HERE. AND I'LL GO GO OVER THEM, I GUESS, IN DETAIL HERE. THE FIRST ONE IS WE'VE UPDATED SOME OF THE PRELIMINARY PLOT ITEMS, SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS. THEY GOT TO HAVE APPROVED STREET NAMES, A WILL SERVE LETTER FROM THE WATER PROVIDER, AND ALSO ANY OTHER REQUIRED DOCUMENTS THAT ARE COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW. KIND OF JUST MAKES OUR REVIEW A LITTLE BIT EASIER, ESPECIALLY THE DEVELOPER KNOWS AHEAD OF TIME WHAT THE STREET NAMES ARE GOING TO BE AS WELL. THE SECOND ONE IS A BIG ONE. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE, THE DIRECTOR OR THE PERSON IN MY POSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE FINAL PLOTS AND AMENDING PLOTS THAT ARE LIMITED, THAT MEET CERTAIN LIMITED CRITERIA, AND THAT CRITERIA WOULD BE LESS THAN FOUR LOTS. THEY'RE CREATING FOUR LOTS OR LESS ALONG AN EXISTING PAVED ROAD. THE COUNTY ROAD IS NOT WIDENED OR EXTENDED AND IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY VARIANCE REQUEST. AND THIS ONE IS ALSO BIG BECAUSE OF THE 30 DAY SHOT CLOCK. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE 30 DAYS TO REVIEW A PLOT WITH THE NEW STATE LAW FOR POSTING MEETINGS. THAT BASICALLY CUTS OUR REVIEW TIME IN HALF, PLUS WRITING STAFF REPORTS. SO IF WE CAN IMPROVE A LOT OF THOSE PLOTS ADMINISTRATIVELY INTERNALLY, THAT WILL HELP, I GUESS, LENGTHEN THAT 30 DAY PROCESS THAT WE HAVE. AND LIKE I SAID, IT'LL BE FOR THOSE THAT ARE FOUR LOTS OR LESS, WE ARE REDUCING THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FROM 150 TO 75FT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF VARIANCE REQUESTS. THE FOURTH ONE, THE DETENTION AREA AND FACILITIES. THIS WAS MORE OF A

[00:25:01]

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I, I IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING? NO OPPOSITION. THE PUBLIC

[1.5 Discussion, consideration, and action upon proposed amendments to the Ellis County Quality Growth Initiatives, Volumes l, last amended via Minute Order 398.23, primarily updating procedures, establishing authority for certain plats, updating regulations on: lot depth; detention lots; setbacks; special districts; bonding requirements; variance criteria; clarification on infrastructure development plans (IDPs) and definitions, and any other changes in related articles, sections, and paragraphs, providing a conflicts clause, a severability clause, and an effective date.]

UPDATING REGULATIONS ON LOT DEPTH DETENTION, LOTS SETBACKS, SPECIAL DISTRICTS, BONDING REQUIREMENTS, VARIANCE CRITERIA, CLARIFICATION ON INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND DEFINITIONS, AND ANY OTHER CHANGES IN RELATED ARTICLES, SECTIONS AND PARAGRAPHS.

PROVIDING A CONFLICTS CLAUSE, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SO, COMMISSIONERS, WE HEARD THE SUMMARY FROM ALBERTO DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YES, A FEW OKAY. ALL OF THESE ARE REVIEWS THAT WE'VE COME UP WITH.

I'VE BEEN HERE NINE YEARS AND THEY'RE THEY'RE INSTANCES THAT HAVE BECOME PROBLEMATIC EACH

[00:30:02]

I MEAN, THIS PLOT WITH FOUR LOTS, THIS THIS PLOT WITH THREE LOTS. SO IT'LL BE MORE OF A REPORT TO YOU GUYS AFTER THE FACT. AND I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE DOING IT BECAUSE OF TIME FRAME, I GET IT. HAVE WE HAVE WE BEEN CHALLENGED ON THE ON THE TIME FRAME YET THOUGH? NO.

LUCKILY WE'VE WE'VE APPROVED, I GUESS ALL PLOTS WITHIN 30 DAYS. OKAY. SO LIKE I SAID, THE STATE DOESN'T MAKE IT EASIER FOR US, YOU KNOW, AS AS EARLY AS FOUR YEARS AGO WITH THE COUNTY HAD 60 DAYS TO REVIEW PLOTS AND IT'S BEEN CUT IN HALF. RIGHT? SO IT'S LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH WHAT THE STATE GIVES US. AND UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT OF TIMES IT, IT EATS INTO THE REVIEW TIME. PLUS, LIKE WITH THE NEW. POSTING REQUIREMENT, IT JUST EATS INTO THAT TIME EVEN MORE. SO ALBERTO, YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE DETRIMENT IS IF YOU DON'T GET IT DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS. STATE LAW SAYS IF WE DON'T APPROVE A PLOT WITHIN 30 DAYS AND IT'S AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED BY OPERATION OF LAW. SO IF IT'S SOMETHING WE DON'T, WE WANT TO GET FIXED OR WE WANT TO PUT CONDITIONS ON AND YOU DON'T GET TO IT IN TIME, THEN THEY GET IT JUST THE WAY IT WAS. AND WE CAN'T EVEN PUT CONDITIONS. RIGHT. CORRECT. YEAH. THEY SUBMITTED IT. YES. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING OKAY, JUST MAKE SURE. RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHY I GUESS BASICALLY SINCE SINCE THE SINCE LAST SUMMER, THAT'S WHY YOU'VE SEEN CLASS WITH 20 SOMETHING PLUS CONDITIONS, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO AT LEAST ACT ON IT. WE CAN APPROVE IT WITH CONDITIONS.

SO THAT'S WHY, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE SEEING A LONGER LAUNDRY LIST OF CONDITIONS ON THE PLOTS BECAUSE OF THAT. SO, SO WITH YOU, YOU COULD APPROVE IT, BUT YOU COULD ALSO APPLY THOSE CONDITIONS WITH YOUR CORRECT AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO BRING IT TO COURT. CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH.

BECAUSE IT WON'T COME TO COURT. YES. AND LIKE I SAID, THIS WILL BE FOR, FOR, FOR LOTS OR LESS.

SO IT'S, IT'S A VERY TIGHT, TIGHT WINDOW THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET. YEAH, YEAH. AND I THINK IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE WANTING VARIANCES, THEN IT, IT HAS TO COME TO COURT. CORRECT. SO LIKE, EVEN IF IT'S A ONE LOT PLOT THAT GOT A VARIANCE THAT WILL COME TO COURT, BUT IF IT'S FOUR LOTS MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, IT WOULDN'T COME TO COURT. IT'LL JUST BE WHAT THE FOLLOW UP REPORT, RIGHT. OKAY. ANY OTHER OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT CHANGE. SECOND. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.5 FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I, I IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING NO.

OPPOSITION ITEM 1.5 PASSES 4 TO 0. THANK YOU ALBERTO. THANK YOU. ALBERTO. THANK YOU. ALBERTO.

[2.1 Discussion, consideration, and possible action on Comprehensive Inmate Medical Services from Buy boards, Cooperative Agreements, Memorandums of Understanding, or Interlocal Agreements.]

[00:35:06]

AND THEN WHAT THEY DO IS THEY ADD 10% FOR INDIRECT ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS SUCH AS ACCOUNTING AND HUMAN RESOURCE SUPPORT. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT JUST 10% ABOVE ACTUAL COST. E.J. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I REALIZE IT'S KIND OF LIKE A, AN ACTUAL BASED ON THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT, THAT WE USE THOSE SERVICES. BUT DO YOU HAVE A COMPARISON OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE COMPARED TO WHAT WE WERE PAYING? YES. CARE AS THEY'RE PROVIDING RIGHT NOW IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM WHILE THEY'RE FINALIZING THE CONTRACT. AND THAT'S WHAT GOING THROUGH THAT THEY WILL SHOULD HAVE A NUMBER TO US BY FRIDAY. FINALIZED NUMBER BASED ON OUR STAFFING. BUT WHAT'S ANTICIPATED, BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS AND THEIR PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS IS IT WOULD BE EITHER AROUND 5 MILLION OR LESS. SO IT WOULD BE HALF THE COST THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED BY THE OTHER COMPANY. SO THAT'S WHAT, HALF THE COST OF CORE HEALTH. YES. HOW MUCH WOULD THAT RELATE THOUGH TO TO WHAT WE WERE PAYING. YES. CARE. THE 5 MILLION. ABOUT A MILLION. WELL AND I SAY A MAXIMUM OF 5 MILLION DEPENDING ON THE FINALIZATION OF THE CONTRACT. AND THEN WORKING WITH LEGAL ON THE WORDING THAT THAT BASICALLY WOULD AFFECT THAT. BUT WHAT THEY'RE ANTICIPATING IS AROUND 5 MILLION OR LESS. BUT THERE YES, THERE WAS A FOR PROFIT COMPANY. AND SO THEY HAD, I THINK IT WAS ABOUT A 22% PREMIUM ON THERE IS WHAT WE ARE UNDERSTANDING. SO WITH THE 10%, EVEN AT THE STATE COST, WE'RE ANTICIPATING THE ACTUAL. WHAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING IS TO BE EVEN TO WHAT WE WERE PAYING. YES, CARE, BUT FOR FLUFF, WE SAY $1 MILLION MORE UNTIL WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE CONTRACT IN HAND, YOU KNOW, WITH THE FINALIZATION LANGUAGE. BUT THE PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES IS ALSO ANOTHER SAVINGS. RIGHT NOW, THE PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY YES CARE, WE WOULD SUBSTITUTE DIAMOND HEALTH SERVICES OF PHARMACEUTICALS, AND THEY ARE A FOR PROFIT. SO WE WOULD PAY THEIR COST. BUT IF WE WENT WITH UT MB, AFTER NINE MONTHS, WE'RE ABLE TO APPLY DURING THAT TIME FOR A 503 B PLAN THROUGH THE FDA, WHICH WHAT THAT DOES IS CERTIFIES AS A COUNTY BEING ABLE TO CARRY THE DRUGS DIRECT AT MANUFACTURER'S COST. SO BASICALLY WE WOULD INSTEAD OF BEING EVEN TO DIAMOND, YOU'RE GOING TO DROP TREMENDOUSLY OFF OF WHAT DIAMOND'S PAYING BECAUSE WE'D BE PAYING JUST THE COST. THE WHOLESALE COST. YES. SO AFTER NINE MONTHS, THE ANTICIPATION WOULD BE WE WOULD ELIMINATE DIAMOND, WHICH WE'VE PUT THAT IN THEIR CURRENT AGREEMENT, AND THEN WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND MOVE OVER TO UT B, HANDLING THE PHARMACEUTICALS WITH THE CERTIFICATION. AT THIS POINT, ARE YOU ARE YOU RECOMMENDING THAT WE TAKE ACTION TODAY TO SWITCH TO UT B OR ARE YOU. YES, SIR. WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING IS THAT DURING THIS PROCESS, SHERIFF NORMAN IS REACHING OUT TO CONTACTS AT THE OTHER COUNTIES TO VERIFY THE SERVICES. WELL, LEGAL COULD FINALIZE AND REVIEW THE LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACT THAT'S BEING PROVIDED. AND THEN, IF ACCEPTABLE, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU, AS

[00:40:05]

I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE IS THAT HAVE WE DISCUSSED IT ALL WITH HOPE, HEALTH, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY BECOME THE PROVIDER? DO THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT? HAVE THEY THOSE DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND. THAT IS NOT BEEN FINALIZED. SO THAT IS ANOTHER OPTION THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN. OKAY. WE'VE ONLY BEEN GOING THROUGH THE CONTRACTING PROCESS. I DID HAVE A CHANCE EARLIER, NOT TODAY, BUT SEVERAL DAYS AGO TO SPEAK WITH THE SHERIFF. AND HE, I BELIEVE YOU, TMB HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN THE PROVIDER FOR THE JAIL AND AND THERE HAD BEEN SOME SERVICE ISSUES. DO YOU KNOW, SHERIFF, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT. YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO, BUT HAVE WE ARE WE CHECKING REFERENCES FROM THE OTHER COUNTIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE THAT THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED? THAT'S WHAT TALKING WITH SHERIFF NORMAN. THAT'S WHAT HE'S GOING TO REACH OUT TO HIS DIRECT CONTACTS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS PRIOR, PRIOR TO WHAT WE'RE BRINGING TO YOU TODAY, IS THAT UTMB, BE THEY OPERATED ON THEIR BASIC HOW THEY WANTED TO OPERATE WITHIN THE JAIL. RIGHT. AND NOW WE SAY WE HAVE A ACTUAL INDIGENT HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATOR, TERRY KLEIN. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT TO U. T AND B IS THAT THE STAFF THAT'S ON BOARD RIGHT NOW, THEY WOULD LIKE TO TRANSFER THAT EXACT STAFF AND MAINTAIN OPERATIONS EXACTLY AS THEY ARE IN THE JAIL NOW. SO JUST UNDER THE STAFFING UMBRELLA, THAT'S IT. SO BASICALLY WOULD BE DOING THE SAME THING I SEE. AND I WANT TO ADD ONE CAVEAT. AND SHERIFF, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE DO. BUT I BELIEVE THAT WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED FOR HOPE HEALTH, THERE'S STILL SOME RUNWAY THAT IF WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION AT THE NEXT MEETING AT THE JUNE 9TH MEETING, WE COULD STUDY THIS FURTHER. SHERIFF, IF YOU NEED. ONE REASON I WAS GOING TO INTERJECT ON THAT JUDGE IS RIGHT NOW, IF YOU APPROVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS, WE COULD ALWAYS REJECT IT. BUT IF THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD, THEN THE TARGET DATE FOR CHANGEOVER WOULD BE JUNE 22ND. SO THAT'S BASED ON IF WE CAN GIVE THEM THE APPROVAL TO PROVIDE US THAT CONTRACT. BUT THEY'RE KIND OF WAITING ON US TO. SO WITH THE APPROVAL TO CLARIFY THAT, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE COULD AUTHORIZE MOVING FORWARD WITH UTMB B TODAY, BUT WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO IF WE DON'T LIKE THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT OR IF WE DON'T LIKE THE DUE DILIGENCE RESPONSES WE GET FROM ASKING OTHER COUNTIES WHAT THEIR EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN. SO I GET THAT THAT'S WHAT'S IN PLAY NOW, ISN'T IT? PRETTY MUCH. YEAH, YEAH. SHERIFF, DO YOU DO YOU HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT UTM? B I KNOW YOU HAD SOME CONCERNS OR YOU WE WE ACTUALLY HAD UTMB. B IN THE PAST ROUGHLY 2010 TO 2013. AND IT WAS NOT A GOOD SITUATION. THEY PREDOMINANTLY ARE IN THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, TDC, TEXAS PARK CORRECTIONS AND DO PRISON INMATE MEDICAL. NOT NOT COUNTY JUDGE, INMATE MEDICAL. THAT BEING SAID, WITH CORE HEALTH NUMBERS COMING IN, WHAT THEY WHAT THEY HAVE AND WHATEVER, I DON'T SEE THAT WE HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF OPTIONS AT THIS POINT, RIGHT. I DO HAVE CALLS IN TO THE GALVESTON COUNTY SHERIFF AND BRAZORIA COUNTY SHERIFF, WHO I KNOW THEM BOTH TO FIND OUT BECAUSE THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY IN THOSE COUNTIES RIGHT NOW DOING INMATE MEDICAL. SO THAT BEING SAID, I, I SUPPOSE I WOULD THINK I WOULD HEAR BACK FROM BOTH OF THEM TODAY, BUT I HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM THEM AS OF THIS MEETING. OKAY. OKAY. AND I THERE IS THE DIFFERENCE. AS E.J. POINTED OUT BACK IN 2010, 2013, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE DIRECTOR OF INDIGENT HEALTH THAT COULD PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, WATCH OVER THE PROVISION OF THE SERVICES BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAD, YOU KNOW, AT THAT TIME. NO, NO DOUBT IN 2013, IT'S BEEN A WHILE. SO I KNOW THEY'VE BEEN IN SEVERAL COUNTIES, OTHER PLACES. I KNOW THEIR THEIR SPECIALTY IS, IS PRISONS, TEXAS PRISONS. RIGHT. THAT BEING SAID, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO TO OKAY. TO THIS TO THE NOTION OF THIS OR THE IDEA OF IT. I'M JUST I'M JUST BEING HONEST WITH YOU. I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE JUST YET. RIGHT. OKAY. SO EJ, DO YOU MIND JUST ONE MORE TIME? YOUR RECOMMENDATION WAS AND ERIC, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD? ERIC'S BEEN VERY INVOLVED

[00:45:03]

YES. THERE IS NO. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING. THEY THEY WERE TARGETING THE 22ND. WE CAN I MEAN, IT'S FLEXIBLE IN THAT WE JUST SLIDE WITH THEM. AND. PLUS, I WOULD LIKE FOR SHERIFF NORMAN TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO VISIT WITH SOME OF HIS COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE STATE JUST TO, TO GET THAT THAT LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON WHETHER UTMB IS DOING A GOOD JOB. SO I WOULD SUGGEST COMMISSIONERS AND, YOU KNOW, FEEL FREE TO MAKE A MOTION IF YOU WANT TO, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST WE NOT TAKE ACTION ON THIS ITEM 2.1 TODAY, AND WE BRING IT BACK ON JUNE 9TH. WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE WITH HOPE HEALTH CAN CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD. AND THEN IF WE COULD HAVE AN ACTUAL CONTRACT TO APPROVE ON JUNE 9TH AND SOME TRUE NUMBERS. YEAH.

CORRECT. CORRECT. WHAT'S OUR WHAT'S OUR DO THAT TIMELINE WITH HOPE HEALTH. WE'VE GOT THEM TAKING CARE OF THINGS FOR NOW TILL WE DO. AND THE ONLY THE GUARDRAIL, SO TO SPEAK, THAT WE PUT ON HOPE HEALTH IS WE WE HAD A NOT TO EXCEED NUMBER I BELIEVE 200 000. AND I HAVE CHECKED WITH ERIC AND AND WE HAVE PLENTY OF SPACE WITHIN THAT NUMBER TO GET TO JUNE 9TH.

YEAH, I AGREE, IF WE DID IT TODAY, WE'D HAVE TO, THERE'D HAVE TO BE SEVERAL CONTINGENCY CONTINGENT ON RECOMMENDATION FROM THE SHERIFF AFTER YOUR. DOES HIS DUE DILIGENCE WITH REACHING OUT TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS, PLUS CONTINGENT ON YOU READING THE NEW CONTRACT, THEM APPROVING THE CONTRACT. SO IT'S DOWN A RABBIT HOLE. YEAH. WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND APPROVE WHAT THEY GAVE US ON THE CONTRACT. YEAH, RIGHT. WE DON'T WANT TO VOTE ON SOMETHING BLIND, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, RIGHT? IF WE VOTE TO SAY, OKAY, GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD, AND THEN THEY GIVE YOU A CONTRACT, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO BRING IT BACK TO US FOR US TO LOOK AT IT. WELL, IT MAY BE SOMETHING WE DON'T LIKE. AND THAT KNOWING WHEN THAT'S OUR OUR OUT, BUT KNOWING THAT HOPE, HEALTH AND WE'VE GOT THAT RUN ROOM BECAUSE WE WEREN'T INVOLVED ON THAT SIDE, THEN I WOULD WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH THAT, THAT WE'LL WE'LL TELL THEM THAT WE'RE DEFINITELY INTERESTED, BUT WE GOT TO HAVE THAT CONTRACT. AND YEAH, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT COVERAGE WITH HOPE HEALTH. SO IT'LL JUST SLIDE A LITTLE BIT FROM THE 22ND ON.

OKAY. YEAH, I, I WOULD RECOMMEND NO ACTION COMMISSIONERS UNLESS SOMEONE CARES TO MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM 2.1. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM 2.2. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE

[2.2 Discussion, consideration and action to purchase a Develon DX42-7 Mini Excavator with Cab in the amount of $66,816.00 from R&B Everett & Co. for Road and Bridge Precinct No. 1. using the BuyBoard Contract #788-25.]

[00:50:05]

[3.1 Discussion, consideration, and action of the resignation of Human Resources Director Sharon Mancilla and appointment of Norma Luna as Interim Director. — County Judge John Wray]

AS YOU KNOW, SHARON RECENTLY HAD A CHILD AND FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES REALLY DICTATE THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO STAY HOME WITH HER WITH HER YOUNG CHILD. AND WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT. SO SHARON WILL BE LEAVING THE COUNTY. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE. FIFTH, JUNE 5TH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE CERTAINLY WISH SHARON THE BEST. AND IN THE IN THE INTERIM, THOUGH, OF COURSE, WE'VE GOT NORMA. NORMA HAS BEEN WORKING THERE IN HR FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND IS VERY CAPABLE. SO WE'D LIKE TO PUT HER IN THAT INTERIM DIRECTOR POSITION. SO THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO IS ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF SHARON MANCIA AND APPOINT NORMA LUNA AS THE INTERIM DIRECTOR. AND THIS MOVING FORWARD, WE GO BACK OUT FOR. YEAH, I THINK WE WOULD POST THE JOB OPENING AND GO FROM THERE. YEAH, GO FROM THERE.

YEAH. MOTION TO ACCEPT SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT SHARON MENCIAS RESIGNATION AND APPOINT NORMA LUNA AS INTERIM DIRECTOR. WE HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I, I IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING NO OPPOSITION. THAT MOTION PASSES 4 TO 0. THANK YOU.

SHARON. YEAH. ON JUNE 5TH. YES. ENJOY THAT 29TH. OKAY. AS YOU MAY RECALL, WE HAD ITEM A. 11 FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT WE SKIPPED OVER EARLIER. AND I DO I THINK ONE OR MORE MEMBERS I KNOW I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO CONSULT WITH THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE COUNTY ON ITEM A 11 BEFORE WE TAKE ANY ACTION ON IT. SO WE DO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF AN EXECUTIVE SESSION POSTED ON THE

[MOTION TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION]

[ADJOURNMENT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION]

[00:55:05]

[A.11 Approval of an additional payment to The Heights Ellis County Family Resources for FY26 in an amount of $50,000. Funding will come from the Community Support budget line. — Ellis County Judge John Wray]

BUT IF THERE'S NOT, THEN WE WILL TAKE NO ACTION ON ITEM 11. AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE CONCLUDED ALL ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING FROM COMMISSIONER STINSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I, I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING N

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.