1.1 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. 192745. This ± 3.00-acre site is located ± 290 feet southeast of the intersection of Pritchett Road and Rockett Lane, Red Oak, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 1.

[1.1 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. 192745. This ± 3.00-acre site is located ± 290 feet southeast of the intersection of Pritchett Road and Rockett Lane, Red Oak, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 1.]

ME. OKAY, WE'LL NOW MOVE TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA. AND WE HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PORTION OF THE AGENDA. SO I WOULD LIKE TO CALL UP OUR DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT, ALBERTO MORRIS, TO COME SPEAK TO US ON THESE ITEMS, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS ITEM 1.1, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON A VARIANCE REQUEST TO VOLUME ONE SECTION FOR A.

REGARDING THE MINIMUM PUBLIC ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARCEL ID NUMBER 192745. THIS IS AN APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRE SITE THAT IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 290FT SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF PRITCHETT ROAD AND ROCKET LANE, RED OAK ROAD AND BRIDGE PRECINCT NUMBER ONE, ALBERTO. GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS A REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT. THEY ARE SEEKING TO ADD AN ADDITION TO THE HOUSE, SWIMMING POOL AND A STORAGE SHED. HOWEVER, RIGHT NOW THEY DON'T MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS OF 150FT OF ROAD FRONTAGE. RIGHT NOW, THEY HAVE JUST UNDER 100FT OF ROAD FRONTAGE AT 99.34.

AND OF COURSE BASELINE YOU CAN SEE ON THE ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THEY CAN'T GAIN ANY MORE ROAD FRONTAGE. THEREFORE THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE. SEVEN LETTERS WERE SENT OUT ON SEPTEMBER 4TH. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE, SUBJECT TO THREE CONDITIONS WHICH ARE PRETTY STANDARD. OKAY COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR ALBERTO? ANYBODY TO SPEAK ABOUT IT TODAY? NO. NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. I'VE ALREADY TALKED WITH DODD ON IT AND KNOW WHAT IT IS. THERE'S A LOT THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER YEARS AGO AND IT IS WITH CONDITIONS, CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH. ONE OF THEM IS THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO PLOT THE PROPERTY. OKAY. MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.1 FROM COMMISSIONER STENSON. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ZEKE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO. OPPOSITION ITEM 1.1

[1.2 Discussion, consideration, and action on a replat of William Griffin Addition, Lots 4A-R & 4B-R, Block A. The ± 6.843-acre site is located at the intersection of Bozek Lane and W State Highway 34, Ennis, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 2.]

[00:05:04]

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ITEM 1.2, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON A REPLAT OF WILLIAM GRIFFIN. ADDITION. LOTS FOR A R AND 4BR BLOCK A. THIS IS AN APPROXIMATELY 6.843 ACRE SITE THAT IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF BOZIK LANE AND WEST STATE HIGHWAY 34, ENNIS ROAD AND BRIDGE PRECINCT NUMBER TWO. ALBERTO. YES, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CREATE ONE ADDITIONAL LOT. THE LAST TIME THE PLAT WAS APPROVED BY THIS COURT WAS AUGUST 20TH OF 2024. SO TWO YEARS AGO. THEY ARE SHOWING RIGHT OF DEDICATION FOR ONE OF THE TWO ROADS. THE OTHER ONE THAT IS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. WITH THIS BEING A REPLAT STAFF DID ADVERTISE THIS IN THE AUGUST 19TH, 26TH AND SEPTEMBER 2ND EDITION OF THE WAXAHACHIE SUN ON THE WEBSITE AUGUST 14TH. AND WE DID SEND OUT FOUR CERTIFIED LETTERS. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO 12 CONDITIONS. THE BIGGEST ONE BEING IS THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION NEEDED ALONG LANE, AND THERE'S A FEW OTHERS REGARDING BUILDING IMPACTS AND ALSO ADDING A 150 FOOT RADIUS FOR SANITARY CONTROL EASEMENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU ALBERTO. COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? NO, NO ONE'S SIGNED UP FOR THIS ONE EITHER. DOD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. YES. OKAY. I MOVE TO APPROVE. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.2 FROM COMMISSIONERS. 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 1.2 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 1.3,

[1.3 Discussion, consideration, and action on a variance request to Volume I, Section IV (A) regarding the minimum paved public road frontage requirements for Parcel ID No. 284659. This ± 11.527-acre site is located ± 1,220 feet southeast of the intersection of Bruce Road and Zmolek Road, Ennis, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 2.]

WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON A VARIANCE REQUEST TO VOLUME ONE, SECTION FOUR A REGARDING THE MINIMUM PAVED ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARCEL ID NUMBER 284659. THIS IS AN APPROXIMATELY 11.527 ACRE SITE THAT IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1220FT SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BRUCE ROAD AND ZAMALEK ROAD, ENNIS ROAD AND BRIDGE PRECINCT NUMBER TWO ALBERTO. YES, THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO CREATE TWO LOTS ON THIS PROPERTY. EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A 500FT OF ROAD FRONTAGE, IT DOES NOT MEET THE COUNTY'S MINIMUM PAVED ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. IT IS. BRUCE ROAD IS A IS A COUNTY MAINTAINED GRAVEL ROAD. SO THEREFORE THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE. FIVE LETTERS WERE SENT OUT. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS. ONE OF THEM IS THE PLAT APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED. THEY SHOULD SUBMIT APPROPRIATE. NUMBER ONE ADDRESSING DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND ALSO IF THE DEVELOPMENT CROSSES THE TARRANT COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT EASEMENTS, WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION IS REQUIRED FROM THEM. OKAY. THANK YOU ALBERTO.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM IS COMMISSIONERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.3.

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.3 FROM COMMISSIONERS EYCK. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER STENSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO. OPPOSITION ITEM 1.3 PASSES

[1.4 Discussion, consideration, and action on a replat of Green Meadow, Lots 14A, 14B, & 14C. The ± 4.159-acre site is located at the intersection of Lone Elm Road and Green Meadows Drive, in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of the City of Waxahachie, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 3.]

UNANIMOUSLY. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ITEM 1.4, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON A REPLAT OF GREEN MEADOW LOTS 14, A 14 B AND 14 C. THIS IS AN APPROXIMATELY 4.159 ACRE SITE THAT IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF LONE ELM ROAD AND GREEN MEADOWS DRIVE, IN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF WAXAHACHIE ROAD AND BRIDGE. PRECINCT NUMBER THREE, ALBERTO. YES, THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO CREATE A A TOTAL OF THREE LOTS FROM THIS PREVIOUSLY PLANNED. IT'S A LOT, WHICH WAS LAST APPROVED ON MAY 2ND OF 1969. WITH IT BEING IN THE ETJ. THEY DID APPROVE THE PLAT BACK ON AUGUST 25TH OF THIS YEAR. THEY ARE SHOWING DRIVEWAY DEDICATION FOR ONE OF TWO THOROUGHFARES, WITH THEY BEING A REPLY TO. WE WERE REQUIRED TO ADVERTISE IT ON THE WAXAHACHIE SUN ON AUGUST 19TH, THE 26TH AND SEPTEMBER 2ND ON THE WEBSITE AUGUST 14TH. AND WE DID SEND OUT 21 CERTIFIED LETTERS. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS PLAT SUBJECT TO 29 CONDITIONS. THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF, I GUESS, HISTORY WITH THIS ONE AS WELL. WE. YESTERDAY WE GOT WORD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT HE WANTED TO TO POTENTIALLY WITHDRAW THIS CASE AND EXCUSE ME, HE WANTED US TO WAIT, I GUESS, A FEW MORE MEETINGS BEFORE APPROVING IT BECAUSE OF OUR INTERLOCAL WITH THE CITY OF WAXAHACHIE AND STATE LAW. WE HAVE TO ACT ON IT TODAY. WORST CASE, IF IT GETS APPROVED, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE FILED. AND HE COULD ALWAYS COME BACK LATER IF HE IF HE DECIDED TO WITHDRAW IT. WE DID INFORM HIM THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO RESUBMIT THE ENTIRE PROCESS, STARTING WITH WAXAHACHIE, AND HE WOULD BE OUT THAT MONEY. GOT IT. SO I GUESS IN THE INTEREST OF OF

[00:10:05]

EVERYTHING, I GUESS WE CAN GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THOSE CONDITIONS. AND IF HE DECIDES NOT TO FOLLOW THE PLAT, THEN THEN IT DOESN'T GET FILED. I SEE. OKAY.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? SO IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT, IT JUST AUTOMATICALLY GETS APPROVAL WITHOUT THE CONDITIONS, CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH. IT GETS APPROVED BY OPERATION OF LAW. APPROVE IT WITH CONDITIONS. CORRECT. GET THOSE CONDITIONS APPLIED. AND THEN IF HE WANTS TO ABANDON THE IDEA THEN HE CAN DO THAT. CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE POINT FOUR AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITIONS. IS THERE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO. OPPOSITION ITEM 1.4 PASSES

[1.5 Discussion, consideration, and action on a variance request to Volume I, Section IV (A) regarding the minimum paved public road frontage requirements for Parcel ID No. 200755. This ± 3.006-acre site is located ± 2,925 feet west of the intersection of Crow Road and Weakley Branch Road, Maypearl, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 3.]

UNANIMOUSLY. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 1.5, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON A VARIANCE REQUEST TO VOLUME ONE, SECTION FOUR A REGARDING THE MINIMUM PAVED ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARCEL ID NUMBER 200755. THIS IS AN APPROXIMATELY 3.006 ACRE SITE THAT IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2925FT WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CROW ROAD AND WEEKLY BRANCH ROAD, MAPLE ROAD AND BRIDGE. PRECINCT NUMBER THREE, ALBERTO. YES, IT'S JUST AS THE PREVIOUS VARIANCE REQUEST. THEY'RE LOOKING TO BUILD AN ADDITION TO THEIR HOUSE. THIS ONE HAS JUST UNDER 880FT OF ROAD FRONTAGE. BUT BECAUSE IT'S A ON A GRAVEL ROAD, IT DOESN'T MEET THE PAVED REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND THEREFORE THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE. WE DID SEND OUT FOUR LETTERS AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THREE STANDARD CONDITIONS. OKAY.

I KNOW NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK. COMMISSIONERS. ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT, WE CAN JUST ADD ON. YEAH. JUST TO ADD ON. YEAH. IT'S JUST AN ADD ON. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS. BUT I'D ALSO LIKE TO DIRECT STAFF TO ASSESS THE FEASIBILITY OF ABANDONING, DISCONTINUING OR VACATING THE WESTERN PART OF CROW ROAD. AND THEN TO PRESENT TO THE COURT FOR POSSIBLE FURTHER ACTION IF DEEMED APPROPRIATE. THAT ROAD, WE HAVEN'T BEEN MAINTAINING IT BEYOND. THERE'S A GATE THERE. WE HAVEN'T BEEN MAINTAINING THAT ROAD SINCE WAY BEFORE I TOOK OFFICE. SO I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE APPROPRIATE, IF WE CAN, TO JUST ABANDON THAT SECTION FROM THAT GATE FORWARD. OKAY. WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK INTO THAT, COMMISSIONER. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. OKAY. WE HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.5 AS PRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE CONDITIONS FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO.

OPPOSITION ITEM 1.5 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO A PUBLIC HEARING WITH

[1.6 Discussion, consideration, and action for a proposed amendment to the 2024 Ellis County Master Thoroughfare Plan, last amended via Minute Order No. 216.26, specifically amending the proposed corridor connecting IH-35E frontage road and FM 308, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 3; providing for a conflicts clause, severability clause, and providing for an effective date. (Part 1 of 2)]

AN ACTION ITEM. I'M FIRST GOING TO CALL IT THE ACTION ITEM AND LET ALBERTO SPEAK ON THAT. THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PIECE. SO THE ACTION ITEM IS ITEM 1.6 WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION FOR A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2024 ELLIS COUNTY MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN, LAST AMENDED BY A MINUTE. ORDER NUMBER 216 DASH. I'M SORRY. 216.26 SPECIFICALLY, AMENDING THE PROPOSED CORRIDOR CONNECTING I-35 FRONTAGE ROAD AND FM. 308 ROAD AND BRIDGE PRECINCT NUMBER THREE, PROVIDING FOR A CONFLICTS CLAUSE, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SO, ALBERTO, CAN YOU KIND OF TELL US WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? YEAH. SO THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO BUILD A MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT ON THIS 1900 ACRES JUST NORTH OF 35 THAT YOU SEE. YOU SEE RIGHT THERE ON THE ON THE MAP, ON THE SCREEN. IT'S GOING TO BE LOW DENSITY. AND LOOKING AT THE THOROUGHFARE BETWEEN THE YELLOW DASHED LINE FROM 35 ALL THE WAY UP TO THUNDER ROAD, THAT THOROUGHFARE CROSSES THROUGH FLOOD CONTROL, TWO FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES, WHICH IS CHAMBERS 98 AND 98 A CROSSES A MILLS CREEK AND MULTIPLE UNSTUDIED FLOODPLAIN AREAS. THE CURRENT TOPOGRAPHY WOULD SEVERELY LIMIT ITS CONSTRUCTION. I THINK AT ONE POINT THERE'S LIKE A 70 FOOT, 76 FOOT DROP OFF, AND TEXAS HAS ALREADY ACQUIRED THE RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE EXISTING FM THREE WAY CROSSOVER AT 35. SO STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THAT THAT YELLOW LINE BE TERMINATED. BUT IT'S IT'S NOT NEEDED. AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS ON ON, ON THIS. AND WE'LL WE DO NEED TO OPEN OUR PUBLIC HEARING. BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. WE'RE JUST. SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO ELIMINATE THAT THOROUGHFARE PLAN THROUGH THERE. YEAH. IT'S JUST GOING TO SHIFT OVER TO 308 AND DOWN 35 SINCE IT'S ALREADY THERE. CORRECT. OKAY. THAT IS A THAT IS A ROUGH, ROUGH AREA. THAT

[P.1 Conduct a public hearing for a proposed amendment to the 2024 Ellis County Master Thoroughfare Plan, specifically amending the proposed future corridor connecting the IH-35E frontage road and FM 308, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 3.]

[00:15:04]

WOULD BE AN EXPENSIVE TO BUILD. OKAY. WE DO HAVE TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. SO THAT WOULD BE ITEM P ONE, WHICH IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2024 ELLIS COUNTY MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE PROPOSED FUTURE CORRIDOR CONNECTING THE I-35 FRONTAGE ROAD AND FM 308, WHICH IS IN ROAD AND BRIDGE PRECINCT NUMBER THREE. I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOTION AT THIS POINT TO ENTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVED.

SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO ENTER THE PUBLIC HEARING FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING.

NO. OPPOSITION. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANYONE THAT HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO. AND I DON'T SEE ANYONE JUMPING UP OUT OF THEIR CHAIR. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO JUDGE. I THINK THE APPLICANT MAY WANT TO SPEAK HERE. OKAY. SURE, SIR. COME ON UP. AND IF YOU WOULD, IF YOU'LL JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN SHARE YOUR YOUR COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS. MADAM CLERK, TED CANTOR, I'M WITH DAVIS MCDILL, THE PROJECT'S ENGINEERS. 1014 FERRIS AVENUE.

I THINK I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT SIGNING UP. THAT'S THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN I'VE BEEN USED TO. BUT IF YOU NEED ONE FOR THE RECORD, I'LL FILL ONE OUT.

WE'RE JUST HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. ALBERTO PRESENTED IT PRECISELY AS I WOULD HAVE. IT'S 1.7 MILES GOES BETWEEN TWO FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES. THERE'S SOME SEVERE GRADES OUT THERE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE OVERCOME IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT IT. IT'D BE VERY DIFFICULT TO CONSTRUCT, AND PROBABLY NOT FEASIBLE FOR TXDOT TO EVEN DO THAT. THEY'VE ALREADY ACQUIRED THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THE INTERCHANGE, THE NEXT INTERCHANGE NORTH. SO IT REALLY MAKES SENSE. JUST, YOU KNOW, THOROUGHFARE PLANS ARE DONE WITH SUCH A BROAD BRUSH FROM A HIGH LEVEL. AND WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE WEEDS, SOMETIMES THEY JUST DON'T WORK. SO YEAH.

RIGHT. WE'RE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THAT. WOULD ASK FOR A VOTE ON IT IN FAVOR OF IT. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU SIR. OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS INDICATED A DESIRE TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVED. WE HAVE WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER.

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

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED AND WE WILL MOVE BACK TO ITEM 1.6, WHICH IS THE CORRESPONDING ACTION ITEM. COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS OR ITEMS TO ASK ALBERTO. IF NOT, WE. WE COULD TAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.6. I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.6 FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO. OPPOSITION ITEM 1.6 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALBERTO. ALL RIGHT.

[3.1 Discussion, consideration, and action to enter a Joint Contract for Election Services between the Ellis County Election Officer and Participating Political Subdivisions by holding an election jointly with the County on November 3, 2026, pursuant to the authority in Section 271.002, of Chapter 271, of the Texas Election Code. - Election Administrator, Jana Onyon]

WE'LL MOVE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PORTION OF OUR AGENDA. AND THE FIRST IS ITEM 3.1 WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION. TO ENTER A JOINT CONTRACT FOR ELECTION SERVICES BETWEEN THE ELLIS COUNTY ELECTION OFFICER AND PARTICIPATING POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS BY HOLDING AN ELECTION JOINTLY WITH THE COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 3RD, 2026, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY IN SECTION 271.002 OF CHAPTER 271 OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, AND JENNA ONION, OUR ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR, WILL SPEAK TO US. GOOD AFTERNOON. SO WE'RE ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT WITH SIX ENTITIES HAVE REQUESTED US TO CONDUCT THEIR ELECTIONS ON OUR NOVEMBER BALLOT. THOSE ENTITIES ARE GOING TO BE THE CITY OF ENNIS, THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, ELLIS COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT NUMBER FIVE, HIGHLAND LAKES MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, C LAKES MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

NUMBER ONE, LAKE SONG MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER ONE B. SO THIS IS OUR STANDARD CONTRACT THAT LEGAL HAS APPROVED AND WE'RE JUST NEEDING IT TO GO THROUGH COURT. YEAH JUST SAME AS USUAL RIGHT. YES. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS FOR JANA ON ON ITEM 3.1. IF NOT WE CAN WE WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 3.1 FROM COMMISSIONER STENSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ZAJC. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I I IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO. OPPOSITION ITEM 3.1 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ITEM 3.2,

[3.2 Discussion, consideration, and action for the County Judge to sign the joint Notice of Election for the General and Special Elections to be held on November 3, 2026. - Election Administrator, Jana Onyon]

WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION FOR THE COUNTY JUDGE TO SIGN THE JOINT NOTICE OF ELECTION FOR THE GENERAL AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3RD, 2026. JANA. YES, THIS IS THE NOTICE OF GENERAL ELECTION. SO WE HAVE ORDERED

[00:20:01]

OUR ELECTIONS FOR ELLIS COUNTY, AND THIS IS OUR NOTICE OF ALL THE ELECTIONS THAT WE'D LIKE TO POST UP FOR THE VOTERS IN ELLIS COUNTY TO KNOW ABOUT. AND IT'S A JOINT ONE BECAUSE WE'VE ADDED THOSE SIX ENTITIES ON THERE. SO IT ALSO GIVES ALL THE POLLING LOCATIONS FOR EARLY VOTING DATES AND TIMES, AND THEN ALSO THE ELECTION DAY 30 SITES THROUGHOUT OUR COUNTY THAT ANYBODY CAN GO AND VOTE AT ANY OF THOSE SITES ON ELECTION DAY FROM 7 TO 7. SO, OKAY, THIS ORDER. THANK YOU AGAIN. KIND OF THE STANDARD PROCEDURE. YES, OF EVERY ELECTION SEASON. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS ITEM? MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 3.2 FROM COMMISSIONER ZAJC. IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER STINSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO.

OPPOSITION ITEM 3.2 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL

[3.3 Discussion, Consideration, and action to designate the County Auditor as an additional County Investment Officer and authorized individual on the County's securities and investment accounts, subject to applicable law and the County's Investment Policy, for the purpose of providing continuity of operations and ensuring that an additional authorized County official is available to access and administer such accounts in the event of the prolonged absence or unavailability of the County Treasurer; and authorize any necessary amendments to the County's Investment Policy, resolutions, account authorizations, and related banking or investment documents. – County Treasurer, Lauri Hartley]

NOW TAKE UP ITEM 3.3. AND I BELIEVE OUR NEWLY SWORN IN COUNTY TREASURER, LORI HARTLEY, IS GOING TO VISIT WITH US ON ITEM 3.3. IT'S QUITE LENGTHY, SO BEAR WITH ME. DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO DESIGNATE THE COUNTY AUDITOR AS AN ADDITIONAL COUNTY INVESTMENT OFFICER AND AUTHORIZED INDIVIDUAL ON THE COUNTY'S SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS, SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE LAW AND THE COUNTY'S INVESTMENT INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS AND ENSURING THAT AN ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZED COUNTY OFFICIAL IS AVAILABLE TO ACCESS AND ADMINISTER SUCH ACCOUNTS IN THE EVENT OF THE PROLONGED ABSENCE OR UNAVAILABILITY OF THE COUNTY TREASURER AND AUTHORIZE ANY NECESSARY AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY'S INVESTMENT POLICY RESOLUTIONS, ACCOUNT AUTHORIZATIONS AND RELATED BANKING OR INVESTMENT DOCUMENTS. OKAY. HISTORICALLY, THE AUDITOR HAS BEEN AN ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIVE ON INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS, AND DUE TO THE PASSING OF CHERYL, WE'VE HAD TO GET MY NAME, MY SIGNATURE, AND EVERYTHING HAS HAD TO CHANGE. SO AUDITOR HAS VIEW ONLY ACCESS TO THOSE ACCOUNTS. AND THIS IS JUST TO GET US TO CONTINUE ROLLING.

RIGHT, RIGHT. OKAY. SO SO THIS THIS PARTICULAR ONE. SO I WAS ALREADY AN AUTHORIZED USER ON EVERY OTHER INVESTMENT ACCOUNT. THIS ONE BECAUSE IT DOES REQUIRE AN ACT OF THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT OFFICER, WHICH I DO HAVE THE, THE EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INVESTMENT. RIGHT. OFFICE OFFICER. BUT WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME. AND THIS IS THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS THE ONE THAT HOLDS ALL OF OUR SECURITIES.

THIS IS US BANK. SO WE CAN'T EVEN DO ANYTHING IN US BANK. SO OUR INVESTMENT. ADVISOR IS ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT DOES ALL OF IT. WE JUST HAVE VIEW ONLY ACCESS. BOTH OF US ACTUALLY ONLY HAVE VIEW ONLY ACCESS TO US. SO THIS ONE JUST REQUIRES THAT THERE BE AN ACT OF THE COURT TO. BUT EVERY OTHER ONE, YOU ALREADY HAVE IT ON EVERY OTHER. AND SO IN DOING THIS, BECAUSE I WAS ABLE TO GET LORI ACCESS SEAMLESSLY BECAUSE I WASN'T AUTHORIZED USER, THEY JUST SENT US A PIECE OF PAPER. I JUST HAD TO SIGN IT AT HER. THIS ONE HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT MORE TEDIOUS BECAUSE NEITHER ONE OF US HAD ACCESS, SO WE'VE HAD TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS AND. RIGHT. SO WE KIND OF DON'T WANT TO LEAVE. AND ALSO THIS DOES I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS DOES SAY THE COUNTY AUDITOR. SO IT DOESN'T NAME ME SPECIFICALLY.

SO THIS IN 15 CARRY ON. IT WILL JUST CARRY ON THROUGHOUT THE. OKAY. AND HOWEVER THE INVESTMENT POLICY WILL. AND WE'LL ADD THIS AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE JUST AS A SAFETY NET.

YES. CORRECT. YES, ABSOLUTELY. SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE HERE IN 50 YEARS.

HOPEFULLY, MAYBE, BUT I DON'T KNOW. BUT I JUST WANTED TO THAT IT DOESN'T THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO COME BACK TO COURT IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE IT DOES NAME THE POSITION. NOT NOT THE SPECIFIC NAME. YEAH. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS ON THIS? IF NOT, WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION TO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 3.3 FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I, I IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO. OPPOSITION ITEM 3.3 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. OKAY.

[3.4 Discussion and clarification on the adopted 2026 Tax Year Rate of 0.273500 (Composed of M&O tax rate of 0.246746, I&S tax rate of 0.009041, and an FM tax rate of 0.017713) – Ellis County Judge, John Wray]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 3.4, WHICH IS DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION ON THE ADOPTED 2026 TAX YEAR RATE OF 0.273500, WHICH IS COMPOSED OF A TAX RATE OF 0.246746 AND INS TAX RATE OF 0.009041 AND AN FM TAX RATE OF 0.017713. SO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THOSE ARE THE SUBCOMPONENTS OF THE OVERALL TAX RATE OF 27.3 $0.05. AND WHEN WE HAD OUR OUR MEETING LAST WEEK COMMISSIONER I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER BUTLER

[00:25:04]

MADE THE MOTION. HE WAS READING FROM A WRITTEN MOTION THAT WAS THEN USED TO REFLECT OUR MINUTES. AND I EVEN MENTIONED THAT DURING THE MEETING. I DO THINK COMMISSIONER BUTLER MIGHT HAVE, WHEN HE WAS READING THE MOTION, MIGHT HAVE TRANSPOSED ONE OF THE DIGITS. AND THERE'S A LOT A LOT OF NUMBERS IN THERE, LOTS OF DIGITS. SO HE MIGHT HAVE TRANSPOSED ONE OF THOSE, BUT NONETHELESS, IT WAS CERTAINLY MY INTENT. AND I THINK THE COURT'S INTENT, THE VOTE WAS 3 TO 2, THAT THE RATE BE SET AT 27.35. IT'S ACTUALLY LET ME EXPRESS IT IN DOLLARS.

IT'S 0.273500. AND THAT THOSE WERE THE SUBCOMPONENTS OF THAT. SO IT'S NOT REALLY AN ACTION ITEM. BUT IF ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY, YOU'RE WELCOME TO SAY IT.

OTHERWISE WE CAN JUST MOVE ON. OKAY? OKAY. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 3.5, WHICH IS DISCUSSION,

[3.5 Discussion, consideration, and action to cancel the Commissioners Court regular meeting scheduled for September 22, 2026. – Ellis County Judge, John Wray]

CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO CANCEL THE COMMISSIONERS COURT REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2026. AND COMMISSIONERS, ON THIS AGAIN, I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE TAKE NO ACTION. I THINK WE WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE THE BUDGET OFFICER POSITION AND PERHAPS THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR POSITION AT THE NEXT MEETING. SO YEAH, ON THE 22ND. SO UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION, I WOULD RECOMMEND NO ACTION ON ITEM 3.5. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE

[3.6 Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding the Maintenance Facility Director position. – Ellis County Judge, John Wray]

LAST ITEM ON OUR ON OUR ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA IS ITEM 3.6, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE FACILITIES DIRECTOR POSITION. SO WE DID OF COURSE, WE ALL GOT TO MEET DUSTIN HAINES, WHO'S WITH US HERE IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY. AND IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO MEET HIM, PLEASE, PLEASE DO SO. HE WAS OFFERED A CONTINGENT CONTINGENT UPON FINAL APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT. HE WAS OFFERED THE POSITION AS THE FACILITIES DIRECTOR, AND HE DID ACCEPT THAT. AND HE WILL BE JOINING US IF THE VOTE GOES WELL TODAY. HE WILL BE JOINING US ON OCTOBER 5TH AS THE NEW FACILITIES DIRECTOR. SO WELCOME, DUSTIN, AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD. I'M CERTAINLY LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU, AND WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE YOU START. THE POSITION HAS BEEN VACANT FOR TWO AND A HALF MONTHS, I BELIEVE. SO WE'RE WE'RE ANXIOUS TO GET THAT FILLED. COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, WOULD ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE HIRING OF DUSTIN HAINES? AS OUR FACILITIES MOVE? I BELIEVE WE HAVE. I BELIEVE WE HAD A MOTION FROM EVERYBODY, BUT COMMISSIONER STENSON WAS THE FIRST ONE I HEARD, AND THEN I BELIEVE I HEARD COMMISSIONER PONDER MAKE THE SECOND, SO I WILL. SO THAT'S THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE HIRING OF DUSTIN HAINES AS OUR FACILITIES DIRECTOR. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO. OPPOSITION ITEM 3.6 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

UNANIMOUSLY. YEAH. IF YOU HAVEN'T MET DUSTIN, PLEASE DO. HE'S HE'S HE'S REAL EASY TO TALK TO. HE'S A REALLY NICE GUY. ALL RIGHT. WE DO HAVE TWO ITEMS POSTED FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[MOTION TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION]

THE FIRST IS ITEM 4.1, WHICH IS PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION FIVE FIVE, 1.071, SUBSECTION ONE, A CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL BICKERSTAFF HEATH DELGADO, ACOSTA LLP VIA REMOTE VIDEO CONFERENCE REGARDING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION CONCERNING T-C-E-Q MATTERS, SPECIFICALLY PENDING TEXAS POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMITS AND PENDING PETITIONS FOR THE CREATION OF MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTS. WE HAVE A SECOND ITEM, WHICH WAS RELATED TO THE POSSIBLE HIRING OF THE FACILITIES DIRECTOR.

THAT'S ITEM 4.2, AND THAT ONE IS MOOT. WE'VE ALREADY ACTED ON THAT. SO WE WE DON'T NEED TO ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THAT ITEM, BUT WITH WITH THE ITEM 4.1, DOES ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ENTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION? SO MOVED. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO ENTER 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 EXECUTIVE SESSION IS NOW OPEN. THE TIME IS OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE BACK.

[ADJOURNMENT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION]

ASSEMBLED IN THE COMMISSIONERS COURTROOM, AND I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO MOVED. SECOND, 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. HAS ANYONE OPPOSED. HEARING NO OPPOSITION, THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS NOW ADJOURNED. THE TIME IS 2:53 P.M. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE CONCLUDED ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR

[00:30:06]

AGENDA FOR TODAY'S MEETING, SO I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN OUR MEETING. SO MOVE MOTION. WE HAVE A WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER STINSON. AND YEAH, WE NEED TO LET HIM CHIME IN EVERY NOW AND THEN. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. GO. MOTION TO ADJOURN.

THE MEETING FROM COMMISSIONER STINSON AND THE SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. IS ANYONE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Sep 15, 2026 Commissioners Court

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item