Township casts 130 votes for Arthur Bredehoft as special‑district nominee for MCAD ballot
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
After a multi‑step nomination process under recent state law changes, The Woodlands Township board cast its 130 special‑district votes for Arthur Bredehoft to advance to the Montgomery County Central Appraisal District general ballot.
The Woodlands Township Board of Directors on Feb. 20 cast its special‑district ballot in the Montgomery Central Appraisal District (MCAD) board election, nominating Arthur Bredehoft as the township’s nominee to advance to the general MCAD ballot.
Karen Dempsey, Chief Administrative Officer, explained the process: special‑purpose districts (MUDs, ESDs and similar entities) run a preliminary nomination that yields a single nominee to appear on the general ballot that all taxing jurisdictions will later vote on. Chief Appraiser Sherry Hunter said the special‑district round concludes Friday and the general ballot will be issued Feb. 24 with a final vote period through March 21.
Hunter described the terms mandated under recent legislative changes known as Senate Bill 2 and said five appointed positions will be filled by appointed nominees while three board members will be elected by the public during the general election. She explained that the special‑district nomination determines which nominee, if any, advances from the special‑district pool to the general ballot.
The board used a two‑round written balloting process to identify a nominee. After the first round of interest polling, board staff reported only one candidate — Arthur Bredehoft — received four or more directors’ interest marks and thus would be the candidate advanced by the township. The board then approved a resolution casting the township’s 130 special‑district votes for Arthur Bredehoft and authorized the board chairman to sign the official ballot.
Attorney Joe Longoria, outside counsel for MCAD, provided legal context for the process and said holdover board members “continue to serve until their successor is duly qualified” and that long‑standing Texas case law allows holdover members to perform board business while elections proceed.
Board members expressed frustration with the complexity of the new statutory process but approved the resolution. One director recorded an abstention in the final voice vote; the minutes record the motion carried and the ballot was submitted.