Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interlocal Policing Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Freestone County, Oakwood officials discuss interlocal policing agreement; venue and ticketing questions remain
Summary
Oakwood city leaders and county officials discussed a proposed interlocal agreement under Texas Government Code §791.001 to allow Oakwood officers to patrol nearby Freestone County roads. Officials agreed to draft agreement language but did not finalize venue or revenue‑sharing for citations.
Officials from the city of Oakwood and Freestone County discussed a proposed interlocal agreement that would let Oakwood police patrol county roads near Oakwood and perform traffic enforcement in a defined area.
Oakwood representatives said the proposed patrol area would extend from the Oakwood city limits to the Trinity River, then west on County Road 300 to County Road 321 and back to city roads. Speakers noted Oakwood’s municipal limits straddle county lines and that parts of Oakwood lie in Leon County, which complicates jurisdictional arrangements.
One speaker cited Texas Government Code §791.001, which authorizes interlocal agreements between local governments, and said the party proposing the agreement typically assumes proposed liabilities. County legal staff raised a question about venue for court cases arising from citations; county counsel indicated venue should be Precinct 3. The Justice of the Peace for Precinct 3 told the court she would accept tickets and county officials discussed splitting funds after required state remittances.
A county police chief present described the agreement as effective in slowing traffic and assisting residents; the chief said Oakwood officers had covered stolen vehicle calls and handled calls for service in the area. Commissioners asked county staff to obtain a copy of the existing Oakwood agreement language so the county attorney and city attorney can draft the specific terms and return the item for consideration.
No formal vote was taken. County officials said they will bring a draft agreement forward for review and that signatures of all four county commissioners may be required if the court chooses to enter the agreement.
