Hood County moves to route development office emails, seeks short-term engineering support after director’s absence

Hood County Commissioners on May 5 voted unanimously to have the county IT director create an email and phone‑message group that will auto‑forward Development Department communications to a set of recipients while the office is short‑staffed.

The court approved the motion — made by Commissioner Samuelson and seconded by Commissioner Wilson — after staff and public speakers described a mounting backlog caused by the temporary absence of the county’s Development Director. The forwarded messages will go to Melissa Wellborn, human resources, the members of the commissioner’s court and other recipients to be defined and coordinated through Wellborn; commissioners said engineering firms and the county attorney’s office would be included as appropriate.

Why it mattered: County staff told the court the Development Director’s office is a one‑person operation; incoming plats, replats and permit questions have been delayed, county officials said, and statutory deadlines for agency responses can trigger automatic approvals if a response isn’t issued in time. County Clerk Christine Leftwich said a land surveyor left more than two dozen voicemails and multiple emails seeking to begin a replat review that currently cannot be completed while the office lacks coverage. Public commenter Mark Lowry urged a moratorium and a workshop to review proposals, citing large data‑center projects as a reason to slow approvals until the county’s processes are secure.

What the court will do next: Commissioners directed IT to set up the forwarding group immediately and discussed interim technical options including (1) using the county’s existing contracts with professional services firms for expedited plan review, (2) hiring a temporary clerical triage worker to read and route emails and voicemails, or (3) designating an internal point person to funnel submissions to outside engineers or staff reviewers. Commissioners identified four firms the county has worked with for plan review (Kimley‑Horn; Teague Nall & Perkins; Vernon Brown; and Topographic/Topographic review firms named in court records) and said they would consider revised engagement letters or scopes of work to cover the current needs.

Budget and constraints: Staff noted a contract services balance of $25,704.75 in the development budget that could cover short‑term reviews. An auditor present said the county is expecting a refund or grant payment from Flock; the transcript contained two different figures referenced in conversation ($135,000 and $126,000) and commissioners said the exact disposition of those funds remains under discussion with the county attorney and is not finalized.

Technology: The court discussed OpenGov, a commercial workflow and permitting product the county purchased for development functions but has not fully implemented. Staff said OpenGov could enable online submissions and shared visibility for reviewers but that migrating existing environmental‑health permit records (estimated at thousands of active permits) would be complicated and would not solve immediate triage needs.

Public‑statutory risk flagged: Jim Bell, a public speaker, cited Texas Local Government Code section 232 — which governs county platting and approvals — and warned that statutory timelines for automatic approval of concept plans or plats can be abused unless the county ensures timely responses or delegated review authority. Commissioners and staff said that using contracted engineers for specialized reviews and creating internal redundancy (clerical or technical) would help reduce the risk of unintended automatic approvals and potential litigation.

What was not decided: The court did not adopt a moratorium on development projects. Commissioners said they would pursue temporary measures now (email forwarding, use of contracted engineers, and potential clerical triage) and consider follow‑up actions, including a possible special meeting or workshop to address longer‑term staffing, scope of contracts and software implementation.

The court recessed briefly into executive session under Texas Government Code 551.071 and 551.074 and returned with no formal action taken beyond the forwarding‑group motion.