[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6180380,"mediaKeyId","5119557-d4fcc526702e0332cf75724ead993931","parentId",5119557,"title","Commissioners adopt ordinance restricting solid waste disposal in certain county areas under state health code","audioSeconds",60,"startMs",6260000,"endMs",6320000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5119557-d4fcc526702e0332cf75724ead993931&start=6260&end=6320","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5119557-d4fcc526702e0332cf75724ead993931/thumbnail_6260000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6180380/Tarrant-County/Texas/Commissioners-adopt-ordinance-restricting-solid-waste-disposal-in-certain-county-areas-under-state-health-code","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6180380-8864f14e41f65ad8799ba598c21dcf2e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771100051&Signature=YNy5jw2-YKepqEY~8qXX18drm9LRlGcOWNFjP1vyux1EhZgOUdnHGFPlNFzOI0sX2UuYKjNNPXNyvIQcvg3seAEzx2zzrcvjEIuWMHklwxGGv~HZaHSSfK3lbB8pmuEmnQFS~pw~~znQLPn6cAqJl1USEhcMJZkCGojn~zIxC10b-Hz43KWHCSETgPjYhy5pVVlEkdzcjAdmV2uZKTuae0L7t-hUYLd1t4WelSs4KHsFC4iB1ELX3FzM5WvnYrRn4vBNcfjvXdyAG5-vItghPtsyRhKlYapgS6u8lVlcZs0KzEY1tpli5OX1K2h-exBkbEfnSHUWkdjFmSMen1rPBg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Tarrant County, TX","date","2025-07-02T20:10:00.317Z","article","Tarrant County Commissioners Court held a public hearing and adopted an ordinance prohibiting solid waste disposal and processing in specified parts of the county, citing state public-health authority.

The hearing referenced Texas Health and Safety Code sections 363.112 and 364.012 as the legal basis for restricting disposal and processing in certain areas. No members of the public spoke in opposition during the hearing portion; the court voted to close the hearing and then adopted the ordinance unanimously.

Why it matters: The ordinance is intended to protect community health and quality of life in areas identified by county staff and public comment as vulnerable to impacts of waste processing and disposal facilities.

Discussion vs. action
Discussion: Staff presentation and an open call for public comment; no speakers requested to address the hearing.
Decision: Court closed the public hearing and adopted the ordinance; vote was unanimous.

Ending
County staff will publish and implement ordinance details and next steps, including map boundaries and enforcement procedures, consistent with the referenced Texas Health and Safety Code provisions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Commissioners Court","oneSentenceSummary","After a public hearing, the court adopted an ordinance prohibiting solid waste disposal and processing in specified areas of Tarrant County under provisions of the Texas Health and Safety Code.","taxTitle","Tarrant County, Texas","taxId",2718,"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},6180385,"Emergency Services District 1 study recommends three new stations; board begins stakeholder outreach",123,12097000,12220000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5119557-d4fcc526702e0332cf75724ead993931&start=12097&end=12220","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5119557-d4fcc526702e0332cf75724ead993931/thumbnail_12097000.jpg","/articles/6180385/Tarrant-County/Texas/Emergency-Services-District-1-study-recommends-three-new-stations-board-begins-stakeholder-outreach","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6180385-476b1d3427545dbf0093e8161d8263c5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771100051&Signature=kIZaVYQPH-C8fvXKOP6wVhFxXpWMNAkOyFRlLvV6ocrUGXV7zoFgSlb6AT53QV8rxNxirS6v1ide-5gX2S6Lg79zU0z4GfLqQIckws2Us0hjfXz~UCdE6l6cCD4BOEANuKBu~MVSLWvd5Z2MWwHsMWovV4R47JNGcsNBmlClFiCqkJBuxOZTr~Ijf2L~O1mKfxxlDKFCeb3FYKTxJbYhIMxrHHJmpphTb9-eLbMDU2I~5V~2D7TAoWDkewKPhY57H2BsybrXky5pxj~aZfcFg~Gcc5FMa2rwU53jGN7CJc0Tnw9GpDxvPbmWsIHmHtxkcHaMFjTDD5zNgyq92tbI8w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tarrant County Emergency Services District 1 presented the final study findings and stakeholder outreach plan to Commissioners Court on Tuesday. The consultant's report identified coverage gaps and recommended three priority station sites to improve response times across the district.

Study findings and recommendations
The study, conducted by a consultant retained by the district, concluded the district has a geography-driven coverage issue rather than an immediate overload of calls at existing facilities. The report recommended three potential station locations to improve service: the Whiskey Flats area in the southwest, the Eagle Mountain region to the north, and an area west of FM 1886 near Lakeside.

Interim director's briefing
Steven Watson, the district's interim director, told the court the study took longer than expected as the consultants worked to assemble and reconcile multiple dispatch and response data sources. \"We were hoping that it would be about a 6 to 7 months time frame. It wound up taking significantly longer due to some challenges with acquiring all of the data and response to data and getting accurate data,\" Watson said.

Next steps and stakeholder outreach
The ESD board has not acquired property or committed capital funds to build new fire stations. The district remains debt-free and has set aside capital for facilities, but officials said they will continue stakeholder meetings with contract fire departments and municipalities before making acquisition or construction decisions. The board also requested performance-based contract language to ensure funds for contracted providers align with measurable outcomes.

Discussion vs. action
Discussion: Consultants' analysis of dispatch and response times, forecasted population growth and insurance-class impacts in underserved zones.
Direction/assignment: District staff to continue stakeholder outreach and identify candidate properties while the ESD finalizes a funding approach and performance contract language.
Decision: No land purchases or binding commitments were made; the court received the briefing.

Ending
Commissioners praised the district for data-driven analysis and asked staff to remain focused on reducing response times while working through municipal and stakeholder concerns.","A consultant study presented to the court recommended adding three fire stations to address coverage gaps across the district; the ESD board has not purchased land and is gathering stakeholder feedback before advancing capital steps.",{"_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},6180389,"Vote fails on Mansfield sub‑courthouse land purchase as commissioners split over cost and need",437,10437000,10874000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5119557-d4fcc526702e0332cf75724ead993931&start=10437&end=10874","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5119557-d4fcc526702e0332cf75724ead993931/thumbnail_10437000.jpg","/articles/6180389/Tarrant-County/Texas/Vote-fails-on-Mansfield-subcourthouse-land-purchase-as-commissioners-split-over-cost-and-need","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6180389-4bec63723d3832a90e43758b4e0fcf6c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771100051&Signature=TxHGUi9Ljvxu7mn5Zx2FXUjmHyJOjKoqWk1mT-651tOg8Jlq~RhuLjiSPymUV4HrXy2cCeTt4h7EQApCRbtzt40Z4pcjuzXA1tQjZfKP5veMCF1vWE2Wej2bnJZBiufXoVkZIMlTsjL~bnJS2iJfNr~32yMA3TIY0Npty6jmB2V1Y4MMYpr6zAT7hVRXeoe4PlJT5oAtxdakiFW03i9-58kqbZClJXm0I1PA7~k-pwEM3nVnqolhq7y8JxitZXzQ1QvelcR4h94gPgedXeszoqgHPHtsWqeEFinPDZTfjHycI0uwEe9o-1Di4yb1-QVly7bWSkceLjUJH~Ue7kiUOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A proposal to proceed with a letter of intent to purchase roughly six acres at the northwest corner of Heritage Parkway and Regency Parkway for a new Mansfield-area sub courthouse was defeated at Tuesday's Commissioners Court meeting, with the vote failing 2 to 3.

Supporters' view
Commissioner Meehan Ramirez (Precinct 4) urged the court to proceed, noting the Southeast Tarrant region has experienced rapid population and commercial growth and that the county has approximately $28 million earmarked for land acquisition and construction for a planned Mansfield sub courthouse. Ramirez said the existing Mansfield sub courthouse has ongoing structural problems and that purchasing available land while prices are reasonable is economically prudent.

Opponents' view
Commissioner Matt Krauss (Precinct 3) opposed the purchase, arguing the county should first consider modernizing existing facilities and investing in technology that could reduce in-person demand before spending tens of millions of dollars on a new building. \"I don't think it's a good use of taxpayer dollars,\" Krauss said, citing the uncertainty of future technology and the cost of a new courthouse.

Vote and next steps
The motion to approve the letter of intent failed, 2 to 3. Commissioners who opposed the purchase said staff should present additional options including repair cost estimates, potential relocation alternatives and a reassessment of population and service demand under the court's new precinct boundaries.

Discussion vs. decision
Discussion: Commissioners debated population growth, projected demand for in-person services, technology adoption and equitable distribution of service centers across precincts.
Decision: Motion to proceed with purchase failed 2'to'3.

Ending
Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to return with options for the use of funds earmarked for the Mansfield project, including alternatives such as paying down bonds, improving technology, or pursuing other service-location configurations. The matter may reappear if staff presents new financial or service analyses.","Plans to buy about 6 acres for a new Mansfield-area sub courthouse were debated but the court rejected the purchase; supporters cited growth and an earmarked $28 million fund, opponents said repairs and technology upgrades to existing sites were a better use of taxpayer money.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6180392,"Commissioners authorize additional outside counsel fees for jail-related defense amid public pressure to settle",651,11619000,12270000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5119557-d4fcc526702e0332cf75724ead993931&start=11619&end=12270","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5119557-d4fcc526702e0332cf75724ead993931/thumbnail_11619000.jpg","/articles/6180392/Tarrant-County/Texas/Commissioners-authorize-additional-outside-counsel-fees-for-jail-related-defense-amid-public-pressure-to-settle","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6180392-31e536a80ca0d4ed0a153c3ebf6aa810/orig.mp4?Expires=1771100051&Signature=H0Ow1oFDHujg8FhJkm-nKT8FSEUwdUIc3ZZ2jVQnVqOnGCvnruzjtO2XQAeYGgkBRbU83LudhGpfPQSzjX-OMeXbhRmTxQ8hcFZZGOw0RtJHbJORFmOQc17PqHwXzxYfDWKogBTMHwtH7FHxfaRCE7k5EE5l0Ekj4bJ28SygPOO5io~-5~pqrNJhZNmAdQO57t-3tbheyA2JLw8xNCgK9PhkF2Fw7ueZYW8IaCtfxVqXDO6XI1Ns0cxuVJ2KPtz0PkNWHt2VSJSYQbXyw0gBtkIQZTKQJUXUsC8xx-eAdn8eKn8khYOqSZ2Uu2gUlCihpAhBwTvuP-yV29o0PIc9Kg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tarrant County commissioners voted 4 to 1 to approve an additional $15,000 in funding for outside counsel representing a former county employee in litigation arising from an in-custody death.

The funding covers litigation expenses for Taylor, Olsen, Adkins, Schrawl & Elam in the suit titled Anthony Johnson Sr. v. Tarrant County, which relates to the death of Anthony Johnson Jr. at a county facility and subsequent legal claims.

Why it matters: The county has already incurred substantial legal costs defending in-custody death cases and related employment litigation. Speakers at the meeting urged the court to settle claims and direct funds toward victims and corrective reforms rather than continuing to increase outside counsel payments.

Public comment and concerns
Linda Hanratty, a member of the public, told the court, \"Not 1 red cent should come from taxpayers to defend this employee,\" urging the county to prioritize settlement for families of in-custody deaths. Other public speakers reiterated calls to stop paying outside firms and to pursue reforms that would reduce future liabilities.

County counsel's explanation
The county's counsel addressed legal requirements that obligate the county to provide legal representation for certain employees. \"The county must provide legal representation,\" counsel said, noting that the county is required by statute to furnish defense for covered personnel; the specific statutory citation was not provided on the record but counsel indicated he would provide it later.

Action and outcome
The court approved the $15,000 funding request by 4 votes in favor, 1 opposed. Commissioners who supported the vote said the county is legally obligated to provide representation and that failing to do so could expose the county to additional legal risk and court orders.

Discussion vs. decision
Discussion: Public commenters pressed the court to settle outstanding claims, questioned the cumulative legal spending on jail-related litigation, and demanded transparency about total fees paid to outside firms.
Direction/assignment: County counsel agreed to provide statutory citations explaining the county's obligations to defend employees; staff will continue to report outside counsel totals to the court.
Decision: Approved additional $15,000 for outside counsel expenses in the Anthony Johnson case; outcome approved 4'to\u00012.

Ending
Public commenters said they will continue to press for settlements and reforms. Commissioners emphasized that legal obligations and existing contracts limit immediate alternatives but acknowledged the public's concerns about cost and transparency.","The court approved $15,000 in additional expenses to defend a former county employee in a civil suit related to an in-custody death, prompting public calls to stop further outside legal spending and instead settle and redress systemic issues.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6180395,"Tarrant County approves $250,000 legal contract with Public Interest Legal Foundation amid sharp objections",1175,6313000,7488000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5119557-d4fcc526702e0332cf75724ead993931&start=6313&end=7488","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5119557-d4fcc526702e0332cf75724ead993931/thumbnail_6313000.jpg","/articles/6180395/Tarrant-County/Texas/Tarrant-County-approves-250000-legal-contract-with-Public-Interest-Legal-Foundation-amid-sharp-objections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6180395-e9610bd301c7292e4a4d6807f7985598/orig.mp4?Expires=1771100051&Signature=NOVRDLt0kbeIo57F5iIcQDNqIyd-lMRhHYP0Ab2spXh~GEcpvM52gUfpSj4hRb4O0vo87qMVtD3pt689wiWRXEc3a-YiTEgnwGv6oYwJSvU-wHeHfUPwgbSq2GrzmajNJIVXPrRWPvbnadqUGx01MjnVWy8tfkDqAKLTXrODg-E6MGHiWaM~pJrThZNkkFmmkEeKN0Jbydyul0Q51lb2pX9B5mVFQEmubkUHJmE-y7Kzangf~V-eOoSW4BDpMFfqKL5Tf9ButZkGC0pU14czKLp5HnaQXdekMzxfz4Z7dzCSmHlmDF46bvOGuyT~PeoxfUiiXvHqRsfpweW7hhPoDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tarrant County commissioners on Tuesday approved a contract for legal services with the Public Interest Legal Foundation Inc. (PILF) to defend the court against litigation tied to the June redistricting maps, voting 3 to 2.

The contract authorizes PILF to represent the county in the lawsuit that challenges the newly adopted precinct boundaries. Commissioner Alisa Simmons (Precinct 2) and Commissioner Roderick Miles Jr. (Precinct 1) voted against the contract, repeatedly raising concerns about PILF's role in drawing maps and whether lawyers associated with the firm could be treated as witnesses in any ensuing litigation.

Why it matters: The county faces a pending lawsuit over the June maps. Approving PILF's contract shifts up to $250,000 in potential legal spending onto county coffers while opponents warned the firm helped produce the contested maps and may therefore be conflicted, a claim central to how the case could unfold.

What commissioners said
Commissioner Alisa Simmons said the contract was troubling because PILF was involved in creating the maps and had not been sufficiently transparent to the public. \"Therefore, I cannot support this action,\" Simmons told the court during debate, arguing the arrangement raised ethical questions about an attorney serving both as advocate and potential witness.

Judge Tim O'Hare and other supporters said the county sought counsel familiar with the redistricting work and with experience on comparable litigation. Judge O'Hare and backers argued that hiring counsel with prior exposure to the process could reduce onboarding time and costs.

Public comment and concerns
Multiple citizens and community groups urged the court to deny the contract. Speakers cited past reporting and litigation histories tied to PILF and warned the county might be paying political allies to defend a map that many members of the public called a partisan or racial gerrymander. Commenters urged the court to hire local firms or rely on the district attorney's office to defend the county.

Decision and next steps
The court approved the contract after discussion and public comment; the tally was 3 to 2 in favor. County officials said the DA's office and court counsel had reviewed the placement of the item on the agenda and that any ethical or evidentiary conflicts that might be raised in the litigation would be addressed through the courts and applicable professional rules. The DA's office advised the court the placement of the item on the agenda did not affect its substance.

Discussion vs. action
Discussion: Commissioners debated the firm's prior role in drafting maps, billing transparency, and whether local law firms should be prioritized.
Direction/assignment: Staff were asked to continue coordinating with counsel and the DA's office to ensure the county's interests are represented.
Decision: The court formally approved the PILF contract, outcome approved 3'to'2.

Ending
The approval begins a litigation phase in which both the substance of the maps and questions about counsel selection are likely to be litigated and may shape both the redistricting dispute and the county's legal expenditures going forward.","The commissioners approved a contract with the Public Interest Legal Foundation to defend the court's June redistricting map despite sustained objections from two commissioners and public commenters who warned of conflicts and ethical concerns. The contract passed 3'to'2.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners adopt ordinance restricting solid waste disposal in certain county areas under state health code

Emergency Services District 1 study recommends three new stations; board begins stakeholder outreach

Vote fails on Mansfield sub‑courthouse land purchase as commissioners split over cost and need

Commissioners authorize additional outside counsel fees for jail-related defense amid public pressure to settle

Tarrant County approves $250,000 legal contract with Public Interest Legal Foundation amid sharp objections