A.16 Authorization for Sheriff Brad Norman to execute an agreement for the buildout Of additional office space located in the lobby of 300 S. Jackson Waxahachie, Texas. — Ellis County Sheriff, Brad Norman

[A.16 Authorization for Sheriff Brad Norman to execute an agreement for the buildout Of additional office space located in the lobby of 300 S. Jackson Waxahachie, Texas. — Ellis County Sheriff, Brad Norman]

AND F ONE THROUGH F3 PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP THAT ITEM A 16, WHICH AGAIN IS AUTHORIZATION FOR SHERIFF BRAD NORMAN TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR THE BUILD OUT OF ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE LOCATED IN THE LOBBY OF 300 SOUTH JACKSON STREET, WAXAHACHIE, TEXAS. SHERIFF, THANKS FOR COMING UP. SO AS I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE OUT OF SPACE AT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR OFFICE SPACE. SO WE HAVE LOOKED AT MAKING OUR MAIN

[00:05:08]

LOBBY. WHEN YOU WALK IN THE DOOR AT 300 SOUTH JACKSON, SMALLER TO THE LEFT SIDE, IF YOU WALK IN, THERE'S A COUPLE OF PEWS ON THE FAR LEFT SIDE AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF OF WHERE OUR VISITATION OFFICER SITS, THAT WE CAN EASILY MAKE TWO OFFICES THERE. SO IT WILL STILL HAVE A DECENT SIZED LOBBY, BUT THIS WILL ALLOW. RIGHT NOW I'VE GOT THREE PEOPLE IN TWO PERSON OFFICES, TWO PEOPLE IN ONE PERSON OFFICES. AND WE'RE JUST WE'RE OUT OF SPACE. SO WE'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT BIDS. ONE WAS I DON'T HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF ME. ONE'S 14 SOMETHING AND ONE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER. WE'VE CHECKED REFERENCES ON BOTH COMPANIES. I RECOMMEND THAT WE GO WITH THE LOWER BID. WE'VE GOT GOOD REFERENCES FROM THEM, BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING. AND THAT'S WHY I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ANY QUESTIONS ANYBODY HAS. THE LOCATION. YEAH. WHEN YOU WALK IN THE FRONT DOOR IT'D BE THAT SPACE TO YOUR LEFT. ONE WOULD BE ALL THE WAY UP TO THE WINDOW, AND IT WOULD BE A SMALL THERE'S A DOOR TO THAT NOW THAT GOES INTO C, I'D AND CIVIL THAT DOOR WOULD STAY. THAT WOULD JUST BE AN ADDITIONAL DOOR OR HALLWAY WITH AN OFFICE TO THE LEFT AND OFFICE TO THE RIGHT. SO IT WOULD OCCUPY A SMALL PORTION OF OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY A PRETTY LARGE LOBBY. YEP. OKAY. OKAY.

DOES ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM A 16 FROM COMMISSIONER STINSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I, I DOES ANYONE OPPOSED ■HEARING NO OPPOSITION ITEM? A16 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[P.1 Conduct a public hearing for proposed amendments to the Development Master Fee Schedule, last updated under Minute Order 338.23.]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SHERIFF. OKAY, WE'RE NOW GOING TO MOVE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGENDA. I WOULD ASK OUR DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT, ALBERTO MORRIS, TO COME SPEAK TO US ON THESE ITEMS. ITEM. WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AGENDA THAT IS ITEM P ONE TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE LAST UPDATED UNDER MINUTE ORDER 338.23. AND THEN THERE'S A CORRESPONDING ACTION ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM 1.1 DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AND ANY OTHER RELATED ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND CHANGES INCLUDING A CONFLICTS CLAUSE, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

SO, ALBERTO, WHY DON'T YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO ORIENT US IN THE PUBLIC AND THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, JUDGE. COMMISSIONERS. GOOD AFTERNOON.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO UPDATE OUR DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE. AS JUDGE SAID IT WAS LAST AMENDED IN 2023, ACTUALLY JULY 11TH, 2023, TO BE EXACT. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY FEE INCREASES AT THIS TIME, BUT WE ARE GOING TO BE MOVING AROUND SOME FEES AND WE'RE BREAKING IT DOWN BY BY DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT A WILL BE DEVELOPMENT RELATED FEES. EXHIBIT B WILL BE ENGINEERING RELATED FEES. WE ALSO RECENTLY DISCOVERED THAT THERE IS A ANNUAL AUTHORIZATION OF FEES THAT'S REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. SO THIS WILL ALSO HELP KEEP US IN COMPLIANCE AS WELL. SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE ELIMINATING THE SUBDIVISION PERCENTAGE FEE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY FEE AUTHORITY. WE ARE REQUESTING TO ADD A DRAINAGE DETERMINATION FEE, AND THAT'S KIND OF BROKEN UP INTO TWO PARTS, A BASE FEE OF $50. AND IF A SUBSEQUENT REVIEW IS NEEDED, IT WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL 100. RIGHT NOW WE ARE USING THE MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING FEE OF 150 AS KIND OF THE BASIS FOR THAT, BUT WE'RE LOOKING TO KIND OF SPLIT THAT FEE INTO TWO PARTS 50 AND ONE AND 100. WE ARE INCLUDING THE UTILITY AND THE ROADWAY FEE IN THIS IN THIS FEE SCHEDULE. IT WASN'T THERE PREVIOUSLY, BUT IT HAS BEEN IN THE IN THAT RESPECTIVE ORDER LAST UPDATED IN 2023. SO THAT ONE IS NOT NECESSARILY FEE INCREASE. WE'RE JUST PUTTING IT INTO THE FEE SCHEDULE JUST SO WE CAN HAVE ALL THE LIST OF FEES ALL IN ONE PLACE. ALTHOUGH NOT REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, OUR REGULATIONS DO REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, AT LEAST TO BE PLACED IN THE PAPER AT LEAST 15 DAYS BEFORE THE THE ACTUAL DATE OF THE HEARING. AND THAT WAS DONE SEPTEMBER 15TH. IT'S THE LAST MONTH. SO STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. OKAY. THANK YOU ALBERTO. COMMISSIONERS, I GUESS AT THIS TIME, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AT THIS MOMENT, WE CAN MOVE INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE, WHICH WAS LAST UPDATED UNDER MINUTE ORDER 338.23. SO MOVED. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM

[00:10:02]

COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, WE DID NOT HAVE ANYONE WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO WITH THAT, WE CAN PROCEED WITH CLOSING IT. DOES ANYONE MOVE? 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 AYE. AYE. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

[1.1 Discussion, consideration, and action on proposed amendments to the Development Master Fee Schedule and any other related additions, deletions, and changes, including a conflicts clause, severability clause, and providing for an effective date.]

ALL RIGHT. AND BACK TO THE ACTION ITEM. ITEM 1.1 DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE.

COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS? IF NOT, DOES ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.1 SO MOVE. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1.1 FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ZIKE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING NO. OPPOSITION ITEM 1.1 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU.

[1.2 Discussion, consideration, and action to challenge the wastewater permit for Rockett Ranch MUD from TCEQ permit NO. WQ0016848001.(Part 1 of 2)]

THANK YOU SIR. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ITEM 1.2. WE DO HAVE ONE PERSON WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1.2. THAT ITEM IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION. TO CHALLENGE THE WASTEWATER PERMIT FOR ROCKET RANCH MUD FROM TCE Q PERMIT NUMBER WQ0016848001. WE DO HAVE THIS ITEM CROSS POSTED FOR THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. I ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL NOT VOTE ON IT UNTIL AFTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. MR. MARONEY, WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. MR. MARONEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK NOW OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO? WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL GO THROUGH THE REST OF OUR AGENDA. WE'LL CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH MAY LAST UP. AND WE ALSO HAVE BRANT MURPHY. MURPHY HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AS WELL. SO THIS WOULD GO FOR BOTH OF YOU. SO ANYWAY WE'LL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT MIGHT LAST FIVE MINUTES. IT MIGHT LAST 30.

WE'LL COME BACK AND TAKE THIS ITEM UP AGAIN. YOU CAN EITHER WAIT TO SPEAK THEN OR YOU CAN SPEAK NOW. IT'S UP TO YOU. DO YOU HAVE A. SPEAK NOW. YES YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN. YEAH. YEAH. I KNOW THE ACOUSTICS ARE BAD IN THE ROOM. I'M I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU THE OPTION TO NOT HAVE TO HANG AROUND, BUT I'M. YEAH, MY 76 YEAR OLD, I UNDERSTAND. SO SO, MR. MARONEY, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN SHARE YOUR COMMENTS WITH US.

OKAY. I'M JERRY MAHONEY, I'M WITH BIGGS AND MATTHEWS ENGINEERS OUT OF WICHITA FALLS.

I OWN THE ENGINEERING FIRM OUT OF WICHITA FALLS. AND I'M HERE TO PROVIDE SOME AT LEAST PRELIMINARY INFORMATION ON A TRACT OF LAND. I'M REPRESENTING THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER OF THAT TRACT OF LAND, 235 ACRES. THAT 235 IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF FM 983 AND SOUTH OF 2377. IN GENERAL, THEY OWN ABOUT HALFWAY IN BETWEEN THERE. THAT'S WHERE THE 235 IS. IT GOES FROM BRUSHY CREEK ROAD WEST TO PRITCHETT ROAD. SO THAT'S KIND OF GIVES YOU AN INDICATION OF, OF WHERE THAT WHERE THAT LOCATION IS. THE INTENT FOR, FOR THIS LAND IS TO DEVELOP A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION, RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, JUST UNDER 1200 RESIDENTIAL LOTS IS WHAT'S IS WHAT'S PROPOSED. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE DEVELOPED OVER A PERIOD OF 8 TO 10 YEARS, TWO PHASES, PHASE ONE WILL BE FOR THE FIRST 600 HOMES, PHASE TWO FOR THE REMAINDER PUTS YOU AT ABOUT SOMEWHERE AROUND AROUND 1200. ALL OF THIS IS IN THE ROCKET SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT. THAT SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT HAS THE CCN RIGHTS, OBVIOUSLY. AND SO WE WE ANTICIPATE THEM PROVIDING WATER SERVICE TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA WASTEWATER SERVICE PROVIDER IN THIS AREA. AND SO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS KIND OF PARALLEL TRACKS. NUMBER ONE IS THE REGIONAL TRINITY. RIVER AUTHORITY PLANT. THAT'S A REGIONAL PLANT. THAT'S PROBABLY IT'S LESS THAN THREE MILES, BECAUSE WE HAD TO NOTE THAT ON PART OF THE APPLICATION. AND SO THAT'S OUR PREFERENCE IS TO GO TO THAT PLANT, ASSUMING THAT WE CAN GET DOCUMENTATION AND GET APPROVAL TO GO TO THAT PLANT. THAT'S THE WAY WE'LL DO ON

[00:15:01]

PARALLEL TRACKS OF THAT. IF WE CAN'T DO THAT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO TAKE PART OF THAT 235 ACRES, PROBABLY 8 TO 10 ACRES IN THE NORTH AND THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THAT. AND WE'VE APPLIED FOR A DISCHARGE PERMIT AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME. AND A DISCHARGE PERMIT WILL BE IN TWO PHASES. FIRST ONE FOR THE FIRST 600 LOTS IS ABOUT 270,000 GALLONS A DAY. RELEASE INTO THE BRUSHY CREEK. PORTION OF IT, AND THEN ULTIMATELY 530,000 GALLONS A DAY WOULD BE ULTIMATELY RELEASED AS PART OF THE THE 1200 ACRES. AND ALL OF THAT WOULD GO INTO BRUSHY CREEK.

THE PLANT WOULD BE A PRIVATELY OWNED PLANT, MAINTAINED AND OPERATED BY WHATEVER ENTITY ENDS UP OWNING THAT THE. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE TWO LEVELS OF TRACKS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE. IT'S BEEN DECLARED ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE. IT'S NOW UNDER TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM IS EVALUATING AND MODELING THE BRUSHY CREEK DOWNSTREAM FROM WHERE OUR DISCHARGE WOULD BE. WHAT THAT DOES IS OBVIOUSLY SET THE PARAMETERS FOR TREATMENT QUALITY AND WATER QUALITY THAT COMES OUT OF THE COMES OUT OF THE PLANT. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. IT'S BEEN DECLARED ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE UNDER TECHNICAL REVIEW.

LIKE I SAID, OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO GO TO THE REGIONAL PLANT. THAT'S WHAT TCE IS ENCOURAGING AND THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO DO. BUT ULTIMATELY IF THAT CAN'T HAPPEN, THEN WE'LL WE'LL GO WITH THE DISCHARGE PERMIT. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MARONEY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD BACKGROUND INFORMATION. OKAY. WE ALSO HAVE MR. MURPHY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK NOW OR WAIT LATER? I'LL WAIT. KERRY COVERED MOST OF THE POINTS TO TALK ABOUT, SO I'LL HANG TIGHT. RIGHT. OKAY. VERY GOOD, VERY GOOD. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GOING TO UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS AT THIS TIME, WE'LL JUST COME BACK TO THIS

[2.1 Discussion, consideration, and action to award the following vendors on Best Value RFB 2026-011 for inclusion to the provider pool to complete behavioral health assessments and services for Ellis County Veteran's Treatment Court. • A Moore Better Me Counseling, PLLC • For Us Collective LLC • Azimuth OCD and Anxiety dba Lukas Snear Counseling PLLC • Therapeutic Transitions & Associates LLC]

AFTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. OKAY. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 2.1, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO AWARD THE FOLLOWING VENDORS ON BEST VALUE RFP 2026-011 FOR INCLUSION OF THE PROVIDER IN THE PROVIDER POOL TO COMPLETE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS AND SERVICES FOR ELLIS COUNTY VETERANS TREATMENT COURT. THOSE VENDORS ARE A MORE BETTER ME CONSULTING P LLC FOR US COLLECTIVE, LLC, AZIMUTH, OCD, AND ANXIETY DBA. LUCAS SENIOR COUNSELING, LLC. AND LASTLY, THERAPEUTIC TRANSITIONS AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. EJ, OUR DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING, EJ HARTMAN, WILL SPEAK TO US ON THIS ITEM. GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE. COMMISSIONERS TO PROVIDE ONGOING BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT SERVICES TO THE VETERANS TREATMENT COURT. BEHAVIORAL HEALTH REQUESTED THAT A POOL OF CLINICIANS BE SET UP AND WITH THE COURT'S APPROVAL ON JUNE 9TH, PURCHASING PUT OUT A BEST VALUE BID THAT WILL REMAIN OPEN FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS SO THAT WE CAN VET PEOPLE AS THEY COME FORTH ON THAT BID. PURCHASING HAS RECEIVED FOUR RESPONSES TO THE BID, AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HAS VETTED AND THE RESPONDENTS AND IS RECOMMENDING ADDING THE FOUR TO THE POOL. STAFF IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO ADD THE PROVIDERS TO THE POOL, AND CAITLIN WILKINSON IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. IF YOU ALL HAD ANY ABOUT THE PROCESS. COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR CAITLIN OR EJ? I THINK THESE ARE BUDGETED FUNDS. WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE THE VENDORS LINED UP, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE FUNDS ARE THE FUNDS ARE GRANT MONEY, RIGHT? YEAH. I MEAN, RIGHT. YEAH, IT'S IT'S COMING OUT OF THERE, RIGHT? YEAH. THE VETERANS TREATMENT COURT DOES RECEIVE A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF ITS FUNDING FROM A GRANT, A STATE GRANT. DO THIS. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 2.1. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 2.1 FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING NO. OPPOSITION ITEM 2.1 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. EJ THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU THANK YOU. OKAY.

[3.1 Discussion, consideration and action to authorize the transfer of interest earnings attributable to grant funds to the County's General Fund, for all grants and grant-related funds for which the applicable grant agreement, award terms, federal or state law, regulation, or other governing requirement does not require interest earnings to be retained in the grant fund, returned to the granting agency, applied to the grant program, or otherwise handled in a specified manner. — County Auditor, Staci Parr]

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PORTION OF OUR AGENDA. THE FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 3.1 WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER OF INTEREST EARNINGS ATTRIBUTABLE TO GRANT FUNDS TO THE COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND FOR ALL GRANTS AND GRANT RELATED FUNDS FOR WHICH THE APPLICABLE GRANT AGREEMENT, AWARD TERMS, FEDERAL OR STATE LAW, REGULATION OR OTHER GOVERNING REQUIREMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE INTEREST. EARNINGS TO BE RETAINED IN THE GRANT FUND RETURNED TO THE GRANTING AGENCY, APPLIED TO THE GRANT PROGRAM OR

[00:20:05]

OTHER HANDLE OTHERWISE HANDLED IN A SPECIFIED MANNER. AND OUR COUNTY AUDITOR, STACEY PARR, YOU'RE GOING TO TELL US ABOUT THIS. SO THIS ITEM WOULD ESTABLISH A CONSISTENT PROCESS FOR HANDLING INTEREST THAT'S EARNED ON GRANT FUNDS. WHEN A GRANT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE THAT WE, THE MONEY, REMAIN IN THE GRANT OR BE RETURNED TO THE FUNDING AGENCY OR TO BE USED FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WE CAN MOVE IT OVER INTO OUR COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND FOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT USE. SO WE. MY OFFICE WILL LOOK. MAKE SURE WITHIN THE GRANT APPLICATIONS AND GRANT DOCUMENTATION HOW THE INTEREST CAN BE OR SHOULD BE USED. IF IT DOES NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC. AN END GAME, THEN WE CAN MOVE IT TO THE GENERAL FUND, AND THEN IT CAN BE USED FOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT PURPOSES. SO WHEN LIKE WHEN WE HAD THAT LARGE AMOUNT OF ARPA MONEY, WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE SOME OF THAT INTEREST MONEY OVER A, YOU KNOW, AS THE, THE PRINCIPAL BALANCES OF THOSE GRANTS GET SMALLER. OF COURSE, THE INTEREST AMOUNTS GET SMALLER AS WELL, BUT ANYTHING HELPS. IN THE MEANTIME, IS THERE ANY INTEREST? AND WE CAN USE THAT IN ANOTHER SPOT. COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS, ANY LIMITATIONS TO WHERE THOSE THOSE EXCESS FUNDS CAN BE EXPENDED. IF THERE IS NO IF THERE'S NOTHING IN THE GRANT THAT SAYS THAT IT HAS TO BE USED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE GRANT. THE GRANT. SO THERE ARE WE DO HAVE SOME GRANTS LIKE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE THE DA THERE. WE HAVE TO REPORT THE INTEREST ON THEIR GRANT. SO THERE'S HAS TO STAY WITH THEM. BUT LIKE ARPA, WE ARE ABLE TO KEEP THAT MONEY OR, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME GRANTS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO. IF THEY ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP IT WITHIN THAT FUND, OR IF WE HAVE TO USE THE INTEREST FOR SOMETHING SPECIFIC, WE CAN JUST USE IT. WE CAN MOVE IT INTO OUR GENERAL FUND. YEAH.

BUT WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT. YEAH. SO TO SUMMARIZE THAT, IF IF THE GRANT DOCUMENT ITSELF REQUIRES IT TO STAY WITH THE FUND, IT WILL STAY THERE. YEAH. WE WON'T. OR IF STATE OR FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES IT TO STAY WITH THE. CORRECT. YES. YEAH. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF IF NOT, DOES ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 3.1. SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 3.1 FROM COMMISSIONER ZIKE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER STENSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING NO. OPPOSITION ITEM 3.1 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[3.2 Discussion, consideration, and possible action to current Burn Ban - Ellis County Minute Order 251.26 Prohibiting Outdoor Burning. — Fire Marshal, Tim Birdwell]

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ITEM 3.2, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION RELATED TO THE CURRENT BURN BAN. ELLIS COUNTY MINUTE ORDER 251.26 PROHIBITING OUTDOOR BURNING. AND OUR FIRE MARSHAL TIM BIRDWELL WILL SPEAK TO US. I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME RAINS LATELY, AND IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO RECONSIDER THE BURN BAN. SO TIM, GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS. AFTERNOON, JUDGE. COMMISSIONERS, I MAKE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE RESCIND THE BURN BAN AT THIS TIME. RIGHT QUICK, OUR MINIMUM FOR THE COUNTY'S 351 HOUR MAX. IT IS OVER 600 TO 643. AND THEN OUR AVERAGE IS 466. BUT SPEAKING WITH THE FORESTRY SERVICE TODAY, WE BOTH CAME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT SCREENING UP, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBERS ARE DROPPING, SO THERE'S NO USE WAITING ANOTHER WEEK OR TWO WEEKS ON THIS. SO. RIGHT. WELL WE GOT MORE COMING IN A DAY OR TWO RIGHT? YEAH. RIGHT. YEAH. HOPEFULLY MORE RAIN. YEAH.

THAT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TO RESCIND THAT BURN BAN. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO RESCIND THE BURN BAN FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ZEKE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I, I IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING? NO OPPOSITION. THE MOTION TO RESCIND THE BURN BAN PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, THANK

[3.3 Discussion, consideration, and action to designate County Commissioner Precinct 4, Kyle Butler as the Judge Pro Tern Of the Ellis County Commissioners Court. — Ellis County Judge, John Wray]

YOU, THANK YOU CHIEF. OKAY. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ITEM 3.3, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO DESIGNATE COUNTY COMMISSIONER PRECINCT FOUR, KYLE BUTLER AS THE JUDGE PRO TEM OF THE ELLIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT. AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, THAT POSITION HAS BEEN VACANT FOR A FEW MONTHS. AND IT'S SOMEWHAT. I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU ALL THAT I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING IN TWO WEEKS ON OCTOBER 27TH. I FEEL LIKE I HAVE A REALLY GOOD EXCUSE THOUGH. MY DAUGHTER GRADUATED FROM LAW SCHOOL THIS PAST MAY AND TOOK THE BAR EXAM AND HAS PASSED GOTTEN NOTICE THAT SHE HAS PASSED. SHE'S WORKING IN HOUSTON AND FOR A LARGE LAW FIRM, AND THEY'RE HAVING A SPECIAL SWEARING IN EVENT THAT

[00:25:03]

AFTERNOON IN HOUSTON. SO I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A REALLY IT'S SOMETHING I CAN'T MISS. SO I HAVE TO BE THERE. BUT IN MY ABSENCE, WE WOULD. IT'D BE BEST TO GO AHEAD AND FILL THE JUDGE PRO TEM POSITION SO THAT WE KNOW WHO'S GOING TO LEAD THE MEETING IN TWO WEEKS. ANY ANY THOUGHTS OR DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER. BEEN HERE LONGER THAN ANY OF US. YEAH. YEAH THAT'S RIGHT. YOU'RE A SURVIVOR. IF IF THE COURT WANTS ME TO DO THIS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO. I'D BE HONORED. YEAH, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER BUTLER AS THE JUDGE PRO TEM FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ZAJC. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING NO.

OPPOSITION. CONGRATULATIONS, COMMISSIONER BUTLER, YOU'VE BEEN APPOINTED JUDGE PRO TEM.

THANK YOU. YEAH. OKAY. CONGRATULATIONS. OR SUCKER? WELL, WE'LL WE'LL BE SURE TO PUT A LOT OF. WE'LL BE SURE TO PUT A LOT OF REALLY HARD STUFF ON THE OCTOBER THE OCTOBER 27TH AGENDA. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE DO WE OF COURSE HAVE UNRESOLVED ITEM 1.2. BUT WE NOW

[MOTION TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION]

HAVE ITEM 4.1 POSTED FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT IS PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION FIVE, 51.071, SUBSECTION ONE, A CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL BICKERSTAFF HEATH DELGADO, ACOSTA LLP VIA REMOTE CONFERENCE REGARDING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION CONCERNING T-C-E-Q MATTERS, SPECIFICALLY PENDING TEXAS POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMITS AND PETITIONS FOR THE CREATION OF MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTS. SO, COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ENTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION? SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ENTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER 4.1 FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I, I DOES ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING? NO. OPPOSITION. THE COMMISSIONERS COURT NOW STANDS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

TH OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE CONCLUDED OUR CONSULTATION WITH

[ADJOURNMENT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION]

LEGAL COUNSEL, AND WE'RE BACK IN THE COURTROOM. I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ZIKE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION, THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS NOW CLOSED.

[1.2 Discussion, consideration, and action to challenge the wastewater permit for Rockett Ranch MUD from TCEQ permit NO. WQ0016848001.(Part 2 of 2)]

THE TIME IS 2:48 P.M. AND I'D NOW LIKE TO RECALL ITEM 1.2, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO CHALLENGE THE WASTEWATER PERMIT FOR ROCKET RANCH MUD FROM T-C-E-Q. PERMIT NUMBER WQ0016848001. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY ANY DISCUSSION OR THOUGHTS? OH, I DO NEED TO CALL UP MR. MURPHY. HE HAD SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. MR. MURPHY, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME ON UP AND JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE, AND THEN SHARE WITH US YOUR YOUR COMMENTS. YES, SIR. MY NAME IS BRANT MURPHY. I'M WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES. I'M ALSO ONE OF THE CIVIL ENGINEERS REPRESENTING THE OWNER DEVELOPER AND JUST WANTED TO WE WERE INVOLVED IN THE MUD CREATION COMPONENT OF THIS AND JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT OUR PREFERENCE IS TO TO BE SERVED BY TRA FOR SEWER. THE. THE ONLY REASON WE DID THE DISCHARGE PERMIT IS BECAUSE THERE'S A PROCESS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT TWRA HAS THAT THEIR MEMBER CITIES VOTE TO CONTRACT WITH OUR MUD ONCE IT. IF IT IS FORMED TO THEN BE TO CUT A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH. AND SO IF FOR SOME REASON WE DON'T OBVIOUSLY CONTROL THE MEMBER CITIES OR A VOTE. SO IF FOR SOME REASON THAT VOTE IS NOT SUCCESSFUL AND THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT THE MUD AS A AS A MEMBER COMPONENT TO THAT AND NOT SERVE US, THEN OUR ONLY OTHER OPTION IS TO DO A DISCHARGE PERMIT AND HAVE A PLANT. AND SO JUST SO THERE'S NOT A RESET OF THE CLOCK, THOSE THINGS ARE STARTED AT THE SAME TIME. BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS CLEAR AND REPRESENT THE DEVELOPER HERE TONIGHT TO THIS AFTERNOON. JUST TO TELL YOU THAT THAT IS THAT IS VERY MUCH OUR PLAN B, AND THE ONLY REASON WE MADE THE PERMIT IS BECAUSE OF THAT. RARELY DO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE THERE'S A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT THAT'S WITHIN A MILE AND A HALF OF OUR PROPERTY, AND ESPECIALLY TO THE SIZE AND DEGREE THAT TREES PLANT IS AND AND IN CONVERSATION WITH THEM, THEY'RE THEY'RE WILLING TO SERVICE. BUT IT DOES TAKE AGAIN, IT TAKES A VOTE OF THE MEMBER CITIES. AND SO JUST I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR THAT IT WASN'T OUR FIRST CHOICE TO DO THE PERMIT. IT IS SIMPLY A CONTINGENCY PLAN IF THAT IF THAT RESULTS THAT WAY. SO JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR. BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND LET ME SPEAK HERE TODAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MURPHY. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, ANY THOUGHTS COMMENTS ON ITEM 1.2? IF NOT, DOES ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CHALLENGE THE

[00:30:07]

WASTEWATER PERMIT? I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO CHALLENGE THE WASTEWATER PERMIT FROM MR. PONDER OR COMMISSIONER PONDER RATHER. AND WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ZIKE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, PLEASE SAY I, I IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING NO OPPOSITION. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WE ARE NOW WE'VE NOW COMPLETED OUR AGENDA. SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SO MOVED. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION. THE MEETING IS

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Oct 13, 2026 Commissioners Court

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item