[{"_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",6557610,"mediaKeyId","3289710-6715a71be648eabe7b6ec33a56eecb60","parentId",3289710,"title","Votes at a glance: Ellis County Commissioners approve consent agenda, plats, procurement actions, canvass election results and accept FY24 audit","audioSeconds",4276,"startMs",1340000,"endMs",5616000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3289710-6715a71be648eabe7b6ec33a56eecb60&start=1340&end=5616","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3289710-6715a71be648eabe7b6ec33a56eecb60/thumbnail_1340000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6557610/Ellis-County/Texas/Votes-at-a-glance-Ellis-County-Commissioners-approve-consent-agenda-plats-procurement-actions-canvass-election-results-and-accept-FY24-audit","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6557610-d2f4e7fe92095c24231ad9e47b45dbdf/orig.mp4?Expires=1773644990&Signature=SuzeG-PHpuYFb7ptRibFHYVQ~YaHKuOSDDKfC9AEHRPEw7XuSBPp2CggmaHni0YMe0unMxCvaneXsoClLp1ohS8x8trqnHR4i6b3celxpHg1hy-aH0mSFjkCy90EVkI6PH94xCG0r2xeFooqIITpMYwAWG9KhzipU4CGBcL7eXW8zs3UZMbduI9WMiEt3-IkY7eNPUu40ww31b2fuk-ZGqbWf-p4nXsvE9u7F4cCGBA7poXvIh5QJzsPbkVHu8UFkB2hRacXiNS3WGSH0fklXGykXtAuX~XHjVs3Mh1KwZQ0Nw2T65e-JYvzXis5Cuemn0YvGoXrY7QqcPKK0D4VfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ellis","date","2025-05-13T00:00:00Z","article","Ellis County Commissioners Court completed a series of routine and substantive votes at its May 13 business meeting, approving the consent agenda, multiple plats and variances, a procurement exemption and one‑year purchase agreement, canvassing special‑election results for Emergency Services District (ESD) No. 12, and accepting the county's FY2024 annual comprehensive financial report and single audit.

Key outcomes:

- Consent agenda (administrative A1–A10 and financial F1–F10): Approved (motion by Commissioner Grayson; second by Commissioner Ponder). The consent agenda included routine administrative and financial items; staff had highlighted line‑item transfers related to elections/records building soft costs and hard costs for county facilities.

- Development and plat actions (development agenda items 1.1–1.15): The court took action to ratify staff approvals and to act on multiple plats and preliminary plats, including: Jordan Run Phase 2 maintenance bond with a $5,000 contingency for unresolved drainage (item 1.1; motion by Commissioner Ponder, second Commissioner Butler); accessory plats and preliminary plats for Billups Addition (1.4), Bison Meadows South (1.5), Farrah Estrada Addition (1.6), Rodriguez Family Addition (1.7), Sunflower Estates (1.8), Ager Estates (1.9), Flowers Addition (1.10), Childress Place (1.11), Clifton Place (1.12), Trails at Hidden Creek preliminary plat (1.13), Seneca Terrace (1.14). Several plats were approved subject to technical conditions listed in staff reports (signature blocks, setback lines, right‑of‑way dedications, FEMA/floodplain updates, septic or shared‑well agreements where applicable). Variances approved included the Whispering Creek Preserve entrance‑spacing variance (item 1.2) and a minimum road‑frontage variance for a 7.33‑acre replat (item 1.3) approved with three staff conditions.

- Procurement: The court approved a sole‑source exemption under Local Government Code §262.024(a)(7) for lightweight aggregate Type L (grades 3–5) from Arcosa Aggregates (item 2.1) and subsequently authorized a one‑year purchase agreement using that exemption (item 2.2). Staff said Arcosa uses a proprietary rotary‑kiln production process and recommended sole‑source status. Delivery or county pickup options were noted as affecting price.

- Canvass of ESD No. 12 special election (item 3.1): The court canvassed results for the May 3 special election on creating Ellis County Emergency Services District No. 12 and removed an unpopulated portion of the proposed map (Maypearl ETJ) where there were no registered voters. The canvass covered the county‑land portion and the City of Milford portions; vote totals reported by elections staff were read into the record and the court approved the canvass.

- FY2024 audit acceptance (item 3.2): The court accepted the FY2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and single audit by Pattillo, Brown & Hill LLP. Auditor Michelle Majeski reported an unmodified (clean) opinion, noted Ellis County’s general fund balance equated to roughly 140 days of budgeted expenditures, and reported no material weaknesses or significant findings in federal/state grant testing (major programs tested included ARPA and SB22). County officials thanked the auditor for thorough records and documentation.

- Participation agreement with Grand Prairie (item 3.3): Approved (covered in a separate article) with direction that county legal finalize board‑membership language prior to signature.

Procedural note: The court recessed into executive session to consult with counsel on pending TCEQ matters and petitions for municipal utility districts (pursuant to Texas Government Code §551.071). No public action was reported from executive session.

Most motions on plat and ratification items were approved with the conditions listed in staff reports; where staff required additional technical corrections or bonds those conditions were included in the approved motions. For details on individual plats, variances and staff conditions, the county’s Department of Development staff released a staff report and attachments as part of the public record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Ellis - Commissioners Court - May 13, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The court approved the consent agenda, multiple plats and variances, a sole‑source procurement and purchase for lightweight aggregate, canvassed a special election to create Emergency Services District No. 12 in parts of the county, and accepted the FY2024 comprehensive annual financial report and single‑audit.","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},6557615,"Ellis County OKs 40‑foot entrance spacing variance for Whispering Creek Preserve after resident raises flooding and traffic concerns",802,1566000,2368000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3289710-6715a71be648eabe7b6ec33a56eecb60&start=1566&end=2368","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3289710-6715a71be648eabe7b6ec33a56eecb60/thumbnail_1566000.jpg","/articles/6557615/Ellis-County/Texas/Ellis-County-OKs-40foot-entrance-spacing-variance-for-Whispering-Creek-Preserve-after-resident-raises-flooding-and-traffic-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6557615-daf47437681e801e0db71eaa2b145a86/orig.mp4?Expires=1773644990&Signature=mOkoc2meZ5wY9R7OItE9GCl4pPK2mc3k8rWxo8HqmvIYiUaS2-POYVCNQC5nTJxev7j5QjG1u8gS2lC36uiXecxXgNUKnCJp~nMcI9z2Yj2Em7n74b97dcPBzpJww7grNDIvNNXtGHI26ggFMu0wiA8o84b0iz3Xqa5mGIYaS--QtBHvl8aIH2dW9rWIKrra77lFVLeWax~zeDDrincBKwpPAY-M8eRnbpACRKXEC1YQZNSKePE8fqERlzH7DLgbYCi11HZDY1o1TNXHlVNCg3~eKegH8VCK1gCL83g2Kjm7xzeQD~Y9pQ4JAgUnfBobMOCmt1NUrkEG9RjPxzkwdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Ellis County Commissioners Court voted May 13 to grant a variance reducing the required minimum spacing between two subdivision entrances from 600 feet to 560 feet for Whispering Creek Preserve, a 131.862‑acre, 70‑lot development near Youngblood Road and FM 878.

Alberto Matas of the county’s Department of Development told the court the applicant’s third‑party engineering review found the two driveway centerlines were 560 feet apart and staff recommended approval of the 40‑foot variance. The court had mailed the required notices to nearby property owners and staff recommended approval.

Two nearby residents spoke during public comment. Kevin Cross, who said he lives at 529 Youngblood, told the court the rear of his property floods after major rains and expressed concern about where additional stormwater from new homes would go. “Where's all the water gonna go?” Cross asked. He also said many motorists use Youngblood as a cut‑through from Palmer to Waxahachie and worried additional homes would increase traffic congestion.

County staff and commissioners responded that the plat submission included a hydrology/drainage study now under review and that final civil plans and drainage requirements must be approved before construction or a final plat would be accepted. Commissioner Stinson noted the developer had increased culvert sizes on Youngblood and emphasized that drainage design for the subdivision will be checked during civil plan review.

Commissioner Stinson moved to approve the 40‑foot variance for the two entrances; Commissioner Grayson seconded. The court approved the motion.

County staff noted the variance addressed only entrance spacing and not drainage; staff said the developer must complete civil‑plan drainage work and provide required bonds before the county would accept public maintenance or final platting. Residents were advised to contact county engineering for specifics of the drainage plan once civil plans are available for review.","The commissioners approved a 40‑foot variance to reduce required spacing between subdivision entrances from 600 to 560 feet for Whispering Creek Preserve; residents raised concerns about drainage and cut‑through traffic during discussion.",{"_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},6557619,"Ellis County approves participation agreement with Grand Prairie for TIRS No. 3 after negotiations on board representation",1468,4131000,5599000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3289710-6715a71be648eabe7b6ec33a56eecb60&start=4131&end=5599","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3289710-6715a71be648eabe7b6ec33a56eecb60/thumbnail_4131000.jpg","/articles/6557619/Ellis-County/Texas/Ellis-County-approves-participation-agreement-with-Grand-Prairie-for-TIRS-No-3-after-negotiations-on-board-representation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6557619-06b4698946694f97ef6409a4a3a1b292/orig.mp4?Expires=1773644990&Signature=C-O6jDOYZangorWMKwpQKLvlb0n612IeqQBz-xSZqs2fOSaGD2Xx8SEDwvN1UmTG5fAq9eJfqD1NCfWRxvsUxj0dxAdjmkUzf2m3tzUipzxsJJsFvLjy~pQdr0oL2laS9KcnQFCf4a1otGKKvQafA0X16Tuom-cWLa-5oxNN09ts4zhIHAZMEWxTNFmRPsNJznUC9IdH-GbXGm1qi5etPX-rt4Ei9KCplZSRVkX7P12BAKeJHPN5WX5~Feg8w71LXoXdTiZGPleu2FGfWNrFfxPYjcOly5af9cAcOVBqGft6BrYeiKloSw5YfkiUVNF7oIN7tq-85iJFTELr1tGPRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Ellis County Commissioners Court voted May 13 to approve a participation agreement with the City of Grand Prairie for Grand Prairie TIRS (Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone) No. 3, with county legal to finalize board‑membership language before the county judge signs the document.

The court’s action authorizes the county to participate in up to three separately designated “defined areas” inside the TIRS; each defined area carries a maximum 10‑year county participation period beginning on the tax year the developer designates that defined area. The agreement excludes county tax increment participation for single‑family residential infrastructure: “County's participation rate for single family residential development shall be 0%,” the text states.

The provision that drew the most discussion was how many seats Ellis County would hold on the TIRS board. County counsel Greg Wilhelm said Ellis County should be entitled to match the representation of any other participating county and not be limited by an arbitrary percentage. “It is my position that Ellis County should have the same number of board members as any of the other… counties,” Wilhelm said, arguing for parity as other counties join.

Megan Mahon, deputy city manager for Grand Prairie, said the city’s negotiators were willing to make the county’s representation equivalent to the most‑numerous county member count so Ellis County would not be disadvantaged as other jurisdictions join. She emphasized that Grand Prairie sees the project as a partnership and offered to provide periodic progress briefings to the county. “If there’s a particular once a year, once every 6 months…we’d be happy to do that,” Mahon said.

Developer Daniel “Twig” (Provident Realty) described why the agreement does not include an exhibit listing projected public‑improvement costs: the project covers roughly 2,500 acres and exact, long‑range infrastructure needs are difficult to predict now. “For such a large development... it’s impossible to forecast the exact improvements that we’ll need over such a long time horizon,” he told the court.

The participation agreement also includes several guardrails for the county: county increment may not fund municipal operations, economic development grants, or administrative costs without prior court approval; abatements on real property within a defined area require prior commission approval; and any expansion of the TIRS or of the areas that would use county increment must be presented to the commissioners for approval.

Commissioners emphasized the mechanic for starting the 10‑year participation clock: a developer must designate a defined area and submit meet‑and‑bounds to the county. Counsel noted that if the designations and start dates are delayed, later participation could be shorter than 10 years for a particular defined area, and any extension beyond the statutory end year would require future court approval.

Commissioner Butler moved to approve the agreement and allow the county judge to sign after county legal and the City of Grand Prairie finalize the board‑membership language; Commissioner Ponder seconded. The court voted in favor; the judge’s office was to receive the final documents for signature the following day.

The court’s vote followed an executive review of the draft language in a prior workshop, and commissioners said they expect future briefings as development and defined‑area designations proceed. No specific projected cost exhibits were attached to the agreement at the time of signature; the county will review and approve specific defined areas and any cost items before using local tax increment funds.

The agreement will not take effect for any tax year until a developer designates a defined area and submits required legal descriptions to Ellis County. The agreement contains a provision capping county payments so that no payment obligations from the agreement will extend beyond the 2055 tax year absent a future amendment approved by the parties.

The court’s action authorizes staff and the judge to finalize and execute the agreement once the contested board‑membership language is clarified to give Ellis County equivalent representation to other participating counties.","The commissioners approved a participation agreement allowing Grand Prairie TIRS (tax increment reinvestment zone) No. 3 to include parts of Ellis County, after negotiating language on defined areas, exclusions for single‑family infrastructure and equity in board membership.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Ellis County Commissioners approve consent agenda, plats, procurement actions, canvass election results and accept FY24 audit

Ellis County OKs 40‑foot entrance spacing variance for Whispering Creek Preserve after resident raises flooding and traffic concerns

Ellis County approves participation agreement with Grand Prairie for TIRS No. 3 after negotiations on board representation