Council pauses action on conveyance of Test Track water rights after public concerns

At a special city council meeting on Feb. 3, council members heard public opposition to a resolution proposing conveyance of municipal water rights for the Test Track property to the Pecos Fourbee Economic Development Corporation and moved the matter into executive session without taking formal action.

Louise Moore, who identified herself as “the county commissioner for Precinct 1,” told the council the county would be interested in partnering on Haines Park and urged that the master plan include a swimming pool. “So I’m putting an item on the Commissioner’s Court agenda for the ninth,” Moore said. Her remarks framed local intergovernmental interest in park amenities but did not address the water-rights conveyance directly.

A longer public comment focused squarely on the proposed water-rights conveyance. Vanetta Seals, identifying herself as a concerned citizen, warned against conveying city water rights and urged that the city retain control or impose strict conditions. “Giving away the city's water rights for any price to anyone for any reason will not ever benefit the city in the long term,” Seals said, adding that, “Unless restrictions are included in this conveyance, the PDC may end up selling to another buyer or sell our water directly to another city.” Seals suggested leasing rights for limited terms and asked whether the PDC had consulted the local groundwater district.

The council read resolution 26-01-09R aloud; the resolution would authorize conveyance of water rights covering multiple public-school-land survey sections (identified in the resolution) in Reeds County, Texas — the area described in the meeting as the Test Track — to the Pecos Fourbee Economic Development Corporation and declares the conveyance a public purpose in support of sustainable economic development.

City Manager Charles Leno told the council the item had been brought forward because “time is of the essence,” that staff and others were present to answer questions, and that the topic’s sensitive nature warranted a closed discussion. “If we can, because of the sensitive nature of this, I’d like it to go into executive session,” Leno said. The council cited Government Code 551.087 (economic development) and recessed to executive session at 5:38 p.m.; no formal vote or final action was taken during the public meeting.

A later public commenter defended the use of mutual disclosure agreements (MDAs), saying confidentiality is often used to protect business prospects while they are being established and that such agreements do not indicate an intent to conceal wrongdoing.

The meeting adjourned at 6:46 p.m. The council had not approved or rejected resolution 26-01-09R in public session; the item was placed in executive session for further discussion. The record in the public meeting notes the resolution text and the concerns raised by residents; next procedural steps were not announced on the record that evening.