Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Improvements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ellis County commissioners debate CID petition terms and road standards for Stonewood North
Summary
Commissioners and developers debated a Stonewood North Community Improvement District petition’s thresholds and three road-treatment options — repeated seal coats, a 1-inch asphalt lift, or full asphalt/concrete — with agreement to refine petition language and county standards before final approval.
Ellis County commissioners spent the bulk of their Feb. 10 meeting debating a Community Improvement District petition for Stonewood North that would fund road improvements by taxing property owners in the development.
Darren Myers, county administrator, summarized the three items the commission asked staff to address: raising the petition-signature threshold above the state minimum, requiring roughly 75% of lots to be developed before certain upgrades, and defining minimum road-construction standards. "The state statute says that 55% of the landowners needed to be in the petition," Myers said, and the commission discussed a 0.667 (66.7%) threshold as a local minimum.
Public Works Director Brandon (speaker 5) laid out maintenance and cost trade-offs for three options: a sealcoat-only schedule (multiple seal treatments over years), a double chip seal with future 1-inch asphalt lift to meet county asphalt standards, or a full asphalt/concrete road built to county standards. He said the material-only cost for a sealcoat is roughly $24,000 per mile while a 1-inch lift plus sealcoat is closer to $94,000 per mile (materials only). "If you go with just the seal coat options, we would keep the road just a seal coated road and seal coat until it starts getting to the point where it needs to be ripped and relaid out," Brandon said.
Developer Ty Wilson (Stonewood North) and Adam Bridal (developer) described petition financing and timing: they proposed an initial double sealcoat and several maintenance cycles paid by property owners; Bridal said the group is prepared to reword the petition so it fits county expectations. "If you decide to do a 1-inch lift, we still split the cost with you because we bought 2 more maintenance coat coats on top of that lift," Wilson said, arguing that the petition’s financing could still support option 2 if the language is clarified.
Commissioners agreed to ask Bridal and Gilmore & Bell (petition counsel) to revise the petition language to specify whether the road will remain a sealcoated road or be placed on the county's asphalt maintenance program, to set the 0.667 signature threshold and the 75% development requirement, and to return the revised petition and a proposed 'seal coat' standard to the county for review before final action. No formal vote was taken on the CID at the meeting; staff were instructed to draft clearer petition language and an explicit sealcoat standard for future consideration.
Next steps: the developer will revise petition verbiage with counsel and return the petition and a proposed sealed-road standard for the commission’s review; the commission did not adopt a final standard or formal motion during this session.
