Please note: All agenda items are considered PASSED unless indicated otherwise.

OPEN SESSION: 

PRESENTATIONS

1. Receive presentation from the Road and Bridge Department.

Presentation by Ann Wilson, County Auditor & Frank Davis, County Engineer

Comments: This presentation was from both the County Engineer over the Road and Bridge Department, Mr. Frank Davis, & the Smith County Auditor, Mrs. Ann Wilson. I have embedded the video of the presentation and linked the PowerPoint Presentation for your review.  I recommend watching the presentation in its entirety while looking at the PowerPoint slides as the two departments discuss their subject matter with the Commissioners Court. Since Commissioner Herod and I recently joined the court, this presentation was helpful in catching us up with the Road Bond Program. 
 
The County Auditor reviewed the financial end of the Road Bonds.

• Voter approved the first bonds in 2017
• The 1st series of the bonds were sold in 2018

Phase 1 (10 Year Series):

• Total Authorized: $39.5 Million
• Total Issued: $39.5 Million
• Interest Earned $1.134 Million
• Project Expenditures: $40.5 Million
• Funds Remaining in Phase 1 Road Bond Program: $150,684.06

Phase 2 (20 Year Series):

• Total Authorized: $45 Million
• Total Bonds Issued: $25 Million
• Interest Earned $1.020 Million
• Project Expenditures: $19 Million
• First 2 series of Bond Funds
• Remaining in Phase 2 Road Bond Program: $6.9M
• Bond Amount Remaining to be Issued: $20 Million

Debt Repayment:

• Amount Issued: $64.5 Million
• Principal + Interest Remaining to Pay: $51.5 Million

Personally, I do not like debt. If it is at all possible, I would rather practice patience to plan and save for future projects. From what I understand, the county’s roads were severely deteriorating, and the Road Bond Program idea was presented as a funding solution to rebuild or repair a considerable number of roads in a reasonable time frame. Phase 1 Bonds were 10-year series and Phase 2 Bonds (only $25M have been issued of $45M) were 20-year series. The county will be in debt on these road bonds well into the 2040s unless we can find a way to pay down our debt sooner. There is $20 Million left in the Phase 2 Bond program that has not been issued. Mrs. Wilson commented that the next bond series may be sold in the Spring at $10 Million, leaving the remaining $10 Million to be sold possibly in 2026. The Commissioners Court will have to vote on the remaining $20M in voter approved bonds. Even though the last two approved bond series were 20-year terms does not mean the remaining two will be 20-year terms. We will be advised as to what the best bond options are at that time and make that decision.

The next part of the presentation was focused on the roads. This was a little more technical, and it was an update on what the road bonds have funded for Smith County, not what is upcoming. Again, I highly recommend that you watch the presentation so you can understand the entire situation, but I will highlight some key points that you need to know.

• The road “miles” that were labeled in the original Road Capital Improvement Plan were an unintended misrepresentation.  If a road needed patch repairs, not a reconstruction, that was never intended to be the entirety of the road “miles”. The original Phase 1 bond designated 36.079 miles for Roadway Reconstruction (A) and 165.239 miles for HMAC Overlay (B) that totaled: 201.318 miles.  [see page 10 of the Road & Bridge Presentation] The “miles” that were designated as Miscellaneous Roadway (M) were not actually miles because that category was for spot repairs. They listed 175.172 miles for that category, but they never intended to completely pave an area that just needed spot repairs. When Phase 1 was completed, the Roadway Reconstruction (A) miles totaled 99.680 and the HMAC Overlay (B) miles came to 104.722. Together that total was 204.402 miles completed. They also replaced 2 bridges and covered over $1.4 million in surveying, engineering, and inspecting services. In total, they were able to complete more miles and cover the professional services as well as the 2 bridges while still completing the spot repairs. Judge Franklin pointed out one example from the Phase 1 list that was labeled as 1.7 miles scheduled under the Miscellaneous Roadway (M) category, but the cost was $34,470. The cost to reconstruct 1.7 miles of road would be much more expensive as Mr. Davis attested. Originally, the prior court decided to supplement the funding with $3.5M for the roads labeled M (Miscellaneous Road Repairs) for spot repairs. I think there was an important lesson learned in this mishap and I suspect they will be more precise or opt for a different measurable when constructing the next proposal. 

• We are still being impacted by the COVID economy and the rising cost of inflation during the Biden Administration.  Mr. Davis stated that they typically plan for an increase on materials of 5%. The cost of cement alone increased by 35% from 2021 to 2022. Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete (HMAC) saw an increase of 16.5% in the same time frame. From 2019 to 2025 overall there was almost a 65% increase on cement. This wasn’t on anybody’s BINGO card in 2017.  Maybe Mr. Davis’ crystal ball was broken before COVID hit? In all seriousness, I don’t think anyone could have predicted the calamity that a worldwide pandemic would cause.  The prior court pivoted to supplement the needs with an additional $11 Million from the General Fund surplus. Our county roads still must be replaced, repaired and maintained regardless of the price increases.  The Road & Bridge Dept. works with the Purchasing Dept. to obtain material bids with multiple vendors to get the best price for the materials needed.  Mr. Davis has committed to continually monitor construction inflation factors.

• They recognize that they are behind schedule on the road plan.  Mr. Davis gave some legitimate reasons as to why they were not on target. Spring & Summer storms and increased costs of materials were some of the factors. Change is a factor.  The county is growing fast, and new developments are being built outside of the city limits. With this growth comes construction traffic followed by increased resident traffic. New pipelines & utilities are being installed countywide. When your original road plan called for repairs in sections of a road and then the land is sold and divided to build a neighborhood, the use of the roadway dictates that its now categorized as needing reconstruction, not just repair. This is Texas and we are very accustomed to damaging storms through our warmer months.  Storm cleanup by our Road & Bridge Dept is an expectation of the taxpayer. We are very fortunate to have rain, but this also makes the grass grow.  The ditches must be mowed in a timely manner by multiple crews from the Road & Bridge Dept. We love that new families are choosing Smith County to put down their roots and join our community here. New construction will increase the housing market. That’s a lot of wear and tear on our roads but it also contributes to the sales tax and property taxes.  We want to grow at a steady rate and adjust our services to compliment the growth. Growth means even more infrastructure. It’s an ever-fluid situation building and maintaining roads. With so many unpredictable factors that impact the entire Road & Bridge Dept, I think it is reasonably understood how they could get behind schedule. I also think there are some options the court can take to offset some of the extenuating circumstances that bog down the Road & Bridge Dept. Moving forward, we should exercise better timely communications and more transparency to address the roadblocks before they impact our road plan. 

• There was remorse expressed by both our County Judge & Frank Davis that a public update had not come sooner. Accountability begins when we know the expectations and address progress periodically. Monthly reports, quarterly reports, and yearly audits all contribute to tracking productivity. Mr. Davis outlined in his presentation that we can expect quarterly updates on departmental activities and semi-annual updates on the Road Bond Program. I could not agree with him more.

These bonds were voluntary debt (voter approved) from our taxpayer and debt comes with interest. You are paying the bill. One of the core responsibilities of the Commissioners Court is building and maintaining your roads. What we learned in Commissioners Court Tuesday is that the county has not delivered what was sold to the taxpayer – BUT- there are reasonable explanations. IF there had been quarterly and semi-annual updates starting back in 2018, I believe we would be closer to meeting the expectation. I was not a part of Commissioners Court when this all began, and I may or may not be on the court when this debt is repaid. While I am in office, I will advocate for more transparency and accountability on the Road Bond Program. Now that we have been brought up to speed on Phase 1 & Phase 2 of the program, my next expectation would be that the court hosts a public workshop to address the outstanding road projects with an adjusted timeline and assess the funding necessary for those projects – bonds, general fund surplus or the budget. We must remember that this forecast will be another estimate, not an etched-in-stone guarantee. Providing transparency with consistent updates from the Road & Bridge Dept., increased communications, and monitoring of the market, we will be more likely to meet or exceed the goal. I look forward to working with the team at Road & Bridge to finish out the Road Bond Program.

COURT ORDERS

ELECTION’S OFFICE

2. Consider and take necessary action to approve the following Facility Use Agreements for 2025:

1. Glass Recreation Center,
   
2. St. Louis Baptist Church,
   
3. Whitehouse Methodist Church, and
   
4. Cross Brand Cowboy Church.

Comments: These facilities have entered into a contract with the Elections Department to be a polling place for the upcoming May 3 election.

FIRE MARSHAL/ EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

3. Consider and take necessary action to approve the Emergency Support Function (ESF) 4, Firefighting, Annex of the Smith County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), allow the county judge to sign all related documentation.

Comments: Emergency Management Coordinator, Brandon Moore is tasked with developing the county’s emergency plans with various departments/first responders for emergency activities. This Firefighting ESF plan took over a year to assemble with both Primary Agencies and Support Agencies in collaboration. There were several incidents to handle last year and that was coupled with coordinating with the fire departments for a true plan while handling the daily operations. (You can read the Firefighting ESF plan in the linked packet at the top of the report.) These plans have a lifespan of 5 years. FEMA switched from Hazard Specific Annexes to these Emergency Support Function plans, and this is the product of that change.

4. Consider and take necessary action to approve the Emergency Support Function (ESF) 8, Public Health and Medical, Annex of the Smith County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), allow the county judge to sign all related documentation.

Comments: See above comments as well. This agenda item pertains to the Public Health & Medical ESF. This effort was a collaboration with NET Health Director, Russell Hopkins, NET Health CEO, George Roberts and Assistant Director of Operations PHEP, NET Health, Dusty Gonzalez.

Brandon Moore, the Emergency Management Coordinator, will submit five more ESFs for approval by the court. I admire the work that Mr. Moore contributes to making sure Smith County is prepared for emergencies and disasters. He is extraordinarily dedicated to his role, and he is meticulous with his duties. In our conversations regarding his budgetary needs and preparedness, he makes a conscious effort to recognize that it is taxpayer dollars that we are spending with these decisions. I’m pleased that the responsibilities of the Fire Marshal and the Emergency Management Coordinator have been divided. All residents of Smith County should feel more secure knowing that we have a committed staff member whose sole focus is to be ready with our emergency response.

5. Consider and take necessary action to approve the award of $31,174.97 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for Public Assistance in relation to County Road 381 for disaster number DR-4781, allow the county judge to sign all related documentation.

Comments: The April and May 2024 storms had an impact of almost $10 million dollars. Brandon Moore works in collaboration with the Road and Bridge Dept to capture the amount of damages and storm cleanup work. Through this effort, FEMA will award a percentage of damages to help with the recovery effort. This is a tremendous undertaking as it involves capturing data in the field through two apps while conducting the storm cleanup effort. The data is compiled in reporting to FEMA and TDEM by our Emergency Management Coordinator, Brandon Moore. I applaud our Smith County Road and Bridge Department and Mr. Moore for their dedication to recouping some of the taxpayer dollars used in storm cleanup.

RECURRING BUSINESS

6. Receive monthly reports from Smith County departments.

7. Consider and take necessary action to authorize the county judge to sign the:

1. Final Plat for the Joey Garrett Subdivision, Precinct 2, and
   
2. Final Flat for the Mitch Brown Addition, Precinct 1.

AUDITOR’S OFFICE

8. Consider and take necessary action to approve and/or ratify payment of accounts, bills, payroll, transfer of funds, amendments, and health claims.

Comments: We receive several reports every week that detail the financial transactions by the county. I review the reports and direct my questions to the Auditor. This week had a charge under Animal Control by Spencer and White Veterinary Hospital for $6625. I spent some time inquiring about this situation to get a better timeline of the events and an explanation for this bill.

You may remember a news report of a busted dog fighting ring last year on September 10. The images from that bust are heartbreaking.

• Six of the 60 dogs seized from the property were accepted by a veterinarian for treatment.
• The dogs were “tagged” by an animal rescue organization.  In court Tuesday, I asked our Animal Control Supervisor, Mrs. Amber Greene, what “tagging” meant. Essentially that means that the 501(c)3 rescue is taking custody of the animal to get it to a foster home.
• The invoice submitted to Smith County Animal Control is dated 9/26/24.
• I requested any invoices that we had received from the Spencer and White Veterinarian Hospital in 2022 and 2023. The charges on previous invoices were minimal and there were less than 5 for a two-year span.
• I requested the emailed communications with Dr. Spence. After the invoice was created and submitted to Animal Control, there is an email from Dr. Spence to Mrs. Greene dated 10/4/24 at 9:05AM that states “did not charge as usual trying to help out.  Did necessary only.”

I have been made aware of a rescue organization that may or may not have taken donations to help with these animals. That is of no concern in this situation. What is concerning is that this invoice was dismissed on 10/4/24 in his email and then resubmitted by the veterinarian months later as “past due” after some hard decisions had to be made concerning the risky fighting dogs.

My duty is to be a good steward of the taxpayer’s funds. While I agree with Commissioner Moore, that we should pay our bills for services rendered, I do not believe this charge is ours to bear since there was a history of minimal or no charge for services and this charge was clearly dismissed by Dr. Spence as evidenced in his email to Mrs. Greene. I also think it sets a dangerous precedent to conduct business with a blank check ready for any entity that wishes to issue an invoice. We did not have a contract in place for services but moving forward, we are advocating to contract for these as-needed services to protect the taxpayer dollars.

ADJOURN