[0:01] Yes, sir. And someone this together.
[0:07] all good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to commissioner's court. I'm gonna call to order a special meeting.
[0:12] it's april 24th, 2025 at 1:00 pm and we're gonna move
[0:16] right into our agenda items. Agenda item number one is the public forum.
[0:20] this is the public's opportunity to address the county about any county matters.
[0:25] a couple people have signed up. Number one, mr. Brian mcneil.
[0:32] as you know, mr. Mcneil, keep your comments to about three minutes and speak
[0:37] right into the microphone there. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
[0:41] good afternoon, judge. Commissioners. Uh, thank y'all for hosting,
[0:46] uh, this today. I just, I didn't come with anything prepared as
[0:50] I normally do because I just wanted to actually speak from the heart this time. Um,
[0:54] the city of mclennan chisholm is, is growing. It is probably one of the most
[0:59] opened areas in rockwell county that has the opportunity for development
[1:03] to come. And contrary to prop, popular belief,
[1:07] I'm actually not opposed to development. I'm just pro
[1:12] smart development. And this is just not smart development.
[1:16] this overruns the infrastructure. It impacts the etj,
[1:20] it impacts the city. And when you start doing that, as we have learned
[1:25] with our county size, if it hurts one city, it's probably gonna
[1:29] hurt all the cities. While I do respect the american
[1:33] dream for people to make a living and make money,
[1:37] I also respect the opportunity to sit down
[1:41] and work out things and talk about things. I can tell you
[1:47] this many times. Dr horton has reached out to me, none.
[1:51] zero, not one, not one opportunity to say, hey,
[1:55] here's what we would like to do. Could we meet in the middle?
[2:00] it's great that they want to help build a water, uh, area for
[2:04] black land. I respect that too. But that doesn't help the county.
[2:09] that helps black land and their development.
[2:14] of course, they need to do that because if they don't have that, then they don't have water.
[2:19] so for them to offer that as a thing that they're offering, that's a
[2:23] necessity that you have to provide at this point, which you're not providing,
[2:27] is relief of traffic. Um, relief of
[2:31] the overrunning of our schools, the relief of overrunning of shopping centers, just the
[2:35] small things. I don't know what the wait time is every day at zanadu, but I can assure you,
[2:39] you'd probably go add another hour or two to it, because if it's 6,000
[2:44] plus homes in my head, an average of three cars, I can do the
[2:48] math real quick. That's another 18,000 cars, and we're just not
[2:52] there. We're not ready for it. Come to the table. That's all they gotta do. They
[2:56] can come to talk to you. They can come to talk to me. I bet we can find a collaborative way
[3:00] to work together. Thank you. Thank you. Brian mcneil.
[3:04] uh, next person signed up. Peter hanon. Han, you're gonna have to help
[3:08] me out with your last name, hanon hanon. Yep.
[3:14] excuse me.
[3:21] well, good afternoon, uh, commissioners and I appreciate the, uh, opportunities to
[3:25] speak. Thank you. Nothing prepared. But, uh, again, as a resident,
[3:29] uh, that will be directly affected by this development. I,
[3:34] uh, and my wife oppose it, and probably a good, many of my
[3:38] neighbors have informally expressed opposition to it, uh, live
[3:42] in high point ranch, which as I understand it, is directly across
[3:46] the street from the, uh, from this proposed development. So they will be a
[3:51] mfi not in my front yard, I dunno. But the, uh, opposition is,
[3:55] is based on, uh, the, uh, mayor's, uh, statement. The infrastructure
[3:59] isn't ready for it. We have a septic system, uh,
[4:04] uh, as of now, uh, water is, uh, questionable during
[4:08] the summer. I know we will get a, uh, hookup to the north central
[4:12] of the texas water supply system north, whatever it is,
[4:16] uh, later in the year. But, uh,
[4:21] the other infrastructure problem will be 5 48. That
[4:25] road just isn't ready for that amount of traffic. And, uh,
[4:30] we're going into, uh, construction on fi on, uh, 2 0 5.
[4:35] I mean, that's gonna be horrendous just for the traffic infrastructure out there.
[4:39] uh, I, I would hope that the developers would
[4:43] be, had to have second thoughts about selling somebody a home in, into that sort of
[4:47] an environment. I mean, if you are a true developer, you want
[4:51] to sell a home where people can actually live and feel comfortable.
[4:56] I mean, I dunno whether any of those 6,000 people were moving into those homes
[5:01] would feel comfortable coming into an undeveloped infrastructure like this.
[5:05] so I hope, uh, if the, uh, development goes ahead, that
[5:09] it will be postponed until, until the infrastructure
[5:13] situation is worked out. All I have to say, thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Comb.
[5:18] is there anybody else that would like to address the court? All
[5:22] right. Seeing no one, we'll move on to agenda item two. Appeal hearing regarding apportionment costs
[5:26] for river rock trails and dr. Horton appeal dated march 4th, 2025.
[5:32] I'd like to kind of go over the rules. This is the, uh, first ever
[5:36] in the state of texas appeal hearing of apportionment costs.
[5:40] so, uh, once again, rockwell county's breaking new ground. So the
[5:45] conduct of the hearing, uh, shall proceed as follows, the
[5:49] applicant's representative shall present the applicant's position by presenting
[5:53] testimony, evidence, and argument. In support of that position,
[5:58] the commissioner, court engineering representative, or his or her designee
[6:03] shall present the commissioner's court engineering representative's position by presenting
[6:07] testimony, evidence, and argument in support of that position. And the applicant's
[6:11] representative shall rebut the points made by commissioner's court engineering representative
[6:16] by presenting testimony, evidence, and argument in rebuttal to the position of the
[6:20] commissioner's court engineering representative. During this rebuttal, the applicant's
[6:24] representative cannot present new testimony, evidence, or argument
[6:28] that does not rebut the position of the commissioner's court engineering representative.
[6:33] now, there are time limitations. Each side shall have up to 15 minutes
[6:38] to present its case if there is only one item being appealed and there is
[6:42] more than one item being appealed, and an additional 10 minutes for each additional item
[6:46] being appealed up to a maximum of 45 minutes to present its case.
[6:51] the applicant shall have five minutes to present its rebuttal if there is only
[6:55] one item being appealed, and an additional two minutes for each additional item being
[6:59] appealed up to a maximum of 15 minutes. So each side
[7:04] will roughly have 45 minutes, and then the applicant will have
[7:08] 15 minutes for a rebuttal. So, is the
[7:12] applicant ready? Uh, we are. Thank you. Please proceed, sir.
[7:16] thank you. Uh, mayor by anderson. Not represented. 1, 1, 1
[7:20] second. Art, we gotta yeah. Push the button and it should turn red.
[7:25] sorry. You, there you go. And, and standard rules. Mr. Anderson,
[7:30] tell us, tell us who you are. Sure. And, uh, art anderson. I'm with the winstead
[7:35] law firm in dallas, 27 28 north harwood, uh, representing
[7:39] the applicant and the developer. Um, I did have a question.
[7:43] um, in most of these hearings, I actually have been in a apportionment
[7:48] hearings before. So, uh, this, this is one of the first,
[7:52] but not the first, uh, in texas, the, um,
[7:56] most of the time the rules allow cross-examination of the opposing party's
[8:01] witnesses. And so I initially just wanted to request if the
[8:05] county will allow, uh, cross examination of its witnesses
[8:09] in this case or not. Yeah, cer certainly, certainly will. Okay. Um, um,
[8:14] I'm not certain there will be, 'cause I don't know what's gonna be said, but just wanted to be sure.
[8:18] um, do each of you have a copy of the exhibits?
[8:23] and there're basically things that everybody's already
[8:27] seen, but I'd like to kind of go through those, uh, to start
[8:31] out with. I, I think the other thing that's important to
[8:36] point out in a case like this, because it's really not set forth in the statute,
[8:40] um, but the burden of proof under the case
[8:44] laws on the county. So you don't, typically it's the plaintiff
[8:49] is the one who has the burden of proof. If it's a constitution, if it's proven to be
[8:53] an exaction, which I think that it is here, then the burden
[8:57] of proof as to whether or not there's this nexus and rough proportionality
[9:01] goes to the county. So not sure if it'll make a difference or not, but just wanted
[9:06] to make sure everybody knew that. So our exhibits are, are relatively
[9:10] straightforward. The first one is the statute itself. And so
[9:14] I, I think a critical piece here is if you look under 2 32
[9:18] 0.1, 1 0 1 oh a, that
[9:22] the only time there can be an apportionment under the statute is if
[9:26] it deals with county infrastructure improvements. So
[9:30] virtually all of the items on the county's list, uh,
[9:35] in its regulations, uh, other than roads, and, and
[9:39] I'm not saying the roads are properly calculated here, but
[9:43] as a type of, um, exaction, none
[9:47] of them meet that standard, right? Because
[9:52] school buildings, not county infrastructure, broadband's not a county infrastructure.
[9:57] so that was the intent when the legislature passed this, it, it's modeled on
[10:01] section two, 12.904, the local government code. The, it deals with infrastructure,
[10:06] which we know what that is, right? It's roads, drainage, uh,
[10:12] you know, thing, things like that, waterline sewer lines.
[10:18] the second piece of it is it has to be roughly proportionate
[10:22] as approved by a professional engineer. So the only item
[10:26] that's in the county's list that has a report or
[10:30] a study or a prove up, is the road item. That's
[10:35] one outta 16 items. So clearly the legislature
[10:39] was saying that this has to be an infrastructure improvement,
[10:44] concrete pipes, however you want to define it. Um,
[10:48] so the only witness we're gonna call is gonna be a, a pe dealing
[10:53] with the road issues because I think it's pretty
[10:57] clear that none of the other 15 or county infrastructure,
[11:01] and so, uh, the county's not authorized to, uh,
[11:05] impose an exaction, uh, for those items.
[11:10] the other item I'd like to show, you know, I think y'all are aware under
[11:14] e that if there's an appeal, uh, the developer prevails
[11:18] is entitled to attorney's fees and cost. And
[11:23] under g well, let's go back. So
[11:27] f says that the section does not diminish or modify the
[11:31] procedures by chapter 3 95. That involves impact fees.
[11:36] so a lot of the exactions that are being considered here would be considered to be
[11:40] impact fees that are not authorized by statute. And that's what chapter
[11:44] 3 95 of the local government code is. And then
[11:48] g it says the section does not increase or expand and shall
[11:53] not be interpreted to increase or expand the authority of a county
[11:57] to regulate plats or subdivisions under this chapter. So that, where that
[12:01] plays in, as y'all know, uh, the county commissioners met about two weeks
[12:05] ago and denied four preliminary plats that have been submitted. A list
[12:09] of reasons were provided by your counsel and one of them
[12:13] involved not paying the proportionality fees.
[12:18] and we really don't know what those are right now anyway. But what,
[12:22] what that means is, is that the county cannot make that a
[12:26] requirement of a plat approval is separate
[12:30] and apart. And so if you
[12:34] look at exhibit two,
[12:39] that y'all are familiar with this 'cause y'all passed it, but in, uh,
[12:43] this is the county's subdivision regs under section
[12:47] five point 10.1 a that lists the 16 items.
[12:52] so we do have time limits, but I think we can dispose of most of these relatively quickly.
[13:00] and then just the next part is exhibit three, uh,
[13:04] was the appeals request. Four is the county's response.
[13:09] and then the last one is, is a response that we made,
[13:14] um, march 4th, 2025 to those items.
[13:18] um, I think it's important to point out, I think one of the speakers said,
[13:22] you know, whether horton has, um, attempted
[13:26] to cooperate or work with the local jurisdictions, I think there's zero
[13:30] doubt that they have sign spent significant time and effort to
[13:35] do that. They've met with the county folks, they've met with,
[13:39] uh, the folks from different cities, the utility providers. Um, they've
[13:43] spent significant amount of money and a significant amount of time,
[13:47] uh, and effort to try to address the county concerns.
[13:52] so I wanna point out that in exhibit five, uh, which addresses
[13:56] each of the items, um, there was an offer
[14:01] that was made to make a contribution without waiving
[14:05] our legal rights to object to it, to, uh, fm 4 5 4 8,
[14:10] which is the, uh, report by your professional
[14:15] engineer that was prepared in course with the statute. Um,
[14:19] and there was also, uh, and an offer at that time
[14:24] with regards to police, which is exhibit five, the second
[14:28] page. So the road was an offer to contribute,
[14:33] um, the 338,867 that
[14:37] the county had requested. And then for the
[14:41] sheriff piece, it was an initial offer of 529,
[14:46] um, 4 24. Um, the county did not accept
[14:51] those offers, and the county has rejected our plats. So those
[14:55] offers are no longer on the table.
[15:00] so going through the subdivision regs, I mean, yeah, the, the
[15:04] items that are there, um,
[15:08] all of them, I won't repeat for each one, but the only one that can
[15:13] potentially relate to what the statute allows
[15:17] is roads. None of the rest of them are county infrastructure. Okay.
[15:22] um, they're not owned by the county. Most, almost all
[15:26] of 'em have separate political subdivisions such as schools, right?
[15:31] so the, the county had a report that said we'd like for you to
[15:35] pay about $35,000 per lot per house
[15:40] to the schools. Well, there were so many problems with that.
[15:44] it's, you know, unbelievable in terms of how schools are funded by our legislature,
[15:49] how they're bonded. There's no individual assessment of that. Nobody
[15:53] has determined the, the actual impact. Um, I
[15:57] got two different school districts. Should it be for one, not for the other. There,
[16:01] there's no substantiation. More importantly, there's no professional
[16:06] engineering report of that issue, which is required by the statute.
[16:11] you know, counties and school districts are separate subdivisions under our
[16:15] constitution. They have separate powers. If the school district wants to impose,
[16:19] uh, a development fee, they can, I guess
[16:23] they could attempt to do that. But again, the, the, that's something for the schools,
[16:27] not for the county. The schools have a board of trustees counties have
[16:32] a county commissioner's court. Um,
[16:36] again, there's no individual assessment which is required.
[16:40] it's not just taking a bunch of data from somewhere. You have to do an individual
[16:44] assessment and is irrelevant really 'cause there's no professional engineering
[16:48] report. But clearly for legal reasons, that's invalid
[16:53] with regards. The number two is roads. Um, again,
[16:58] this is a state road's not a county road. County doesn't
[17:02] own it. I mean, yeah, county doesn't own it. Um,
[17:06] it's, it's simply not county infrastructure and our,
[17:11] um, witness will, uh, address the issue of proportionality.
[17:16] but if you look at the tia that was submitted to
[17:20] the county as part of this development, there is sufficient capacity
[17:24] in the fm 5 48, which I think is the road today to
[17:28] handle the additional trips from the development.
[17:32] now, it, it should be noted that the dedication
[17:37] of the right of way for the road is considered to be an exaction. Legally
[17:42] we're not objecting to doing that, making that dedication.
[17:46] so that's a, a value of approximately 50,000
[17:50] to a hundred thousand dollars for that right of way dedication. But again, we're not,
[17:55] um, disputing that. Um, police,
[17:59] again, not, it's not infrastructure, you know, our deputies
[18:04] and stuff like that. Um, and y'all know
[18:08] this, these costs are not paid by the developer on the front end.
[18:12] um, they are paid by taxes
[18:17] and as growth happens, uh, property tax revenues
[18:21] go up. Um, and, and that's typically how for
[18:25] most of these things that, um, these things are paid for. There's
[18:30] a lot of active growth throughout the state and governmental
[18:34] entities handle it and they handle it by the schools handle it. And the,
[18:39] um, sheriff or city, whoever's doing that also handles
[18:44] it. But it's not infrastructure not prepared by a professional engineer.
[18:48] so therefore it cannot be authorized. There's also no statute that
[18:52] authorizes this type of fee, um,
[18:57] dispatch and nine 11 radio communications. It's my understanding the county with true
[19:03] those two items as exactions that they were requesting. I,
[19:07] I think that's what the, the report said. Water, sewer,
[19:12] electric, open space drainage. Uh, again, um,
[19:17] none of these involve county infrastructure and are not legally valid.
[19:22] there's also no, um, prepared professional
[19:26] engineering report justifying any of those exact exactions. We
[19:30] agree with the county engineer that these will be addressed at
[19:34] the time of final plat construction plans. And it's kind of important to remember
[19:38] right now we're at the preliminary plat. So basically it's to show,
[19:43] uh, more conceptually what's gonna be out there. And as you prepare construction
[19:47] plans, you do the engineering, you basically delve deeper into
[19:51] those types of issues. And that's where those things are
[19:56] determined. And I think that's what you're counting engineer indicated was the
[20:00] appropriate way to approach that. We agree with that. Um,
[20:04] ambulance, fire broke, broadband natural gas, aerial controlled
[20:08] trash. Again, none of those involve county infrastructure, not
[20:13] legally vi valid. We've provided proof of service on those items.
[20:17] um, that's basically the legal arguments.
[20:22] um, hope my car's okay. So, um,
[20:27] do, is it appropriate now to call mr. Jeff miles or do
[20:31] you have any questions? No, no. Does anybody have any questions? And, and again, I didn't, uh,
[20:36] say it at the start, but any questions won't be, uh, won't
[20:40] be taken from your time. Counted against time. Yep. Okay. So yep. Call, call. I, I have questions,
[20:44] but can we wait till the end? Certainly can. Alright. Certainly can.
[20:52] and just curious, how much time do we have left? I don't think you have used 12 minutes
[20:56] and 54 seconds. That's pretty efficient. So you, you we're, we're gonna be really short, so you've got time.
[21:00] we're gonna be focused here. Um,
[21:05] you got that. Can you please, uh,
[21:09] give your name for the record? Yeah,
[21:13] yeah. Uh, jeff miles. And what do you do for a living?
[21:18] I'm an engineering consultant. And who do you work for? I work for myself,
[21:23] uh, miles consulting, llc. Are you licensed by the state?
[21:27] yes, I'm licensed. And are you considered to be a professional engineer?
[21:31] yes, I'm professional engineer licensed by the state of texas. So you would meet
[21:35] the criteria then under the statute? Oh, thank you.
[21:41] see if that works. Can you hear me okay? Separate 'em out a little.
[21:46] no feedback. Right. Can you hear us okay? No, you're,
[21:50] you're, you're good. Okay. Um,
[21:55] you are licensed by the texas, you're a professional engineer? I am. Okay. So you would
[21:59] qualify to provide testimony and evidence with
[22:04] regards to county infrastructure issues under the statute, correct? Yes.
[22:09] and do you have an engineering focus? Yes. Uh, civil engineering for
[22:13] land development projects. And over your career, how many subdivision
[22:18] plats have you been involved with? Um, probably over a thousand in a 35
[22:22] year career. Okay. So we're gonna focus on the road piece,
[22:26] as you heard me. Um, basically present at the beginning,
[22:31] uh, roads theoretically can be
[22:35] considered county infrastructure, correct? Correct.
[22:39] and for this case, was a traffic impact analysis prepared for
[22:43] the development? It was, was it submitted to the county? Um,
[22:48] not sure the county ever asked for it, quite frankly, so I don't recall. But you got one, we've
[22:52] got one may of 2024. We did one. What's the name of the
[22:56] perimeter road to the first two phases
[23:01] of the development? Yeah, it's, uh, farm to market road 5 48.
[23:06] and does perimeter road means it's adjacent? It's adjacent. And does the county
[23:10] have subdivision regs that basically address
[23:15] the platting and construction of perimeter roads for a development they
[23:19] do. And fm
[23:23] 5 48, is that a county road or a state road? State of texas road.
[23:28] in your opinion, can the county require fees from a developer to improve
[23:32] a state road? No. Have you ever seen this situation before?
[23:36] no. How many lanes are in the existing road? Two lanes.
[23:41] alright, so let's focus real quick on the right of way. How much
[23:45] right of way is shown? It's being dedicated by the plats? Uh, 1.1
[23:50] acres. Okay. Now according to the
[23:54] tia, what is the capacity of the existing roadway? It's
[23:58] uh, 875 vehicles per hour per lane. Okay.
[24:02] that means that 875 vehicles could
[24:07] travel on each lane and still be safe and correct
[24:12] within an hour timeframe? Yes. So according to the
[24:16] tia, what's the peak hour number of vehicular trips generated by
[24:20] the 418 houses? 115, uh,
[24:25] trips, uh, going westbound in the morning towards state
[24:29] highway 2 0 5 and then 127 trips,
[24:34] uh, vehicles per hour going eastbound from 2 0 5
[24:38] back towards the neighborhood in the evening. And from
[24:42] a traffic impact methodology, the peak hour is typically
[24:47] when you would have the most cars coming out of the development? Correct. Okay.
[24:51] and so in your opinion, is there sufficient
[24:55] capacity in the existing two lanes of roads to handle the trips from
[25:00] this development? Yes. We're it, like I said, we, the
[25:04] capacity is 875 vehicles per hour per lane each direction.
[25:08] and we are roughly 13 to 14% of
[25:12] that total. And would
[25:17] the construction of additional lanes be required from
[25:21] this development? No,
[25:31] we pass the witness. We
[25:40] can. Uh, can you tell the, uh, court,
[25:44] uh, how many houses are planned for the full build out of the development?
[25:50] it's unknown at this time, but we've projected, uh, over 6,000.
[25:55] okay. And so the, uh, first two phases, uh, of this, uh,
[25:59] phase one a and one b are uh, just over 400 houses,
[26:03] correct? Correct. So the eventual build out will be 15
[26:07] times that amount? Correct. Okay. Um,
[26:11] and, uh, is that road, uh,
[26:16] able to handle the traffic, the expected traffic from 15
[26:20] times the amount of houses? Uh, they're in, uh, one a and one b?
[26:25] no, it is not. Okay. Um,
[26:31] pass the witness. Sure. So the engine, you've seen the engineering
[26:35] report by the county's witness, correct? Correct. And it's only
[26:39] focused on the proportionality and
[26:43] the impact on 5 48 from the 418 houses for the
[26:47] first two phases? Correct. Mr. Anderson, if you could scoot that microphone just a little
[26:51] bit clo it also projects in the courtroom. I, I apologize.
[26:55] so he, you know, mr. Ray was talking about development of the entire
[27:00] property, correct? Correct. The proportionality appeal that we're
[27:04] addressing here and what the county addressed in their report focuses
[27:09] just on the 418 houses and their impact
[27:13] on the roadway system. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And so at some
[27:17] point it's like most roads you get enough
[27:21] development, there will be road improvements that will result as
[27:25] part of that. Is that fair? That's correct. Okay. No further
[27:29] questions. I have one, uh, follow up judge.
[27:33] um, are you here today to provide, uh, testimony on
[27:38] any of the other, uh, 15 items in the county's apportionment letter?
[27:42] other than the, uh, road section?
[27:47] no. Okay. He, he's, the only thing he's
[27:51] qualified to testify under the statute is on rose,
[27:56] and that would apply to the county as well. No further questions
[28:00] here. Alright, mr. Anderson. Uh,
[28:05] it's still in your court. You've got plenty of time left. Is that I, I told you
[28:09] I'd be efficient and hopefully I have been. And I, I mean, I, I
[28:13] think we all know this, that this is really a legal issue. It's really not
[28:17] a proportionality issue with the roads. Could be one except
[28:21] it shouldn't, but it's cleared none of the other 15 items or county infrastructure,
[28:26] which is what the statute addresses. None of them have any
[28:30] support by professional engineer. Um,
[28:35] that I think that's the clear legal piece of this.
[28:39] you know, if if we have additional questions or need to address things,
[28:44] we, we will, but I think that that's where we are.
[28:49] all right. Does anybody have any questions?
[28:53] I've got at least one. I can hear you. I said
[28:57] I've got at least one. My name's lauren lichty. Um,
[29:08] in paragraph one of your
[29:12] response letter that you sent back,
[29:16] it says that drh will work with the school districts
[29:20] including reserving regarding reserving
[29:25] needed school sites within the larger development at the appropriate time,
[29:30] and will oversize infrastructure where needed to serve
[29:34] the school sites. Um,
[29:39] has the applicant reached any agreement with the school
[29:43] districts regarding its contribution for schools?
[29:48] um, its oversizing of infrastructure
[29:52] or other things, other items? Not, it's not, not as far as I
[29:56] know. The sites haven't been identified. Yeah. I think it's too early in the process
[30:00] for a development like this. It, that would come a
[30:04] little bit later in the process when the school district will say, we'd like to have a site
[30:08] here. Here's what, how, what we'd like to build. Do we want elementary school? Do
[30:13] we want a high school? You know, it's, it's a coordinated effort. It benefits the
[30:17] development right. To have schools nearby and it
[30:21] benefits the school district to have a developer who works with them. That's what this developer
[30:25] does all over the state. Alright. Well,
[30:30] I appreciate the response, but, uh, I'm not gonna argue those
[30:34] points with you, but the answer is, I take it is no, there's been no agreements with
[30:38] the schools. Yeah. With with the explanation I give, no, nobody would have
[30:42] an agreement with the schools at this part in the development. Okay. Well, I
[30:46] don't know if that's true or not. I mean, you say if you have some examples, I'll say
[30:50] nobody would. If you see, have some examples. I've seen, see, I've seen a lot of plat where
[30:55] they show school sites. Sure. Right. When it, when where you're in a position
[30:59] where it makes sense and the school district, the school district, the way usually
[31:03] approaches the developer first and says,
[31:08] we'd like to have a school in this particular location and here's what we look to
[31:12] have. And that's where they kind of work together and they work it out. Oh,
[31:16] have they had those discussions as a school district approached them? They, they have,
[31:20] as far as I know. Okay. Again, that's, the
[31:24] school districts will work that out. Their political subdivision, they know how to
[31:29] locate properties and plan for growth. That's what they do.
[31:34] okay. Um, another question.
[31:39] I think this, these two plats show
[31:43] 418 homes, if I remember right. I think that's plats
[31:47] phase one a and one that should be about correct. Sure. And then
[31:51] as, um, mr. Miles
[31:55] identified, they're planning to build about over 6,000
[31:59] total. Not that don't have a certain number yet, but in this entire
[32:04] property, um, could you
[32:08] give us a projected build out time on that? Uh,
[32:12] like how long will it take based on your projections,
[32:16] which I would imagine you have your big company, um,
[32:21] because it affects a lot of this infrastructure. So do you have any projections
[32:25] about the time over which these first 418
[32:30] will be built out and the remaining, uh, 5,800
[32:35] or whatever it would be would be built out? Well, the real challenge to, to answer
[32:39] that question is we need to get plats approved and the plats were denied.
[32:44] so, well, you can answer from whenever they would be approved, assuming they would be, if you,
[32:48] I'm just asking, trying to get a feel for how long it's gonna take to build this out. If you can
[32:52] predict when that is for me. . Okay. So you're not gonna
[32:56] answer that question. Well, I did. How can I give you a date? I asked for it. How can
[33:00] I give you a date when you, when the county tell me is not approving plats?
[33:04] I asked. We can't develop until that happens. How long it take to build this out over time there?
[33:08] I'm, I'm sure I, I'm sure of nothing, I've never looked at dr. Horton's
[33:13] projects, but I would imagine a company like that projects
[33:17] how long it'll take to sell out these homes. Hey, david, do you have a range?
[33:22] uh, um,
[33:27] 10 to 15 a month on 418 to do the 6,000,
[33:33] and that could be
[33:39] 20 to 30 a month. I mean, it could be a,
[33:43] this could be a 15 year project, 20 year project. 15
[33:48] to 20 maybe years. Correct. Okay.
[33:52] thank you. Does anybody
[33:56] else have any questions? Uh, just one more second. I'm not, I anybody
[34:00] else can I, but I'm not, I think I have one more. Okay. Go, go ahead.
[34:05] um,
[34:11] um, I, I have stopped your time, just so, so you're aware. I I
[34:15] think we're all good, at least on the time part. Yes, sir. I think we're all good.
[34:19] so the, there were a list
[34:23] of these 16 items in the county health letter or from
[34:28] the environmental, uh, health coordinator. Um,
[34:32] it looks like most of those were not asking
[34:36] for money. Um, it looks like
[34:42] water, sewer, broadband, electric,
[34:48] esc and emi, fire, natural
[34:52] gas, drainage, animal control,
[34:58] trash and refuse dispatch. And nine 11
[35:02] gis service and radio communications,
[35:07] at least at this point, we're not asking for an apportionment.
[35:12] and I think the key language it, or at least
[35:16] significant language is in the statute, is
[35:22] that the developer bear a portion of the cost of county infrastructure
[35:26] improvements by the making of dedications, the payment
[35:31] of fees or the payment of construction costs.
[35:36] and I think those items, there was nothing, if
[35:40] I read the letter right, there was nothing in there requiring the
[35:44] payment of fees, the payment of construction costs or the developer's
[35:48] portion of costs. They dealt with things like, uh, for
[35:52] example, esc and emt. We wanted proof of service
[35:56] fire. We wanted proof of service. Uh,
[36:01] water and sewer had said resolved through project design.
[36:06] do you agree with me on that? That we're not asking for money on those things? Yeah, I agree with
[36:10] you. I don't think the county should have any of
[36:14] those items in the ordinance anyway. But the other ones, and I think
[36:18] most of 'em have been addressed by you, do a will serve letter or anything else, but
[36:22] they're really not appropriate for a proportionality appeal. I don't know why the county
[36:26] included them. Okay. But my point is
[36:31] they're not asking for money at this time, uh,
[36:35] as far as I can tell. And I think that's what the sta that's, and I think that's what
[36:39] the statute deals with. Yeah. So proportionality, appeal
[36:45] concerns, that sort of thing. Yeah. That's why they're really not appropriate
[36:49] to even be in the ordinance. Okay. Um,
[36:57] well I had another question, but I think you already answered it. Uh,
[37:02] mr. Anderson. So for right now, that's it
[37:06] from me. Does anybody else have any questions?
[37:12] we, we rest. Alright. Uh, mr. Ray.
[37:18] alright. Uh,
[37:22] I, uh, have handed out to the court, uh, a, uh,
[37:27] two
[37:34] thank you. I've handed out to the court, uh, two, uh, sets of
[37:38] documents. Uh, one is a brief, um,
[37:43] that is, uh, it's about 44 pages of
[37:47] content that goes into, uh, all of the different, uh,
[37:51] elements in the county's initial letter. Uh, and then the response letter
[37:55] from dr horton, uh, that we're calling the appeal letter.
[38:00] the second, uh, document is a list of,
[38:05] or is a, uh, printout of all of the exhibits that are cited. Uh, there's
[38:09] 17 exhibits cited, uh, in the county's brief.
[38:14] um, 15 of those are in that packet. The other two
[38:18] were extremely long. Uh, and so we will provide those in electronic
[38:22] format rather than in hard format. Um,
[38:27] if you take a step back and, uh, boil this down to what we're really talking about,
[38:31] um, I I think it's been very clear from mr. Anderson
[38:36] that, uh, the real underlying issue is an issue of
[38:40] legal authority. Uh, and most of the brief,
[38:44] uh, goes into detail on legal authority related to, uh,
[38:48] each of the items that were in the county's initial letter. Um,
[38:53] it would take, uh, a long time to go over each of those elements,
[38:57] uh, uh, in, in that are explained in the 44 pages. Uh,
[39:02] but I'm gonna go over a couple of highlight, uh, high points,
[39:06] um, so that they're, uh, clear on the record, uh, for
[39:10] anybody who wants to come watch this later on. Um,
[39:14] first of all, some real very brief background about why we're here.
[39:19] um, the, uh, initially,
[39:23] uh, d horton, uh, approached the county,
[39:27] uh, and, uh, started the, uh, platting process,
[39:32] uh, for the river rock trails mud. Um,
[39:37] in november, uh, of last year, dr horton
[39:41] asked for, uh, they formally asked for a proportionality,
[39:45] uh, determination from the county. Um, about a month later,
[39:49] uh, december 13th, uh, the county sent over its
[39:53] letter, uh, which is in both of the sets of paperwork
[39:57] that, uh, you have in front of you, uh, the exhibits from dr. Horton and
[40:01] from the county. Um, and as part of the county's
[40:06] response, there were 16 infrastructure improvements, uh, listed,
[40:11] uh, specifically, and I know that you've all seen the letter, we've, uh,
[40:15] discussed this in, in open court. Um, the letter
[40:19] response, uh, from dr horton, uh, addressed
[40:24] each one of those. Um, and each one of the responses,
[40:28] uh, were different, um, one from another. But,
[40:33] uh, the most often repeated item, uh, came down to,
[40:37] um, a lack of authority, uh, the
[40:41] alleged lack of authority, um, based on, uh, d horton's
[40:45] reading, uh, of the meaning of the statute. What this comes down to
[40:50] is a difference in interpretation of a couple of words in
[40:54] the statute, uh, specifically county infrastructure.
[40:58] um, mr. Anderson is correct that most counties do not,
[41:02] uh, uh, or have not historically, uh,
[41:07] read that the same way that the county's interpreted it. Um,
[41:11] and our brief, uh, goes into detail about
[41:16] why, uh, the county's position is what it is, why we think that,
[41:20] um, infrastructure in the county does include those items.
[41:25] um, and we do have a relatively pure legal
[41:30] disagreement here about what it means, uh, when you say county
[41:34] infrastructure. Their understanding, uh, as, uh,
[41:38] mr. Anderson made very clear is that, uh, that means infrastructure
[41:43] that's owned by the county, um, the
[41:47] county, um, leadership in the, uh,
[41:51] at least in the, uh, department that, uh, initially sent out that apportionment
[41:56] letter, uh, disagrees with that position. And, uh,
[42:00] we believe, uh, the county, uh, employees who are,
[42:04] uh, who sent that letter, uh, and who have been dealing with this, um,
[42:09] uh, development, uh, for, uh, a while now, believe
[42:13] that that means infrastructure that is in the county geographically.
[42:18] um, and, uh, the, the brief goes into
[42:22] detail, um, by sa citing different, uh, sections of different
[42:26] codes, not just the local government code, but other codes as well, uh,
[42:30] that go, uh, that, that have other, uh, definitions
[42:35] and descriptions. Um, and, uh, also goes
[42:39] into detail on case law, uh, that has, um,
[42:43] interpreted some of those items. Um, and I think for
[42:48] it, it, it's probably, uh, the right time to tell you, um,
[42:52] that in the past, uh, that there, there really haven't
[42:57] been any cases, uh, from courts of appeals in texas that have
[43:01] interpreted those two exact words. Uh, but
[43:05] the, uh, section of the texas local government code that allows counties
[43:09] to, um, exact apportionment costs is
[43:14] relatively new. Uh, it's only a few years old. Um,
[43:18] but if you look back at the legislative history, and some of this is cited in our,
[43:22] uh, brief, uh, but, uh, when the legislature
[43:26] passed that a few years ago, uh, they did that to mirror image,
[43:31] uh, another statute that had been on the books for much longer. Uh, it's
[43:35] almost exactly word for word the same, uh, statute. And what
[43:39] that, uh, statute did was allow cities, uh, to
[43:43] exact, uh, fees, not, not impact fees, but,
[43:48] uh, apportionment, uh, fees that are similar. Um,
[43:53] and, uh, so for about 15 years, uh,
[43:57] 14 years, um, cities could, um,
[44:02] apportion costs, um, from development,
[44:06] uh, but counties could not. Uh, and when the legislature,
[44:11] um, put the law into place that was cited, uh, earlier,
[44:16] um, by mr. Anderson, uh, which is, uh, local government code
[44:20] 2 3 2 1 10, um, it did not
[44:25] specifically define that term, uh, about what counts as county infrastructure.
[44:30] it didn't, um, narrow the scope. Uh, and
[44:34] so we're in a position where, uh, because it's not
[44:39] defined in the law specifically, it's not defined,
[44:43] uh, or it's not interpreted by a court of appeal, uh, and,
[44:47] um, there is no ag opinion that addresses the meaning of that
[44:51] term. Uh, there's, uh, there's a legitimate
[44:55] difference in interpretation here. Um, we believe that the county's
[44:59] interpretation is, um, is not
[45:03] just defensible, but, uh, what the legislature intended.
[45:08] um, there, if you, in, if you read the
[45:12] statute to mean only infrastructure that's owned by the county, that's
[45:16] very narrow. I mean, we all know, uh, that the counties, uh,
[45:21] owned infrastructure is, uh, gonna come down to buildings
[45:25] and roads that are owned by the county, which is, uh, usually
[45:30] not nearly as extensive even as all the cities within the county. Uh,
[45:35] but if under that interpretation, there would be
[45:39] no government, uh, that would have the ability to exact
[45:43] apportionment costs, uh, from developments. Uh,
[45:47] and that's, um, we don't believe that that's what the
[45:51] law, uh, was intended to say. Uh, we understand
[45:55] obviously that there's a difference of opinion here, uh, on that.
[46:00] but, um, we believe that the, uh, um,
[46:05] that the, um, brief, uh, goes over that in
[46:09] relatively, uh, deep detail and we cite, uh, other,
[46:14] uh, case law from texas, uh, case law from the us supreme
[46:18] court regarding the extent of municipal power, um,
[46:23] and, uh, other parts of, uh, the texas codes
[46:27] that are relevant. Um, I'm not gonna go into a whole lot of detail
[46:31] there other than to say, yeah, we, we definitely disagree about the
[46:35] meaning of those two words. Uh, I will go into a little bit more
[46:40] detail about some of the specific, uh, items,
[46:45] uh, that, uh, mr. Anderson, uh, brought up.
[46:49] uh, number one is the school apportionment fees. Um,
[46:53] the county believes, uh, and I think it's clear through the county's actions to
[46:58] date, that the county, uh, believes that the county infrastructure does include,
[47:02] uh, the school district. Um, in part
[47:07] because the local government code section, the 2 3 2 1 10 does
[47:11] not nearly define, uh, county infrastructure. And,
[47:16] um, the schools that we're talking about here are within,
[47:20] uh, the geographic bounds of the county. Um, one
[47:24] thing that I do, uh, take some exception to in,
[47:29] uh, mr. Anderson's, uh, telling of, of, uh,
[47:33] where those numbers came from, uh, those were not made up
[47:37] by the county. Uh, in the initial letter that came from, uh,
[47:41] the development office, there was a, a stated amount of 15,
[47:45] almost $16 million, uh, for the first two,
[47:49] um, phases of the project. Uh, that was based
[47:54] on, uh, an exhibit that's in your packet, exhibit,
[47:58] uh, three a, uh, that's, uh, from the school district.
[48:02] uh, it's an older, uh, it's an email that
[48:06] relates to the, uh, calculation of student yield,
[48:10] expected student yield from houses in the royce city, isd.
[48:15] um, and the expected, uh, student yield, at least in that, uh, email,
[48:20] uh, was 0.5 students per house. Um,
[48:26] it, uh, I mean, the county has an obligation to be reasonable. I think,
[48:30] uh, one student for every two houses is an extremely
[48:34] reasonable number. Uh, some, uh, ca uh,
[48:38] school districts that have calculated that number for bonding purposes, uh,
[48:42] over the past few years or the past 10 years, have come in
[48:46] at much higher numbers. Uh, but it's very reasonable to, to take a middle
[48:50] of the road number of 0.5 students per house, uh, in,
[48:55] uh, uh, more of a bedroom community, uh, like the eastern half of
[48:59] rockwall county. Um, the number, uh, which
[49:03] is 75,591 per student, uh,
[49:07] did come directly from the, uh, superintendent of the royce city,
[49:12] isd uh, the former superintendent, the one, uh, there's a different person
[49:16] in that office now. Uh, but that email is in your packet.
[49:20] um, and I'm gonna, uh, in the
[49:24] interest of time, I'm just gonna hit the high points of a couple of these other items.
[49:29] we did discuss, uh, road infrastructure. Uh, there's obviously been some
[49:33] agreement to, uh, participate in the road structure,
[49:37] uh, or the, the, the payment for the, uh, uh, roads
[49:41] that are adjacent to the development, uh, the county, uh,
[49:46] on that section and several other sections. Uh, there was references
[49:50] in the appeal letter, uh, to lack of county authority to do it
[49:54] in the order in which it's being done. Um,
[49:59] in the, uh, section two of the brief, which is one
[50:03] of the longer sections of the brief, uh, we break down
[50:07] why, uh, the county's, um,
[50:12] proposed order, uh, is number one different from dr.
[50:16] horton's proposed order, uh, and why the county's proposed order
[50:20] of payment versus, uh, the timing of, uh, platting,
[50:25] uh, either approval or filing. Uh, while we believe that the county's,
[50:29] uh, letter and stance on that, uh, complies with state
[50:33] law, uh, and why that's reasonable,
[50:41] I want to talk about, uh, two other specific issues.
[50:46] uh, obviously there's been a lot of, uh, letters attached, uh,
[50:50] that are either will serve letters or can serve letters. But, uh,
[50:54] the two big issues that I'd like to talk about, uh, quickly are
[50:58] the issue with the fire and the ems, uh, contract. Um,
[51:04] there's obviously a disagreement about whether there is a valid
[51:08] contract in place between dr. Horton and mcclendon chisholm. Uh, and
[51:12] then I want to talk about the water contract, uh, and whether or not, uh,
[51:16] the water contracts that at least that we've seen so far, uh, from,
[51:21] uh, black land and from, uh, north texas,
[51:25] uh, amount to a will serve letter. Uh, and I wanna go through why
[51:30] we believe that they do not, um, rise to the level of an
[51:34] appropriate will serve letter. Um, but first fire and ems, um,
[51:39] this is in section three of the brief. Um, we believe that
[51:43] the, the, this, uh, section, this area,
[51:47] uh, equates to a, uh, a serious deficiency in
[51:51] the submissions. Um, emergency services, uh,
[51:55] are literally lifesaving infrastructure. Uh, the county,
[51:59] uh, does not own, uh, the fire department, but the county
[52:03] does pay contractually, uh, pay, uh, money to,
[52:08] uh, pay for fire and ems services. Um,
[52:12] there's disagreement, uh, apparently, uh,
[52:17] based on comments that were made in court, uh, I believe by,
[52:21] uh, d horton's witness here, uh, a couple of sessions ago
[52:25] about whether or not there is a valid contract with mcclendon chisholm.
[52:29] um, we have, uh, included in
[52:33] the agreement, uh, exhibit nine, uh, and
[52:38] 10, and those are, uh, exhibits
[52:42] related to the initial contract that was signed by mclendon chisholm,
[52:46] and then a secondary, uh, exhibit that shows that, that, uh,
[52:51] the, at least the city council that's there now believes that they have
[52:55] walked that contract back. There is, uh,
[52:59] there have been statements made in court, uh, that dr. Horton believes that
[53:04] that was ineffective, uh, but there hasn't been any reasoning
[53:09] presented, uh, to show why they think that that contract is still in
[53:13] place. Um, section three of the brief,
[53:17] uh, goes into deep detail about why, uh, the
[53:21] county has legal authority to ask for that service or proof
[53:25] that that service is going to be there. As it stands right now,
[53:30] everything that, uh, has been presented to the county, uh, comes
[53:35] along the lines of emergency services, is that there was
[53:39] a contract, and at least one party to the contract believes
[53:43] that that contract is no longer valid. And I, I will point out,
[53:47] uh, just to get a little into the weeds on this one specific section,
[53:52] um, the mclennan chisholm agreement has conditions precedent in the
[53:56] contract, uh, that are required for, uh, the contract to become
[54:00] effective and to be valid and enforceable. One of those
[54:05] is that, uh, there must be tceq approval of a joint
[54:09] fire plan, uh, which hasn't occurred yet. Um,
[54:13] the other one is that the mud, um,
[54:19] well, the, uh, the other issue is that the mud was,
[54:24] uh, or the, uh, agreement with the mud was repealed before,
[54:28] uh, those conditions precedent became effective.
[54:33] uh, we believe that the city's action to repeal, uh, slammed
[54:37] the door on the effectiveness of that. I understand that there may be,
[54:41] uh, litigation, uh, between dr horton and the city of mcclendon
[54:45] chisholm. Uh, but as it stands right now, the county doesn't
[54:49] have any effective, um, will serve
[54:53] letter or any sort of evidence of a contractual,
[54:57] uh, relationship with any other, uh, fire or ems group.
[55:07] before I talk about water, let me talk about, uh, law enforcement funding very quickly.
[55:11] um, there was a section four of the brief, uh, goes into
[55:16] law enforcement services. Uh, the county's apportionment, um,
[55:20] is based on, uh, the number of,
[55:24] uh, people who, uh, are likely to live in that subdivision.
[55:29] um, the section four of the brief goes over the math about why
[55:33] we believe that, uh, two law enforcement officers, uh,
[55:37] is not enough to handle, uh, the number of houses that are
[55:42] gonna be built out there. Um, and that, uh,
[55:46] future, uh, tax income in subsequent
[55:50] years is not enough to pay for the actual burden.
[55:54] um, it takes a while to bring new officers on.
[55:59] uh, it takes, um, about a year and a half from the beginning to
[56:03] the end, from the time that there's a need identified to when people, uh,
[56:07] are actually full on deputies. Uh, and that is
[56:11] part of the length of the hiring process. Uh, but
[56:16] from the beginning to the end of that process, that's one period of time.
[56:20] the, uh, time that it takes for the county to actually add those people
[56:24] to be paid for in the next upcoming budget is another whole
[56:29] extended period of time. Uh, and so based on the number
[56:33] of houses that we're, uh, expecting in this, uh, development,
[56:38] at least a full build out just for 6,000 houses, um,
[56:43] having two deputies up front is still gonna create
[56:47] a massive lag issue, uh, with the ability to bring on officers
[56:52] and the ability to tax, uh, these new, uh, properties
[56:56] to pay for those people. Um, another,
[57:01] uh, lag issue, uh, in addition to the time
[57:05] required to, um, put out an, uh, a job, uh, notice
[57:10] and hire people. And, uh, the, the other, uh, timing issues that
[57:14] we talked about with, um, taxing and adding things to
[57:18] the upcoming, uh, year's budget is the fact that, uh, these
[57:22] houses don't get taxed right away. Uh, they, they're
[57:27] not gonna be taxed until after they're done with construction, uh,
[57:31] at least not the taxes that would be necessary to pay for, uh, additional
[57:36] deputies at the sheriff's office. So you have three different time lag issues,
[57:41] uh, that, uh, is a major point of disagreement on,
[57:45] um, when that payment should come and how much it should be.
[57:50] and we go into a great level of detail in section four about why,
[57:54] uh, the county's position is different from dr. Horton's.
[58:00] um, I'm gonna go
[58:04] ahead and skip to the last, uh, issue I'm gonna talk about at least here,
[58:08] uh, which is the water supply, and that's section five of the brief.
[58:13] um, there are several exhibits that go along with that, uh, exhibit
[58:18] 14, 15, and 16. Um, but what it really comes down to,
[58:22] if you boil all of that down, uh, the county does have authority,
[58:27] uh, to ensure that new developments are gonna have water.
[58:31] uh, there's a disagreement here, obviously about whether or not that's appropriate
[58:35] for the apportionment, um, uh, process or if it comes
[58:40] with the platting, uh, process with the preliminary or final
[58:44] plat, uh, or engineering. Uh, leading up to the final
[58:48] plat, um, section, uh, six of the
[58:52] brief, uh, goes into detail about why we believe, uh, it's appropriately
[58:57] part of the apportionment process. Uh, the county's not asking
[59:01] for money, uh, like with many of the other utility items,
[59:05] uh, what we are asking for, uh, is a will serve
[59:09] letter. And, uh, those three letters,
[59:13] uh, that are, uh, 14, 15, and 16 in your packet,
[59:17] uh, do not add up to a will serve
[59:22] letter. Uh, they add up to a can serve letter,
[59:26] uh, but that can serve is dependent on a bunch
[59:30] of other things happening, uh, some of which, uh, we just
[59:35] don't have any evidence to show will necessarily happen.
[59:39] um, obviously, uh, black land does
[59:43] want to do this. Uh, there's no question about that. The
[59:48] question is whether or not they can show that they have,
[59:52] uh, contractual rights with, uh, north
[59:56] texas, and in turn, whether or not north texas has
[1:00:00] the subscription rights to that water from the sabine river authority.
[1:00:05] uh, and the, the things that have been provided to the county so
[1:00:09] far do not show that. Uh, in fact, they show, um,
[1:00:14] about as close to the opposite as you can get. Um, they
[1:00:18] do show that, um, uh, blackland obviously has enough water, you
[1:00:22] know, subscribe to enough water to support the people that are there now.
[1:00:26] uh, and, uh, apparently the idea here is that,
[1:00:31] uh, dr horton will pay for all the costs to get
[1:00:35] them up to speed, uh, up to the level where they have a new take
[1:00:39] point or a new pipe, um, that comes off of, uh,
[1:00:44] north texas's, uh, water supply, which comes from
[1:00:48] ney and from sabine river authority. Uh, but
[1:00:53] what the, what the, uh, documents do not show is that there
[1:00:57] is a, uh, contract that,
[1:01:01] uh, makes that 100%, um,
[1:01:06] reliable. And if the county, uh, approve, if the court
[1:01:10] approves, uh, of the, uh, the
[1:01:14] opposition here, uh, position and, uh,
[1:01:18] allows this, uh, development to become final and move forward. There
[1:01:22] is, uh, at least currently in the paperwork that the county has no guarantee
[1:01:27] that there's gonna be enough water for that development. There's
[1:01:31] a guarantee that, uh, they'll be able to provide the water that they're
[1:01:35] currently subscribed to, but that is nowhere near, uh, 6,500
[1:01:40] houses worth of additional water, much less other development
[1:01:45] that comes in, in the, uh, non, uh, residential
[1:01:49] portions, uh, that may be built out there. Um, and
[1:01:53] I know that water is the main issue that every development
[1:01:58] is talking about. Every county in this, in this whole state is,
[1:02:02] uh, dealing with is the lack of water. Um,
[1:02:06] I've dealt with that, uh, every single day for about two
[1:02:11] years, uh, for other clients that I've got, including negotiations
[1:02:15] with the sabine river authority. Um, and the
[1:02:19] documents that, that I've seen here, um, are, uh, in,
[1:02:23] in section five of the water supply or of the, uh, brief,
[1:02:28] we go into a lot of detail about, uh, why a can
[1:02:32] serve letter in this position, uh, is not the
[1:02:36] same as a will serve. And what the county has, uh, asked for,
[1:02:40] um, is a binding commitment. And the
[1:02:45] documents that are in front of you just don't add up to, uh,
[1:02:49] a binding commitment because there's no formal contract that
[1:02:54] ensurers that this development will be served either, uh,
[1:02:58] from north texas to blackland or from sabine river
[1:03:02] authority to north texas. Um, that's not to say they can't get
[1:03:06] it. I hope that they can get it, um, and
[1:03:10] time will tell. Uh, but right now everybody wants
[1:03:14] more water. Everybody needs more water. Um,
[1:03:19] the counties, uh, around you and, and, and to some extent in this county,
[1:03:23] um, there's, uh, groups and, uh, neighborhoods,
[1:03:28] uh, running up against, uh, the sub the limits of their subscription,
[1:03:33] uh, amounts. Um, I'm sure that you've all heard news about,
[1:03:37] um, um, construction moratoriums
[1:03:41] based specifically on the lack of water. Some of those are in
[1:03:45] this, uh, general service area, the water that comes from this watershed.
[1:03:50] um, and this watershed is part of rockwall
[1:03:54] counties in one watershed, parts in a different watershed, everybody has
[1:03:58] over subscription and under supply. Um,
[1:04:04] the, uh, that section of the brief though goes, uh, line by line through
[1:04:09] all of the documents that are included in that section, uh, 14, 15,
[1:04:13] and 16, and explains why, uh, the county believes
[1:04:17] that, um, there is not enough here to rise to
[1:04:21] the level of a will serve. And because of that, uh, we
[1:04:26] believe that the, uh, county has an obligation to,
[1:04:30] um, not move forward with a final approval,
[1:04:35] um, whether that's approval in the form of an order in
[1:04:39] response to this hearing or eventually, uh, approval related
[1:04:43] to the final plat. Um, and that's one of our
[1:04:47] areas of disagreement is whether or not this is appropriate
[1:04:52] for, uh, today's hearing or, uh, eventually for
[1:04:56] a private or for the, uh, final plat. Um,
[1:05:03] we believe that legally, uh, rockwell counties on, on solid
[1:05:07] ground, even though it is not, uh, a, a path that many other counties have
[1:05:12] taken, uh, since this, uh, law came to pass,
[1:05:16] uh, six years ago, um, based on the
[1:05:20] other, uh, statutes that we've, uh, provided in explaining the letter and the
[1:05:24] other case law. Um, and we would ask
[1:05:28] the county to, uh, the commissioner's court to enter an
[1:05:32] order, uh, after considering all of the documents and
[1:05:37] testimony and evidence, uh, that are presented today, uh, upholding
[1:05:41] the previous position that the county's taken on, uh,
[1:05:45] the apportionment issue in particular, uh, and just
[1:05:50] to remind the court that is a completely separate issue from,
[1:05:54] uh, the issues, uh, surrounding the, uh, disapproval
[1:05:58] of the preliminary plat and ongoing negotiations related
[1:06:03] to platting this apportionment. And the, the, the exact meant
[1:06:07] arguments are statutorily separate. Um,
[1:06:11] and there, there is bleed over. Obviously the, uh, that is the
[1:06:15] main point of disagreement is when those issues should come up.
[1:06:20] but we would urge the commissioner's court to read through, uh,
[1:06:24] the, uh, brief and the, um, exhibits
[1:06:28] that we've provided, um, most of which are the same exhibits
[1:06:33] that were provided by, uh, dr horton's counsel and
[1:06:37] to enter an order, uh, upholding the county's previous
[1:06:41] position and denying, uh, dr horton's appeals
[1:06:45] on, uh, 14 of the 16 points.
[1:06:53] does anybody have any questions for mr. Ray?
[1:07:02] okay. Hearing none, uh, mr. Anderson, you've got 15 minutes to
[1:07:07] rebut. Thank you. Um, you know, it's interesting,
[1:07:11] I've been to several hearings here where the county
[1:07:15] has complained and probably rightfully so, about not having as many powers,
[1:07:20] um, for example, as home rural cities have with regards to protecting
[1:07:24] the police power, uh, and, and how the legislature
[1:07:29] has addressed those over time, and that it's probably a
[1:07:33] legitimate concern. I think it's important to keep in mind that
[1:07:38] that is a fact. The constitution and the state statutes have greatly
[1:07:42] limited the powers of counties in general law
[1:07:46] towns to act without having expressed authority.
[1:07:50] and I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm just saying it is what it is.
[1:07:55] and the brief, which I just got, so I had to skim through it, it
[1:07:59] wasn't provided to me ahead of time. The 40 pages, again,
[1:08:03] goes way beyond what the statute and the constitution allow
[1:08:07] the county to do. And I, I appreciate it. It's,
[1:08:11] it's well crafted. I usually don't spend that much time writing
[1:08:15] a brief like that one. But, um, the, the real crux
[1:08:19] of the issue, I think is to just read
[1:08:24] 2 32 0.11 a. And I'll be honest
[1:08:28] with you, I, I really don't like it when lawyers say,
[1:08:33] I've done all these cases and I know how it's gonna end up and all that, but
[1:08:37] unfortunately, I'm gonna say it. So I've had, you know, four
[1:08:42] cases before the texas supreme court dealing with governmental
[1:08:46] powers. I probably have 20 court of appeals cases
[1:08:50] on infrastructure. So I have a pretty good idea. The courts know what infrastructure
[1:08:55] means. Okay? And probably another 35 or 40
[1:08:59] court of appeals cases, and this one's really simple,
[1:09:04] it's county infrastructure. Infrastructure means
[1:09:08] pipelines and or water lines. It's streets and in drainage,
[1:09:13] all those sorts of things that happened with the development. Okay?
[1:09:19] county infrastructure is simple, and I appreciate the strained attempt to
[1:09:23] try to make it something that it's not. And I appreciate where he wants to go think
[1:09:27] it shows a lot of creativity. But my experience is when you go before
[1:09:31] a court, they usually just look at what the worst common meaning is.
[1:09:36] the county is. You infrastructure is streets,
[1:09:41] culverts, water lines, sewer lines, okay? That
[1:09:45] if y'all, if you look at your traditional subdivision regs, that's what y'all deal
[1:09:49] with. That's what y'all regulate. The reason it's county infrastructure
[1:09:53] is not city infrastructure, right? Cities within their corporate limits can
[1:09:58] own and have dedicated all those types of improvements. That's, that's
[1:10:02] the distinction there. But the real critical piece here, I think is
[1:10:06] if you look at the statute. It, it involves,
[1:10:10] um, a condition of approval for a property development project
[1:10:15] that the developer bear a portion of the cost of county infrastructure
[1:10:19] improvements by the making of dedications. The payment of fees or
[1:10:23] the payment of construction cost, the developer's proportion of the cost
[1:10:27] may not exceed the amount required for infrastructure improvements
[1:10:32] that are roughly proportionate to the proposed development as
[1:10:36] approved by a professional engineer who holds a license issued
[1:10:41] under chapter 1001 occupations code. And
[1:10:45] it's retained by the county. And so the rebuttal basically is,
[1:10:49] and I, and I kind of skimmed this brief 'cause I didn't have it ahead of time,
[1:10:54] the county doesn't dispute that in order to have a valid, um,
[1:11:02] apportion ity appeals proposal like has been
[1:11:06] in this case, it's gotta be prepared by a professional engineer. That
[1:11:10] kind of relates back to the infrastructure, right? If, if you're gonna have
[1:11:14] a civil engineer that typically does construction drawings for streets and utility
[1:11:19] lines and stuff like that, you have a civil engineer do it. So the legislature said
[1:11:23] you actually have to have an engineer to do those things.
[1:11:28] I I look through the brief. I don't think they're the , the county's
[1:11:32] disputed that there, there are, are no professional
[1:11:36] engineering reports here except for the one on streets. And
[1:11:40] again, that one's not an individualized assessment. It's gotta be individualized.
[1:11:46] the, the, their report basically says, we looked at the subdivision ordinance and
[1:11:50] or regulations. It requires typically on a perimeter street that the
[1:11:54] developer dedicate and pay to construct two lanes.
[1:11:58] so the way that this usually happens for a
[1:12:02] proportionality appeal, it, it's not intended to be
[1:12:06] the sort that the county uses to extract things.
[1:12:11] it was intended to be a shield by the developer. So let's take streets
[1:12:16] ca the engineer says you need for your
[1:12:21] development to dedicate two lanes and build two streets.
[1:12:25] okay? That's just because that's what the subdivision
[1:12:29] regulations say. It's not an individual assessment for this
[1:12:33] particular developer and the number of trips that he's generated,
[1:12:38] it's the general applicability of a subdivision wreck. The way it typically happens,
[1:12:42] the developer then comes up and says, whoa, you
[1:12:46] know, let's, let's pretend it's one house, my one house, 'cause we've
[1:12:50] had this before. My one house doesn't generate the need for me to
[1:12:55] dedicate 50 feet of right of way and build an extra road
[1:12:59] extra lane. That's how this process typically works.
[1:13:04] so the county's kind of flipped that and is trying to use it
[1:13:08] again, like I say, more than a sword, but a shield. But you still gotta
[1:13:13] comply with the statute and just haven't
[1:13:17] done it. I mean, there's just no professional engineer reports here.
[1:13:21] and that's the whole reason this, this statute to set the way up. It, it
[1:13:25] is, is infrastructure improvements as part of a development that are
[1:13:29] basically a professional engineer. And I will admit they had
[1:13:33] a professional engineer do their street report. We disagreement for the
[1:13:37] reasons we talked about, but, and, and jeff miles obviously is
[1:13:42] an engineer, but the other 15, I mean there's
[1:13:46] just no question. There's, there just isn't that
[1:13:50] y'all can't impose those. I I I don't even see why
[1:13:54] there's a question there. Um,
[1:13:58] so that I really should keep it to that. But just a couple of
[1:14:02] comments that were made. Um, but again, I do honest with
[1:14:06] you, I don't know about this fire contract with
[1:14:11] the city. Um, my understanding of
[1:14:15] contract law is pretty basic 'cause that's not what I do. But typically one party can't
[1:14:19] just terminate a contract. You know, I mean I grew up in west
[1:14:23] texas, your word was your bond, if you will both want to terminate, you can terminate,
[1:14:27] but one party just can't terminate because they want to. That's not how
[1:14:31] it works here, uh, in texas. The um,
[1:14:37] you know, I have other stuff written down, but I think that's kind of the main thing. I
[1:14:42] mean, it just, there there may be other issues here
[1:14:46] and I think commissioner lty is correct. You know, he says, well, you don't have to pay
[1:14:50] a fee. Well, that's kind of my point. You know, that's what the statute is for.
[1:14:54] if you have to construct, dedicate or pay a fee and if it's,
[1:14:59] you know, make sure you can get electricity to the side or you know what,
[1:15:03] make sure you have animal control or whatever. Those are not
[1:15:07] proportionality appeal items. Okay. And frankly,
[1:15:12] every development has to go through those and make sure they work or they can't develop.
[1:15:17] okay. So if if there's no water, it,
[1:15:23] it won't happen. The, the retail provider under state law says
[1:15:27] that there is nothing personal against council there. But
[1:15:31] that's not really their call. If the retail water provider has
[1:15:35] the ccn and if he says I can serve it, I can serve it. I think all the discussion
[1:15:40] beyond the, the parcels that we're talking about here is irrelevant,
[1:15:44] should be disregarded. I know it's important. I'm not saying it's not important for the county.
[1:15:48] so please don't, you know, make it look like I'm not saying that long
[1:15:52] term there are things to be worked out. I'm just saying legally from where we are today
[1:15:57] and what the statute requires and what the appeal is before you,
[1:16:01] then I don't think that the, the
[1:16:05] county has proven up, the county over here has
[1:16:09] proven up or made its burden to show that it legally can require
[1:16:13] those 16 items. Uh, I, I'm, I'm not sure what else to say
[1:16:18] 'cause it's so crystal clear and there's lots of case law on what
[1:16:22] infrastructure means. That's not a real difficult term for
[1:16:26] people to figure out. So if anybody has questions, but I'm not gonna
[1:16:30] go I, you know, 44 page brief. I'm not gonna go
[1:16:34] respond to every item that's in there. Does anybody have any questions, mr. Anderson?
[1:16:40] nope. No questions. Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything further? You still have a few minutes? Well,
[1:16:45] if I had something good to say or relevant, I would, but, but I don't wanna
[1:16:49] waste people's time. Okay. So
[1:16:54] all
[1:17:05] that being said at two 16, we're adjourned.