[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6582917,"mediaKeyId","3153520-97e7400f59ecb652b460ff5732ed60e8","parentId",3153520,"title","Commissioners table vote on Grand Prairie TIRZ participation; ask for phased, shorter terms and updated cost exhibits","audioSeconds",3465,"startMs",7200000,"endMs",10665000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3153520-97e7400f59ecb652b460ff5732ed60e8&start=7200&end=10665","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3153520-97e7400f59ecb652b460ff5732ed60e8/thumbnail_7200000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6582917/Ellis-County/Texas/Commissioners-table-vote-on-Grand-Prairie-TIRZ-participation-ask-for-phased-shorter-terms-and-updated-cost-exhibits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6582917-e668d5f4563fd4c2fc58b408c5d11aaf/orig.mp4?Expires=1770649073&Signature=AR25eIlECzArwzBOcq-Yh5PK4VyKME9WYLkpJT9RFTcW0oU11lMpAfsbHBaDCCsut3byje0UcD6NNGa43fVEA1MOtrCm08XO7zwL~ejtM9ZwsaXktnylaZKKralfsoOqd1G2Sl2tCYmop3wus6M8nAfNfOU8nVYr1EWtklgapD~nY62QAQaFG~sm7guDVtR1ggMqFTBxzs~vnXip~~1qGXsvqc~Lytt6EqPWYva3mYHEuL1Jyn7huOMgzBuC6bwgP-8yAUhVS-WtjsCij7kOJ2FxBZtaY1MM916aaxMJjilcE0taXqpZs7a-NZmhT2sXHaQuwQa32r0Lnygpy53lQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ellis","date","2025-04-29T00:00:00Z","article","The Ellis County Commissioners Court on April 29 heard a detailed presentation on a proposed participation agreement with the City of Grand Prairie for Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ/TIRZ) areas that include land in Ellis County. After extensive questions about term length, phasing and cost exhibits, the court voted to table the matter to allow staff and counsel to draft a version reflecting phased subzones and updated cost estimates.

Why it matters: The project is large—developers and the city described plans for major road, water and sewer infrastructure to support commercial, industrial and data‑center development. The county’s decision about tax‑increment participation would commit a portion of future real‑property tax increment to public infrastructure in the zone for a defined term; commissioners were focused on term length, phasing and ensuring explicit limits on what county increment would fund.

Summary of discussion and points of contention
Staff and outside counsel presented an 11‑page participation agreement draft and the project finance plan (PFP). Legal advisers said the county’s participation would apply only to non‑single‑family infrastructure in the identified subareas. Counsel also said exhibit C (the list of proposed public works and updated cost estimates) should be attached so the court can review specific public improvements that county increment would fund.

Commissioners expressed concern about very long terms and the county’s ability to match TIRZ financing timelines with bond maturities and county fiscal exposure. Multiple commissioners preferred limiting county participation to shorter, phased terms—a model of multiple subzones (for example, three subzones with 10‑year participation windows each, with the participation period for each subzone triggered when buildings in that subzone come onto the tax roll). The developer and city said they preferred a longer term to match large infrastructure financing but agreed to consider phased subzones in follow‑up drafting.

Developer and city presentations
Representatives of Provident Realty and the City of Grand Prairie described a multi‑billion‑dollar, multi‑phase plan that would add commercial and data‑center value and include major roads such as Goodland Parkway and an east‑west Miller Road. The city said it would cover maintenance of municipal infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, fire and police) and that TIRZ funds would be used to reimburse public infrastructure costs paid up front by the developer or city.

Court action and next steps
The court voted to table the participation agreement and asked staff and counsel to return with: (1) exhibit C updated to show current project costs the county’s increment would fund, and (2) a participation schedule that breaks the project into phased subzones with shorter terms (for example, 10 years each) and clear start triggers tied to building certificates of occupancy. Counsel and staff committed to bring a revised draft back to the court (target date discussed as May 13).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Ellis - Commissioners Court - Apr 29, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Ellis County Commissioners Court on April 29 heard a detailed presentation on a proposed participation agreement with the City of Grand Prairie for Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone areas that include land in Ellis County and tabled the vote while asking for phased terms and updated cost exhibits.","taxTitle","Ellis County, Texas","taxId",20431,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6582921,"Ellis County cancels animal-shelter RFP after public outcry; will reissue with narrower scope",3430,3660000,7090000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3153520-97e7400f59ecb652b460ff5732ed60e8&start=3660&end=7090","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3153520-97e7400f59ecb652b460ff5732ed60e8/thumbnail_3660000.jpg","/articles/6582921/Ellis-County/Texas/Ellis-County-cancels-animal-shelter-RFP-after-public-outcry-will-reissue-with-narrower-scope","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6582921-0ad354f5f5a04fb9fb55fa34af08c4c6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770649073&Signature=AdPEArTyOKkh5u7Ff2HMowPUpO1CoefcK3DY0AH85pBJFuG7dRPN7sb4KvBPQ1xASGCArOWlbGSkQ7b9vJJoHmEa7zihu4slN3C05i4mM9n2wEXQ-cV5U08f6FKn0g6fnX~klVajtN87br3QLS1nyx9CibN5IWzCrIVbaERW-XuzX1Jj6O2WvTEphH506b9aOIYTuNOiXJkFjIbMEIE26aG3wrWEb0v~mboHIQh2MyIV1-VZ3Xr3DbfhVPeylFCkizZEkNmX3RqUOdX03RbGKNmnLB7MrTqYhtNiBcDUsIsq0SVmRyeBjDrxJhgcJiN0tVUY0DEi8jC81PQYLgzgSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Ellis County Commissioners Court canceled the county’s animal‑shelter request for proposals at its April 29 meeting and directed staff to reissue the procurement after narrowing the scope, following a lengthy public comment period and a detailed update on shelter operations.

Why it matters: The county’s contract with the SPCA of Texas ended April 15, leaving the county with limited capacity for stray and dangerous animals. Local rescuers, city police chiefs and residents urged the court to act; county officials said they do not have an immediate budget appropriation to underwrite a full service shelter at the scale some speakers requested.

What happened at the meeting
County staff and applicants briefed the court. County Auditor Stacy Parr described budget and grant requirements; EJ Harben (procurement/operations staff) summarized outreach to potential operators. Lacey Mendez and Hannah Emmert—representatives of a nonprofit that had applied—said they had spoken with several smaller cities and were preparing to lease the existing facility regardless of the RFP outcome.

Sheriff’s office representative (named in the record only as Brad) outlined the sheriff’s statutory duties: rabies quarantine (10‑day holds for bite animals), and handling vicious or dangerous animals; he said stray‑pickup beyond that is discretionary under state law. Auditor and sheriff’s office officials explained the county’s budget limits: the court had budgeted roughly $9,000 per month for sheltering under the expired SPCA contract but does not have an unrestricted two‑million‑dollar appropriation to underwrite the kind of, full‑service proposal some applicants presented.

Speakers at the public comment period described severe local needs. Speakers—including representatives of Flying Bee Animal Rescue, local residents and city police chiefs—detailed instances of emaciated, injured and litters of animals and urged the county to create capacity for intake, vaccination and spay/neuter services.

Court action
Legal and procurement staff recommended reissuing the RFP with a narrower scope that aligns with the county’s legal obligations and budget realities. The court voted to cancel RFP 20205‑5 and to reissue the procurement with revised scope and a 14‑day advertisement period to give other potential providers an opportunity to respond. The court instructed procurement to return with the reissued RFP and to bring final contracts back for approval.

What’s next
Procurement will reissue the RFP with the narrowed scope. County staff said they will evaluate proposals, and the court indicated it may consider a short‑term contracting approach that fits the current fiscal year and then revisit funding during the next budget cycle. Several community rescue groups said they will continue to coordinate with the sheriff’s office and municipalities in the meantime.","After extensive public comment and an operational briefing, the commissioners voted to cancel RFP 20205‑5 for animal shelter operations and reissue it with a reduced scope tied to state‑required services and a 14‑day procurement window.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6582926,"Ellis County commissioners approve multiple plats, variances and bonds in consent and development agenda",1716,1153000,2869000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3153520-97e7400f59ecb652b460ff5732ed60e8&start=1153&end=2869","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3153520-97e7400f59ecb652b460ff5732ed60e8/thumbnail_1153000.jpg","/articles/6582926/Ellis-County/Texas/Ellis-County-commissioners-approve-multiple-plats-variances-and-bonds-in-consent-and-development-agenda","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6582926-bb9f0103a2d4cc6cf55a65e37caefac7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770649073&Signature=PLjdE-XFTQStdVUam6h8ED4qW7DobKY~KvPyrKo5O6IAXSsrYeHiUjSZHtarugC6NjW7Xyw9dnXusWSd2a6czn2OxDvEWbvZMVKYgue1J2djKhVWam-RzsJd41eacgL6ROj-usVhFR8wN74oChHqwtexsp~bA-AsBU3OZDLFSIs0AXZEnXUg1CNVHFMesnZh-Cc3peNspVyD5Is2ixD2NSVVjXlaaj-DmG-vS2UlrHbVrVYwXr1lddzrsl6W1wtXyGvtN1UUaYRX0Dcf2cT6D6Tjacj67B2DtKk9vLA42M~iHz-XHiL4vhThfMJ4bE059u1BxVaGVURJOW5zv8OImA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Ellis County Commissioners Court approved a package of development and financial items at its April 29 meeting in Waxahachie, including an amendment to the county Master Thoroughfare Plan, several variances and multiple bond and plat actions.

Why it matters: The actions clear legal and administrative obstacles for property owners and developers, authorize bonds and maintenance guarantees, and finalize plats that let new lots or subdivisions proceed. Together the items affect road alignment, property access and the timing of work that will be built and inspected under county standards.

Most significant votes and outcomes
- Amendment to the 2024 Ellis County Master Thoroughfare Plan (Bozick Lane/State Highway 34 and FM 985): Approved. The court adopted staff’s recommended change to remove a portion of proposed minor arterial that tied into FM 985 and to realign Bozick Lane so it terminates at State Highway 34 because the removed segment lies mostly in floodplain and to allow a nearby business to come into compliance. Motion by Commissioner Grayson; second Commissioner Stinson; motion carried.

- Variance for parcel ID 249618 (road frontage; Cottonwood Road / Ebenezer Road area): Approved with conditions limiting further subdivision. The applicant showed roughly 100 feet of frontage where the county’s rule requires 150 feet. Staff recommended—and court adopted—conditions that prohibit further subdivision until subdivision requirements at that later time are met and that the approval not extend to multi‑tenant or commercial use without meeting applicable rules. Motion by Commissioner Stinson; second Commissioner Grayson; motion carried.

- Variance for parcel ID 187185 (existing structure encroaching into front building setback; Bozick Lane/Highway 34): Approved with five conditions. The court granted relief for a building constructed in 1988 but limited enlargement or reconstruction of the nonconforming structure and required a plat to be submitted; approval does not extend to multi‑tenant or commercial redevelopment without meeting current rules. Motion by Commissioner Grayson; second Commissioner Stinson; motion carried.

- Performance bond acceptance, Blue Jay Estate subdivision (89.915 acres, 72 lots): Approved. Staff reported a performance bond amount of $2,230,842.89 and civil plans approved March 17; the court accepted the bond. Motion by Commissioner Stinson; second Commissioner Grayson; motion carried.

- Release of performance bond and acceptance of maintenance bond, Peaks at Lone Elm subdivision (205.73 acres): Approved. Staff recommended release of the performance bond and acceptance of a maintenance bond equal to 50% of the previously posted performance bond ($1,920,285). Motion by Commissioner Ponder; second Commissioner Butler; motion carried.

- Several plats, replats and plat ratifications (Ridgecrest Estates replat; Woodard/Saravo/others): Approved. Staff recommended approval subject to technical conditions and required city conditions where properties lie in municipal extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Motions by commissioners as noted in the record; motions carried.

- Administrative policies: The court approved the Ellis County Cash Management Policy and Procedures and the Ellis County Grant Management Policy and Procedures. County Auditor Stacy Parr said the policies formalize existing practice and meet grantors’ requirements. Motion by Commissioner Grayson; second Commissioner Butler; motions carried.

What the court specified about conditions and limits
Staff repeatedly attached conditions intended to limit the scope of approvals—most commonly: (1) no further subdivision until the property can meet subdivision requirements in effect at that later time; (2) approvals do not extend to multi‑tenant, multi‑unit or commercial uses without meeting applicable requirements at the time of reapplication; and (3) nonconforming structures may not be enlarged and would have to meet current regulations if more than 50% destroyed.

Outlook
The approved items allow property owners and developers to proceed with plats, bonding steps and limited development activity under the conditions the county set. Several items were technical in nature and drew little public comment; the court recorded unanimous or near‑unanimous voice votes for the motions as noted in the public record.","At its April 29 meeting the Ellis County Commissioners Court approved a suite of routine development, subdivision and financial items—including amendments to the county thoroughfare map, variances, performance and maintenance bond transactions and several plats—while adopting routine cash-management and grant-management policies.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners table vote on Grand Prairie TIRZ participation; ask for phased, shorter terms and updated cost exhibits

Ellis County cancels animal-shelter RFP after public outcry; will reissue with narrower scope

Ellis County commissioners approve multiple plats, variances and bonds in consent and development agenda