Bell County Commissioners Court authorized outside counsel to execute a final judgment in litigation with WBW Single Development Group LLC that resolves whether the county must accept certain subdivision streets for maintenance in the 3 Creeks Phase 9 development.

The court reviewed a draft final judgment and authorized the county’s outside counsel, Mr. Bass, to sign on the county’s behalf. The judgment follows summary-judgment briefing and concerns whether the interlocal agreement (ILA) between the City of Belton and Bell County — under which the city had authority to approve plats and certain related actions — reserved the county’s right to accept or decline maintenance of subdivision streets.

Why it matters: the judge’s written decision concluded that, in the absence of an express reservation preserving the county’s right to approve maintenance, the county must accept the streets for maintenance. Commissioners warned that accepting maintenance could create near-term operational and budgetary obligations for the county, especially given comments that Phase 9 includes roughly 280 lots feeding into one area.

Commissioner Schneider moved to authorize outside counsel to execute the final judgment; Commissioner Mason seconded the motion. Commissioners discussed the history of interlocal agreements with Belton, including that a later agreement expressly excluded maintenance for some areas but earlier agreements did not contain an express reservation. Commissioners said they will place a future agenda item to consider formally accepting maintenance for the 3 Creeks Phase 9 roads and to review all ILAs with cities to ensure express reservation language is included where the county intends to retain maintenance discretion.

County staff and commissioners said the decision likely requires follow-up action: either a formal acceptance of the roads through an agenda item or amendments to ILAs with municipal partners to clarify the county’s reservation of maintenance authority. Commissioners did not vote on road acceptance during this meeting; the court’s action was limited to authorizing counsel to sign the final judgment.