Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coryell County declares TX Conservation LLC in default, authorizes action against surety
Summary
The Coryell County Commissioners' Court declared TX Conservation, LLC in default for failing to finish required public improvements and authorized demand and potential litigation against its surety, Barco National Insurance Company, to enforce the performance bond.
The Coryell County Commissioners' Court declared developer TX Conservation, LLC in default and authorized a demand — and possible lawsuit — against Barco National Insurance Company, the issuer of the developer's performance bond.
The action, approved after a motion by Commissioner Keith Taylor and a second by Commissioner Ryan Basham, followed the court's finding that TX Conservation failed to complete required public improvements, including road work and related infrastructure, as required by the county's subdivision regulations and Texas law. The court took the steps during its May 12 meeting to preserve the county's right to enforce the bond.
Why it matters: declaring the developer in default and pursuing the performance bond opens a path for the county to obtain funds to finish infrastructure the developer was obligated to construct. County officials framed the steps as enforcement of local subdivision requirements designed to protect residents and ensure developer obligations are met.
Details of the motions and next steps: Commissioner Keith Taylor moved to declare TX Conservation in default; Commissioner Ryan Basham seconded the motion, which the court approved. The court then voted to authorize county staff to make demand on Barco National Insurance Company to enforce the performance bond issued for TX Conservation, and to pursue suit if necessary. That second motion was moved by Commissioner Keith Taylor and seconded by Commissioner Kyle Matthews.
The transcript notes the court’s action but does not record additional public statements from the developer or the surety in the provided segments. The court’s decision cites the county’s subdivision regulations and Texas law as the basis for requiring completion of roads and related infrastructure; the precise contractual or bond language is not included in the meeting record.
The court reconvened from an executive session earlier in the afternoon; the executive session agenda included consultation with the County Attorney about pending litigation (County of Coryell v. Purdue Pharma, Inc., et al.), a separate matter listed on the record.
What comes next: the court has authorized county staff to demand performance under the bond and to initiate suit if Barco National Insurance Company does not satisfy the county’s demands. The record does not specify timelines for demand, repair work, or litigation.
