HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeb 16, 2010 Regular Session Agenda PacketTrophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
Trophy Club Entities
Meeting Agenda
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262
Svore Municipal Building Boardroom6:00 PMTuesday, February 16, 2010
REGULAR MEETING
Call to order and announce a quorum.
REGULAR SESSION
1.2010-28-M1 Discuss and take appropriate action regarding the sale of Trophy Club
Municipal Utility District No. 1 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2010, including the
adoption of a resolution authorizing the sale of such bonds and the publication
of the Notice of Sale.
Resolution-NoticeOfSale-BondFireStation.pdf
Notice of Sale.pdf
Attachments:
2.2010-13-M1 Receive District Manager's Report
a. Water pumped vs. billed
b. Monthly Revenue for Wastewater Treatment Plant
c. Update on Water Plant Booster Pump (formerly VFD)
d. Update on Candidate Filings for Directors' election in May
e. Update regarding meeting with Richard Kuhlman, Maguire Partners
Water PumpedVsBilled-01-10.pdf
Candidate Spreadsheet2010.pdf
Attachments:
3.2010-21-M1 Receive Finance Director's Report
a. Monthly Update
4.2010-14-M1 Review and Approve Disbursements and Variance Report
a. January 2010
January 2010 Monthly Financial Statements.pdfAttachments:
5.2010-12-M1 Receive Fire Update from Fire Chief Thomas
a. To provide Board with a monthly update and address the Board's questions.
Jan Fire Report.pdfAttachments:
TCMUD No. 1 1 of 160 16 Feb 2010
February 16, 2010Trophy Club Municipal Utility
District No. 1
Meeting Agenda
6.2010-15-M1 Receive Town Council Update
a. Councilwoman Wilson to provide Board with an update of Council meetings,
notices and relevant business.
7.2010-30-M1 Discuss and take appropriate action regarding an Order calling a Joint-General
Election for May 8, 2010 for the purpose of electing five (5) directors to five (5)
places on the Trophy Club MUD 1 Board.
Deliberar y tomar el debido curso de acción en relación a la Orden
convocando una Elección General Conjunta para el 8 de mayo de 2010
con el propósito de elegir cinco (5) directores para ocupar cinco (5)
cargos en la Junta de Trophy Club MUD 1.
M1-Order 2010-0216-Call Election.pdfAttachments:
8.2010-31-M1 Discuss and take appropriate action regarding a Joint Election Agreement and
Contract for Services with Denton County for the May 8, 2010 election.
Denton County Election Contract-Draft-Final.pdfAttachments:
9.2010-32-M1 Discuss and take appropriate action regarding a Joint Election Agreement
between Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1 and Town of Trophy Club
for the May 8, 2010 election.
Joint Election Agreement -Town-May 2010 Election.pdfAttachments:
10.2010-33-M1 Review, discuss and take appropriate action regarding restructuring the MUD 1
Rate Order.
TCMUD1-O-2009-0915-C-RateOrder-Excuted.pdfAttachments:
11.2010-29-M1 Discuss and take appropriate action regarding an update to the Amendment to
the Information Form.
12.2010-01-M1 Discuss and take appropriate action regarding SEMO Committee meetings
and findings.
13.2010-34-M1 Discuss and take appropriate action regarding the New Intergovernmental
Contract for Employee Services and the Amendment to New
Intergovernmental Contract for Employee Services.
ILA-EmployeeSvcs and Amendment.pdfAttachments:
14.2010-35-M1 Review and Approve Minutes:
a. January 19, 2009 - Regular Session
b. January 25, 2009 - Special/Joint Session
M1 Minutes 011910.pdf
M1 Minutes 012510-Special Joint.pdf
Attachments:
TCMUD No. 1 2 of 160 16 Feb 2010
February 16, 2010Trophy Club Municipal Utility
District No. 1
Meeting Agenda
15.2010-17-M1 Set Next Meeting Date
a. Regular Session: Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 6:00 p.m .
March 2010 Calendar.pdfAttachments:
16.2010-18-M1 Review Monthly Tax Collection Report
a. January 2010
January Tax Collection Report.pdfAttachments:
17.2010-19-M1 Items for Future Agendas
a. MUD 1's water contract with City of Fort Worth
b. Funding of Future Capital Projects; i.e., 2 MG Storage Tank
c. Water Study (Twomey)
d. Disaster Planning
e. Creation of TCMUD1 website (09-115-M1)
f. Agreement between TCMUD1 and the Trophy Club Country Club (TCCC) for
the use of a portion of TCCC's parking lot.
g. Fire Station Committee
Citizen Presentation
Citizens are allowed three (3) minutes to address the Board regarding an item over
which the Board has policy or oversight authority as provided by Texas law, the ethics
order, or other policy order.
Adjourn
Notice is hereby given that a quorum of the Town Council may be in attendance at
this meeting.
* THE BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED SESSION AT
ANY TIME DURING THE MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING THE ADVICE OF
ITS ATTORNEY ABOUT ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA OR THAT ARISES AT THE
MEETING, PURSUANT TO SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.
TCMUD No. 1 3 of 160 16 Feb 2010
February 16, 2010Trophy Club Municipal Utility
District No. 1
Meeting Agenda
CERTIFICATION)
THE STATE OF TEXAS)
COUNTY OF DENTON)
COUNTY OF TARRANT)
THIS CERTIFIES THAT ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2010, AT OR BEFORE 5:00
P.M., A COPY OF THE ABOVE NOTICE OF A MEETING OF THE TROPHY CLUB
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16,
2010, WAS POSTED ON THE FRONT WINDOW OF THE TROPHY CLUB M.U.D.
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 100 MUNICIPAL DRIVE, TROPHY CLUB, TEXAS, WHICH
IS A PLACE CONVENIENT TO THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
DISTRICT, AND A COPY WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE COUNTY CLERKS OF
DENTON AND TARRANT COUNTIES, TO BE POSTED ON THEIR WEBSITE AND/OR A
BULLETIN BOARD AT A PLACE CONVENIENT TO THE PUBLIC IN SUCH COUNTY
COURT HOUSES, PURSUANT TO SECTION 49.063 OF THE WATER CODE AND
SECTION 551.054 OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, CHAPTER 551 TEXAS
GOVERNMENT CODE.
____________________
MARY MOORE
MUD SECRETARY
THIS FACILITY IS WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE AND ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES
ARE AVAILABLE. REQUESTS FOR ACCOMMODATIONS OR INTERPRETATIVE
SERVICES MUST BE MADE 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. PLEASE CONTACT
MARY MOORE AT (682) 831-4685 OR FAX YOUR REQUEST TO (817) 490-0705.
I certify that the attached notice and agenda of items to be considered by this Board
was removed by me from the front window of the Svore Municipal Building, 100
Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas, on the __________ day of
______________________, 2010.
________________________________, Title: ___________________________
TCMUD No. 1 4 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-28-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:2/8/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:2/16/2010
Title:Discuss and take appropriate action regarding the sale of Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2010, including the adoption of a resolution authorizing the sale of such
bonds and the publication of the Notice of Sale.
Attachments:Resolution-NoticeOfSale-BondFireStation.pdf
Notice of Sale.pdf
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 5 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-28-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Discuss and take appropriate action regarding the sale of Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1 Unlimited
Tax Bonds, Series 2010, including the adoption of a resolution authorizing the sale of such bonds and the
publication of the Notice of Sale.
Body
[Enter body here.]
TCMUD No. 1 6 of 160 16 Feb 2010
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING NOTICE SALE OF TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY
DISTRICT NO. 1 REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2010, IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
OF $2,000,000, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTIES OF DENTON AND TARRANT §
TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 §
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1 do hereby
authorize the advertising for sale and award of its Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1 Revenue
Bonds, Series 2010, in the principal amount of $2,000,000 (the “Bonds”) at a public sale on _____ __, 2010,
all in accordance with Exhibit A, attached hereto as the Notice of Sale; and
WHEREAS, it is hereby officially found and determined that the meeting at which this Resolution
was passed, was open to the public and public notice of the time, place, and purpose of said meeting was
given, all as required by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, Section 49.063 of the Texas Water Code.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL
UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1:
1. That in accordance with Section 49.183 of the Texas Water Code, the Board of Directors
authorize the sale of the Bonds at a public sale and that due notice of such sale shall be published and
advertised all in accordance with Section 49.183 of the Texas Water Code, as provided in Exhibit A attached
hereto.
2. That this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
-----------------------------
TCMUD No. 1 7 of 160 16 Feb 2010
CERTIFICATE FOR RESOLUTION
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTIES OF DENTON AND TARRANT §
TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 §
We, the undersigned officers of said District, hereby certify as follows:
1. The Board of Directors of said District, now consists of the consolidation of former Trophy Club
Municipal Utility Districts Nos. 1 and Nos. 2, pursuant to a consolidation election held on May 9, 2009,
convened in _______ MEETING ON THE ____ DAY OF ________, 2010, at the regular designated
meeting place, and the roll was called of the duly constituted officers and members of said Board, to-wit:
Dean Henry, President James Budarf, President
Gary Cantrell, Vice President Kevin Carr, Vice President
Jim Hase, Secretary/Treasurer James Thomas, Secretary/Treasurer
Neil Twomey, Director Joseph Boclair, Director
Bob Fair, Director Steven Kohs, Director
and all of said persons were present, except the following absentees:
thus constituting a quorum. Whereupon, among other business, the following was transacted at said Meeting:
a written
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING NOTICE SALE OF TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL
UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2010, IN
THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $2,000,000, AND OTHER
MATTERS RELATED THERETO
was duly introduced for the consideration of said Board and read in full. It was then duly moved and
seconded that said Resolution be adopted; and, after due discussion, said motion carrying with it the adoption
of said Resolution, prevailed and carried by the following vote:
AYES: All members of said Board shown present above voted "Aye".
NOES: None.
2. That a true, full and correct copy of the aforesaid Resolution adopted at the Meeting described in
the above and foregoing paragraph is attached to and follows this Certificate; that said Resolution has been
duly recorded in said Board's minutes of said Meeting; that the above and foregoing paragraph is a true, full
and correct excerpt from said Board's minutes of said Meeting pertaining to the adoption of said Resolution;
that the persons named in the above and foregoing paragraph are the duly chosen, qualified and acting officers
and members of said Board as indicated therein; that each of the officers and members of said Board was duly
and sufficiently notified officially and personally, in advance, of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid
Meeting, and that said Resolution would be introduced and considered for adoption at said Meeting, and each
of said officers and members consented, in advance, to the holding of said Meeting for such purpose, and that
said Meeting was open to the public and public notice of the time, place and purpose of said meeting was
given, all as required by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code.
3. That the President of the Board of Directors of said District has approved and hereby approves
the aforesaid Resolution; that the President and Secretary of the Board of Directors of said District have duly
TCMUD No. 1 8 of 160 16 Feb 2010
signed said Resolution; and that the President and Secretary of the Board of Directors of said District hereby
declare that their signing of this Certificate shall constitute the signing of the attached and following copy of
said Resolution for all purposes.
SIGNED AND SEALED the ____ day of ________, 2010.
_______________________ _______________________
Secretary, Board of Directors President, Board of Directors
_______________________ _______________________
Secretary, Board of Directors President, Board of Directors
SEAL
TCMUD No. 1 9 of 160 16 Feb 2010
NOTICE OF SALE
TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1
UNLIMITED TAX BONDS, SERIES 2010
(A political subdivision of the State of Texas located in Denton and Tarrant Counties, Texas)
$2,000,000
Selling: March 16, 2010
Bids due 11:00 a.m. C.S.T.
Place and Time of Award: The District will consider the award of the sale of the Bonds on March 16, 2010
at 6:00 P.M., C.S.T., at the designated meeting place inside the boundaries of the District, at the District’s
Office, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas 76262. Action will be taken immediately by the Board
of Directors of the District to accept or reject the best bid. Each bidder must deliver a Bank Cashier’s Check
in the amount of $40,000.00, payable to the order of Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1, as a good
faith deposit to Dan Almon, Southwest Securities, 1201 Elm St., Suite 3500, Dallas, Texas 75270, by 11:00
A.M., C.S.T. on the date of the sale.
Address of the Bids Delivered in Person: Written bids, plainly marked “Bid for Bonds” should be addressed
to the Board of Directors of Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1, and if in person, delivered to Dan
Almon, Southwest Securities, 1201 Elm St., Suite 3500, Dallas, Texas 75270, by 11:00 A.M., C.S.T. on
March 16, 2010. All bids must be signed and submitted on the “Official Bid Form”.
Electronic Bidding Procedures: Any prospective bidder that intends to submit an electronic bid must submit
its electronic bid through the facilities of PARITY by 11:00 A.M., C.S.T., on March 16, 2010 as described
in the “Official Notice of Sale” described below.
Bids by Facsimile: Facsimile bids will be accepted at 214-859-9475 by 11:00 A.M., C.S.T., to the attention
of Dan Almon, Southwest Securities on March 16, 2010, all as described in the “Official Notice of Sale”
described below.
Information: The Bonds are more completely described in the “Official Notice of Sale”, “Official Bid Form”
and the “Preliminary Official Statement” which may be obtained from Dan Almon, Southwest Securities,
1201 Elm St., Suite 3500, Dallas, Texas 75270, Financial Advisors to the District.
The Bidder whose bid is the winning bid in accordance with the Notice of Sale will be notified immediately
and must submit a SIGNED OFFICIAL BID FORM in connection with the sale by 11:00 A.M., C.S.T. on
March 16, 2010 to Dan Almon, Southwest Securities, 1201 Elm St., Suite 3500, Dallas, Texas 75270, at 214-
859-9452.
The District reserves the right to reject any or all bids for the Bonds and to waive any and all irregularities
except time of filing. This notices does not constitute an offer to sell the Bonds but is merely notice of sale
of the Bonds as required by law. The offer to sell the Bonds will be made only by means of the “Official
Notice of Sale”, the “Preliminary Official Statement” and the “Official Bid Form”.
Board of Directors
Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
TCMUD No. 1 10 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-13-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:1/13/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:1/19/2010
Title:Receive District Manager's Report
a. Water pumped vs. billed
b. Monthly Revenue for Wastewater Treatment Plant
c. Update on Water Plant Booster Pump (formerly VFD)
d. Update on Candidate Filings for Directors' election in May
e. Update regarding meeting with Richard Kuhlman, Maguire Partners
Attachments:Water PumpedVsBilled-01-10.pdf
Candidate Spreadsheet2010.pdf
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 11 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-13-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Receive District Manager's Report
a. Water pumped vs. billed
b. Monthly Revenue for Wastewater Treatment Plant
c. Update on Water Plant Booster Pump (formerly VFD)
d. Update on Candidate Filings for Directors' election in May
e. Update regarding meeting with Richard Kuhlman, Maguire Partners
TCMUD No. 1 12 of 160 16 Feb 2010
October November December January February March April May June July August Septembe Total for year
2006 74,441 56,296 41,272 54,171 37,626 35,714 55,429 60,800 88,899 113,904 122,820 81,806 823,178
2007 73,757 44,297 35,905 31,695 25,671 40,516 43,121 31,204 42,191 43,717 72,462 76,138 560,674
2008 63,250 47,082 33,371 37,194 31,472 30,766 40,313 48,829 78,091 91,664 115,042 75,494 692,568
2009 63,730 48,170 35,215 35,759 32,240 39,331 46,151 37,382 56,370 125,089 91,724 79,137 690,298
2010 39,794 39,713 29,547 30,305
Totals 314,972 235,558 175,310 189,124 127,009 146,327 185,014 178,215 265,551 374,374 402,048 312,575 2,906,077
October November December January February March April May June July August
79,297 48,609 36,966 32,915 26,974 25,771 31,755 46,747 70,315 69,134 92,539
84,849 51,836 38,869 32,850 24,742 25,111 32,240 47,364 75,755 68,715 82,007
90,400 55,063 40,772 32,785 22,510 24,451 32,726 47,980 81,195 68,296 71,476
95,952 58,290 42,675 32,721 20,278 23,791 33,211 48,597 86,636 67,878
350,497 213,799 159,281 131,271 94,504 99,122 129,932 190,688 313,900 274,022 246,022
Oct.Nov.Dec.Jan Feb.March April May June July August Sept.Total for year
2006 74,585 55,405 42,852 52,100 33,247 39,250 64,455 73,048 93,187 118,353 127,450 76,301 850,233
2007 72,460 49,249 34,203 28,257 31,492 43,900 41,770 37,340 41,215 43,136 75,480 72,087 570,589
2008 64,370 50,090 35,320 36,610 34,630 34,750 42,900 63,116 78,399 114,256 98,670 72,551 725,662
2009 65,110 48,570 36,411 36,587 36,385 44,120 48,881 38,250 66,450 116,823 94,525 81,500 713,612
2010 40,803 41,600 32,700 31,400
Totals 317,328 244,914 181,486 184,954 135,754 162,020 198,006 211,754 279,251 392,568 396,125 302,439 3,006,599
Water Billed
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
OctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJune July AugustSeptemberMonthsGallons 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Water Pumped
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
123456789101112
MonthsGallons 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
TCMUD No. 1 13 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Place 1 Place 2 Place 3 Place 4 Place 5
1 Dean Henry Jim Hase Kevin Carr Neil Twomey Jim Thomas
2 Jim Budarf
May 2010 MUD 1 Directors' Election
TCMUD No. 1 14 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-21-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:1/14/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:1/19/2010
Title:Receive Finance Director's Report
a. Monthly Update
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 15 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-21-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Receive Finance Director's Report
a. Monthly Update
TCMUD No. 1 16 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-14-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:1/13/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:1/19/2010
Title:Review and Approve Disbursements and Variance Report
a. January 2010
Attachments:January 2010 Monthly Financial Statements.pdf
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 17 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-14-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Review and Approve Disbursements and Variance Report
a. January 2010
TCMUD No. 1 18 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 19 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 20 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 21 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 22 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 23 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 24 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 25 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 26 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 27 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-12-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:1/13/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:1/19/2010
Title:Receive Fire Update from Fire Chief Thomas
a. To provide Board with a monthly update and address the Board's questions.
Attachments:Jan Fire Report.pdf
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 28 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-12-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Receive Fire Update from Fire Chief Thomas
a. To provide Board with a monthly update and address the Board's questions.
TCMUD No. 1 29 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 30 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 31 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 32 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 33 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 34 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 35 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 36 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 37 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 38 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 39 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 40 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-15-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:1/13/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:1/19/2010
Title:Receive Town Council Update
a. Councilwoman Wilson to provide Board with an update of Council meetings, notices and relevant
business.
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 41 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-15-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Receive Town Council Update
a. Councilwoman Wilson to provide Board with an update of Council meetings, notices and relevant business.
TCMUD No. 1 42 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-30-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:2/8/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:
Title:Discuss and take appropriate action regarding an Order calling a Joint-General Election for May 8,
2010 for the purpose of electing five (5) directors to five (5) places on the Trophy Club MUD 1 Board.
Deliberar y tomar el debido curso de acción en relación a la Orden convocando una Elección General
Conjunta para el 8 de mayo de 2010 con el propósito de elegir cinco (5) directores para ocupar cinco
(5) cargos en la Junta de Trophy Club MUD 1.
Attachments:M1-Order 2010-0216-Call Election.pdf
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 43 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-30-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Discuss and take appropriate action regarding an Order calling a Joint-General Election for May 8, 2010 for
the purpose of electing five (5) directors to five (5) places on the Trophy Club MUD 1 Board.
Deliberar y tomar el debido curso de acción en relación a la Orden convocando una Elección
General Conjunta para el 8 de mayo de 2010 con el propósito de elegir cinco (5) directores para
ocupar cinco (5) cargos en la Junta de Trophy Club MUD 1.
Body
[Enter body here.]
TCMUD No. 1 44 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 2 of 6
TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1
ORDER NO. 2010-0216
AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TROPHY CLUB
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1, ORDERING AND CALLING A
JOINT GENERAL ELECTION BETWEEN TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL
UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB TO BE
HELD ON MAY 8, 2010, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING FIVE (5)
MUD DIRECTORS TO FIVE (5) PLACES ON THE TROPHY CLUB
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 BOARD, WITH THREE (3)
DIRECTORS SERVING FOR FOUR (4) YEAR TERMS EACH, AND TWO
(2) DIRECTORS SERVING FOR TWO (2) YEAR TERMS EACH;
DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES; ESTABLISHING OTHER
PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING THE ELECTION; ESTABLISHING
A DATE FOR CANVASSING RETURNS; PROVIDING FOR
NECESSARY ACTIONS; PROVIDING A JOINT ELECTION
AGREEMENT; PROVIDING A CUMULATIVE CLAUSE; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION;
PROVIDING FOR ENGROSSMENT AND ENROLLMENT; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 41.001(a)(2) of the Texas Election Code establishes the
second Saturday of May as a Uniform Election Date for the purposes of conducting a
General or Special Election; and
WHEREAS, Section 3.004 of the Texas Election Code provides that the
governing body of a political subdivision shall be the authority to order a General or
Special Election; and
WHEREAS, the Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1 Board of Directors
(MUD 1 desires to and hereby calls a Joint General Election for the purpose of electing
five (5) MUD 1 Directors for purposes hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, Section Sec. 85.004 of the Texas Election Code provides that an
election order and the election notice must state the location of each early voting polling
place; and,
WHEREAS, Section 3.005 of the Texas Election Code provides that an election
ordered by an authority of a political subdivision shall be ordered not later than the 62nd
day before Election Day; and
WHEREAS, Section 271.002 of the Texas Election Code and Section 49.104 of
the Texas Water Code provides that the governing bodies of two or more political
subdivisions may enter into an agreement to hold a joint election if the elections ordered
by the authorities of the subdivisions are to be held on the same day in all or part of the
same territory and can be served by common polling places.
TCMUD No. 1 45 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1 and the Town of Trophy
Club meet the specified criteria and desire to hold their election jointly, and attached
and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Joint Election Agreement
between said entities; and
WHEREAS, The Election shall be conducted in accordance with the Elections
Code under the jurisdiction of the Denton County Elections Department (the “Elections
Administrator”) pursuant to the Joint Election Agreement and Contract for Election
Services (the “Contract”) by and among Denton County Elections Department
(“DCED”), and other participating entities, if any, described in the Contract. The District
Manager or his designee(s) are authorized to amend or supplement the Contract to the
extent required for the Election to be conducted in an efficient and legal manner, as
determined by the Elections Administrator and attached and incorporated herein as
Exhibit “C” is a copy of said Contract between DCED, the MUD and the Town;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1:
Section 1. GOVERNING LAW; QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS
The Election shall be held in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Texas and
the Texas Election Code, and all resident, qualified electors of the Town / District (?)
shall be eligible to vote at the election.
Section 2. EARLY VOTING
The Denton County Elections Administrator, Frank Phillips, is hereby appointed as Early
Voting Clerk for the election. Deputy early voting judges/clerks will be appointed as
needed to process early voting mail and to conduct early voting. Early voting by mail
shall be conducted in conformance with the requirements of the Code. Ballot
applications and ballots voted by mail shall be sent to by each entity to the Early Voting
Clerk, 401 West Hickory, Denton, Texas 76201, Denton, Texas 75207. The Elections
Administrator and/or the Early Voting Clerk are hereby authorized to appoint the
members of the Early Voting Ballot Board and the presiding judge and alternate judge in
accordance with the requirements of the Code.
Early Voting by personal appearance will be held at the locations listed in Attachment
“A” of this document and on the dates and times as provided below. Any qualified voter
of the Joint Election may vote early by personal appearance at any of the joint early
voting locations. Voters residing in Tarrant County may only vote on Town and/or MUD-
related items at the Town of Trophy Club early voting polling location.
As Early Voting Clerk, the Elections Administrator shall receive applications for early
voting ballots to be voted by mail in accordance with Chapter 31 and 86 of the Texas
Election Code. Any request for early voting ballots to be voted by mail received by the
MUD Secretary shall be forwarded immediately by fax or courier to the Elections
Administrator for processing.
TCMUD No. 1 46 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 3 of 6
The Elections Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to make such changes in
polling locations as may be necessary for the proper performance of the Election. Each
polling place shall be open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Election Day. Attachment “A”
may be amended at a later date to include and / or delete any early voting sites added
and/or deleted due to other political subdivisions adding or canceling an election.
Early Voting Dates and Times:
Monday, April 26 8a - 5p
Tuesday, April 27 8a - 5p
Wednesday, April 28 8a - 5p
Thursday, April 29 8a - 5p
Friday, April 30 8a - 5p
Saturday, May 1 8a - 12p
Monday, May 3 7a - 7p
Tuesday, May 4 7a - 7p
Any qualified voter of the Joint Election may vote early by personal appearance at any
of the Joint Early Voting locations. Voters residing in Tarrant County may only vote on
MUD-related items at the Town of Trophy Club early voting polling location.
Section 4. ADMINISTRATION
E-slate, a Direct Record Electronic (DRE) System shall be used for Early Voting by
personal appearance, and in the May 8, 2010 Election. Paper ballots, which are
optically scanned, shall be used for early voting by mail. In the May 8, 2010 Election,
the Elections Administrator shall cause ballots to be prepared in the form of the ballot
first above prescribed, being in both English and Spanish, and shall furnish election
officials said ballots, in such form, together with any other forms or blanks, in
accordance with the Charter of the Town of Trophy Club, the Constitution and laws of
the State of Texas and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and any amendments thereto,
insofar as same are applicable. E-Slate, a Direct Record Electronic (DRE) System shall
be provided and used at each polling location on Election Day.
Section 5. DATE OF ELECTION
It is hereby ordered that a Joint General Election (the “Election”) shall be held in and
throughout both the Town of Trophy Club and the Trophy Club Municipal Utility District
No. 1 on Saturday, May 8, 2010.
Section 6 . PURPOSE OF ELECTION
The purpose of this Joint General Election is to elect five (5) MUD Directors to five (5)
places on the Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1 Board, with three (3) directors
serving for four (4) year terms each, and two (2) directors serving for two (2) year terms
each.
Section 7. ELIGIBILITY FOR CANDIDACY
As set forth in Section 141.001 of the Texas Election Code, no person shall be eligible
for a public elective office of this state, unless that person is a United States citizen, at
least 18 years of age on the first day of the term to be filled at the Election, has not been
TCMUD No. 1 47 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 4 of 6
determined mentally incompetent by a final judgment of a court, has not been finally
convicted of a felony from which the person has not been pardoned or otherwise
released from the resulting disabilities, and has resided continuously in the State of
Texas for twelve (12) months immediately preceding the date of the regular filing
deadline for the candidate’s application for a candidate whose name is to appear on the
general election ballot, or the date of the election at which the candidate’s name is
written in for a write in candidate. Additional requirements are as follows:
A. Municipal Utility District Directors:
(1) Must own land subject to taxation in the District for which they are filing; or
(2) Must be a qualified voter within the District; and
(3) Must not otherwise be disqualified from serving as a member of the Board of a
Municipal Utility District pursuant to Section 49.052 of the Texas Water Code, as
amended.
Section 8. APPLICATION FOR A PLACE ON THE BALLOT
Pursuant to Section 143.007 of the Texas Election Code, any eligible and qualified
person may have that person's name printed upon the official ballot as a candidate for
the office hereinbefore set forth by filing the person's sworn application with the MUD
Secretary for MUD Board position not later than 5:00 p.m. on March 8, 2010. Each
such application shall be on a form as prescribed by the Texas Election Code. The
order in which the names of the candidates are to be printed on the ballot shall be
determined by a drawing by the MUD Secretary for MUD Director positions, as provided
by Section 52.094 of the Texas Election Code. Notice of the time and place for such
drawing shall be given in accordance with Section 52.094(c) and (d) of the Texas
Election Code.
Section 9. PLURALITY VOTE
MUD1 directors shall be elected by plurality vote consistent with Section 49.102 of the
Texas Water Code.
Section 10. ELECTION MATERIALS
The Election Materials enumerated in the Election Code shall be printed in both English
and Spanish for use at the polling places and for Early Voting. Provisions shall be
made for oral assistance to Spanish-speaking voters.
Section 11. DELIVERY OF RETURNS
The election officers shall make returns for the Election in the manner required by law,
and the ballots that are properly marked in conformance with the provisions of the Code
for votes cast both during the period of early voting and on the day of the Election shall
be counted in the manner required by law.
All election records and supplies shall be preserved by the Election Administrator in
accordance with the Texas Election Code.
TCMUD No. 1 48 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 5 of 6
Section 12. POSTING AND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE
Notice of the Election shall be given by posting a Notice of Election in both English and
Spanish containing a substantial copy of this Ordinance on the window of the Svore
Municipal Building, commonly used for posting notices of the meetings of the MUD
Board and at both the Denton and Tarrant County websites pursuant to Section 49.063
of the Water Code not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the date of the Election.
Participants agree to publish one notice for both entities on the same day for two (2)
successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published within the Town, the
date of the first publication to be not less than fourteen (14) days nor more than thirty
(30) days prior to the date set for the Election.
Section 13. NECESSARY ACTIONS
The MUD Presidents and the MUD Secretary, in consultation with the MUD Attorneys
and bond counsel, are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions
necessary to comply with the provisions of the Code and the Federal Voting Rights Act
in carrying out and conducting the Election, whether or not expressly authorized herein.
Section 14. CANVASSING OF RETURNS
In accordance with Section 67.003(2) of the Texas Election Code, the Trophy Club
Municipal District No. 1 shall convene on their regularly scheduled meeting date of
Tuesday, May 18, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. to canvass the returns of the Election.
Section 15. JOINT ELECTION AGREEMENT
Section 271.002 of the Texas Election Code provides that the governing bodies of two
or more political subdivisions may enter into an agreement to hold a Joint Election if the
elections ordered by the authorities of the subdivisions are to be held on the same day
in all or part of the same territory and can be served by common polling places. A copy
of the Joint Election Agreement between the Trophy Club Municipal District No. 1 and
Town of Trophy Club is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and is incorporated herein.
Additionally, a copy of Joint Election Agreement with Denton County Elections to
conduct elections for Town of Trophy Club and Trophy Club Municipal District No. 1 is
attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”
Section 16. CUMULATIVE CLAUSE
This Order shall be cumulative of all provisions of Orders of Trophy Club Municipal
Utility District No. 1, except where the provisions of this Order are in direct conflict with
the provisions of such other orders, in which event the conflicting provisions of such
other orders are hereby repealed.
Section 17. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Board of Directors of Trophy Club Municipal
Utility District No. 1 that the phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and sections of
this Order are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, or section of
this Order shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the
remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, or sections of this Order, since the
same would have been enacted by the Board of Directors without incorporation of any
TCMUD No. 1 49 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD 1 Order 2010-0216
Page 6 of 6
such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, or section.
Section 18. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Order shall become effective from and after its date of passage and publication in
accordance with law.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the Board of Directors of Trophy Club Municipal
Utility District No. 1 this 16th day of February 2010.
___________________________ _____________________________
DEAN HENRY, Joint President JIM BUDARF, Joint President
TCMUD No. 1 TCMUD No. 1
ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
JIM HASE, Joint Secretary JAMES C. THOMAS, Joint Secretary
TCMUD No. 1 TCMUD No. 1
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
ATTORNEY, TCMUD No. 1 (Seal)
TCMUD No. 1 50 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-31-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:2/8/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:
Title:Discuss and take appropriate action regarding a Joint Election Agreement and Contract for Services
with Denton County for the May 8, 2010 election. (add Spanish translation)
Attachments:Denton County Election Contract-Draft-Final.pdf
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 51 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-31-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Discuss and take appropriate action regarding a Joint Election Agreement and Contract for Services with
Denton County for the May 8, 2010 election.
Body
This year, Denton County Elections is offering a joint, full-service election contract (see attached). At the
January 25, 2010 Special Session, the Board took the following action on the following agenda item:Discuss
and take appropriate action regarding a Joint Election Agreement with Town of Trophy Club and/or
Denton County Elections -2010-09-M1 - Director Cantrell moved to approve to approve a full-service Joint
Election Agreement with Denton County Election to perform election services for TCMUD 1 and Town of
Trophy Club. Director Twomey seconded the motion.Motion carried unanimously (9-0 -Director Boclair
absent).
TCMUD No. 1 52 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 1 of 11
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DENTON
JOINT ELECTION AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR ELECTION SERVICES
THIS CONTRACT for election services is made by and between the Denton County Elections Administrator
and the following political subdivisions that are entirely or the portion that are located inside the boundaries of
Denton County:
Town of Argyle Argyle Independent School District
Town of Bartonville Denton Independent School District
City of Corinth Krum Independent School District
Town of Cross Roads Lake Dallas Independent School District
City of Denton Lewisville Independent School District
Town of Dish Little Elm Independent School District
Town of Double Oak Northwest Independent School District
Town of Flower Mound Pilot Point Independent School District
Town of Hickory Creek Ponder Independent School District
City of Highland Village Sanger Independent School District
City of Justin Clear Creek Watershed Authority
City of Krugerville Denton County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1-A
City of Krum Denton County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1-B
City of Lake Dallas Denton County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1-C
City of Lewisville Denton County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1-D
City of Oak Point Denton County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1-E
City of Pilot Point Denton County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1-F
Town of Ponder Denton County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1-G
City of Sanger Denton County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1-H
Town of Shady Shores Denton County Fresh Water Supply District No. 8-C
City of Southlake Denton County Fresh Water Supply District No. 9
Town of Trophy Club Denton County Fresh Water Supply District No. 10
Lake Cities Municipal Utility Authority
Mustang Special Utility Authority
Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
Oak Point Water Control and Improvement District No. 1
Oak Point Water Control and Improvement District No. 2
Denton County Fresh Water Supply District No. 4-A
Denton County Fresh Water Supply District No. 4
This contract is made pursuant to Texas Election code Sections 31.092 and 271.002 and Texas Education
Code 11.0581 for a joint May 8, 2010 election to be administered by Frank Phillips, Denton County Elections
Administrator, hereinafter referred to as “Elections Administrator”.
RECITALS
Each participating authority listed about plans to hold a general and/or special election on May 8, 2010.
The County owns an electronic voting system, the Hart InterCivic eSlate/eScan Voting System (Version
6.2.1), which has been duly approved by the Secretary of State pursuant to Texas Election Code Chapter 122 as
amended, and is compliant with the accessibility requirements for persons with disabilities set forth by Texas
Election Code Section 61.012. The Contracting political subdivisions desire to use the County’s electronic voting
system and to compensate the County for such use and to share in certain other expenses connected with joint
TCMUD No. 1 53 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 2 of 11
elections in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 31 and 271 of the Texas Election Code, as
amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, agreements, and benefits to the parties, IT
IS AGREED as follows:
I. ADMINISTRATION
The parties agree to hold a “Joint Election” with each other in accordance with Chapter 271 of the Texas
Election Code and this agreement. The Denton County Elections Administrator shall coordinate, supervise, and
handle all aspects of administering the Joint Election as provided in this agreement. Each participating authority
agrees to pay the Denton County Elections Administrator for equipment, supplies, services and administrative
costs as provided in this agreement. The Denton County Elections Administrator shall serve as the administrator
for the Joint Election; however, each participating authority shall remain responsible for the decisions and actions
of its officers necessary for the lawful conduct of its election. The Elections Administrator shall provide advisory
services in connection with decisions to be made and actions to be taken by the officers of each participating
authorities as necessary.
At each polling location, joint participants shall share voting equipment and supplies to the extent
possible. The participating parties shall share a mutual ballot in those polling places where jurisdictions overlap.
However, in no instance shall a voter be permitted to receive a ballot containing an office or proposition stating a
measure on which the voter is ineligible to vote. Multiple ballot styles shall be available in those shared polling
places where jurisdictions do not overlap.
Denton County will perform a criminal background check on all employees, including temporary
employees, which may program, test, perform maintenance, transport equipment, or perform technical support
on the voting system equipment in accordance with Election Advisory No. 2009 and House Bill 2524 and applicable
provision of the Texas Election Code.
II. LEGAL DOCMENTS
Each participating authority shall be responsible for the preparation, adoption, and publication of all
required election orders, resolutions, notices, and any other pertinent documents required by the Texas Election
Code and /or the participating authority’s governing body, charter, or ordinances.
Preparation of the necessary materials for notices and the official ballot shall be the responsibility of each
participating authority, including translations to languages other than English. Each participating authority shall
provide a copy of their respective election orders and notices to the Denton County Elections Administrator.
The Elections Administrator shall prepare a submission, on behalf of all participating authorities, to the
United States Department of Justice for preclearance of the joint election procedures and polling places, pursuant
to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended.
The joint submission prepared by the Elections Administrator will not include submission of information
for any special elections held by the participating authorities. Participating authorities are hereby notified and
encouraged to prepare their own submissions to the United States Department of Justice for special election
procedures or any changes that are specific to their own political subdivision.
TCMUD No. 1 54 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 3 of 11
By signing this agreement, each participating authority certifies that it has no unresolved preclearance
or voting rights issues known to it that would preclude or delay department of Justice Preclearance of the joint
election.
The Elections Administrator will file an amended submission to the United States Department of Justice in
the event that any polling places are changed after the original submission is filed, including changes resulting from
the withdrawal of one or more participating authorities pursuant to Section XII of this contract.
The Elections Administrator will provide to each participating authority a photocopy of the joint
submission and any correspondence from the Department of Justice.
III. VOTING LOCATIONS
The Elections Administrator shall select and arrange for the use of and payment for all Election Day voting
locations. Voting locations will be, whenever possible, the usual voting location for each election precinct in
elections conducted by each participating city, and shall be compliant with the accessibility requirements
established by Election Code 43.034 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed voting locations
are listed in Attachment A of this agreement. In the event that a voting location is not available or appropriate, the
Elections Administrator will arrange for use of an alternate location with the approval of the affected participating
authorities. The Elections Administrator shall notify the participating authorizes of any changes from the locations
listed in Attachment A.
If polling places for the May 8, 2010 joint election are different from the polling place(s) used by a
participating authority in its most recent election, the authority agrees to post a notice no later than May 7, 2010
at the entrance to any previous polling places in the jurisdiction stating that the polling location has changed and
stating the political subdivision’s polling place names and addresses in effect for the May 8, 2010 election. This
notice shall be written in both the English and Spanish Languages.
IV. ELECTION JUDGES, CLERKS, AND OTHER ELECTION PERSONNEL
Denton County shall be responsible for the appointment of the presiding judge and alternate judge for
each polling location. The Elections Administrator shall make emergency appointments of election officials if
necessary.
Upon request by the Elections Administrator, each participating authority agrees to assist in recruiting
polling place officials who are bilingual (fluent in both English and Spanish). In compliance with the Federal Voting
Rights Act of 1965, as amended, each polling place containing more than 5% Hispanic population as determined by
the 2000 Census shall have one or more election officials who are fluent in both the English and Spanish languages.
If a presiding judge is not bilingual, and is unable to appoint a bilingual clerk, the Elections Administrator may
recommend a bilingual worker for the polling place. If the Elections Administrator is unable to recommend or
recruit a bilingual worker, the participating authority or authorities served by that polling place shall be responsible
for recruiting a bilingual worker for translation services at that polling place.
The Elections Administrator shall notify all election judges of the eligibility requirements of Subchapter C
of Chapter 32 of the Texas Election Code, and will take the necessary steps to insure that all election judges
appointed for the Joint Election are eligible to serve.
TCMUD No. 1 55 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 4 of 11
The Elections Administrator shall arrange for the training and compensation of all election judges and
clerks. The Elections Administrator shall arrange for the date, time, and place for presiding election judges to pick
up their election supplies. Each presiding election judge will be sent a letter from the Elections Administrator
notifying him/her of his/her appointment, the time and location of training and distribution of election supplies,
and the number of election clerks that the presiding judge may appoint.
Each election judge and clerk will receive compensation at the hourly rate established by Denton County
pursuant to Texas Election Code Section 32.091. The election judge will receive an additional sum of $25.00 for
picking up the election supplies prior to Election Day and for returning the supplies and equipment to the central
counting station after the polls close.
Election judges and clerks who attend voting equipment training and /or procedures training shall be
compensated at the same hourly rate that they are to be paid on election day.
The Elections Administrator may employ other personnel necessary for the proper administration of the
election, including such part-time help as is necessary to prepare for the election, to ensure the timely delivery of
supplies during early voting and on Election Day, and for the efficient tabulation of ballots at the central counting
station. Part-time personnel working as members of the Early Voting Ballot Board and/or central counting station
on election night will be compensated at the hourly rate set by Denton County in accordance with Election Code
Sections 87.005, 127.004, and 127.006.
V. PREPARATION OF SUPPLIES AND VOTING EQUIPMENT
The Elections Administrator shall arrange for all election supplies and voting equipment including, but not
limited to, official ballots, voter registration lists, and all forms, signs, maps, and other materials used by the
election judges at the voting locations. The Elections Administrator shall ensure availability of tables and chairs at
each polling place and shall procure rented tables and chairs for those polling places that do not have tables
and/or chairs.
At each polling location, joint participants shall share voting equipment and supplies to the extent
possible. The participating parties shall share a mutual ballot in those precincts where jurisdictions overlap.
However, in no instance shall a voter be permitted to receive a ballot containing an office or proposition stating a
measure on which the voter is ineligible to vote. Multiple ballot styles shall be available in those shared polling
places where jurisdictions do not overlap. The Elections Administrator shall provide the necessary voter
registration information, instructions, and other information needed to enable the election judges in the voting
locations that have more than one ballot style to conduct a proper election.
Each participating authority shall furnish the Election Administrator a list of candidates and/or
propositions showing the order the exact manner in which the candidate names and/or propositions(s) are to
appear on the official ballot (including titles and text in each language in which the authority’s ball ot is to be
printed). Each participating authority shall be responsible for proofreading and approving the ballot insofar as it
pertains to that authority’s candidates and/or propositions.
The joint election ballots that contain ballot content for more than joint participant because of
overlapping territory shall be arranged in the following order: Independent School District, City, Water District(s),
and other political subdivisions. (This is based on population.)
TCMUD No. 1 56 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 5 of 11
Early Voting by Personal Appearance shall be conducted exclusively on Denton County’s eSlate electronic
voting system. On Election Day, voters shall have a choice between voting on the eSlate electronic voting system
or by a paper ballot that is scanned at the polling place using Denton County’s eScan voting system only if a
participating authority choices to use both paper and electronic. Provisional ballots cast on Election Day will be on
the eSlate electronic voting system to prevent the possibility of paper provisional ballots from being immediately
counted via the eScan ballot scanner.
Due to current limitations of the county’s eScan ballot scanners, it is necessary that in the event ballot
content for a particular participating authority or joint election ballot style is too lengthy to fit on one page paper
ballot, all Election Day voting for that particular authority or ballot style must be held on the county’s eSlate voting
system if a participating authority had wished to use both paper and electronic.
If a participating authority wishes to use both paper and electronic, the full cost of the paper ballot will be
up to that participating authority at each polling location that is shared with other participating authorities that
don’t wish to have both paper and electronic. The number of paper ballots printed for Election Day voting shall be,
at a minimum, equal to the same Election Day turnout as in the last comparable election plus 25 percent of that
number, with the final number of ballots ordered per polling place or precinct adjusted upward to end a number
divisible by 50.
The Election Administrator shall be responsible for the preparation, testing, and delivery of the voting
equipment for the election as required by the Election Code.
VI. EARLY VOTING
The participating authorities agree to conduct joint early voting and to appoint the Elections
Administrator as the Early Voting Clerk in accordance with Sections 31.097 and 271.006 of the Texas Election Code.
Each participating authority agrees to appoint the Elections Administrator’s permanent county employees as
deputy early voting clerks. The participating authorities further agree that the Elections Administrator may
appoint other deputy early voting clerks to assist in the conduct of early voting as necessary, and that these
additional deputy early voting clerks shall be compensated at an hourly rate set by Denton County pursuant to
Section 83.052 of the Texas Election Code. Deputy early voting clerks who are permanent employees of the
Denton County Elections Administrator or any participating authority shall serve in that capacity without additional
compensation.
Early Voting by personal appearance will be held at the locations, dates and times listed in Attachment B
of this document. Any qualified voter of the Joint Election may vote early by personal appearance at any of the
joint early voting locations.
As Early Voting Clerk, the Elections Administrator shall receive applications for early voting ballots to be
voted by mail in accordance with Chapter 31 and 86 of the Texas Election Code. Any requests for early voting
ballots to be voted by mail received by the participating authorities shall be forwarded immediately by fax or
courier to the Elections Administrator for processing.
The Elections Administrator shall provide each participating authority a copy of the early voting report on
a daily basis and a cumulative final early voting report following the election. In accordance with Section 87.121(g)
of the Election Code, the daily reports showing the previous day’s early voting activity will be distributed to each
participating authority no later than 8:00 AM each business day.
TCMUD No. 1 57 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 6 of 11
VII. EARLY VOTING BALLOT BOARD
Denton County shall appoint an Early Voting Ballot Board (EVBB) to process early voting results
from the Joint Election. The Presiding Judge, with the assistance of the Election Administrator, shall appoint two or
more additional members to constitute the EVBB. The Elections Administrator shall determine the number of
EVBB members required to efficiently process the early voting ballots.
VIII. CENTRAL COUNTING STATION AND ELECTION RETURNS
The Elections Administrator shall be responsible for establishing and operating the central count
room to receive and tabulate the voted ballots in accordance with provisions of the Texas Election Code and of this
agreement.
The participating authorities hereby, in accordance with Section 127.002, 127.003, and 127.005 of the
Texas Election Code, appoint the following central county station officials:
Counting Station Manger: Frank Phillips, Denton County Elections Administrator
Tabulation Supervisor: Kesha Woods, Denton County Technical Operations Manager
Presiding Judge: Randie Geistman
Alternate Judge: Sara Tischler
The counting station manager or his representative shall deliver timely cumulative reports of the election
results as precincts report to the central counting station and are tabulated. The manager shall be responsible for
releasing unofficial cumulative totals and precinct returns from the election to the joint participants, candidates,
press and general public by distribution of hard copies at the central counting station and by posting to the Denton
County web site. To ensure the accuracy of reported election returns, results printed on the tapes produced by
Denton County’s voting equipment will not be released to the participating authorities by phone from individual
polling locations.
The Elections Administrator will prepare the unofficial canvass reports after all precincts have been
counted and will deliver a copy of the unofficial canvass to each participating authority as soon as possible after all
returns have been tabulated. Each participating authority shall be responsible for the official canvass of its
respective election(s).
The Elections Administrator will prepare the electronic precinct-by precinct results reports for uploading
to the Secretary of State as required by Section 67.017 of the Election Code. The Elections Administrator agrees to
upload these reports for each participating authority unless requested otherwise.
The Elections Administrator shall be responsible for conducting the post election manual recount required
by Section 127.201 of the Texas Election Code unless a waiver is granted by the Secretary of State. Notification
and copies of the recount, if waiver is denied, will be provided to each participating authority and the Secretary of
State’s Office.
IX. PARTICIPATING AUTHORITIES WITH TERRITORY OUTSIDE DENTON COUNTY
The Election Administrator agrees to administer the entire Pilot Point Independent School District election
including that portion of the ISD that is within Grayson and Cooke County.
The Election Administrator agrees to administer only the Denton County portions of the City of Southlake
TCMUD No. 1 58 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 7 of 11
The Election Administrator agrees to administer only the Denton County portions of the Northwest
Independent School District.
The Election Administrator agrees to administer the entire City of Lewisville election including that portion
of the City of Lewisville that is in Dallas County.
The Election Administrator agrees to administer the entire Town of Trophy Club election including that
portion of the Town of Trophy Club that is in Tarrant County.
The Election Administrator agrees to administer the entire Town of Flower Mound including that portion
of the Town of Flower Mound that is in Tarrant County.
The Election Administrator agrees to administer only the Denton County portions of the Clear Creek
Watershed Authority.
The Election Administrator agrees to administer the entire Trophy Club Municipal utility District No. 1
election including that portion that is in Tarrant County.
X. RUNOFF ELECTIONS
Each participating authority shall have the option of extending the terms of this agreement through its
runoff election, if applicable. In the event of such runoff election, the terms of this agreement shall automatically
extend unless the participating authority notifies the Elections Administrator in writing within 3 business days of
the original election.
Each participating authority shall reserve the right to reduce the number of early voting locations and/or
Election Day voting locations in a runoff election. If necessary, any voting changes made by a participating
authority between the original election and the runoff election shall be submitted by the authority making the
change to the United States Department of Justice for the preclearance required by the Federal Voting Rights Act
of 1965, as amended.
Each participating authority agrees to order any runoff election(s) at its meeting for canvassing the votes from the
May 8, 2010 election and to conduct its drawing for ballot positions at or immediately following such meeting in
order to expedite preparations for its runoff election.
Each participating authority eligible to hold runoff elections agrees that the date of the runoff election, if
necessary, shall be Saturday, June 12, 2010.
X. ELECTION EXPENSES AND ALLOCATION OF COSTS
The participating authorities agree to share the costs of administering the Joint election. Allocation of
costs, unless specifically stated otherwise, is mutually agreed to be shared according to a formula which is based
on the average cost per Election Day polling place (unit cost) as determined by adding together the overall
expenses and dividing the expenses equally among the total number of polling places. Costs for polling places
shared by more than one participating authority shall be pro-rated equally among the participants utilizing that
polling place.
The participating authorities agree that for billing purposes, each Election Day polling place will be
evaluated as to the number of full-time –equivalent (FTE) poll workers employed. Polling places with more than 5
FTE poll workers will be considered as one or more additional polling places with each full or partial multiple of 5
TCMUD No. 1 59 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 8 of 11
FTE poll workers constituting an additional polling place for purposes of determining the average cost formula in
the preceding paragraph.
If a participating authority’s election is conducted at more than one election day polling place, there shall
be no charges or fees allocated to the participating authority for the cost of election day polling places in which the
authority has fewer than 50% of the total registered voters served by that polling place, except that if the number
of registered voters in all of the authority’s polling places is less than the 50% threshold, the participating au thority
shall pay a pro-rata share of the costs associated with the polling place where it has the greatest number of
registered voters.
Costs for Early Voting by Personal Appearance shall be allocated based upon the actual costs associated
with each early voting site. Each participating authority shall be responsible for a pro-rata portion of the actual
costs associated with the early voting sites located within their jurisdiction. Participating authorities that do not
have a regular (non-temporary) early voting site within their jurisdiction shall pay a pro-rata portion of the nearest
regular early voting site.
Costs for Early Voting by Mail shall be allocated according to the actual number of ballots mailed to each
participating authority’s voters.
Each participating authority agrees to pay the Denton County Elections Administrator an administrative
fee equal to 10 percent (10%) of its total billable costs in accordance with Section 31.100(d) of the Texas Election
Code.
The Denton County Elections Administrator shall deposit all funds payable under this contract into the
appropriate fund(s) within the county treasury in accordance with Election Code Section 31.100.
XI. WITHDRAWAL FROM CONTRACT DUE TO CANCELLATION OF ELECTION
Any participating authority may withdraw from this agreement and the Joint Election should it cancel its
election in accordance with Sections 2.051 – 2.053 of the Texas Election Code. The withdrawing authority shall pay
and is fully liable for any expenses incurred by the Denton County Elections Administrator on behalf of the
authority plus an administrative fee of ten percent (10%) of such expenses. Any monies deposited with the
Elections Administrator by the withdrawing authority shall be refunded, minus the aforementioned expenses and
administrative fee if applicable.
It is agreed that any of the joint election early voting sites that are not within the boundaries of one or
more of the remaining participating authorities, with the exception of the early voting site located at the Joseph A.
Carroll Administration Building, may be dropped from the joint election unless one or more of the remaining
participating authorities agree to fully fund such site(s). In the event that any early voting site is eliminated under
this section, an addendum to the contract shall be provided to the remaining participants within five (5) days after
notification of all intents to withdraw have been received by the Elections Administrator.
Any participating authority that plans to cancel an election must do so by March 17, 2010 at 10:00am.
XII. RECORDS OF THE ELECTION
The Elections Administrator is hereby appointed general custodian of the voted ballots and all records of
the Joint Election as authorized by Section 271.010 of the Texas Election Code.
TCMUD No. 1 60 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 9 of 11
Access to the election records shall be available to each participating authority as well as to the public in
accordance with applicable provisions of the Texas Election Code and the Texas Public Information Act. The
election records shall be stored at the offices of the Elections Administrator or at an alternate facility used for
storage of county records. The Elections Administrator shall ensure that the records are maintained in an orderly
manner so that the records are clearly identifiable and retrievable.
Records of the election shall be retained and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 66.058 of
The Texas Election Code. If records of the election are involved in any pending election contest, investigation,
litigation, or open records request, the Elections Administrator shall maintain the records until final resolution or
until final judgment, whichever is applicable. It is the responsibility of each participating authority to notify the
Elections Administrator any notice of pending election contest, investigation, litigation or open records request
which may be filed with the participating authority.
XIII. RECOUNTS
A recount may be obtained as provided by Title 13 of the Texas Election Code. By signing this document,
the presiding officer of the contracting participating authority agrees that any recount shall take place at the
offices of the Elections Administrator, and that the Elections Administrator shall serve as Recount Supervisor and
the participating authority’s official or employee who performs the duties of a secretary under the Texas Election
Code shall serve as Recount Coordinator.
XIV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
1. It is understood that to the extent space is available, other districts and political subdivisions may
wish to participate in the use of the County’s election equipment and voting places, and it is agreed
that the Elections Administrator may contract with such other districts or political subdivisions for
such purposes and that in such event there may be an adjustment of the pro-rata share to be paid to
the County by the participating authorities.
2. The Elections Administrator shall file copies of this document with the Denton County Judge and the
Denton County Auditor in accordance with Section 31.099 of the Texas Election Code.
3. Nothing in this contract prevents any party from taking appropriate legal action against any other
party and/or other election personnel for a breach of this contract or a violation of the Texas Election
Code.
4. This agreement shall be construed under and in accord with the laws of the State of Texas, and all
obligations of the parties created hereunder are performable in Denton County, Texas.
5. In the event that one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be
held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or
unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof and this agreement shall be construed as
if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.
6. All parties shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of the State of Texas, all local
governments, and any other entities with local jurisdiction.
7. The waiver by any party of a breach of any provision of this agreement shall not operate as, or be
construed as, a waiver of any subsequent breach.
TCMUD No. 1 61 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 10 of 11
8. Any amendments of this agreement shall be of no effect unless in writing and signed by all parties
hereto.
XV. COST ESTIMATES AND DEPOSIT OF FUNDS
The total estimated obligation for each participating authority under the terms of this agreement is listed
below. Each participating authority agrees to pay the Denton County Elections Administrator a deposit of
approximately 75% of this estimated obligation not later than 15 days after execution of this agreement. The exact
amount of each participating authority’s obligation under the terms of this agreement shall be calculated after the
May 8, 2010 election (or runoff election, if applicable), and the Elections Administrator shall notify each
participating authority if the amount of an authority’s total obligations exceeds the amount deposited, the
authority shall pay to the Elections Administrator the balance due within 30 days after the receipt of the final
invoice from the Elections Administrator. However, if the amount of the authority’s total is less than the amount
deposited, the Elections Administrator shall refund to the authority the excess amount paid within 30 days after
the final costs are calculated.
The total estimated obligation and required deposit for each participating authority under the terms of
this agreement shall be as follows:
Jurisdiction
Total
Estimate Deposit Due
Argyle ISD $3,175.12 $2,481.34
Argyle $2,087.45 $1,665.59
Bartonville $1,953.10 $1,564.82
Clear Creek WA $2,414.59 $1,910.94
Corinth $2,756.91 $2,167.68
Cross Roads $1,440.99 $1,180.74
DCFWSD#10 $1,484.02 $1,213.02
DCFWSD#11A $1,123.20 $942.40
DCFWSD#11B $1,069.24 $901.93
DCFWSD#11C $1,068.86 $901.64
DCFWSD#1B $1,031.29 $873.47
DCFWSD#1C $932.97 $799.73
DCFWSD#1D $945.56 $809.17
DCFWSD#1E $980.07 $835.05
DCFWSD#1F $929.28 $796.96
DCFWSD#1G $929.83 $797.37
DCFWSD#1H $929.23 $796.92
DCFWSD#4 $1,074.76 $906.07
DCFWSD#4A $1,075.40 $906.55
DCFWSD#6 $1,856.52 $1,492.39
DCFWSD#7 $1,633.47 $1,325.10
DCFWSD#8A $1,331.51 $1,098.63
DCFWSD#8B $1,666.91 $1,350.18
TCMUD No. 1 62 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Page 11 of 11
DCFWSD#8C $1,694.73 $1,371.05
DCFWSD#9 $1,695.91 $1,371.93
Denton $9,313.22 $7,084.91
Denton ISD $12,319.76 $9,339.82
Dish $1,575.29 $1,281.47
Double Oak $1,783.55 $1,437.66
Flower Mound $4,585.10 $3,538.83
Hickory Creek $2,250.54 $1,787.91
Highland Village $3,355.55 $2,616.66
Justin $1,875.17 $1,506.38
Krugerville $1,565.48 $1,274.11
Krum $1,776.42 $1,432.32
Krum ISD $2,196.99 $1,747.75
Lake Dallas $2,368.54 $1,876.41
Lake Cities MUA $1,876.94 $1,507.70
Lake Dallas ISD $5,244.15 $4,033.11
Little Elm ISD $3,062.17 $2,396.63
Lewisville $2,895.28 $2,271.46
Lewisville ISD $29,841.73 $22,481.30
Mustang SUD $2,943.03 $2,307.27
Northwest ISD $6,134.12 $4,700.59
Oak Point $1,840.82 $1,480.62
OP WCID#1 $1,568.95 $1,276.72
OP WCID#2 $1,561.45 $1,271.09
Ponder $1,750.61 $1,412.96
Ponder ISD $2,718.59 $2,138.94
Pilot Point $2,124.48 $1,693.36
PPISD $2,507.10 $1,980.33
Sanger $2,512.43 $1,984.33
Sanger ISD $3,051.23 $2,388.42
SDWCID#1 $1,540.45 $1,255.34
Shady Shores $2,696.12 $2,122.09
Southlake $1,621.49 $1,316.12
TCMUD1 $1,840.42 $1,480.31
Trophy Club $1,845.92 $1,484.44
Valencia on the Lake WCID $1,068.86 $901.64
TCMUD No. 1 63 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-32-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:2/8/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:2/16/2010
Title:Discuss and take appropriate action regarding a Joint Election Agreement between Trophy Club
Municipal Utility District No. 1 and Town of Trophy Club for the May 8, 2010 election.
Attachments:Joint Election Agreement -Town-May 2010 Election.pdf
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 64 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-32-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Discuss and take appropriate action regarding a Joint Election Agreement between Trophy Club Municipal
Utility District No. 1 and Town of Trophy Club for the May 8, 2010 election.
Body
See attached Joint Election Agreement with Town.
TCMUD No. 1 65 of 160 16 Feb 2010
JOINT ELECTION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB, TEXAS and
TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1,
TO CONDUCT A JOINT ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON MAY 8, 2010
This Joint Election Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) is entered into this ____
day of February, 2010, by and between the Town of Trophy Club, Texas, (“Town”) and
Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1, (“MUD1”) to conduct a Joint Election to be
held on May 8, 2010, in Trophy Club, Texas.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Town of Trophy Club, Texas and Trophy Club Municipal Utility
District No. 1, desire to conduct an election on May 8, 2010; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 271, Texas Election Code, if an election
ordered by the authorities of two or more political subdivisions is to be held on the same
day in all or part of the same territory, the governing bodies of the political subdivisions
may enter into an agreement to hold the election jointly in the election precincts that can
be served by common polling places; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 271 of the Texas Election Code, the
Town of Trophy Club, Texas and the Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1,
mutually desire to enter into a Joint Election Agreement for an election to be held on
May 8, 2010; and
WHEREAS, The Election shall be conducted in accordance with the Election
Code under the jurisdiction of the Denton County Elections Department (the “Elections
Administrator”) pursuant to the Joint Election Agreement and Contract for Election
Services (the “Contract”) by and among Denton County Elections Department
(“DCED”), and other participating entities, if any, described in the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above and foregoing
premises, the benefits flowing to each of the parties hereto, and other good and
valuable consideration, the Town of Trophy Club, Texas and Trophy Club Municipal
Utility District No. 1, (hereinafter individually referred to as “Participant” and collectively
referred to as “Participants”) do hereby agree as follows:
TERMS:
1. Administration: Each Participant shall be responsible for the
preparation, adoption, and publication of all required election orders, resolutions,
ordinances, notices, and any other pertinent documents required by the Texas Election
Code and /or Participant’s governing body, charter, ordinances or orders.
TCMUD No. 1 66 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Each Participant shall be responsible for the preparation of the necessary materials for
notices and the official ballot shall be the responsibility of each Participant, including
translations to languages other than English. Each Participant shall provide a copy of
their respective election orders and notices to the Denton County Elections
Administrator.
Each Participant shall be responsible for its submission required by the Federal Voting
Rights Act of 1965, as amended, with regard to the administration of the Joint Election;
any other changes or election items which require preclearance under the Federal
Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended.
Each Participant agrees to assist in recruiting polling place officials who are bilingual
(fluent in both English and Spanish). If the Elections Administrator is unable to
recommend or recruit a bilingual worker, the Participants shall be responsible for
recruiting a bilingual worker for translation services at that polling place.
2. Allocation of Election Expenses: The Participants agree to share all
costs of the May 8, 2010 Joint Election, including but not limited to all costs incurred in
preparing and administering such Joint Election, based upon the following:
Town of Trophy Club 50%
Trophy Club Municipal District No. 1 50%
The cost of any special request(s) which is not agreed upon by all Participants
shall be borne by the requesting Participant in its entirety. In the event of a runoff
election, the Participant requiring the runoff shall be responsible for all costs associated
with preparing and administering such election.
3. Election Officers: Denton County Elections will be responsible for the
appointment of the presiding judge and alternate at polling location, and also for the
appointment of the Early Voting Ballot Board. Participants agree to employ the number
of election clerks as the need determines, and that all election workers shall be paid
$8.00 per hour. The election judges will be paid $10.00 per hour.
4. Early Voting; Locations: Participants agree to conduct Joint Early
Voting and to appoint the Elections Administrator as the Early Voting Clerk in
accordance with Sections 31.097 and 271.006 of the Texas Election Code. Participants
agree to appoint the Elections Administrator’s permanent county employees as deputy
early voting clerks. Participants further agree that the Elections Administrator may
appoint other deputy early voting clerks to assist in the conduct of early voting as
necessary, and that these additional deputy early voting clerks shall be compensated at
an hourly rate set by Denton County pursuant to Section 83.052 of the Texas Election
Code. Deputy early voting clerks who are permanent employees of the Denton County
Elections Administrator or any Participants shall serve in that capacity without additional
compensation.
TCMUD No. 1 67 of 160 16 Feb 2010
As Early Voting Clerk, the Elections Administrator shall receive applications for early
voting ballots to be voted by mail in accordance with Chapter 31 and 86 of the Texas
Election Code. Any requests for early voting ballots to be voted by mail received by the
Participants shall be forwarded immediately by fax or courier to the Elections
Administrator for processing.
Early Voting by personal appearance will be held at the locations listed in Attachment
“A” of this document and on the dates and times as provided below. Any qualified
voter of the Joint Election may vote early by personal appearance at any of the Joint
Early Voting locations. Voters residing in Tarrant County may only vote on Town and/or
MUD-related items at the Town of Trophy Club early voting polling location.
Monday, April 26th
Tuesday, April 27th
Wednesday, April 28th
Thursday, April 29th
Friday, April 30th
Saturday, May 1st
Monday, May 3rd
Tuesday, May 4th
8 a.m. – 5 p.m.
8 a.m. – 5 p.m.
8 a.m. – 5 p.m.
8 a.m. – 5 p.m.
8 a.m. – 5 p.m.
8 a.m. – 12 p.m.
7 a.m. – 7 p.m.
7 a.m. – 7 p.m.
Early Voting will not be conducted on any other Saturday, or on any Sunday or official
State and/or national holiday during the period of early voting.
Early Voting, both by personal appearance and by mail, shall be by use of electronic
system ballots, which ballots shall conform to the requirements of the Texas Election
Code, and in so doing shall permit the voters to vote for three (3) Town of Trophy Club
Council Members; Places 3 and 4 for two (2) year terms each and Place 5 for a three
(3) year term and five (5) Directors for Trophy Club MUD 1, Places 1 through 5, all
places are at large.
5. Ballots: Preparation of the official ballots for the Election shall conform
to the requirements of the Texas Election Code, and in so doing shall permit the voter to
vote for three (3) Town of Trophy Club Council Members; Places 3 and 4 for two (2)
year terms each and Place 5 for a three (3) year term and five (5) Directors for Trophy
Club MUD 1 for Places 1 through 5.
6. Canvassing: Participants shall convene separately at properly posted
meetings in the time frame required by the Election Code and canvass the results of
their respective elections.
7. Runoff Election: In the event a runoff is necessary, this Agreement will
automatically be extended to cover the runoff, unless a Participant states in writing
immediately upon notice that a runoff election will be necessary that it does not want to
TCMUD No. 1 68 of 160 16 Feb 2010
participate in a joint runoff. Costs of a runoff election shall be allocated in accordance
with Paragraph 2 above.
8. Term of Agreement: This Agreement shall be effective upon execution
by all Participants and may be terminated in accordance with Paragraph 7 by written
notice only pursuant to Paragraph 9 of this Agreement.
9. Notice: Whenever this Agreement requires any consent, approval, notice,
request or demand, it must be in writing to be effective and shall be delivered to all
Participants by certified mail, return receipt requested, and shall be properly addressed
as follows:
If to the Town of Trophy Club: If to Municipal Utility District No. 1:
Town of Trophy Club Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
Mayor District Manager
100 Municipal Drive 100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262 Trophy Club, Texas 76262
10. Authority to Execute Agreement: The undersigned officers and/or
agents of the parties hereto are the properly authorized officials and have the necessary
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto, and each party
hereby certifies to the other that any necessary resolutions or other act extending such
authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect.
11. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts and each shall be considered an original and collectively shall constitute
one agreement; but in making proof of this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to
produce or account for more than one such counterpart.
12. Entire Agreement: This Agreement represents the entire and integrated
agreement between the Participants and supersedes all prior negotiations,
representations and/or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by written instrument signed by all Participants.
13. Hold Harmless: To the extent allowed by law, each Participant does
hereby agree to waive all claims against, release, and hold harmless each other
Participant and its respective officials, officers, agents, employees, in both their public
and private capacities, from any and all liability, claims, suits, demands, losses,
damages, attorneys fees, including all expenses of litigation or settlement, or causes of
action which may arise by, result from, or relate to the performance of this Agreement,
including but not limited to injury to or death of any person or for loss of, damage to, or
loss of use of any property arising out of or in connection with this Agreement.
14. Severability: If any of the terms, sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses, phrases, provisions, covenants, conditions or any other part of this Agreement
TCMUD No. 1 69 of 160 16 Feb 2010
2010 JOINT ELECTION AGREEMENT
Page 5 of 5
are for any reason held to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the terms,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, provisions, covenants, conditions
or any other part of this contract shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way
be affected, impaired or invalidated.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town of Trophy Club and Trophy Club Municipal
District No. 1 have executed this Agreement on the day and year first hereinabove set
forth.
TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB, TEXAS TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY
DISTRICT No. 1
By: By:
Connie White Dean Henry
Mayor Joint President
TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY
DISTRICT No. 1
By:
Jim Budarf
Joint President
Effective: ______________________ Effective: ______________________
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: _________ By:
Lisa Hennek Mary Moore
Town Secretary MUD Secretary
TCMUD No. 1 70 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-33-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:2/9/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:2/16/2010
Title:Review, discuss and take appropriate action regarding restructuring the MUD 1 Rate Order.
Attachments:TCMUD1-O-2009-0915-C-RateOrder-Excuted.pdf
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 71 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-33-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Review, discuss and take appropriate action regarding restructuring the MUD 1 Rate Order.
Body
[Enter body here.]
TCMUD No. 1 72 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 73 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 74 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 75 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 76 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 77 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 78 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 79 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 80 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 81 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 82 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 83 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 84 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 85 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 86 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 87 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 88 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 89 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-29-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:2/8/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:2/16/2010
Title:Discuss and take appropriate action regarding an update to the Amendment to the Information Form.
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 90 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-29-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Discuss and take appropriate action regarding an update to the Amendment to the Information Form.
Body
Due to the change/decrease in the tax rate at the September 2009 meeting, the Board should approve the
Amendment to the Information Form, which reflects the updated tax information.
TCMUD No. 1 91 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-01-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:1/4/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:2/6/2010
Title:Discuss and take appropriate action regarding SEMO Committee meetings and findings.
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 92 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-01-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Discuss and take appropriate action regarding SEMO Committee meetings and findings.
TCMUD No. 1 93 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-34-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:2/9/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:2/16/2010
Title:Discuss and take appropriate action regarding the New Intergovernmental Contract for Employee
Services and the Amendment to New Intergovernmental Contract for Employee Services.
Attachments:ILA-EmployeeSvcs and Amendment.pdf
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 94 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-34-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Discuss and take appropriate action regarding the New Intergovernmental Contract for Employee Services
and the Amendment to New Intergovernmental Contract for Employee Services.
Body
[Enter body here.]
TCMUD No. 1 95 of 160 16 Feb 2010
NEW INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT FOR EMPLOYEE SERVICES
This New Intergovernmental Contract for Employee Services (the "Contract") is
between the following parties:
Trophy Club Master District (the "Master District")
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262
and
The Town of Trophy Club, Texas (the "Town")
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262
WHEREAS, the Master District is an administrative agency and joint
operating Board established by Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
("MUD1") and Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 2 ("MUD 2") under a
written agreement entitled NEW MASTER DISTRICT CONTRACT dated and
effective as of October 4, 2000, as amended. Each of MUD l and MUD 2 is a
Municipal Utility District created and operating under the provisions of Article XVI,
Section 59, of the Texas Constitution, and the general laws of the State of Texas
including, particularly, Chapter 54 and 49 of the Texas Water Code, as amended.
The Master District is structured and operates as a separate entity joint venture,
with MUD l and MUD 2 being the equal controlling owners of the joint venture.
This Contract is signed by the Master District in its capacity as the operator of
common water and wastewater facilities in the Trophy Club and Solana-Westlake
projects.
WHEREAS, the Town is a home-rule municipal corporation duly organized
and operating pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas and its
home rule charter.
WHEREAS, the Master District and the Town each perform certain
governmental services or functions within their respective jurisdiction. Prior to
October 1, 1998, the MUD 1 (in its capacity as the "Master District" at that time
for itself and MUD 2) and the Town each had their own employees to perform
various services and functions. By a written agreement dated and effective as of
October 1, 1998, entitled INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT FOR
EMPLOYEE SERVICES (the "1998 CONTRACT FOR EMPLOYEE SERVICES"),
MUD l (in its capacity as the "Master District" at that time for itself and MUD 2)
and the Town agreed that all employees of MUD l became employees of the
Town subject to the personnel policies of the Town and included on the payroll of
the Town so that employment salaries, benefits, and personnel policies of both
MUD l and the Town could be administered more efficiently, effectively, and
TCMUD No. 1 96 of 160 16 Feb 2010
economically. With the execution of the 1998 CONTRACT FOR EMPLOYEE
SERVICES, the Town (through its employees including those personnel who
formerly were employees of MUD 1) began performing services that previously
had been part of MUD l's operations for the benefit of itself and MUD 2. This
Contract is to update, modify, and supersedes the 1998 CONTRACT FOR
EMPLOYEE SERVICES.
WHEREAS, this Contract is executed by the Master District and the
Town as an Intergovernmental or Interlocal contract under Chapter 791 (the
Interlocal Cooperation Act) of the Texas Government Code and is an amendment
and renewal of the 1998 CONTRACT FOR EMPLOYEE SERVICES.
WHEREAS, this Contract has been authorized by the governing body of
each party to this Contract. The governing body of each party to this Contract
has determined that the terms and provisions of this Contract are desirable, fair,
and advantageous for that party and therefore the Contract serves a valid public
purpose.
WHEREAS, the parties to this Contract believe that their longstanding
contractual and cooperative relationship has benefited both the Town and the
Master District, and their respective taxpayers and customers, because the
administration of employment issues is handled in a more efficient, effective and
economical manner, and governmental services which are the responsibility of
each of the respective entities are performed by a single workforce consisting of
Town employees. Moreover, while the Master District and the Town each
performs distinct governmental services or functions within their respective
jurisdictions, they also have a community of interest in performing these services
and functions. The Master District and the Town have determined that this
community of interest is best served by continuing their cooperative and
intergovernmental contractual relationship with respect to employment services.
WHEREAS, the parties hereby confirm their understanding and intent
that all persons who were employed by MUD 1 (in its capacity as the "Master
District" at that time for itself and MUD 2) performing work in the operations of the
Master District immediately prior to October 1, 1998, became employees of the
Town as of October 1, 1998, for all purposes, with the Town responsible on and
after October 1, 1998, for all salary, benefits, and other compensation of such
employees and with such employees subject to the personnel policies of the
Town.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above and
foregoing premises, the benefits flowing to each of the parties hereto, and other
good and valuable consideration, the Town of Trophy Club, Texas and the
Trophy Club Master District do hereby contract and agree as follows:
TCMUD No. 1 97 of 160 16 Feb 2010
I.
Term
This Contract shall become effective upon approval by both of the respective
governing bodies of Town and Master District and upon execution by their
respective authorized representatives. The Contract shall continue in effect until
terminated by either party as provided herein.
II.
Scope of Employment Services
Town shall provide employees to perform services for Master District in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The parties understand and agree
that on and after the effective date of this Agreement, all such employees are
employees of the Town subject to the personnel policies of the Town in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The parties hereto agree that the
attached organizational chart identifies the structure of the respective operations
of the parties and their relationship under this Contract. The Organizational Chart
is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
III.
Master District Management
Master District retains a Master District Manager to oversee the operations of the
Master District (hereinafter "District Manager"). The District Manager may be an
independent contractor or an employee of the Master District but in neither case
is the District Manager an employee of the Town. This Contract is not intended to
make any change in any separate contract between the Master District and the
District Manager ("District Manager Contract"). Whether the District Manager is
an independent contractor or an employee of the Master District, the District
Manager shall he compensated by the Master District and report directly to the
Board of Directors of the Master District. The person designated as the District
Manager for the Master District shall be supervised and directed by the Board of
Directors of the Master District.
TCMUD No. 1 98 of 160 16 Feb 2010
IV.
Compliance with Town Personnel Policies
Under the terms of the District Manager Contract, where applicable, or under the
terms of the employment of the District Manager, where applicable, the District
Manager shall be either contractually or as a term of employment, whichever
applies, required to comply with the personnel policies and procedures of the
Town in fulfilling his obligations for the management and oversight of Master
District operations. The parties hereto understand and agree that the Town
employees shall be subject to the personnel policies and procedures adopted by
the Town.
V.
Master District Standard Operating Procedures
The Master District retains the authority to adopt standard operating procedures
("SOPs") regulating and governing the operational control of Master District
assets and facilities; however, the scope of such standard operating procedures
shall relate only to technical matters governing Master District operations and
shall not conflict with the Town personnel policies and procedures. Prior to the
issuance of any standard operating procedures, such SOPs shall be submitted to
the Human Resources Manager or equivalent position for review and to allow
such person to identify any inconsistencies or conflict between the proposed
SOPs and the Town personnel policies. The Town shall provide written notice to
the District Manager of any such conflict between the SOPs and the Town
policies and of any matters that the Town determines to regulate matters other
than those operational matters for which SOPs are allowed under this Contract.
In the event of a conflict, the parties agree to meet and discuss the identified
conflict and to use reasonable efforts to resolve the conflict in order to meet the
needs of both the Master District and the Town.
As used in this Contract the terms "operation(s)," "operational," "operational
functions," or "operational standards" shall mean those technical functions
performed by Town employees for the Master District which are governed or
regulated by a state or federal regulatory agency, regulatory standards or permit
standards, or other applicable local, state, or federal law or which are regulated
by an SOP of the Master District pursuant to this Contract.
TCMUD No. 1 99 of 160 16 Feb 2010
VI.
Compliance with Standard Operating Procedures of the Master District
Subject to the requirements set forth in Paragraph V above, while this Contract
is in effect, the Town agrees that all employees providing services to the Master
District shall follow the Master District's SOPs governing the operational aspects
of Master District assets and facilities.
VII.
Approved Positions and Funding
Each year, as part of the approval of the respective budgets of tile parties, the
governing body for each of the parties approves a listing of funded positions or
an organizational chart showing all funded employee positions. The approved
budgets contain detailed information regarding the amount of money that each of
the parties hereto contributes toward the expenses of funding employee
positions. The Town and the Master District agree hereunder that the positions
and payment approved in their respective budgetary processes shall comply with
the terms of this Contract and shall serve as partial consideration for the services
provided under this Contract.
VIII.
Compensation
As compensation for the services provided or to be provided to the Master
District by the Town under this Contract, upon the Town presenting a detailed
listing of all incurred expenses the Master District agrees to pay to the Town at
least monthly an amount equal to the actual costs incurred by the Town for
salary, benefits, and other compensation of the Town employees providing
services to the Master District, subject to Paragraph VII of this Contract. The
term "actual costs" as used in this Contract means those costs that the Town
incurs over and above the cost that the Town would incur if it were not providing
personnel to perform services for the Master District operations. Whenever
practical to do so, the Town shall have costs (other than employee costs)
associated with Master District functions charged directly to the Master District,
including but not limited to training expenses, travel, supplies, administrative and
other miscellaneous costs not directly attributable to salary benefits and other
compensation. As further consideration for the services of Town employees,
Master District agrees that the use of all equipment owned by or leased to Master
District may be used by licensed and/or qualified Town employees in the
performance of services for Master District pursuant to this Agreement.
TCMUD No. 1 100 of 160 16 Feb 2010
IX.
Policies and Decisions
This Contract is intended to provide for the furnishing of employment services by
the Town to the Master District in the Town's capacity as an independent
contractor. The Master District retains all right, power, and control that it has by
law and by the New Master District Contract to set policies and to make
decisions regarding the services provided by Town employees in the
performance of operational functions for the Master District and the operation of
Master District assets and facilities.
Master District shall have the right, for good cause upon the violation of
operational standards, or for violations of SOPS, as allowed by the Town's
personnel policies, to require that a particular Town employee be removed from
performing services in the operations of the Master District, provided however,
that the removal of an employee shall not be required until such employee has
been disciplined in accordance with Town policies and had an opportunity to
avail himself of any and all appeals allowed under the Town's personnel policies
and procedures.
As new or additional employees are needed to perform services for the Master
District, the Town shall follow Town personnel policies and procedures in the
selection of those employees. Prior to the hiring of any employee to perform
services for the Master District, the Town shall request from the Master District,
or its designee, the approval of the selection, compensation, benefits, and job
description of each such employee. The Town agrees to follow the Master
District's recommendations for selection, compensation, benefits, and job
description of each employee performing services for the Master District. In the
event of a conflict under this paragraph, the parties agree to meet and discuss
the identified conflict and to use reasonable efforts to resolve the conflict in order
to meet the needs of both the Master District and the Town. The Master District
shall not be required to fund any decision that it has not approved regarding an
employee performing services for the Master District. Decisions by the Master
District under this Contract shall be made by the Board of Directors of the Master
District or by its designated officer(s) or agents. All Town employees performing
services in the operations of the Master District shall be supervised and directed
by persons approved by the District Manager.
Nothing in this Contract shall be interpreted as an abdication by the Master
District or MUD1 and MUD2 as the joint venture partners in the Master District of
their governmental rights, powers, and duties with regard to services provided by
the Master District.
TCMUD No. 1 101 of 160 16 Feb 2010
X.
Discipline
The parties agree that the Town's standard personnel policies and disciplinary
procedures shall apply to all Town employees performing services in the
operations of the Master District.
Employees are divided by reason of their duties into two groups. The first group
consists of those employees whose services are shared by the Town and the
Master District (hereinafter “Shared Service Providers”), and the second group
consists of those whose services are provided exclusively to the Master District
(hereinafter “Master District Service Providers”).
The following provision(s) shall apply to Master District Service Providers:
1. In all cases in which the established facts show a clear violation of the
Personnel Manual, its provisions shall apply and shall be administered
by the Town Manager alone in accordance with the Personnel Manual.
In addition to the Town’s Personnel Manual, the Master District has
established certain Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to be
followed by Master District Service Providers.
2. In cases where an alleged violation of the Personnel Manual is not
clearly defined by the facts but where an alleged violation of one or
more of the SOPs of the Master District exists, the input of the District
Manager shall be a prerequisite to any disciplinary measure taken for
such violation. Should the input of the District Manager result in a
conflict with the disciplinary measure proposed by the Town Manager,
then the conflict shall be resolved by referral of the matter to the
Master District Chairman for final disposition.
XI.
Liability; Insurance: Indemnification
The Town shall be responsible for the acts, negligence, and omissions of its
employees performing services in the operations of the Master District, unless
the acts or omissions were pursuant to operational standards or SOPs of the
Master District or District Manager or actions or omissions performed pursuant to
or under the direction, supervision, or instruction of the Master District or the
District Manager. If the acts or omissions were pursuant to operational standards
or SOPs of the Master District or District Manager, or the acts or omissions were
performed pursuant to or under the direction, supervision, or instruction of the
Master District or the District Manager, the Master District shall assume liability
for the acts, negligence or omissions of Town employees.
TCMUD No. 1 102 of 160 16 Feb 2010
The parties to this Contract shall each individually obtain insurance, with
coverages as mutually agreed upon, that the parties determine will insure
themselves individually and collectively from liabilities related to and arising out
or this Contract and fulfill the indemnity obligations of each party, to the extent
allowed by law, under this Contract. Such insurance shall insure against liability
arising out of or related to the work performed by Town employees under this
Contract, with both parties named as additional insured under such insurance
policies.
To the extent allowed by law, both Town and Master District agree to defend,
indemnify and hold each other harmless from their respective negligence or
intentional conduct arising out of or related to this Contract and resulting in harm
to them individually or to a third party, including without limitation property
damage to the parties hereto or to a third party. The indemnity extends to all
costs and expenses incurred, including reasonable attorney's fees, to defend
against, settle or pay the claim asserted by another. In the event a claim is made
by another against either the Town or the Master District, written notice of the
claim shall immediately be given to the other party, in order that the other party
may determine whether its indemnity duty must be performed and in order to
allow the indemnitor to perform indemnity. If any part of the foregoing indemnity
shall be deemed or determined unenforceable or contrary to public policy by a
court of competent jurisdiction, then each party shall contribute to any judgment
according to its percentage of fault.
Neither Town nor Master District waive any immunity or defense that would
otherwise be available to it against claims arising from the exercise of
governmental powers and functions and nothing in this Agreement shall be
deemed a waiver of the governmental, sovereign, or official immunity afforded by
law to either Town or Master District.
XII.
Further Cooperation
The parties to this Contract agree to cooperate to sign and deliver any other
documents that may be necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions of
this Contract. In the event of a conflict under this Contract, the parties agree to
meet and discuss the identified conflict and to use reasonable efforts to resolve
the conflict in order to meet the needs of both the Master District and the Town.
XIII.
Termination
This Contract may be terminated by either party at any time upon thirty (30) days
written notice to the other party.
TCMUD No. 1 103 of 160 16 Feb 2010
2008 New Intergovernmental Contract for Employee Services 9
XIV.
Execution and Date
This Contract is signed by the parties in multiple counterparts. This Contract is
dated and shall be effective for all purposes as of February 13, 2008.
TROPHY CLUB MASTER DISTRICT TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB, TEXAS
By: ___________________ By: __________________________
Carol Borges, Chair C. Nick Sanders, Mayor
Attest: Attest:
By: _______________________ By: ___________________________
Secretary, Board of Directors Town Secretary
Approved as to form: Approved as to form:
______________________________ _______________________________
Robert G. West, Attorney Patricia A. Adams, Town Attorney
Trophy Club Master District Town of Trophy Club, Texas
______________________________
Pamela Liston, Attorney
Trophy Club Master District
TCMUD No. 1 104 of 160 16 Feb 2010
AMENDMENT TO NEW INTERGOVERNMENTAL
CONTRACT FOR EMPLOYEE SERVICES
This is an amendment to the New Intergovernmental Contract for
Employee Services (the “Contract”), with an effective date of February 13, 2008,
between Trophy Club Master District (the “Master District”) and the Town of
Trophy Club, Texas (the “Town”)
WHEREAS, the Master District and the Town desire to amend the
Contract to allow the option of having the District Manager become a Town
employee for all purposes, with the Town responsible for all salary, benefits, and
other compensation of the District Manager and with the District Manager subject
to the personnel policies of the Town.
WHEREAS, this amendment shall be considered effective as of
December 11, 2008.
WHEREAS, the parties to the Contract desire that the terms of the
Contract not expressly addressed in this Amendment shall continue in full force
and effect.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Section III (Master District Management), is amended in its entirety
as follows:
Master District designates a Master District Manager to oversee the
operations of the Master District (hereinafter “District Manager”). The
District Manager may be an independent contractor, an employee of the
Master District or an employee of the Town. This Contract is not intended
to make any change in any separate contract that may exists now or in the
future between the Master District and the District Manager (“District
Manager Contract”). Whether the District Manager is an independent
contractor, employee of the Master District, or employee of the Town, the
District Manager shall report directly to the Board of Directors of the
Master District except where otherwise provided in this Agreement. The
person designated as the District Manager for the Master District shall be
supervised and directed by the Board of Directors of the Master District.
This Amendment is signed by the parties in multiple counterparts. This
Amendment is dated and shall be effective for all purposes as of December 11,
2008.
TCMUD No. 1 105 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TROPHY CLUB MASTER DISTRICT TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB,
TEXAS
By: _____________________________ By: _______________________
Constance White Nick Sanders
Chairman, Board of Directors Mayor
Attest: Attest:
By: _____________________________ By:______________________
Mary Moore Lisa Hennek
Secretary, Board of Directors Town Secretary
Approved as to form: Approved as to form:
________________________________ __________________________
Robert G. West Patricia A. Adams, Town Attorney
Attorney for Trophy Club Master District Town of Trophy Club, Texas
__________________________________
Pamela Liston
Attorney for Trophy Club Master District
TCMUD No. 1 106 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-35-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:2/11/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:2/16/2010
Title:Review and Approve Minutes:
a. January 19, 2009 - Regular Session
b. January 25, 2009 - Special/Joint Session
Attachments:M1 Minutes 011910.pdf
M1 Minutes 012510-Special Joint.pdf
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 107 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-35-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Review and Approve Minutes:
a. January 19, 2009 - Regular Session
b. January 25, 2009 - Special/Joint Session
TCMUD No. 1 108 of 160 16 Feb 2010
MINUTES OF REGULAR SESSION
TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1
January 19, 2010
The Board of Directors of the Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1 of Denton and Tarrant
Counties met in Regular Session on Tuesday, January 19, 2010, in the Boardroom of the
Administration Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas 76262.
DIRECTORS PRESENT:
Dean Henry Joint President
Jim Budarf Joint President
Gary Cantrell Joint Vice President
Kevin Carr Joint Vice President
Jim Hase Joint Secretary/Treasurer
Jim Thomas Joint Secretary/Treasurer
Neil Twomey Director
Steven Kohs Director
Joseph Boclair Director
DIRECTORS ABSENT:
Bob Fair Director
STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT:
Robert Scott District Manager
Mary Moore MUD Secretary
Pam Liston MUD Attorney
Bob West MUD Attorney
Kathy DuBose Finance Director
Danny Thomas Fire Chief
Connie White Town Mayor
Kathleen Wilson Town Councilmember
Bill Rose Town Councilmember
Glenn Strother Town Councilmember
Brandon Emmons Town Manager
Carolyn Huggins Town - P & Z Coordinator
David Crawford Tax Attorney
John Zink TCEQ Certified Instructor
Jyh-Wei (Al) Sun, P.E., BCEE Senior Vice Pres., CDM – Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
Shirley Hase 209 Inverness Drive
Betty Ann Henry 308 Oakmont
Margi Cantrell 1105 Sunset
Susan Edstrom 269 Oak Hill Drive
Dave Edstrom 269 Oak Hill Drive
Pauline Twomey 203 Oakmont
Scott Smith 2 Salida Drive
A. Lee Graham Reporter, Alliance News
James Hicks 227 Phoenix Drive
Bill Armstrong 18 Avenue Twenty
Greg Lamont 15 Avalon Drive
Karen Passiak 18 Overhill Drive
TCMUD No. 1 109 of 160 16 Feb 2010
REGULAR SESSION
Call to Order and Announce a Quorum.
President Henry announced a quorum and called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1. Discuss and take appropriate action concerning a Joint Agreement Delinquent
Tax Collection Services between Bob West, Attorney for MUD 1 and Perdue
Brandon Fielder Collins & Mott, LLP. 2010-22-M1
Attorney West advised that due to the consolidation agreement, the Board now has two tax
attorneys, himself and David Crawford, of Perdue Brandon Fielder Collins & Mott, LLP. West
stated that in the Tax Collection Agreement with Denton County, it states that they need to be
notified of the Tax Collection Attorney. West advised that he and Mr. Crawford have agreed to
have Mr. Crawford take the lead on Delinquent Tax Collection Services with Attorney West still
attending the bi-monthly meetings and updating the Board regarding the status of tax
collections.
Attorney Crawford stated he has represented MUD 2 for the past 15 years. Crawford stated
that they work hard, and ethically, and while still trying to bring in as much revenue as possible
for the MUD District.
Director Henry moved to approve the Joint Agreement for Delinquent Tax Collection presented.
Director Thomas seconded the motion. Floor opened for discussion. Director Budarf advised
that MUD 2 has never received any complaints concerning Perdue. Director Thomas stated
that MUD 2 had always taken pride in their excellent tax collection record.
Motion carried unanimously (10-0).
2. Discuss and take appropriate action concerning Ethics Complaint 2009-1210, filed
by Steven Kohs, Karen Passiak, Ryan Chitwood, Barbara Glaser, and Rhonda
Chitwood. 09-153-M1
a. Gary Cantrell
b. Jim Budarf
c. Jim Thomas
d. Kevin Carr
Mayor White advised that there was a quorum of Town Council
Attorney West stated that at our last meeting, the Board voted, as appropriate under the policy
adopted September 2009, to put this ethics complaint on the agenda for tonight, with the Board
finding it a public interest and that the questions being raised were serious enough that they
needed to be answered. West stated that pursuant to the request, he came up with a
procedure for tonight’s meeting. West advised the board to follow his procedure. Upon West’s
review and interpretation of the Ethics Policy adopted in September 2009, the hearing would
follow Roberts’ Rules of Order and be conducted similar to a Zoning Board of Adjustment
meeting and/or Council meetings, with the Complainants going first and then the Respondents
would present their testimony, witnesses and evidence. At the end of that, the Complainants
would then have an opportunity to respond and ask further questions. Since there are four
Directors, Mr. West advised to take each Respondent separately, with a motion made on each
individual director. This is important to maintain a quorum. Overall the policy will be Roberts’
Rules of Order, and to have a fair hearing conducted in an orderly fashion.
President Henry stated that he is not a judge; however, he will maintain order throughout the
meeting.
Attorney West advised that all speakers would need to be sworn in.
TCMUD No. 1 110 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Complainant-Director Steven Kohs advised that the author of the Ethics Complaint, Mr. Ryan
Chitwood, was going to assume the lead role and start this conversation or hearing, and
needless to say he is not here. Director Kohs stated that Mr. Chitwood was the author of this
Ethics Compliant, and that Kohs was a supporter of his efforts to compile the information and do
the research that he has put together. Director Kohs stated that he supported Mr. Chitwood in
his role in putting this together, and coming forward with it. In the Ethics Complaint that Mr.
Chitwood put together, there were complaints that Mr. Chitwood felt the MUDs were not being
honest with the citizens. One concern dealt with EPA violations on government websites, as
they were legitimate, documented EPA violations. His (Kohs) understanding is that the MUD
had denied having those occurrences, and that was one of the things that were compelling for
Mr. Chitwood to come forward. Some of the other complaints that Mr. Chitwood had in his
Ethics Information was that the MUDs not being honest with the citizens in reference to how
much legal fees were being spent in the lawsuit against the Town. Director Kohs stated that he
could go page by page in the Ethics violation that Mr. Chitwood had written but the
documentation has already been submitted to the Board. Director Kohs further stated that the
evidence is self-explanatory, and he thinks the citizens are due an answer. He finished by
stating he thought the citizens are looking to you (MUD Board Directors) to respond to the
Ethics Complaint line by line.
Joint President Henry asked Kohs if he was done, to which he replied, yes.
Joint President-Respondent Budarf asked Kohs about the legal fees being spent in the lawsuit
against the Town.
Complainant-Director Kohs advised that it was discussed, and if it was not in the ethics
complaint, it should have been.
Vice President–Respondent Carr asked Kohs, being a director himself on the MUDs, why only
four directors were accused rather than the whole Board. He stated that Director Kohs was well
aware that we act as one MUD, and vote as one MUD.
Complainant-Director Kohs stated that there were very specific items listed in the packet that
Mr. Chitwood had given to the MUDs that listed particular instances where Mr. Chitwood felt
false information was being given to the citizens from the listed MUD directors.
Vice President–Respondent Carr stated that’s not in the packet either. He asked if that was
missing or is there additional information?
Complainant-Director Kohs stated that Mr. Chitwood would have that information.
Joint Vice President-Respondent Cantrell asked Kohs if he was not familiar with the Ultraviolet
system that was installed in 2005? And did we not tour the Plant together? We invited Mr.
Chitwood to come and see the facility. And do you understand that replaced the chlorine
residual portion that we used to put in?
Complainant-Director Kohs stated these were questions that you would have to ask Mr.
Chitwood and I’m sorry he is not here.
Joint Vice President-Respondent Cantrell asked Kohs what is your opinion as a MUD Director?
Complainant-Director Kohs stated that he thought that effort was made for the ultraviolet
system, and he understands why it was put in there and he takes no issue at this point.
TCMUD No. 1 111 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Joint Vice President–Respondent Carr asked Kohs that you mentioned the MUDs, two of the
issues in this complaint, you voted for, you were a party of. He asked Kohs if we was aware of
that? He further stated to Kohs that when Mr. Scott got advanced to District Manager, you
approved his raise.
Complainant-Director Kohs stated, “I understand that.”
Joint Vice President–Respondent Carr then stated okay, so you understand that potentially, two
of these complaints could be against you.
Complainant-Director Kohs stated, “I understand that.”
Joint Secretary-Respondent Thomas stated that Kohs was careful to say how Mr. Chitwood felt,
but as a co-signer of this complaint, are you also stating that you feel the MUDs are in violation.
Complainant-Director Kohs stated it seemed to him that Mr. Chitwood had the evidence to
confirm that there was a problem there.
Joint Secretary-Respondent Thomas asked if he could ask the question again because Kohs
didn’t answer it. As a co-signer of this complaint, are you also stating that the MUDs were in
violation?
Complainant-Director Kohs stated yes he supported the ethics complaint that Mr. Chitwood put
together.
Joint Vice President-Respondent Cantrell stated that it was his understanding of the complaint
that was filed personally against him, that the only issue was an email that had to do with
chlorine residual and your understanding of Mr. Chitwood’s complaint and your being a co-
signor of the Complaint, is that your understanding, too?
Complainant-Director Kohs stated, “That’s my understanding too.”
Joint President Henry swore in Karen Passiak.
Complainant Karen Passiak thanked the Board for allowing her the opportunity to speak on
behalf of the residents of Trophy Club. She stated, I understand that you as a governing body of
this community have a responsibility to the people to be honest, forthright and comply with
whatever your constituents request. I am a citizen of Trophy Club. I love this Town. And I look
for the health and wealth of this Town by making sure that anything that is questioned with
regards to what MUD directors are saying in their meetings and in affidavits and things like that
are appropriate and honest. I am a citizen not a Director. I listened to how you questioned Mr.
Kohs, and I think it is appalling. I took that information that Mr. Chitwood gave me, based on his
credentials and his ability to look into the materials that he was given and investigated, and I felt
that I should sign the petition because in my opinion a citizen in the Town has the right to
question the people who are governing the Town. I don’t know what is going on with the MUDs,
but I think it is your responsibility to listen to your constituents, to be present and give honest
feedback. All we’re asking for in this complaint that we signed with Mr. Chitwood is for honesty,
and for you to give us the courtesy of a response that answered the points that he presented in
this document. That’s all we are asking for. We want honesty. We want sincerity. Up until the
last meeting, very few of you have I even seen at any of at any Town functions.
Attorney Liston asked President Henry to ask Passiak to come back to the complaint that was
filed and that she be directed back toward the complaint.
TCMUD No. 1 112 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Complainant Karen Passiak apologized, stating she was overwhelmed with the fact that citizens
who signed this affidavit or petition; really, really, sincerely want answers, and I think that is
what you owe to us as the people that live in this Town.
Joint President Henry asked Complainant Karen Passiak one question; when, if ever, did you or
any of the signees, including Mr. Chitwood, try to come talk to us rather than file complaints?
We’re here all the time, ready to talk to any citizen that wants to talk to us. We tried and did
invite any of you to come here. Can you answer why you did not do that?
Complainant Karen Passiak stated that she did not because Ryan Chitwood had done that
previously. It was her understanding that he had filed other information regarding these points
in the affidavit.
Director Twomey advised Complainant Karen Passiak that we have tried to engage Ryan
Chitwood many times to come talk to us, and he has not done that. We have offered to go
through all the information with him by the MUD Manager. The MUD Manager is our key
operating person, goes over the rules with TCEQ, the regulatory authority over us, and Mr.
Chitwood he has not met with him. You’re assuming that he has, through some Open Records
Requests; but he hasn’t. We asked him to meet with us multiple times and he has not done
that. So, when someone is making statements that we’re violating the EPA regulations that are
the one agency I fear the most. Not only do they come after you civilly but also criminally. I
would not mess around with them if you are operating under the assumption that Ryan
Chitwood had come up here and had sat down and had long discussions that has never
happened to my knowledge. Our MUD Manager has invited him and he’s not responded.
Complainant Karen Passiak stated that unfortunately Ryan Chitwood is not here to respond to
that.
Director Twomey stated that he would say the same thing to him right now if he were standing
here.
Complainant-Director Kohs stated with all due respect, he doesn’t mean to talk for Ryan
Chitwood. He knows that there was an offer from the MUD and it was a professional offer, to sit
down. I know when we took the tour of the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and Mr. Chitwood was
invited, and I believe that I can quote Mr. Chitwood in saying that he didn’t want to have a
private meeting, or maybe he has had a private meeting before, and he wanted a public meeting
to get this information public so that was the reason why this information has been presented
the way it has, to make it public.
Director Boclair stated just to clarify a point on that, at least the offer I was involved with to Mr.
Chitwood to tour the plant, he did not decline the offer because of a public meeting, he declined
the meeting because he did not want to associate with criminals, as I recall. And I do have a
question for Karen, when you signed the complaint, did Mr. Chitwood explain to you any of the
attachments or did you understand the documentation that was provided?
Complainant Karen Passiak stated yes, she did.
Director Boclair stated that it makes no sense to me. In at least in one sense, Attachment 7 is
supposedly documenting the wastewater treatment plant while it is actually for the pumping
station for the Water Plant. So it is a completely inappropriate piece of evidence. I was just
curious.
TCMUD No. 1 113 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Complainant Karen Passiak stated she supports what was in the documentation and as a
citizen, I felt that you need to just answer the questions, and provide me your side of the story.
I’m a decent human being. I am willing to listen to both sides of the story, but I want to hear both
sides of the story.
Joint President-Respondent Budarf stated to Ms. Passiak that Steven (Kohs) came to us with a
list of items to put on the agenda. We emailed Steven (Kohs) back that the policy states that we
need to have supporting documentation for agenda items so we can be prepared to talk about
them. We never received that documentation to speak about in open session. All that hit the
airwaves was an email from Mr. Chitwood that we’re refusing to put it on the agenda. So, we’ve
tried. And all we asked was for them to give us the supporting documents like our policy states.
Steven (Kohs) got that email, he forwarded to Mr. Chitwood, and suddenly we get a flurry of
emails saying that we’re refusing to do this. There are certain procedures that have to be
followed.
Joint Vice President-Respondent Cantrell stated he agreed that the public forum is a good place
to get the fact out, and there are enough citizens here to hear the facts. Are you aware or did
you happen to see the article in the local newspaper entitled, “Water Woes Wrapped Up.” They
have done an independent research. They’ve called EPA, they’ve called TCEQ, and that
appeared on November 18, 2009, did you see that?
Complainant Karen Passiak responded that she had not.
Joint Vice President-Respondent Cantrell advised that it is online, Water Woes Wrapped Up.
Vice President–Respondent Carr stated that we do record our meetings, and this is the most
people we have seen at most of our meetings. It’s good to see you. As was already said, we
have to go through certain procedures to get things on the agenda, every director has to follow,
not just Steven (Kohs). We voted on the procedure, to create that procedure. And I’ve see
numerous email trails where it’s been offered for Mr. Chitwood to sit down with Connie (White)
when she was Master District Chair, with Mr. Scott, or with MUD representatives. Mr. Chitwood
has been told by representatives from EPA and TCEQ of the situations, that a lot of these
documents are in error, but he continues to go forward. Some of these things you said Mr.
Chitwood explained to you that were in this complaint. One of those was that Mr. Cantrell was
involved in censuring Director Steven Kohs. Director Cantrell was part of MUD 1. MUD 2 was
the MUD who actually censured Steven Kohs.
Complainant-Director Kohs stated he would like to rebut that. MUD 2 asked MUD 1 if they
wanted to join in, and MUD 1 agreed, so your statement was incorrect.
Joint President-Respondent Budarf stated that as the president of the MUD 2 Board at that time,
MUD 1 was invited to sit in on the Executive Session. They were not asked to vote.
Complainant-Director Kohs stated, that’s right, they joined in.
Joint President-Respondent Budarf stated that MUD 1 was in the executive session called by
MUD 2; however, MUD1 directors didn’t vote on the issue and they didn’t sign the censure.
Complainant Karen Passiak stated she just wanted to know the facts, or if you have different
facts, or you want to present something contrary to Mr. Chitwood. She is welcome to hear them,
as a private citizen.
TCMUD No. 1 114 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Joint President Henry asked if the remaining complainants; Rhonda Chitwood or Barbara Glaser
were present. No one came forward. Director Henry asked if the Complainants present had any
further questions of the respondents.
Complainant Karen Passiak asked if we were going to go through each line item.
Attorney Liston explained that the Complainants are the ones that bring forth the allegations or
charges, and if you would like to rely on the document that you have already filed, that is your
choice to do that. It is your privilege to do that. It is not required for this body go line-by-line.
But you have the opportunity and it is the burden of the complaining party to bring forth the
evidence that it wants before the Board.
Complainant Karen Passiak stated that the document speaks for itself.
Attorney West asked if there were any other witnesses or documents on behalf of the
Complainants.
Complainant-Director Kohs responded that they did not have anything further to offer.
Attorney West took the oath, and provided a history of the MUDs. The original WWTP plant
was developed by Freese & Nichols, a very reputable firm, and a package plant was installed at
the time. By 1980, Trophy Club had started to grow, and a new, permanent plant, designed by
Carter and Burgess, was constructed in the same site and took capacity to .425 mgd. This plant
was paid for by Gibraltar Savings. By 1983, there was further growth, and another study was
done. By 86-87, construction was underway, paid for Independent American Development
Company. This increased plant capacity further. By 2002 - 2003, another expansion occurred.
However, the planning for that expansion began in late 90’s, as a result of two things; growth in
Trophy Club and about in late 90’s, the federal standards changed for treatment plants, and
became stricter, requiring more compliance. Our engineering firm at the time, Carter &
Burgess, were asked to perform a study to comply with the new federal standards in the late
1990s. They said we can meet those standards and even provide for some growth, and they
could provide for growth at build out. The MUDs were tasked with paying with that upgrade as
there were no developers around. EPA became involved in looking at TC WWTP in May 2001,
which was after the MUDs had initiated a study by Carter and Burgess and then Camp Dresser
McKee. The Administrative Order was issued due to being out of parameters on certain things,
due to new stricter standards, and we were going to run out of capacity. The Administrative
Order was not a criminal proceeding, nor a civil proceeding. As a result of the Administrative
Order, we were given 30 days to respond and explain how we were going to address the
problem. West promptly told the EPA that the MUDs had been planning the expansion for two
years with the new standards in place. EPA’s response was that they were happy with West’s
response and they were satisfied with our plan. There was no need to meet, just send EPA a
time schedule, and supply EPA with quarterly reports. The engineering firm provided the
quarterly reports until construction was complete, and that was the end of the EPA at that time.
West’s experience since dealing with the MUDs since 1975, this Board has always been
extremely good, in his opinion, about looking to the future, seeing what the needs are, seeing
what the projected house count would be, and providing for that by planning, by constructing
and putting in place the systems that are necessary. So I welcome the opportunity to remind
this Board of that history and to answer any questions.
Vice President–Respondent Carr asked West as the Attorney dealing with EPA back in 2001,
did he have any recollection of any fines being assessed against MUD 1.
TCMUD No. 1 115 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Attorney West advised there were no fines. West explained that in the letter from EPA at that
time said that if you don’t respond to us within 30 days, if you don’t tell us what you’re going to
do, if you don’t show us your plan, then we have the power to take the next steps, but those
next steps were never needed. They were not taken. There were no any civil actions ever filed;
there were no criminal actions filed, and there were no fines ever paid. It was an administrative
matter to respond to them showing what were doing and when we were going to do it by. So, it
never got beyond that initial stage.
Director Thomas asked West, to your knowledge, did MUD 1 ever fail to respond to TNRCC,
TCEQ or EPA that we were out of parameters. Did we ever fail to respond to anything in an
inappropriate manner?
Attorney West replied not to his knowledge.
Mr. John Zink was sworn in.
Mr. Zink, a certified trainer for TCEQ and a chemist, stated he has an “A” Wastewater Operators
license, and a “B” Surface Water license. Zink is very familiar with our water and is not afraid to
drink the water here in Trophy Club. Zink started as a chemist in ’62, retired from city of Dallas
after 31 years, worked 5 years in California as construction manager, ended up working four or
five years for Upper Trinity all doing water and wastewater training. As a certified trainer for
TCEQ since 2005, he travels to small water systems, teaching sampling and process control,
disinfection and bacteriological monitoring, train on how to do bac e sampling and how to
interpret results and how to prepare for a TCEQ inspection. When you self-report, you’re not
obligated to report violations, you report your effluent standards. And as such, if there is a
problem with EPA or TCEQ, then you come back with an Administrative or Notice of Violation,
only on a major infraction. Zink has toured the plant and is familiar with the distribution of the
water, and basic compliance investigation and all the records keeping and reporting.
Joint President-Respondent Budarf asked Zink if he could explain the difference between an
alleged violation and a violation.
Mr. Zink stated that an alleged violation is the guidelines for CBOD and TSS, and on the water
side, you have fecal Coliform, residual chlorine. The alleged violation, if you don’t agree in
certain cases, if you disagree the way compliance investigator has administered a test; it’s your
obligation as a certified operator to bring that up. There are certain guidelines that you know
whether you violated or not. On the self-reporting form, there’s a template that TCEQ has, you
input your data and it automatically computes violations. And the reason to use that, they do
the math, then you’re using their form. Those are the parameters we talk about water and
wastewater.
Director Cantrell asked for Zink’s comment regarding chlorine trace versus ultraviolet. What do
the most modern plants use?
Mr. Zink answered that the water industry uses UV disinfection for water. Basically, on water
you want to use ozone as your best or primary disinfectant. On well water, you use free
chlorine. On surface water you use chloramine, which is longer lasting. We had a 3 MG per
day plant on Lake Dallas that we discharged activated, sludge treated filter UV radiated directly
into Lake Lewisville 3 or 4 miles up from the intake of our water plant but the wastewater plant
had ozone there. With UV irradiation there is no way to measure it. And the criteria, you have a
banks of lamps, as the water, in this case, wastewater flows past those lamps, it gets irradiated,
and you neuter or neutralize the dna of the chloroform. The problem with certain tolerance on
those lamps, if two or three burn out, and they are adjacent, you have to replace those lamps. I
TCMUD No. 1 116 of 160 16 Feb 2010
personally know that back two years ago, Berger Lake in Fort Worth had an outbreak in
cryptosporidium, that’s a protozoa, that can’t be killed by normal chlorination, so they shut down
Berger Lake. As a result of that, City of Lewisville, installed UV lamps on the return of the
swimming pool, and I think you’re getting ready to do that here on swimming pools. If you are
not processing a large amount of water, you basically just recycle to make up the water by
evaporation. But you irradiate those organisms, you don’t have a trace, but as long as you
maintain the quality of the UV apparatus, you’ll effectively eliminate sterilize those organisms.
Vice President-Respondent Carr asked Zink about UV, and Zink confirmed that UV is a more
efficient process.
Complainant-Director Kohs asked Mr. Zink if he had reviewed the information Mr. Chitwood put
in the Ethics Violation.
Mr. Zink advised he had seen parts of it. He had not gone through the lengthy document.
Complainant-Director Kohs asked Mr. Zink of his opinion of the ethics complaint.
Mr. Zink advised there have been no significant violations for the City of Trophy Club.
Complainant-Director Kohs asked if Mr. Zink could define significant.
Mr. Zink advised there were no monetary fines. Most of what I saw went back ten years ago.
And again, what Mr. West said, if you get an Administrative Order, that sets forth negotiation
meetings, you have a timeline, they do not fine you unless you violate those milestones or you
don’t build those improvements in time.
Complainant-Director Kohs asked Mr. Zink if he was planning on reviewing the rest of the
information.
Mr. Zink advised that he was not, as he is not a board member. I’ve been asked to comment
because of my background. I don’t think its appropriate for me to comment on ethics, but I’ve
seen bits and pieces.
Joint Secretary-Respondent Thomas asked Mr. Zink of his opinion of the Trophy Club
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Mr. Zink replied that as long as you don’t have violations on your standards of BOD and Total
Suspended. I have not personally had a chance to see your new cloth filters. I intend to do
that. First, of all, I know the effluent goes out about four blocks from me in several ponds and is
used for irrigation of the golf course. In answer to your question, it’s an activated sludge plant, it
has full filtration capability and you meet the effluent standards. You either meet them or you
don’t. As long as you meet the effluent standards on TSS and CBOD, you’re fine.
District Manager Scott confirmed with Mr. Zink that he is aware of a 12-part composite.
Mr. Zink replied yes.
District Manager Scott confirmed that we pull samples twice a week, 24 hours, two samples
every two hours, and we do that twice a week, every week. And over the last five years, I think
we had 12 times where we busted permit. And that’s a lot of samples, and that’s less that 1%.
Would you consider that within permit?
TCMUD No. 1 117 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Mr. Zink replied that was certainly acceptable for him.
District Manager Scott asked Mr. Zink, with regard to the complaint, which states in part the
Clean Water Act and adversely affecting human health and environment, and most of our
effluent, as you well know, goes to the golf course. Would you say that’s a significant amount,
12 excursions 5 years?
Mr. Zink replied, no, absolutely not.
Joint Secretary-Respondent Thomas stated that the majority of the effluent or the processed
water that comes out of the WWTP is sold to the Country Club for the golf course. We have had
numerous requests from the City to buy as much wastewater as they can to water the medians
within the City. I don’t think the City would take that step if they thought they were risking the
people that are walking around Trophy Club all the time. Thirdly, if any of it is not utilized by
those two, it actually goes into Lake Grapevine and becomes the drinking water for Highland
Park downstream.
District Manager Scott clarified that the 12-part composite that we have to send in. We do them.
Talem comes out and bottles them up and takes them in. They do all the tests and it takes 14-
18 days before we get the results back. Scott has been accused of signing documentation,
busting parameters, and we don’t even know what the results are for 14-18 days after the
samples. It’s all done automatically. All self-reporting, Talem Lab sends us the results. We
have to self-report and send them to TCEQ.
Mr. Zink advised that Talem is NLAC certified, meaning that they would not be in the business if
they did not meet the quality standards.
Mr. Sun, Senior Vice President with CDM – Camp, Dresser, & McKee, Inc., was sworn in by
Joint President Henry. Mr. Sun has been with CDM for 31 years, and at this point, he is in
charge of the company’s wastewater treatment process group. Mr. Sun was asked to come and
give a brief description of CDM’s involvement in Trophy Club’s WWTP. As he recalls, CDM was
selected in June of 2000 to perform a study of the city’s WWTP and contracted in September of
2000. So, the first task was to do a study of the plant, and the purpose, first was to make
assessment of the capacity and condition of the existing plant. Secondly, to project the City’s
future needs. And, then finally, to recommend improvements that would address the projected
future needs. CDM completed the study in February of 2001, and in April 2001, CDM was
contacted again to perform the design for the recommended improvements and they also
provided services during bidding and construction. The design was completed by January of
2002, and contract was awarded to a contractor shortly after that. And the improvements were
completed in early 2003. That was the extent of CDM’s involvement in the city’s WWTP in a
nutshell.
Joint Vice President-Respondent Carr clarified that the MUD Board actually contracted with
CDM around 2000.
Mr. Sun stated that the contract was signed in September 2000.
Joint Vice President-Respondent Carr responded that part of the ethics charges was that the
EPA violation in 2001 forced us to expand the WWTP. So you confirm that the studies to
expand the plant were actually prior to any EPA alleged violations.
Mr. Sun stated that he has been in this field now about 35 years now, and he has worked on
probably hundreds of wastewater plants, and always wastewater plants at one time or another
TCMUD No. 1 118 of 160 16 Feb 2010
will experience violations. And what EPA typically does is to give the violator time to self-correct
the problem before any fine will be assessed.
MUD Secretary Mary Moore was sworn in by Joint President Henry.
MUD Secretary Mary Moore read from the Ethics Complaint the sections that the respondents
were accused of violating (see attachment “A”). Moore also read into the record two letters from
EPA (see attachment “B”), and finally, Moore read commendations received from TCEQ (see
Attachment “C”).
Attorney West added that the Ethics Policy that the complaints were filed under was not
adopted until September 15, 2009, just a few months ago. So far, the evidence and testimony
heard tonight all relates to actions prior to that date, going back to the censure of last Spring,
and I don’t think it was the intent of this ethics policy to be retroactive but only to apply to the
conduct of the directors after it was adopted. So, West wanted to make that a matter of record,
also.
Joint President Henry advised we would hear from the respondents with Director Cantrell
responding first.
Vice President-Respondent Cantrell, after being sworn in by President Henry, advised he was
appointed to the MUD Board in 2004. Cantrell advised he received an email in his mailbox and
it was from an anonymous individual or group, VoterAltert@SweepTheMUDsOut.com. Cantrell
read the email, which is repeated here: Every Trophy Club Citizen should take the time to
research the EPA violation database and understand just how poorly our MUD operations are
being managed. Of the 447 facilities returned with the keyword search "MUD", Trophy Club
MUD1 is one of two MUDs in the United States that have been out of compliance with the Clean
Water Act in 12 of the last 12 quarters (report attached). Using this criterion, our MUD is the
worst in America with total 171 violations listed. Since Clean Water Act violations are punishable
by fines of $25,000 per day per violation, there can be no cost savings to Citizens as long as we
still have a MUD, only massive liability. This will never change until the Town of Trophy Club
begins the process of absorbing the MUDs. Vote YES to Proposition # 2 to return accountability
to our MUD operations. Visit www.sweepthemudout.org for more information.
Cantrell stated that as a MUD Director he knew that those 12 quarters was wrong; Cantrell then
responded with the following email response: All - The following is sent for information. When
the Waste Water Treatment plant was updated, the Municipal District installed an Ultraviolet
Disinfectant system in place of residual chlorine. Please see Emma Cornelius of EPA comments
below. The violation listed in the excel attachment are in the process of being removed. There is
a fully compliance letter from TCEQ on file at the Mud District Office. If you would like a copy
please advise. Best regards, Gary Cantrell, Director Mud 1 P.S. If you would like to call me
personally, my home number is 817-430-4764. http://www.consolidatemuds.com/
Cantrell added that he did not want to make a political statement, and he didn’t. He just wanted
to correct the record. What we’re talking about here is our effluent water, the water that is
extracted from the wastewater treatment plant. It is Cantrell’s understanding, and he has gone
down to our WWTP 4 or 5 times, and Cantrell is very proud of Trophy Club and our MUD Board
and our systems out here. I believe our water, and not everyone would agree with me, is as
good as any drinking water you’ll find, although we’re not talking about. I think if you go down
and visit this WWTP, it’s an excellent facility, and you can go right down the road and visit
another one that’s an excellent facility, discharging into Lake Grapevine. I personally went
down and talked to Tim Dagg about it, when all this came up. He not only tests the water and
has to send in EPA reports on his lakes and stuff, where the water goes in, he puts chlorine
where you can play golf out there, because he doesn’t have ultraviolet lights to treat it with. So
again, my point is here, I was just trying to address this. I don’t know of anything else to say
TCMUD No. 1 119 of 160 16 Feb 2010
here. I never served on MUD 2; I did live in MUD 2 for about a year as a citizen. As far as I
know, that is the only complaint against me, is that not correct, Steven (Kohs)?
Complainant-Director Kohs stated, “That is my understanding.”
District Manager Scott verified with Mr. Zink that with CBOD and TSS violations, which we have
corrected with the filters we have put in. Is it true or false that CBODs can be affected by
weather, environment, or mechanical breakdown and the only thing that get’s that out is air and
detention time?
Mr. Zink agreed, stating that is true.
Joint President-Respondent Budarf, after being sworn in by President Henry, advised he would
address each complaint individually, and read his response, which follows:
Item 1. They accused Respondents of not conforming to Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the current
Ethics Policy which went into effect in Sept. 2009 and by my own statement at the MUD 1
meeting, this Ethics Order was NOT retroactive. They have failed to give any examples of these
violations and therefore I cannot defend against them. Item 2. They accused Respondents of
not being in compliance with the MUD 1 Clean Water Act permit, among other laws. Again, they
have failed to give any examples for me to defend myself against. Also, I was never a member
of the old MUD 1. Prior to May 2009, I was a member of MUD 2. Item 3. They have alleged
that MUD 1 was a defendant in multiple EPA enforcement actions from 2001 continuing into
2009. During this time, the district manager submitted discharge monitoring reports to the EPA
that indicated in excess of 50 separate permit violations subject to potential penalties of $27,500
per day. We test 17 times a month, 12 months a year, and over the last 5 years we were out of
variance 12 times, out of 1,000-plus tests, which is about 1%. Not bad. Now these do not turn
into a violation if within a certain time period (90 days), the problem is corrected. Also, I was not
a member of MUD 1 until after May of 2009. Prior to May of 2009, I was a member of MUD 2.
The next complaint states that MUD 1 was required to undertake wastewater treatment plant
upgrades due to enforcement orders in 2001. These enforcement orders were due to mandated
EPA changes in guidelines. We did expand the treatment plant from 2/3 capacity to total build
out because we were able to save the residents over a million dollars by doing everything at one
time. Also, I was not a member of MUD 1 until after May of 2009. Prior to May of 2009, I was a
member of MUD 2. Item 4. They continue to state as recently as Dec 2008 MUD 1 continued to
be citied by TCEQ. The Complainants should notice that on the supporting documents these are
alleged violations which are different than violations, which result in fines. Also, I was not a
member of MUD 1 until after May of 2009. Prior to May of 2009, I was a member of MUD 2.
Item 5. The next complaint is that we refused to address citizen concerns in open session and
that we failed to present proof that MUD 1 even made the upgrades. Let me say, we never
refused to address their concerns. We requested they meet with us and supply us with
supporting documents for the items Steven Kohs and Ryan Chitwood wanted on the agenda.
We never received a response or any supporting information from either Kohs or Chitwood.
Next, I take exception to the fact that Ryan Chitwood is alleging MUD 1 sold bonds and did not
perform the work. This could be interpreted as an accusation of theft. If that is the case, then
Complainants should file charges with the appropriate agency. If you have proof of such,
please present it. They also stated we would not waive fees for open record requests. We
have a policy in place for everyone and Ryan Chitwood is no exception. Additionally, we
followed the guidelines set by the State. Also, I was not a member of MUD 1 until after May of
2009. Prior to May of 2009, I was a member of MUD 2. Item 6. The next accusation states
that MUD 1 failed to acknowledge that violations exist. If Steven Kohs would understand the
MUD business, he would know that once a violation occurs a fine is levied. We have never
been fined. They also once again state that we have deceptively presented information from the
EPA referring to a database error. After we received the letter we discussed it in open session
TCMUD No. 1 120 of 160 16 Feb 2010
with Steven Kohs in attendance. Also, I was not a member of MUD 1 until after May of 2009.
Prior to May of 2009, I was a member of MUD 2. Item 7. Complainants go on to claim that we
failed to hold the District Manager accountable for these violations, instead approving a pay
raise despite the repeat violations in 2008. Again, we only had alleged violations in 2008, which
were resolved before they became violations. Also, Robert Scott became the Manager in
November 2008, the same month we had the TCEQ inspection, where we were asked to supply
documentation and make minor adjustments, all of which were done in a prompt and efficient
manner. Item 8. Finally, they accused us of censuring Steven Kohs in an attempt to silence an
appointed official for the accusation of “non existent EPA Violations”. Mr. Kohs was censured for
three reasons; One, he broke the rules of executive session twice. After the first time, he was
warned. Also, concerning the EPA letter, after he was privy to the EPA letter from Michael
Michaud, Kohs still put out an email before the election stating we were still in violation which
was a false. Finally, Kohs was censured for submitting a misleading document meant to
confuse the public.
Budarf added that once again we are here to today to respond to Mr. Chitwood. As I can see,
he once again does not have the courage to face us after accusing us of wrongdoing. The
Citizens for MUD Accountability, all five of them, have filed this complaint. Over the past
several months these complaints have been run up the flagpole by Mr. Chitwood. In his usual
manner, he states the complaints, and does not want to cloud it by the truth or the facts. It
would take the air out of what he is trying to accomplish. He has threatened our MUD Secretary
with criminal action with the Denton County D.A. He has threatened our Manager with hearings
at TCEQ and has called the Board of Directors “criminals.” Mr. Chitwood has been invited to
the office to meet with us to explain his concerns, has been invited to the wastewater treatment
plant for a tour and an explanation of how it works. Every time he has refused. Mrs. Chitwood,
who signed the complaint, has posted on the Internet that we dump 250,000 gallons a year of
raw sewage into Lake Grapevine. She offers no proof and has made no contact with us to verify
the claim. She never takes into account that the TCEQ keeps renewing our permit; this would
not happen if we were dumping raw sewage in to the Lake. Now, we’re forced to waste the time
of the Board and the cost of the attorneys falls onto the customers of the utility district. The
people that are complaining do not want the facts or explanations. In my opinion, they are
getting ready for the next election. They are trying to throw mud on the wall to see if it sticks.
Complainant Karen Passiak asked Budarf if he knew who the author is of this document that we
as the citizens of Trophy Club signed; who is the author?
Joint President-Respondent Budarf replied, five people.
Complainant Karen Passiak asked, “Who is the author of the document in front of you?”
Joint President-Respondent Budarf responded with Steven Kohs, Karen Passiak, Ryan
Chitwood.
Complainant Karen Passiak again asked who is the author? I will ask one more time. Who is
the author of the document? Not the people who supported it and signed it.
Joint President-Respondent Budarf replied, “Beats the heck out of me.”
Complainant Karen Passiak stated, Mr. Budarf, I don’t know who you are, but, it seems that this
is a witch hunt. And all we’re asking as private citizens is to get the truth. All we want is the
water to be safe for our kids, for our families, and everybody else.
Joint President Henry advised Complainant Karen Passiak to ask questions.
TCMUD No. 1 121 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Joint President-Respondent Budarf replied, to answer your question, no one signed this, so the
only signatures I have are the five complainants’ signatures.
Complainant Karen Passiak replied, and I’m one of them.
Attorney Liston interjected, that this is a legal question. It’s not really who is the author, the
question is, who are the complainants who filed the complaint that we’re having the public
hearing on at this moment, and there are the five complainants and they are those specified by
Director Budarf.
Complainant Karen Passiak replied that she supports what Ryan Chitwood, who has the
credentials to question what our wastewater is and where we need to have it looked it and
analyzed and tested, and that’s really what we want. As citizens, that’s what we want. That’s all
I have to say.
President Henry asked Complainant-Director Kohs if he had any questions.
Complainant-Director Kohs responded that he had no questions at this time.
Joint Secretary-Respondent Thomas, after being sworn in, responded to the complaint.
Thomas advised that within the complaint filed, there was specific mention of a portion of an
email that I sent out that was filed within in the complaint. I will address that and also address
with the emails that were published that it’s associated with. Before I do that, I have some
general statements to make. I wrote this response last Friday, January 15, 2010.
Response from MUD Director Jim Thomas to a formal ethics complaint, specifically naming him
as one of the violators, filed with the MUD 1 Board Secretary on December 10, 2009, and
signed by: Steven Kohs, Karen Passiak, Ryan Chitwood, Barbara Glaser and Rhonda
Chitwood. The complaint is divided into three Sections with supporting statements from the 5
complainants. Many of the supporting statements are in error, or describe situations that were
addressed and corrected years ago by the MUDs involved; and done so as quickly as possible
once realized. To better understand the exact nature of the complainants alleged violations,
each were asked to provide further, more detailed, and more accurate information in support of
their complaint. As of Friday, January 15, 2010, when I wrote this response, none had done
so.Over the past 25 years, I have served as a MUD Director on the old MUD 3, the old MUD 2
and the new MUD 1 Boards. I was also a Director on the Master District Board for a number of
years. To the best of my knowledge, myself and the various Directors of each MUD Board I
served with never 1: “failed to act in the public interest”, 2: “failed to comply with the law” and 3:
“failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety in conducting public meetings”. I am particularly
disturbed in that the two major complainants, Mr. Steven Kohs, and Mr. Ryan Chitwood, were
invited on numerous occasions to meet with the MUD District Manager and the MUD Secretary
and review a host of documents sent by various State agencies and the EPA which fully
answered every concern they eventually expressed in their complaint about MUD operations.
They never accepted any of the invitations offered to them, and Mr. Chitwood even refused to
do so on at least one occasion, prior to the filing of their formal complaint. Of major concern to
me personally, is that Mr. Kohs has been a MUD Director for over a year, and has participated
in numerous MUD meetings where these issues, and the various documents refuting them as
being invalid, were discussed in detail by our MUD Director and Secretary. Mr. Kohs and Mr.
Chitwood, plus the other three people they asked to co-sign the complaint with them, have cost
the taxpayers of Trophy Club extensive expense by wasting numerous hours of the MUD staff’s
time, and MUD attorney’s time associated with what, in my opinion, is a frivolous, even possibly
politically motivated, allegation of wrong doings that never occurred. Had either met with our
District Manager and MUD Secretary, all their concerns could have been answered. I would like
to address further one page in the complaint that is entitled – “Attachment 8 – False Statements
TCMUD No. 1 122 of 160 16 Feb 2010
by MUD Officials (con’t)”. In that section of the complaint, a portion of an email I sent on April
27, 2009 is included. Part of one sentence in that email has been “bolded” within the complaint
filed, whereas those words were not bolded in my original email.
Documentation string submitted in response to the complaint:
1) E-mail in which the statement is made by the author within the email itself - “My name
is Steven Kohs, I am a MUD 2 Director, xxxxxx.” Email came from
voter_alert@sweepthemudout.org on Sunday, April 26, 2009.
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 9:58 PM Subject: TROPHY CLUB VOTER ALERT
www.sweepthemudout.org
CITIZENS OF TROPHY CLUB, This May Be Your Last Chance To Hear The Truth ! The town
of Trophy Club is in a dangerous cross road. If you don't know by now our town has an
extremely critical vote on May 9th., and if you still do not know what all the many issues and
truths are......the time has come to become better informed ! My Name Is Steven Kohs, I am a
MUD 2 Director, I was the ONLY one to vote NO, for the MUDS to sue you... I have also
NEVER taken the PAYCHECK as all the other MUD Directors have done. My fear is simple, Will
the citizens of Trophy Club seek the truth, ask the questions needed to cast an informed vote?
Or will they go along with the good ole boy system and devastate our town by a vote supported
by deceit, lies, and smear tactics? CITIZENS OF Trophy Club........DID YOU KNOW..........You
have a MUD candidate convinced by other MUD Directors into running as a SINGLE
ISSUE candidate for Mayor to continue to protect the MUD's greed for power and control, and to
perpetuate the collection of their director fees merely for attending meetings. More concerning is
this candidate is not truly qualified to run our town government which is very obvious by the past
MUD mismanagement, performance and legal investigations. This same MUD candidate
running for Mayor, voted to waste about $ 250,000.00 of YOUR tax payer cash to SUE YOU! To
add insult to injury, she has personally received about $ 42,000.00 of tax payer money along the
way while making this decision to create havoc within our town. You have MUD directors who
have misstated the truth to gain citizens votes. The MUD directors and MUD attorney appear to
be concealing public legal facts until after the election. You have MUD directors who have
bullied town employees to do as they say. You have MUD directors slandering our town
manager unjustly. You have 2 MUD directors who are currently being legally investigated by the
Denton County DA's office for breaking the law for deleting public documents. You have MUD
directors giving large illegal bonuses. The MUDs have been in direct violation of EPA regulation
the last ( 12 ) consecutive quarters, or 4 years, and have done nothing to keep us safe. The cost
to tax payers is approximately $ 470,000.00. The MUDs have had 4 years to correct this and
still allow our town to be at risk. Keep in mind, the same person in charge of the MUDs is now
running for our town mayor. You also have the MUDs openly supporting a TOWN COUNCIL
CANDIDATE who is currently listed as a party in an investigation in the Denton County
DA office for a hate crime. A former MUD 2 director resigned due to financial waste and
mismanagement. I have no idea why this TRUTHFUL information is not being spread like
wild fire. IT SHOULD BE. IF I had my way, I would fire the entire MUD board, and start over
with people who will be honest, just, and make the unprecedented effort to work with the town to
bring peace to our town, less turmoil and personal conflict for our town employees, and to
lessen our town government cost of serving "US" ...The Citizens. And For the Record. Here is
where my support is and where my vote will be placed. (YES) On Town Proposition #
2 Absolutely - ( NO ) On MUD Proposition. The time has come to hear the truth Trophy
Club....... Ask The Questions.... Seek The Truth That THEY Do Not Want You To Know. Stay
tuned for part two of this report..... www.sweepthemudout.org
2) Included within an email I sent out on Monday, April 27, 2009, which is attached within
the complaint, are the words: ‘I promised myself early-on that I would try to stay out of the
“garbage” emails that are flying all over the place but one came out Sunday that I simply cannot
ignore. It was written by Steven Kohs and was published via the “anonymous” email address of
voter_alert@sweepthemudsout.org. I have never read so many inaccurate statements, totally
incorrect information and improper slanderous statements concerning a number of outstanding
TCMUD No. 1 123 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Trophy Club residents as I did in this one document. It is SO outrageous that the MUD
Manager, Mr. Robert Scott, has sent a response today to everyone copied on Steven’s original
email, detailing as much as possible the inaccuracies. Xxxxxxxxx’.
3) MUD Manager Robert Scott’s response, dated April 27, 2009, to Steven Kohs’ email
which was sent out from voter_alert@sweepthemudout.org on April 26, 2009. This is the
response I referred to in my email above. District Manager Scott’s response to MUD 2
Director Kohs’ email of April 26, 2009 at 9:58 p.m. April 27, 2009
Mr. Kohs is not an elected MUD2 member. He sits on the MUD2 board as the result of being
appointed to fill the vacated spot of one elected member who could not attend meetings
regularly. Mr. Kohs, in his short tenure, has an unfortunately consistent pattern of
demonstrating destructive and untruthful representation on the MUD2 board. His e-mail of April
26, 2009 at 9:58 p.m. is disheartening for the libelous and slanderous information it contains.
Please use reason and good judgment as you navigate these issues. The MUDs are long-term,
stable entities which have served as the foundational pieces for the beautiful town that we
enjoy. The MUDs’ functions are provided by state law, and the MUDS follow state protocol
accordingly. There are differences in a MUDs functioning and a city government’s functioning
which may leave room to misinterpret and twist the appearance of a MUD function which Mr.
Kohs has done at others’ expense. Mr. Kohs mentions “paychecks” as if MUD directors are
greedy and serve for the nominal fees they receive (per state law) for being MUD directors.
This hurtful comment is misleading. It is a misguided issue and a red herring to pull voters away
from the true issues at hand in the election. State law provides that MUD directors receive
small fees (“director’s fees”) per meeting day or day of performing other business of the MUDs.
City governments are not provided the same provision in state law. It is disheartening that our
long-standing, 27-year director, Ms. Connie White, was attacked in Mr. Kohs’ e-mail. She has
been a faithful servant full of wisdom and quality guidance, serving on state-wide boards in the
performance of her duties as your elected official. The amount mentioned is comprised of the
state specified fees that Ms. White has properly received over 27 years. Mr. Kohs statements
that certain persons are being investigated are also a part of the muck that has become a part
of this election. Mr. Kohs needs to be more specific if he is going to make these types of
statements. Part of the problem here is that many people are saying many things without
specific, identifying facts. If Mr. Kohs cared that you knew the truth, he would give you the tools
to find out the truth. Otherwise, if you believe him, it seems that the whole system is corrupt, but
the reality could not be further from the truth. Are MUD members being unfairly accused of
wrongdoing? Where are the criminal charges that are supposedly arising out of the
allegations? Mr. Kohs can show none of that. Please be wise as you evaluate communications
sent to you. The legal fees issue is also a red herring. The issues for this election involve what
is on the line if the Town takes over MUD2 versus what is on the line if the two MUDs merge.
The legal fees were necessary to protect the election, and we do not know the amount of the
litigation at this point. It is still ongoing because the election is not yet over, but the $250,000.00
is a misstated amount. There has been no expenditure at this point near that figure. The
biggest figure “transferred” (not “spent” but “transferred”) was a $150,000.00 retainer to a law
firm for the purpose of fighting a hostile takeover and to make sure the election would occur and
the voters would be allowed to vote. (Unused portions of retainers are refunded. We have not
even exhausted this retainer.) This has been unfortunately necessary in light of the Town’s
repeated attempts to abolish MUD2 before the vote could take place. It is gratefully now the
case that the election will go forward as planned. There has been no withholding of public facts.
Such allegation is inflammatory toward the MUD attorneys as well as MUD directors. But as
you know, such a statement would not be true given the rigorous standards and rules applicable
to attorneys by our state. Although I cannot understand many of Mr. Kohs vague and
unsubstantiated statements, and therefore can’t even comment to each specifically except to
say that there is no truth to them, I can say on the allegation of deleted documents that I
personally have evaluated the claim in that regard rigorously. I can clearly tell you that no
documents have been deleted. Such statement is false. Probably of most concern to me is the
TCMUD No. 1 124 of 160 16 Feb 2010
allegation that the MUDS are in violation of EPA regulations. The MUDs have not been and are
not in violation of the EPA. The state body that coordinates with the federal EPA is called the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). There were some glitches in the
communication between TCEQ and the EPA. The MUDs were not in violation, and this issue
has been cleared up, and I am attaching e-mails to show that this was a miscommunication
issues between the two environmental control bodies (state and federal). When we made
improvements to our system, the paperwork was slow to be processed. It appeared that there
was a violation when actually we had upgraded to a superior system. Please see the attached
e-mail if you have a concern in this area. Our system is stellar. No violations. No fines. And
the EPA and TCEQ are very sorry to have caused this trouble for us. The disheartening part is
that Mr. Kohs knows this and would choose to misguide others. Thank you for the time and
attention to this message. It is important that you can read with intentionality the various
barrage of information being thrown at you. I hope this information is helpful. Thank you, Robert
Scott, Trophy Club MUD Manager, 682-831-4610
4) Press release on the censure of Steven Kohs by MUD 2 – dated Thursday, May 14, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009
Lisa Hennek, Town Secretary, [682] 831-4600 Trophy Club MUD2 Press Release
On Tuesday, May 12, 2009, the Board of Directors of Trophy Club MUD2 issued a public
reprimand and censure to MUD2 Director Steven Kohs. Specifically, the Board found that
Director Kohs provided false information to others and to the police regarding discussions held
in closed session; relayed false information to others regarding at least two staff members of the
Town of Trophy Club, Texas; sent out a communication that contained false, misleading, and
inflammatory statements and accusations including (but not limited to): non-existent EPA
violations and fines, erroneous accusations regarding a director of Trophy Club Municipal Utility
District No. 1, unfounded allegations of corruption and mismanagement, unsubstantiated
statements regarding legal fees, characterization of a bonus for an employee as illegal,
character attacks of directors for receiving state-specified director’s fees, and untrue allegations
that directors were being investigated by the District Attorney’s office. Such actions, the Board
found, are damaging, irresponsible, and contain a high-probability of impairing the Districts’
functioning. Based on the charges against him, Director Kohs was asked to resign from the
Board, and Director Kohs refused. Director Kohs further refused to answer for his behavior
stating only, “no comment.” Through the public reprimand and censure, the MUD2 Board
publicly announces that it does not support such behavior and interference by Director Steven
Kohs, and that any liability that may arise due to such actions by Director Steve Kohs shall be
personal to Director Steven Kohs. The MUD2 Board has not sanctioned such behavior and will
not sanction such actions by Director Steven Kohs which are detrimental to the MUDs’ interests
to provide the most cost effective water, sewer and related services to the District’s ratepayers.
Thomas added the documents that he read, were his own comments. He didn’t go into detail
about not being a director on MUD as Mr. Budarf had pointed out, but he was on the Master
District Board, which dealt with basically all the issues of operation, so he chose not to take that
path. Thomas is very disappointed that we could not get Ryan to come down and meet with us.
We could not get Steven to meet with us to discuss the issues that they had which we had full
documentation that they were erroneous and incorrect and invalid. We could have avoided this
entire thing. We could have avoided all the costs. Karen, I appreciate the fact that you wanted
the truth to get out, and hopefully, after this meeting tonight, that will be the case, and this thing
will be done.
Complainant Karen Passiak stated that unfortunately she missed the meaning. It seems that
everything that you read was directed at Steven (Kohs). And, you know, I go back to the
documentation; that we have safe, clean water for our children and our residents, and
everything, and forgive me, there are times in this meeting, there have been snickers, and I
don’t see anything humorous. Mr. Thomas, you seem like a nice guy, you do, but I know for a
TCMUD No. 1 125 of 160 16 Feb 2010
fact went around to my neighbors and asked them personal questions about me as a MUD
Director. Please tell me that there is some meaning to all that reading that you just gave.
Joint Secretary-Respondent Thomas asked that his reading be included in the minutes,
formally, as written (included above). The first page has to do with my response to the three
general statements of the complaint that apply to all of us. The second piece of my answer had
to do with the fact that Mr. Chitwood chose specifically to address the comment that I had in an
email based on an email that Steven sent out, and I was addressing that. Also, I was
addressing the fact that in this, the censure of Steven came out as a MUD 2 censure when
Steven was on the MUD 2 Board. It was not a MUD 1 censure.
Complainant Karen Passiak asked, aren’t you a part of the Board that appointed Steven Kohs to
the directorship and MUDs.
Joint Secretary-Respondent Thomas answered, yes, he was.
Complainant Karen Passiak then asked, didn’t you find qualities in Steven Kohs that as a citizen
that he would bring value to the MUD Board at the time?
Joint Secretary-Respondent Thomas replied that he thought we’re getting off the subject. Let
me answer the question. We were a very short time away from having an election, and it cost
approximately $3,000 to $3,500 of MUD money to hold an election. Even though it is held with
the City, it is very, very expensive. Steven was the only person who filed to run in the election.
We had an open position. It made no sense whatsoever to the four of us that were remaining to
hold an election, when Steven was the only one running and we would elect him. When he
came before us, we asked Steve if he would consider withdrawing his nomination, allowing us to
not hold the election, and if he would do that, we would in fact appoint him at the next meeting
to the open seat. The last day for the filing of nominations, Mr. Greg Lamont and Ms. Lynn Hale
filed. Now, we have two people running. And this Board chose to honor the commitment that it
made to Mr. Kohs, and we went ahead and appointed him to the Board, because he had
withdrawn his name and could no longer run for election. So, had the election occurred and had
we not appointed him, one of the other two people would have been elected and Mr. Kohs
would have had no opportunity to serve.
Complainant Karen Passiak asked, don’t you find qualities in a person that’s going to take public
office and check on them and make sure they’re a credible citizen?
Joint Secretary-Respondent Thomas stated we have appointed four or five directors to the
various boards during the 25 years I’ve been on the boards. It’s been difficult to find people to
serve in most of those cases. And most of the time, we have had to go out and ask someone,
would they please be involved. When Steven applied and the circumstances occurred, we
never had to go check on the background of anybody before. If someone was interested, we
were glad to have them, because it prevented us from having to go out and beg someone to
come on board. Steven was ready to serve. We were ready to have him serve; therefore, we
appointed him to the Board, and thought we were going to save the taxpayers thousands of
dollars by not having to hold an election.
Complainant Karen Passiak replied, I n the comment you made about this taking the taxpayers’
money and everything, don’t you think as a citizen to question a public servant. I look at my
neighbor, who is Ryan Chitwood, and that’s what he does for a living. And I sat down with him,
and I went through the paperwork, and I understood, you know, that there was some concern
there. But, don’t you believe that it is money well spent to answer the questions, confirm, right
or wrong, but as public servant, I would think that you would want me to know the truth, and do
TCMUD No. 1 126 of 160 16 Feb 2010
everything possible based on a petition that we did. Okay, point of order.
Joint Secretary-Respondent Thomas stated that the question is where is Mr. Chitwood tonight?
Complainant Karen Passiak replied she didn’t know.
Joint Secretary-Respondent Thomas stated the insinuation has been by yourself that he was
the author of the document and the rest of you were just signors. Where is he tonight? Now,
I’m going to ask you this. He has come to two MUD meetings that I sat in and spoke as a
citizen about these complaints and immediately left, stating he could not stay around to hear our
answers. He was invited numerous times to come here, and refused to do so.
President Henry asked Complainant-Director Kohs if he had any questions or comments.
Complainant-Director Kohs responded not at this time.
Joint Vice President-Respondent Carr, after being sworn in by Joint President Henry, provided
his response to the compliant.
Joint Vice President-Respondent Carr stated that as far as to notification to citizens, there’s a
report that comes out every year, Water Confidence Report, it’s online; it’s posted, that people
can actually look at the quality of our water. So, that’s available. Through various channels of
the Internet, obviously Mr. Chitwood knows where some of this stuff is, there’s either testing
from EPA or TCEQ, so if a citizen has any questions at all, I invite them to either check the
Internet, to check the MUD website, or come to a meeting. As far as the statement that it’s a
waste of time, I feel it’s not a waste of time. The best thing to do, if a person has a question,
answer it. Again as people mentioned, that invitations were given to Mr. Chitwood. Invitations
to put things on the agenda were given, none of that ever happened. I’m kind of insulted that
Mr. Chitwood did all this work to file an Ethics Charge and he doesn’t show up. I mean that
says something to me, that it’s really not that important to him even though he did all this work.
Saying that, I have served as MUD Director since being elected in May of 2000. At that time,
MUD 1 and MUD 2 operated independently. In October of 2000, we created the Master District
as the operating arm to provide water and wastewater service to customers in Trophy Club and
outside of Trophy Club. This was done to reduce the overlapping cost and run more efficiently.
As I said at the onset, I think it is confusing that Mr. Chitwood, who authored this, chose four
directors to target when the MUD 1 Board when it was in operation operated as a five-member
directors. MUD 2 operated as a five-member director board, and then the Master District was
the combination of MUD 1 and MUD 2. When we take action tonight, it requires a majority vote.
So at least you have three members when it was five, or six as it is now. So it kind of puzzling
that he only targeted the four of us. What I found, we were the only ones who actually
answered Mr. Chitwood in emails. My claim to fame was my statement; My knowledge and to
the contacts at TCEQ and EPA, which have both spoken to you numerous times, have no
record of any infractions or records of fines paid by the TC MUDs. I think the presenters and
the information provided tonight, that’s a true statement. If someone differs, please provide me
the information. I wonder why I’m actually included in this. Another part was minutes,
Attachment 4 of this Ethics, which was in regard to a MUD meeting, a MUD 1 meeting, on
March 6, 2002, again I was on MUD 2, I wasn’t present. It shows the directors that were
present; my name is not on there. I wasn’t in attendance, so I have no idea why that was
included and I was accused of that. As far as the bond that Mr. Chitwood refers to, doing that
much research, I applaud him but it was incorrect. It wasn’t a $3 million bond, it was $3,510,000
bond, and out of that amount, the breakdown is the WWTP Expansion was $1,284,000, and this
is MUD 2 only, because that’s all I was on was MUD 2. The ground storage tank, which had
nothing to do with the EPA allege violations. We spent $761,000 for the build-out of the
TCMUD No. 1 127 of 160 16 Feb 2010
expansion of the treatment plant. No. 3 – Master District Connections Charges was $807,900
that came from MUD 1. At that time, MUD 2 purchased a number of connections and any
existing expansion of Trophy Club was going to be annexed into MUD 2, so we bought those
connections from MUD 1 and we paid them $871,900. That money they used as their portion or
part of their portion for the expansion. So whenever I read here, as far as expansion of the
WWTP of $1,284,000, MUD 1 paid the equivalent amount of it. The next one was water line
reimbursement, $100,000. How could any EPA or TCEQ violations or allege violations have
anything to do with a water line replacement or reimbursements? Contingencies $204,000;
engineering costs $201,000; legal fees and non-construction costs add up $3,510,000 that was
done June 6, 2002. Another thing he failed to mention, there were two additional bonds that
didn’t even come into this Ethics. One of them, was in 2003, FDIC Settlement from
bankruptcies from prior developments, and I’m not going to elaborate, because its not part of it,
but that was $1.2 million. Last bond was May 26, 2005, that was MUD 2, to save the
customers’ money. We actually bought down or refunded a prior bond that was done in 1995.
That was $3,134.000. Those are the three bonds from 2002 onward. Was the bond in 2002 a
result of an imposed fund or action by EPA or TCEQ? I think Mr. Sun confirmed that we started
way before that 2001 alleged violation. I’m not going to go into all of the things of the Ethics.
Mr. Thomas, Mr. Budarf, and Mr. Cantrell have addressed it. As far as the raise, at that time, it
was Utility Supervisor Robert Scott. Every business I’ve been in or company, we you move up
the ladder and take on more responsibility, you get a raise. So, I’m confused about that. And
Mr. Kohs, who is one of the signatures on here, actually voted for it, so his name should be with
my name as far as an ethics violation if there was anything guilty about that, which there wasn’t.
It was a pay raise. He went from Utility Supervisor; we had a contract person Walter Fitzpatrick
in the District Manager’s slot. He retired, and Mr. Scott was very well qualified to take that
position, so we gave him a raise equivalent to what Mr. Fitzpatrick was making or somewhere in
that ballpark. As far as the censuring of Mr. Kohs, he was censured for statements he made,
allegations, or false statements I should say, regarding a council person, the town manager, the
MUD Directors, and some of it was discussed in Executive Session, which I rather not discuss
until everyone approves discussing that, but that was the reason he was censured in my eyes. I
voted for it, and when Mr. Kohs was asked, and I asked him several times, I asked him at the
candidate forum night, can you explain where you got this from? Because there was actually
another flyer that he put a statement on that was part of a candidate’s flyer, Mr. Moss, that he
mentioned some dollar amounts, and I said, can you provide backup on this, “No, that’s just
what someone told me.” And then at the candidate forum, I asked him about this other
document, and he couldn’t comment on that. And then again prior to being censored, he was
asked to comment, and at least defend yourself, tell us you made those comments, “No,
comment.” That’s all he said, plain and simple. Every question asked of him by another
director, “No, comment.” “No, comment.” At least defend yourself. As far as records fees, again
we adopted a Texas Legislative Guideline or a Record of Fees to be charged for Open Records
Requests. Again Mr. Kohs voted for that just like all the other directors.
Joint President Henry asked Complainants if they had any questions or wished to respond.
Complainant-Director Kohs responded, “No comment at this time.”
Complainant Karen Passiak stated she would make it short. Mr. Carr thank you. Out of the four
explanations, yours was probably the most detailed and stuck to the point, so I thank you for
that. Without pointing fingers at people, I thank you for that and I applaud you for that. I just
want to be able to understand, and answering the questions for what is presented is what I want
as a citizen. I’m still trying to grapple and I need kinda your answer on this one. As to why a
private citizen somebody cannot file an Ethics Violation document like that?
Joint Vice President-Respondent Carr replied that you can, and you did, and there are
TCMUD No. 1 128 of 160 16 Feb 2010
procedures that we go through, which were doing right now.
Complainant Karen Passiak asked what bearing does that have on what has been voted on or
has been voted in a MUD session. He has every right to question like everybody else that’s a
citizen of Trophy Club; does he (Steven Kohs) not.
Joint Vice President-Respondent Carr replied, what I’m saying, in this Ethics charge and you
signed it and Mr. Kohs signed it and Mr. and Mrs. Kohs and one other person. They made an
allegation that this was illegal, but he voted for the same thing, it was unanimous. If my action
was illegal, how can he file an ethics charge against me when he did the same thing?
Complainant Karen Passiak stated that he didn’t do it alone, there were citizens that collectively
documented this.
Joint Vice President-Respondent Carr stated he (Kohs) supported it and he shouldn’t of signed
it or he could have signed it and said that he didn’t support this one and this one, and that’s
what I would have done, in my personal opinion.
Complainant Karen Passiak stated, thank you, of the four of you, you were probably the most
professional in your delivery, so thank you for that.
Joint President Henry closed the Public Hearing, and asked for a motion for Gary Cantrell.
Director Twomey made a two-part motion, and moved that the Ethics Complaint 2009-1210 be
dismissed because of procedural defect. The allegations complained of occurred before the
Code of Ethics under which it was filed were in effect. Secondly, the Board has nevertheless
considered the evidence presented by the Complaining Parties and the Board finds there’s no
merit to sustain the Ethics Complaint 2009-1210 against Director Gary Cantrell. Director Boclair
seconded the motion. Floor opened for discussion. Director Cantrell advised there was another
investigation done by the Alliance Newspaper, and I won’t bore everybody with the details, but
they called TCEQ, and talked to a Mr. Sid Slocum, and he said that that was a mistake on the
12 quarters and stuff, too. So, I want to make that clear that even the newspaper came up with
same. It’s Water Woes Wrapped Up, Wednesday November 18, 2009. And Cantrell stated the
he would abstain. Director Twomey advised that he is relatively new and a lot of this
information was pertaining to what happened in 2001-2002-2003, but I’m also well aware that as
a Board, we knew that there was a problem with the ECHO reporting system. In the last couple
years, we knew that this was an issue, but we knew that the reporting system was wrong. And I
was there when that was being discussed, and Steven Kohs was at the Board meeting, and I
have this problem where, you can make a complaint about something when you know there is
an error in the system, and it’s really not an issue. And to keep festering this up for other
reasons, I just don’t understand, because you’re here to serve the public and not serve other
issues. Director Hase added that he thought every question or complaint that you folks asked us
that could be answered was answered. There are some in here, can’t be answered because
you didn’t give us enough information. And I’ll just take Complaint No. 2 as an example. It says
that during this time 2001-2009, the MUD District Manager (Cathy Morgas, Walter Fitzpatrick
and Robert Scott) submitted discharge monitoring reports to EPA that indicated in excess of 50
separate permit violations subject to potential fines of $27,500. We don’t know what 50 you’re
talking about. We can’t find them. We will answer the question, but we don’t have information
to answer it. So I think we answered everyone that we could, some of them we can’t answer
because we don’t have enough information. Motion carried 7-0-2, with Director Cantrell and
Kohs abstaining (Director Fair absent).
Director Twomey stated that he would make a two-part motion with regard to Director Jim
TCMUD No. 1 129 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Budarf; Twomey moved that the Ethics Complaint 2009-1210 be dismissed because of
procedural defect. The allegations complained of occurred before the Code of Ethics under
which it was filed were in effect. Secondly, the Board has nevertheless considered the evidence
presented by the Complaining Parties and the Board finds there is no merit to sustain the Ethics
Complaint 2009-1210 against Director Jim Budarf. Director Boclair seconded the motion.
Motion carried 7-0-2 with Directors Budarf and Kohs abstaining (Director Fair absent).
Director Twomey made a two-part motion, with regard to Director Jim Thomas; Twomey moved
that the Ethics Complaint 2009-1210 be dismissed because of procedural defect. The
allegations complained of occurred before the Code of Ethics under which it was filed were in
effect. Secondly, the Board has nevertheless considered the evidence presented by the
Complaining Parties and the Board finds there’s no merit to sustain the Ethics Complaint 2009-
1210 against Director Jim Thomas. Director Boclair seconded. Motion carried with 7-0-2 with
Directors Thomas and Kohs abstaining (Director Fair absent).
Director Twomey made a two-part motion with regard to Kevin Carr; Twomey moved that the
Ethics Complaint 2009-1210 be dismissed because of procedural defect. The allegations
complained of occurred before the Code of Ethics under which it was filed were in effect.
Secondly, the Board has nevertheless considered the evidence presented by the Complaining
Parties and the Board finds there’s no merit to sustain the Ethics Complaint 2009-1210 against
Director Kevin Carr. Director Boclair seconded. Motion carried with 7-0-2 with Directors
Carr and Kohs abstaining (Director Fair absent).
Director Thomas stated that he hoped that Kohs’ no vote on this means that the answers to the
complaint were to your satisfaction and you got the information that you needed tonight. I’m just
sorry Ryan wasn’t here so that hopefully, he could also receive the same information, and I just
wish that somehow you can impart to Ryan, that we are more than happy, our staff is more than
happy to meet with them. We will show him anything and everything. He certainly has the right
to complain. I’m not telling any citizen they don’t have that right. Everything in the complaint
could have been satisfied and answered for him if he had just taken the time to come up and
meet with us.
Mr. Bill Armstrong, 18 Avenue 20, addressed the Board. Armstrong stated that he was fortunate
to be here when Mr. Chitwood showed up here at one of the MUD meetings, and stood up and
made a lot of accusations, and then before anyone had any opportunity to answer his
accusations, he showed us all his backside as he walked out the door and never listened to the
detailed explanation that were given about our drinking water. I’m very disappointed that he
didn’t listen to that, that this thing got to this point, what we’re working on three hours now I
guess, right now, attorney fees, and what have you, and you guys showed incredible restraint in
replying to the accusations, and I think you did really good. You guys are so open. I just really
don’t understand the accusations, but thank you for showing the openness.
Board took a brief recess, at 8:40 p.m., resuming at 8:48 p.m.
President Henry asked if anyone wished to address the Board, and no citizens expressed an
interest.
Attorney West advised that for the Record, each of the Respondents did waive their right to
respond to this complaint in Closed Session.
3. Receive District Manager's Report – 2010-13-M1
a. Water pumped vs. billed
b. Monthly Revenue for Wastewater Treatment Plant
TCMUD No. 1 130 of 160 16 Feb 2010
c. Update on Water Plant Booster Pump (formerly VFD)
d. Update on Bond for Fire Station
District Manager Scott updated the Board, and addressed the Board’s questions.
Board discussed issues surrounding the Bond for the Fire Station.
Action: Discussion only.
President Henry moved to Agenda No. 11, so that Mayor White could address the Council.
Upon completion of Agenda No. 11, President Henry resumed with Agenda No. 4.
4. Receive Finance Director's Report – 2010-21-M1
a. Monthly Update
Finance Director DuBose updated the Board, and addressed the Board’s questions.
Action: Discussion only.
5. Review and Approve Disbursements & Variance Report - 2010-14-M1
a. November – 2009
b. December 2009
Director Thomas moved to approve the Disbursements and Variance Report for November and
December 2009. Director Twomey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously (9-0).
6. Receive Update from Fire Chief Thomas - 2010-12-M1
a. To provide Board with a monthly update and address the Board's questions.
Fire Chief Thomas updated the Board, and addressed the Board’s questions. Additionally,
Danny Thomas thanked the Women’s’ Club for a $1,200 grant he applied for and received form
the Women’s’ Club.
Action: Discussion only.
7. Receive Town Council Update - 2010-15-M1
a. Councilwoman Wilson to provide Board with an update of Council meetings, notices
and relevant business.
Councilwoman Wilson provided the following update to the MUD Board:
1. Discussions regarding the joint sessions, which Mayor White previously addressed.
Councilwoman Wilson added that the two entities have not had a joint session to discuss the
issue regarding shared employees and it is her belief that it would be beneficial to both parties.
Action: Discussion only.
8. Discuss and take appropriate action to offer consent for TCEQ Order, approving
the issuance of $2 million in unlimited tax bonds for Trophy Club Fire Station.
Tabled to January 25th meeting date.
Action: Discussion only; tabled to January 25th meeting date.
9. Discuss and take appropriate action regarding drilling for a new Trinity Well.
2010-06-M1
Tabled to January 25th meeting date.
Action: Discussion only; tabled to January 25th meeting date.
TCMUD No. 1 131 of 160 16 Feb 2010
10. Discuss and take appropriate action to consider Proposal for new High Speed
Service Plant Pump Installation. 2010-07-M1
Tabled to January 25th meeting date.
Action: Discussion only; tabled to January 25th meeting date.
11. Discuss and take appropriate action to adopt one of the four scenarios presented
by the SEMO Committee with final implementation to be completed by September
30, 2010. 2010-01-M1
Town Mayor White requested having a strategy session with the MUDs. Council had proposed
a date of February 6, 2010. White advised that Council is willing to meet on the January 25th,
during a MUD meeting; however, she would like to do both, as White believes this is an
important issue, with tremendous ramifications for both entities and our citizens. Adding, this is
too big of an issue to just meet on the 25th, and then Council would invite MUDs to attend the
session on Saturday, February 6, 2010.
Town Mayor White asked that the Board hold off on voting on this issue until after we meet.
President Budarf advised that the attorneys will not need to be present if and when the Board
has an off-site joint meeting.
MUD Secretary Mary Moore was directed to finish up the Chart and forward to Town Manager
Emmons, Mayor White, and Council.
Action: Discussion only.
12. Discuss and take appropriate action regarding amendment of TCMUD 1's Fire
Plan, to include Public Safety. 2010-02-M1
Director Budarf moved to have Attorney West move forward on redoing MUD 1’s Fire Plan.
Director Twomey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously (9-0).
13. Discuss and take appropriate action on Ethics Complaint 2010-0111-A, filed by
Greg Lamont. 2010-25-M1
a. Kevin Carr
Director Budarf asked if we could do Agendas 13 and 14th together, which the Board agreed.
Attorney West explained to the Board his understanding of the Ethics Complaint submitted by
Greg Lamont. When the first Ethics Complaint was filed under this new policy, the complaint
was determined to be a public issue. West believes that the issues should be separate. The
question before the Board is do the charges as submitted satisfy the basic requirements of the
Ethics Policy to such an extent that you feel like in the public interest it ought to be put on the
agenda for a full hearing at your next meeting, at which an agenda will be posted, which is not
tonight, but would be the next meeting, perhaps the 25th, and that’s the question before you. In
reviewing each of the complaints, this appear mostly to be complaints against actions taken by
individuals who happen to be MUD Directors, but it was not really action taken as a MUD or
during a MUD meeting, as much as it was things that had been filed in separate lawsuits to
which the MUD is not a party, and I have some concern that that this is not the same type of
complaint as you heard earlier this evening which had to do more with the operations of the
District and the way the MUD acts and so forth, and those are decisions that the board should
question and answer as to what you feel about these complaints that have been filed and do
you feel that they meet the standard that’s in the policy in order to schedule them for a full
hearing at the next available meeting.
TCMUD No. 1 132 of 160 16 Feb 2010
Attorney Liston added that she shares the same concerns as Attorney West. Liston clarified
that Jim Budarf and Kevin Carr have filed affidavits in a civil lawsuit unrelated to the business of
the MUD. Liston’s understanding, as she has read the pleadings, Jim Budarf and Kevin Carr
didn’t themselves file any documents or in any way enter themselves into that civil lawsuit. The
attorneys involved in that civil litigation took affidavits of Kevin Carr and Jim Budarf, and the
attorneys filed those affidavits. Liston added that she has the same concerns as Attorney West,
and she doesn’t see this as District business; however, that is the Board’s decision.
Joint President-Respondent Budarf stated he read the complaint and referred to a comment on
the first page that states that the sworn affidavit has caused and required additional taxpayer
funds to be paid to the MUD attorneys. Budarf advised that he did not use the MUD attorney.
Director Cantrell moved that the Board finds that Ethics Complaint 2010-011 A and B fails on its
face to present a violation of the Code of Ethics. Accordingly, the hearing of this complaint
would be outside the interest of orderly governance, integrity, and public confidence; therefore, I
move that Ethics Complaint 2010-011 A and B against Kevin Carr and Jim Budarf be dismissed
at this time. Director Hase seconded the motion. Floor opened for discussion. Director Budarf
commented that he did not use District attorneys. Budarf did not cause any extra taxpayer funds
to be expended. If you look at the complaint, the comments, Respondents failed to create an
atmosphere of respect; respondents have not conducted their lives with honesty, integrity, and
fairness. That is not an issue for this Board. This was a civil lawsuit, someone came to my
house and sat in my front yard and interviewed me. I have been inundated with Open Records
Requests concerning this issue, and my response has been that since these parties are not part
of the lawsuit, I haven’t responded, because I would have violated Mr. Lamont and Mr. Kohs’
privacy, so I have made every effort not to do that. Budarf feels that instead of paying their
attorneys to do proper research, they’re trying to use the Open Records Act to get free
information for their attorneys. Budarf has been contacted by Mrs. Nick Sanders, Roger
Williams and a number of other people, and all of them have received the same response, that
they are not part of this suit; therefore, he did not provide them any information because that
violates privacy. Budarf believes that this Ethics Complaint is without justice and beyond the
scope of this Board. Director Cantrell believes that if there is an issue, then the issue should be
taken up with Denton County Court. Director Carr advised that he, too, did not consult with any
MUD personnel, or Town Staff personnel, or attorney. He had an investigator call me and ask if
he was knowledgeable about some situations. Carr, being in the insurance business, is quite
familiar with affidavits. Carr does not believe in taking sides, rather let the civil courts decide the
facts. Director Kohs asked if either of you referred to yourselves as a MUD Director. Director
Carr said, “No, sir.” Director Budarf stated that he would have to look; however, information that
he had acquired by sitting on this Board to repeat as long as it is not Executive Session to
repeat to an investigator as an individual is perfectly allowed under law. Director Carr advised
that he was asked how he knew individuals, and Carr responded it was through Town Council
and MUD meetings. Carr never said he was a director at the meeting; he was in attendance.
Budarf advised that he and Carr are not the only two directors who have given sworn affidavits,
why are we the only two directors on there? Attorney Liston clarified the attorney fees
argument, advising that she did review the petition, and she was never contacted by Budarf or
Carr, but later there was Open Records Request relating to the petition.
Attorney West advised that part of what he read in the Ethics Complaint seemed to be that
these affidavits were incorrect or false. If that’s correct, the Texas Judicial System has penalties
that can apply to false testimony, false affidavits and that would be the avenue to pursue by
anyone who feels false information has been filed in an affidavit. The fact that they are or not a
MUD Director is not really the issue. And the Ethics Policy that has been adopted by this Board
talks about the Board and acting as a member of the Board. There was a no authorization
given to anyone by the Board in that situation. They were acting as private citizens, and have
TCMUD No. 1 133 of 160 16 Feb 2010
the rights that private citizens have, which includes the freedom of speech, and the freedom to
do lots of things, but they can also be held accountable if they file false things, but that’s not an
Ethics Policy issue for the MUD Directors it doesn’t seem to me. Motion carried unanimously
6-0-3, with Director Kohs, Budarf, and Carr abstaining (Director Fair absent).
Mr. Greg Lamont addressed the Board, stating that when Budarf and Carr did not reference
themselves as Directors in the affidavits that was not true. “I totally regret selecting Mr. Kohs to
serve as a director on the MUD Board due to his behavior on the MUD Board; including myself
have censured Mr. Kohs” you refer to your actions as a Board Member and it intertwines into
the affidavit about being a board member. Mr. Carr says that “I have personal knowledge that
he has shared confidential information discussed in Closed Door Executive Sessions with other
residents, Police Chief and Town officials. Due to Mr. Kohs’ behavior on the MUD Board,
myself and other directors have made the decision to censure Mr. Kohs and afterward we share
no privacy information with him.” Those are direct statements as far as being a Board Member.
In your ethics ordinance, you have to state that you are not representing the Board when you
make a statement. I apologize, it’s in here somewhere. Pam, do you know where it is?
Attorney Liston replied she did not.
Ms. Pauline Twomey, 203 Oakmont Drive, addressed the Board, stating that she finds it
comical, an Ethics Complaint filed by a gentleman who was on the Council, and stated on tape
that he was a graduate with a Masters Degree from a wonderful university in New York, talk
about lying, gentlemen, that’s a disgrace. Along with saying he worked for the New York
Yankees and was retired from there and never worked a day there. Thank you ladies and
gentlemen.
14. Discuss and take appropriate action on Ethics Complaint 2010-0111-A, filed by
Greg Lamont. 2010-25-M1
a. Jim Budarf
Action: See Agenda Item 13.
15. Review Monthly Tax Collection Report - 2010-18-M1
a. December 2009
The Board reviewed the report with no action and/or discussion.
Action: Discussion only.
16. Set Next Meeting Date - 2010-17-M1
a. Possible Special Session: Monday, January 25, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
b. Regular Session: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Board agreed to meet on the above dates and requested changing the meeting time on the 25th
to 5 p.m.
17. Items for Future Agendas - 09-103-M1
a. MUD 1's water contract with City of Fort Worth
b. Funding of Future Capital Projects; i.e., 2 MG Storage Tank
c. Water Study (Twomey)
d. Disaster Planning
e. Creation of TCMUD1 website (09-115-M1)
f. Agreement between TCMUD1 and the Trophy Club Country Club (TCCC) for the use
of a portion of TCCC's parking lot.
g. Fire Plan
TCMUD No. 1 134 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Regular Session Minutes – January 19, 2010 27
Action: Discussion only.
CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION
*CLOSED SESSION
Board declined to go into Closed Session.
18. Discuss and take the appropriate action regarding discussion(s) held in Closed
Session regarding Complaint 2009-1210. 09-152-M1
a. Gary Cantrell
b. Jim Budarf
c. Jim Thomas
d. Kevin Carr
Action: Board declined to go into Closed Session.
19. Public Comments or Presentations.
No comments at this time.
Adjourn.
Meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
___________________________ _____________________________
DEAN HENRY, Joint President JIM BUDARF, Joint President
TCMUD No. 1 TCMUD No. 1
ATTEST:
____________________________ ______________________________
JIM HASE, Joint Secretary JAMES C. THOMAS, Joint Secretary
TCMUD No. 1 TCMUD No. 1
____________________________
MARY MOORE (Seal)
MUD Secretary
TCMUD No. 1 135 of 160 16 Feb 2010
MINUTES OF SPECIAL SESSION
TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1
January 25, 2010
The Board of Directors of the Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1 of Denton and Tarrant
Counties met in Special Session on Monday, January 25, 2010, in the Boardroom of the
Administration Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas 76262.
DIRECTORS PRESENT:
Jim Budarf Joint President
Dean Henry Joint President
Gary Cantrell Joint Vice President
Kevin Carr Joint Vice President
Jim Hase Joint Secretary/Treasurer
Jim Thomas Joint Secretary/Treasurer
Neil Twomey Director
Steven Kohs Director
Bob Fair Director
DIRECTORS ABSENT:
Joseph Boclair Director
STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT:
Robert Scott District Manager
Mary Moore MUD Secretary
Pam Liston MUD Attorney
Kathy DuBose Finance Director
Danny Thomas Fire Chief
John DeBarro Auditor, Weaver & Tidwell
Shawn Parker Auditor, Weaver & Tidwell
Carolyn Huggins P & Z Coordinator
Scott Kniffen Police Chief
Renae Gonzales Senior Accountant
Tammy Thomas 1 Brook Creek Court
Margi Cantrell 1105 Sunset Drive
Pearl Ford 2 Spring Creek Court
Shirley Hase 209 Inverness Drive
Betty Ann Henry 308 Oakmont
A. Graham Reporter, Alliance News
Larry Hoover 1118 Berkshire Court
TOWN COUNCIL PRESENT:
Connie White Mayor
Glenn Strother Mayor Pro Tem
Kathleen Wilson Councilmember
Bill Rose Councilmember
Philip Sterling Councilmember
Brandon Emmons Town Manager
TCMUD No. 1 136 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 2
SPECIAL SESSION
Call to Order and Announce a Quorum.
President Budarf announced a quorum and called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
1. Discuss, review and take appropriate action to approve the 2009 annual audit
report for Trophy Club MUD 1 (Consolidated). 2010-26-M1
The Auditors offered their overview of the audit. Shawn Parker, an Audit Partner with Weaver
and Tidwell, addressed the Board regarding the 2009 annual audit for TCMUD 1. Mr. Parker
met with the Audit Committee a couple of weeks ago. Parker went over the handout entitled,
Auditor’s Communication the Audit Committee. The Auditors did evaluate and perform tests of
the MUDs Compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant
agreements which are significant to the MUD for the purpose of determining if there was any
noncompliance which needed to be reported. Parker advised they were not aware of any
noncompliance or did not note any noncompliance in the course of their testing. The significant
audit findings was the consolidation of the MUDs. The accounting is unique, under government
standards, you are still allowed to use a pooling of interest method even though the
consolidation took place late in the year, MUD 1 was able to show consolidated results of
operation all the way through to the end of fiscal year of 2009. The most significant estimates
that were noted were calculating depreciation expense on capital assets and then the Auditors
also evaluate any allowance for any uncollectable accounts, and the Auditors determined they
were reasonable. Significant Audit Adjustments regarded a prior period adjustments on capital
assets. The net amount is really not material, $21,823; but there was a significant adjustment to
both the cost and the related accumulated depreciation with respect to those assets. The
Auditors encountered no difficulties in performing the audit. There were no corrected
misstatements. There were no disagreements with management regarding any accounting
matter or audit matter.
Director Budarf asked where the $21,000 came from.
Finance Director DuBose explained that the MUD had retired these assets in 2007, but had not
reported them in the annual financial report or on the general ledger; however, it had only been
retired in the fixed asset system. DuBose verified this with District Manager Scott and Staff.
One of the items was a Fire Truck, and the others were miscellaneous vehicles and equipment
that were retired in 2007; for a total of about $285,000; almost all it was totally appreciated
except for the $21,000.
John DeBarro, Senior Audit Manager with Weaver and Tidwell, went over the report entitled,
Independent Auditor’s Report. DeBarro advised this report goes over internal controls, financial
reporting, compliance and other matters. DeBarro stated there were some internal control
deficiencies. DeBarro, as stated in past, the Auditors recommend that the District evaluate the
benefits of preparing its own financial statement at year end against the cost to do so. The 2nd
issue is segregation of duties. The Auditors recommend that the District segregate the duties of
processing payments and entering new vendors in the payables system. The 3rd comment,
purchase card approvals, the Auditors recommend that department head p-card transactions
(including those made by the Finance Director) be reviewed/approved by someone in upper
management or a Board Member. 4th Comment, Capital Assets Records and Depreciation, the
Auditors recommend that the capital asst software be updated to reflect all capital asset
activities on a regular basis. This subsidiary ledger should be reconciled to the capital asests
acquisitions and dispositions recorded in the general ledger at least semi-annually.
Director Hase clarified that the costs of having an audit firm prepare our CAFRs for the MUD
audit runs at least 7 to 10 percent of the cost of our current audit.
TCMUD No. 1 137 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 3
Shawn Parker agreed that the cost will be at least 10 percent of the total cost of the MUD’s
auditing fee.
Finance Director DuBose presented the annual financial report for fy 2009, and went through
the Audit. Finance consolidated the budgets, the revenues and expenses, the fixed assets, and
the outstanding debt. DuBose advised that the MUD assets exceed our liabilities by over $9
million. Our Capital Assets net of depreciation are about $14 million. Cash and Investments
are approximately $3.1 million. Of that $3.1 million, Fire Construction Reserves is $1.8 million;
Interest and Sinking Fund was about $244,000; Utility and Fire Operation was $984,000.
Outstanding Debt is $8.1 million; Tax and Revenue Bonds are $7.3 million of that; Contractual
Obligations were about $750,000; and Note Payables of about $18,000; Capital Lease
Obligations of about $63,000. Results of Operations, Revenues $5.7 million, and $4 million of
that is for Utilities Revenues, Taxes are about $1.3 million; PID Utility Fees $515,200.
Expenditures $5.3 million; Utility Operations were $3.7 million; Fire Operations was $784,000
and Admin was $818,000. The major Fixed Assets added were the Disc Filter System for
$417,000 and the Generator for the WWTP for $140,000. The Water System Improvements
were street improvements on Oak Hill, Avenue 20, Brook Hollow and Timber Ridge of about
$61,000. Net Increase in Fund Balance was $450,000; of that $330,000 was Operations and
Debt Service Fund was about $122,000. DuBose advised that bottom line, MUD 1 looks very
good financially. MUD 1 still ended up with Operations increase of $330,000 and has
substantial reserves.
Director Carr moved to approve the 2009 fy Audit for Trophy Club MUD 1. Director Thomas
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously (9-0 Director Boclair absent).
2. Discuss and take appropriate action to consider a proposal(s) to install a High
Speed Service Plant Pump. 2010-07-M1
District Manager Scott stated the cost is approximately $216,000. We will be putting a
generator and a switching gear with the Pump, which will be done in-house. Scott is looking at
generators which are running between $25,000 to $30,000. The purpose of this pump is to
pump water to our distribution system, and when water is not needed in the distribution system,
it fills up the elevated tank for pressure control. Scott believes it is essential, and it will probably
be online late summer. The $216,000 cost does not include a generator.
Director Twomey asked what the supplemental cost is for a generator.
District Manager Scott said around $35,000 to $45,000.
Director Budarf confirmed that this pump is required to maintain pressure during high use times
and especially during hot summers, and important in case of a fire at the high school and areas
to the west of town to provide adequate fire protection.
Director Budarf moved to approve the payment of $216,300 for a 3000 gpm, 250 hp, 480 VAC
vertical turbine pump with a constant speed drive with a soft start, new transform pad, duct bank,
at 3.9% interest based upon American National Bank quote for a 3-year note, and include a
maximum of $45,000 for a generator for a total max of $261,300 at 3.9% interest,. Director
Henry seconded the motion. Floor opened for discussion. Director Twomey asked if the
generator would also be able to power other things. District Manager Scott advised that it would
not. Director Hase asked if this was in the budget. District Manager Scott advised it was not.
Director Hase asked how much would be paid this year. Director Twomey stated it’s a push.
Director Budarf commented that the first payment will be next year. Motion carried
unanimously (9-0 Director Boclair absent).
TCMUD No. 1 138 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 4
3. Discuss and take appropriate action to approve or disapprove the drilling of a new
Trinity Well.2010-06-M1
District Manager Scott seeks approval for a new Trinity Well which will produce 500 gallons a
minute at Well Site No. 2, Creek Courts Drive across from Beck Park. Scott advised that
electricity is already there as well as a distribution line to the Water Plant. Scott said it will cost
approximately $500,000 with the permits and all. Scott stated the new well could produce up to
a million gallons a day. We may need to add a transformer. We will need about 50’ of pipe,
which we could do in-house.
President Henry stated that time is of the essence due to the pending groundwater rulings.
President Henry moved to proceed with necessities to drill a new Trinity Well. Director Budarf
seconded the motion. Floor opened for discussion. Henry went over the payment options,
which the financing is for 3 years at 3.9%. Motion carried unanimously (9-0).
4. Discuss and take appropriate action regarding Order 2010-0125, assigning a
position number to each director’s office in accordance with Section 49.103(c) of
the Texas Water Code, so that directors shall hereafter be elected by position and
not at large, beginning with the May 2010 election. – 2010-05-M1
Director Cantrell moved to adopt Order 2010-0125, to assign places, one through five, for the
directors’ elections versus electing at large. Director Thomas seconded the motion. Floor
opened for discussion. Attorney Liston stated she had two corrections, in Section 3 the word
“government” should be “governed” and in the third Whereas clause, remove the comma after
Directors. Both Mover and Seconder agreed to the Liston’s corrections. Director Cantrell stated
that this will make it consistent and improve the overall ease in voting as this same system has
been put in place by the Town, especially once the terms are put in place. Motion carried
unanimously (8-1-0) with Director Kohs voting against and Director Boclair absent.
Director Carr asked Director Kohs if he wished to make any comment.
Director Kohs stated he is not sure that doing it that way is really truly going to be a benefit to
the Town.
Director Carr asked Kohs even if the Town does it that way.
Director Kohs replied, point taken.
5. Discuss and take appropriate action regarding a Joint Election Agreement with
Town of Trophy Club and/or Denton County Elections - 2010-09-M1
Director Cantrell moved to approve to approve a full-service Joint Election Agreement with
Denton County Election to perform election services for TCMUD 1 and Town of Trophy Club.
Director Twomey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously (9-0 – Director Boclair
absent).
6. Discuss and take appropriate action to instruct the District staff and attorneys to
begin preparation of an amendment to TCMUD1’s Fire Plan, to update that plan,
and to broaden the plan to include Public Safety. - 2010-02-M1
Director Thomas moved to instruct the District staff and attorneys to begin preparation of an
amendment to TCMUD1’s Fire Plan, to update that plan, and to broaden the plan to include
Public Safety. Director Carr seconded the motion. Floor opened for discussion. Motion
carried unanimously (9-0 – Director Boclair absent).
TCMUD No. 1 139 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 5
7. Discuss and take appropriate action to begin the bond issuance process for
construction of the new Fire Station. - 2010-23-M1
Director Carr requested we table this to February meeting, as we have not received any
confirmation from TCEQ.
Director Twomey stated that we may want to start up the Fire Station Committee. Twomey
would like to see a timetable emailed out to help everyone to ensure we stay on track.
District Manager Scott and Fire Chief Thomas are of the opinion that they would prefer only
utilizing the committee as necessary.
Action: Discussion held; agreed to table to February meeting.
8. Review and Approve Minutes 2010-16-M1
a. December 15, 2009 - Regular Session Minutes
Director Twomey moved to approve the December 15, 2009 regular session minutes. Director
Fair seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously (9-0 – Director Boclair absent).
9. Set Next Meeting Date 2010-17-M1
a. Regular Session: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Board agreed to meet on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.
Action: Discussion only.
Public Comments or Presentations.
Speakers requested to speak after Joint Session begins.
Board took a break at 6:27 p.m., and resumed into Special Joint Session at 7:00 p.m.
SPECIAL JOINT SESSION - TROPHY CLUB TOWN COUNCIL - 7:00 P.M.
JS1 Town Council to call to Order and Announce a Quorum.
Mayor White announced a quorum and called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., advising that
Susan Edstrom was absent.
Shirley Hase deferred her comment time to Margi Cantrell.
Margi Cantrell of 1105 Sunset Drive approached the Board, and stated the following: I am a
concerned citizen and pride myself in attempting to keep up with what is happening here in our
Town, how it is running, where and how tax monies are spent and the like. Over the years, my
expressed concerns have not deviated far from attempting to ensure all citizens are treated
equally and fairly; and that tax dollars are as minimal as possible, while being spent wisely in
support of what I believe is one of the finest communities in our area, and "a great place to call
home". Therefore, I am taking this unique opportunity to speak to both the MUD #1 Board of
Directors and the Council together. Last week, while paying our 2009 property taxes, I turned
over the statement to see exactly where the tax monies were being sent. It was at that time that
I noticed a trend. The trend being, that regardless of the evaluation of our property, over the
last 5 years the following has occurred: Denton County tax monies have increased every year -
and the county is now collecting $65 annually more than in 2005; Northwest ISD has gone up
and down - but are actually collecting $350 LESS than in 2005, and we can see the structures
to compliment these tax dollars right here; the Town of Trophy Club taxes have increased by
$177 over 2005 and is now nearly 22% of my total tax bill versus 16.5% in '05. And, the
Trophy Club MUD #1 rate has DECREASED consistently every year and the monies collected
TCMUD No. 1 140 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 6
are now $71 less than 5 years ago. The new rate is a drop of over 9% versus a year ago and, if
I resided in the area of the former MUD 2, the rate would have dropped approximately 18% for
‘09 from the previous year, with the consolidation of the MUD districts, I believe. And let me
clarify this - I do believe, I understand, un like Trophy Club, most municipalities have other
means of generating revenues in addition to property taxes, such as through water & sewer
rates - much like the revenues generated from our storm water sewer fees. But my comments
do not pertain to this tonight. On my tax statements, it is clear that even when the Town's tax
rate was unchanged, due to evaluation increases in home values, tax dollars grew. And
apparently, so did the Town's expenditures. Where has the money gone? To additional
employees, increased legal fees, more vehicles, higher day to day operational costs, and the
like? No doubt, we can see park development, but very little retail space expansion, if any. How
much is too much to spend on park lands and operations for a community the size of ours, when
revenues are limited almost solely to home property values? Is it time to re-consider park "user"
fees? Our Home Rule form of government empowers a Town Manager to run the day to day
operations and often I hear council refer to the position as the CEO of Trophy Club. However,
the Town's Manager cannot be held solely accountable for the Towns expanded expenses
because each of you are the elected gatekeepers of the tax monies collected. The tax rate and
dollars collected by the MUDS suggest sound fiscal responsibility on the part of the Directors to
date. And, certainly the choice of the citizens to down size 3 MUD entities into one MUD,
helped reduce the 2009 MUD rates, but also suggest support of this organization and its
operational cost history on behalf of tax payers. PLEASE be sure, as both of you work on
budgets for 2010 and 2011, that you look for ways to hold down costs rather than ways to give
away collectible tax dollars, expand staff, add more vehicles, generate legal fees, increase park
expenditures and the like. Make no mistake, I like parks and enjoy our beautiful community.
BUT, I hear from other citizens who, like myself, want and EXPECT all of you to seek ways to
spend less, even if it means sharing staff, or reducing staff by out sourcing services rather than
growing employee head count. Frankly, some of our residents have actually experienced these
types of cut backs in their own lives and know it is painful, but also necessary in tough times.
We are fortunate to be a part of 3 very fine adjoining communities and yet each unique in our
own ways. Shared services could generate real tax dollar savings if we could ever get past who
has the most employees, vehicles, or the highest overhead as a measurement of success. It
has worked in the past. What does it matter if there is a "tri-community" police department
protecting all of us or a regional parks board overseeing facilities, including the use of an
existing community center, with shared costs spread over 2 or more communities with a 3-4
mile radius? Trophy Club has approximately 8% of retail space available, but we all spend
money in Roanoke and contribute to their sale tax revenues; and many residents work in
Westlake, as well as Roanoke. Wouldn't it have been more prudent if we had renamed
Marshall Creek Park something to reflect a regional park that all 3 towns could have embraced,
helped plan and contribute toward its development and continual operation? After all, numerous
people from surrounding communities regularly use these amenities too. Take a page from the
postal service - one building and one staff serving all three communities - without delivery
delays. Who needs another government facility like the one 2 miles down the road? We need
all of you to look outside the box together for ways to achieve less spending, thus less taxation
now and in the future. Let's not wait until it is too little, too late, or another decision is made
costing citizens more for some time to come. I do thank and sincerely appreciate each of your
time and talents you provide our community. But after all, isn't that what you signed on for when
you ran to be an elected official? Thank you.
Town Manager Emmons read a letter from Councilmember Edstrom.
10. Receive report from the SEMO (Shared Employees MUD Organization) Committee,
Town Manager to provide information regarding Service Provider, discussion
regarding the same. 2010-01-M1
TCMUD No. 1 141 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 7
Director Hase advised the SEMO Committee consisted of himself, Jim Thomas, Dean Henry,
Kevin Carr. Hase then read to all present the memo entitled Committee Report. Carr also went
over Chart No. 1 – Apples to Apples Comparison, as well as Chart No. 2 and addressed
questions from Council.
Mayor White offered a PowerPoint presentation entitled, Impact of the SEMO Committee
Options on the Residents of Trophy Club. Wanted to reduce the government, benefit to the
residents by sharing employees, could pay some of the administrative costs. Take the time
before we do anything on both sides understanding all of the implications. How do we deal with
remaining shared employees? Leaving IS and Fire/EMS, how is that going to work? When its
two different entities, reporting. Financial impact on citizens, switching from water/ww revenue
to tax base revenues. Even though it wasn’t always 50/50; town still will need a HR person,
although maybe not 100%.
Mayor White stated the employee costs should MUD 1 separate would cost the Town $291,798
with MUDs saving of $135,798.
Director Budarf asked if we take our finance out, would you still need four employees for Town’s
Finance Department.
Town Manager Emmons replied that the Town would have three employees; as the Town is
budgeted for five and currently have four and with the separation, we would have three.
Mayor White stated that these are functions and skill sets that the Town needs. Mayor White
feels there are some areas where it might make sense to make that separation and there are
some areas where it doesn’t; and that’s part of what I would like us to talk about further.
Director Cantrell asked Town Manager Emmons if a water-wastewater system should be a profit
center. The MUDs run it as an enterprise on both sides of it and try to break even, and Mayor
White is aware of our operating procedure.
Mayor White stated that it is a cost-sharing center. When you have a Water Department under
a City, some portion of that City core staff is covered by the water department, some portion of it
covered by the street, everyone’s piece covers that main administration. The Town doesn’t
have that opportunity. That’s why the MUDs have said it made sense for us to contribute
because we were able to.
Town Manager Emmons added that in almost all cities, when you examine their books a portion
of the administrative overhead for operating or running the entire system is recouped in the cost
of the water and wastewater systems.
Director Thomas advised that the shared employees system is broken.
Mayor White stated every single year we have been behind during the audit, every year for as
long as I can remember we have been behind on Financials in October – November while they
were doing the audits.
Director Hase addressed the finance problems when someone is sick or retires, isn’t that an
indicator that maybe this Town and MUD even combined is too small to sustain their own
finance organization. Hase suggested the Town also look at outsourcing the Finance
department, as the problems with Finance continue.
Director Twomey stated the MUDs offered to pay for a full-time Finance Person, total MUD, and
TCMUD No. 1 142 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 8
were told it wasn’t necessary. We continue to suffer by not getting our financial statements in a
timely manner. There was no effort to bring in any temporary help to take up the slack. The
large financial firm we’re looking at has stated that they will have our financials seven to ten
days after month end, and when it comes to audit time, they will prepare the financial
statements to be submitted to the auditors, which has been the exception for years on most of
our audit reports. The MUDs are trying to think out of the box, how to save money for the
taxpayers and rate payers. If you look in columns, there’s a 3 to 5% decrease in the rate order.
On Town side, you could look at working on joint agreements with surrounding municipalities.
Town Manager Emmons commented that he appreciates comments that MUD 1 is trying to run
a business, as lean as you can; however, one of the things we may be losing sight of is the
MUD is a business but it is also government, and is here to provide a public service to its
residents. Emmons thinks MUD 1 is looking too much at the bottom line as opposed to quality
public service for our residents. He understands going out for financial services, but even in
your proposal, the MUDs still have one employee that’s responsible for the daily input to get that
info to the Finance Dept, to make this scenario function properly. We’ve experienced some
issues with health issues or vacancies in positions but what happens if that one employee is out
sick, or on vacation, etc, there’s a situation where you have to bring in a temporary employee in
for a week or two weeks or you forgo input of that data, and the bills are delayed for two weeks.
Under our current situation, we do have a little bit of a back up, unfortunately when we have two
people out and we have other duties that we have to take care of, some of the processes take
center stage to the reporting procedures. So, in order to keep our business running, we
concentrate on the daily activities first and the reporting second. In the situation the MUDs
present, you have just the opposite. Emmons addressed Thomas’ comments that shared
employees worked at one time, but does not work today. There are a couple different factors
that may lead to that impression. First and foremost, Emmons admitted there is lack of direction.
There are conflicting, different directions between town and mud managers. There is prevailing
idea that the funding is not secure for their position. Emmons referenced back to the
information provided by SEMO Committee with a chart showing shared employees in 2000-
2001, and a chart showing shared employees for today and tomorrow. These charts show how
the Town has continually shifted away from funding from the MUD to the Town. In 2000-2001,
we had a Building Inspector that was a position that was shared between the MUD and the
Town. Today, that Building Inspector is 100% funded by the Town. We had a P&Z Coordinator,
that was shared in 2000-2001. Today, the P&Z Coordinator is paid 100% funded by the Town.
We have Permitting / Customer Service Clerk – today, it is still shared. With this proposal,
100% paid by the Town. Public Works AA, Emmons stated he didn’t know who that was, so he
would skip it. (Position was held by MUD Secretary Mary Moore, now a 100% MUD Employee).
Code Enforcement Officer was shared in 2000-2001; today, that position is paid 100% by the
Town. We have a Town Secretary shared in 2000-2001; today, the proposal is for that position
to be 100% paid by the Town. Records Manager shared in 2000-2001; now it is a 100% fully
funded Town employee. Emmons feels that in order to efficiently operate the Finance
Department and the Town Secretary, those positions have to be available. Emmons shared
that the shared employees fear that their position may not be funded in the future.
Director Thomas stated that Emmons stated a good point regarding shared employees, more
reason to eliminate the shared employee concept so employees no longer worry about being
funded.
Mayor White replied there are other possibilities as well as looking at all the implications. White
wants to look at all the options, like contracting with MUDs for HR Services.
Director Carr stated the MUDs are obligated to the taxpayers and our customers to run an
efficient business and try and save money.
TCMUD No. 1 143 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 9
Director Hase commented that the proposed split is not any kind of detriment against working
together. We still can work together on all kinds of things and we do. The desire on the part of
the MUDs to do their own support system is like any business that wants to have control of their
support personnel. How would the Town like to come to Robert for Financial information? They
would not. That’s about how it works on the other side. It’s not a very desirable situation. It’s
pretty desirable on the Town side because they have control of it; however, it’s not a very
desirable situation for the MUD side.
Director Budarf stated that the MUDs used to inspect plumbing, and the Town took that function
over, but yet we kept paying for half the Building Inspector.
Town Manager Emmons replied that the Town Secretary is in the process of helping the MUD
Secretary through the election process this year for the first time; there’s a benefit there. Our
Permitting Department; each water account, each new home that comes in, our Permitting
Department is the first point of contact and arranges all of the information to set up the utility
billing with the billing department.
District Manager Scott stated that Ron (Permitting) is sending that over to Dana (Utility Billing)
now.
Director Budarf reminded Emmons that the MUDs pick up 100% of the costs for Fire Station and
will continue to do that.
Town Manager Emmons stated there are many benefits that the Town is giving to the MUD that
the Board may not be aware of; i.e., grant services. Town is working on replacing the complete
HVAC system in the Svore Building at a cost of $42,000 of Federal money that the Town
applied for a grant for the MUDs.
Mayor White stated that one of the points she and Emmons are trying to make is that there are
a lot of open questions and potential impacts, and we need to take the time to work through.
Director Cantrell reminded everyone of the saving in hard dollars in auditing expenses; we’re
going from $40,000 to $17,500.
Mayor White stated the Town is planning on doing an analysis of its employees and their
positions.
Town Manager Emmons stated that he is interested in offering a service contract to the MUD for
employee services.
Mayor White explained that the $51,500 Insurance has to do with the fact that with the
increased cost of medical insurance.
Town Manager Emmons stated that he did have contact with their insurance broker. This
$51,500 is based his quote for the exact same policy we have today. In addition to that
$51,500, the quote that he provided to us today also included approximately $1,000 per
employee migrated over into small plan. When asked whether we would be allowed to
purchase insurance through him as Trophy Club Entities, MUDs small plan and Town plan, and
combine that into one large plan, the insurance broker stated that was not possible. Blue
Cross/Blue Shield would cover it as two entities. The reason we can do this today is the
Employee Services Agreement that’s in place that states that all the employees are Town
employees and we purchase the insurance as the Town of Trophy Club to provide for those
TCMUD No. 1 144 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 10
employees. Based on the information received, by calling it Trophy Club Entities, would not
give us the ability to aggregate two separate entities into one for purchasing insurance.
Director Budarf asked if the $51,500 is the increase in the insurance.
Town Manager Emmons stated that is the increase. The total increase for the exact same
policy as we have today is over $67,000; and based on the family plans that we have, we have
a percentage that we pay and there’s a percentage that the employee pays. Based on the
increases, that percentage would stay the same; but the amount goes up, and that’s
approximately $15,000 in addition to the $51,500.
Mayor White stated that as of right now, Solana is paying almost 15% of the fixed costs portion
of our revenue.
Director Carr asked how that is different than the PID tax money going back into the Town and
not the MUDs.
Director Budarf clarified that the shared employees are Town employees, and the MUDs are
just paying 50% of the salaries; that’s what we are talking about. The term “shared employees”
is strictly payroll.
Mayor White stated there are too many open questions. White agrees there are many issues
that need to be fixed; not just tear it apart.
Director Budarf stated that no changes would be made until end of September 2010.
Mayor White stated that she does not know what the answer is, but feels that we need to find a
way to work towards getting to a clear, common understanding.
Councilmember Sterling stated that we get involved in an “us versus them” mentality. The Town
versus the MUD and the MUD versus the Town. At the end of the day, minus the portion that
Solana picks up, we’re all paying or saving. We need to ask what the final cost is going to be.
MUDs may not need for Permit Clerk, so all of the costs, as citizens, go up.
Director Hase stated if you have a full-time permitting clerk, either you don’t need all of him or
he has a full time job with the Town.
Councilmember Sterling stated the Town has a need for a permitting clerk. Sterling understands
you can’t physically answer to two bosses. We’ve had that problem for years; we’re still having
that same problem. Sterling agrees that if you only have one boss, you can be much more
efficient, you’re not split. What the Town means by “shared employees” is just shared cost;
plain and simple. Maybe we should rename them shared-cost employees. Sterling clearly
understands that from a MUD’s standpoint, the desire to get rid of that position, because it’s
outflow; it’s not cost neutral. However, at the end of the day, we’re all still paying for that
position, but now we’re paying more for that position because we lose the cost benefit of
Solana. Sterling believes we need to think more macro economically, rather, than this is Town
and this is MUD.
Director Carr asked who is financially responsible for that 100% person if they are on the Town
side.
Councilmember Sterling stated the Town.
TCMUD No. 1 145 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 11
Director Carr advised that the MUDs, through the SEMO Committee, showed a cost savings by
running our own operation by eliminating unneeded positions. Carr believes that Town should
look at streamlining their employees or look to find a savings on the Town side.
Director Hase commented that we pay for half of the Permitting Clerk but do not receive any
benefit because we have Solana. MUDs do not get the money for the Permitting Clerk from
Solana taxes; we get it from the Water Rates. If Town shifts half of that cost to us, we have to
raise the water rates by half an employee.
Director Budarf stated that the Town receives a benefit from the PID.
Director Twomey stated that the SEMO Committee is a catalyst. For years shared employees
have been status quo, every year, it just keeps going, and no one looks at what is the benefit of
going forward. SEMO is looking at contracting out; there are a lot of people that are affected by
outsourcing. As an entity, is it cheaper for the owners of the MUD and the taxpayers of the
Town, if we start looking at doing some outsourcing or do we just go with status quo? MUDs
don’t see Town working on anything like this. A few months ago, the MUDs looked at EMS. If
MUDs were to run EMS, the tax rate for the Town would go down seven cents ($0.07), while
MUD side would go up five cents ($0.05), resulting in a two cents ($0.02) savings. This concept
has not been discussed on the Town Council side. The MUD Board is looking at cost
efficiencies, keeping water rates low, and lowering the tax rate. Twomey stated that he would
have preferred the last side of the Town’s presentation project out a five-year scenario versus
just showing one year.
Town Manager Emmons stated that he keeps hearing the same terminology; cheap, least
expensive; should be looking at best service to the citizens. Emmons stated that there are
cheaper ways to do Police Services, cheaper to have County come in and service town.
Emmons feels that is not best for our residents. Emmons stated that MUDs may not get the
same benefit out of the permitting clerk as they might someone else. However, the Town is not
saying that the MUDs should pay for the Building Inspector, as the MUDs receive a benefit from
the Building Inspector. Town makes sure the homes are constructed appropriately and to code,
which, a properly constructed home retains its value. The homes constructed in the MUD will
retain their value longer if they built properly. There’s a benefit to the MUD for that. The Building
Inspector is also Plumbing Inspector. One of the most critical positions in an operation is to
ensuring the safety of our residents; that’s what our plumbing inspector does by ensuring that
the proper infrastructure that is installed in the home that tie into the MUD water and sewer
system. The Town does that before that meter is set by Robert’s staff. Town makes sure it is
safe. That’s a benefit to the MUD that is not compensated back to the Town.
Director Budarf verified that the Town receives money for its inspections.
Town Manager Emmons agreed that it is cost neutral.
Councilmember Rose stated penny smart, pound foolish. Rose commented on the MUDs not
being able to get reports, and then finds out that the Finance Department is operating pencil and
paper ledger, plus trying to get three different finance systems integrated; and about errors
going back to 2000 and 2005. Rose admits there’s been a problem all along. Rose looked at
the size of the Town’s Finance Department and surveyed 41 cities, ranging in size from 4,000 to
24,000 in population and determined that our Finance Department was critically undermanned
with poor equipment. Of the 41 cities Rose surveyed, only one city contracted out for finance
services. Rose believes by only one city contracting out finance that that it may not be the most
efficient, the most effective or wisest way to go. Rose went to back to basic presentation, really
not apples-to-apples comparison. Under contract for services for Finance, Town listed 38 items
TCMUD No. 1 146 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 12
in their proposal, CPA firm listed 16 items in their proposal. Rose stated that when he received
the SEMO presentation, he sent off a request for a work-load analysis for the shared
employees. Rose was told that it hadn’t been done. Rose stated that we have talked about
cost but we haven’t talked about workload. Rose gave an example of the Permit Clerk having
100% of time with 98% of time going to Town and 2% of time going to MUD with each entity
paying 50% of Permit Clerk’s salary. If MUDs take 2% away and doesn’t fund the permit clerk,
Town still needs this employee, and now must fund permit clerk at 100%. If Town is paying
50% and MUD is paying 50%, Town folks with 23% kicker from Solana, that goes away. The
Town has to pick it all up, but the MUDs can pick up that 2%. If you take that 25% factor and go
to an outside firm and hire another employee to do that, the Town is going to pay the 100% and
the residents are going to pay the additional for that other employee, so costs have to go up.
Rose stated he is huge proponent of efficient, effective results. Rose thinks the answer is to get
together and come up with a good, valid contract for services from the MUD; that the MUD can
set standards that you expect in that contract for services and hold the Town to it. As far as that
20%, Rose would love MUDs to pay Town a very large premium for those services, because the
larger premium you pay to the Town for those services; the greater the impact of that 23%.
Director Hase asked Rose how he felt about the MUDs taking over Finance, HR and Permitting,
and we will give you a firm price contract? How would Town like that arrangement?
Council Rose answered that we should put that on the table for another meeting and see how
that plays out.
Director Hase stated that what you would find that you would not be very satisfied getting
somebody else to do your work and you try to write down everything you want done, but it is
hard to get everything. Hase asked if you have your own business, would you want someone
else doing your accounting, your HR, and you have to plead with them to get information. Hase
believes we will have more control with the CPA Firm, as many other firms are happy with their
services.
Director Carr asked that if you have a business and someone pays you to do their business, if
that portion of the business goes away, do you keep paying that employee or do you do a
reduction?
Councilmember Rose stated that it would depend upon the service and the job description that
the employee had and an evaluation would need to be done.
Director Thomas asked Council if they have ever had any discussions at any time in any council
meeting about outsourcing anything.
Councilmember Rose said yes.
Director Thomas stated that if the MUDs were to include EMS into the equation, have Solana
pay for EMS, it would save the taxpayers money.
Councilmember Rose stated that Council has had discussions, and Rose has said more than
once, that the most cost-efficient way for the residents of this Town to receive full value for their
dollar is to maximize Solana. If the MUDs had the responsibility for the Parks and Recreation
Department and turned around and put it back on the Town for contract for services, there
would be a 23% additional benefit because of the additional water revenue coming from Solana.
These are all ideas that we need to sit around the table and talk about. What can you do for
cost of services, and allow the Town to capitalize on water revenue.
TCMUD No. 1 147 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 13
Director Thomas reminded Rose that we offer no benefit to Solana with regard to parks. MUDs
offering EMS services to Solana are a benefit.
Director Hase stated that the finances were not the driving force regarding shared employees.
Hase stated they work in an unpleasant atmosphere, they have two bosses. Hase feels an
obligation to give our employees a pleasant atmosphere to work in and not create an
unpleasant atmosphere. Hase is more concerned that the employees work in an unpleasant
atmosphere than he is with the finances.
Councilmember Strother agrees with Hase’s comments and believes there is a lot of added
stress; however, he believes there are other solutions than just breaking apart, although he
believes it will take time to work through. Strother commended the MUD Board for starting the
SEMO committee and the work they have done, and for getting out of the box, as he feels these
are certainly things we need to talk about. Strother stated at the end of the day, we’re all
together at end of day. All of us pay taxes, there’s one dollar, whether it’s a city or mud tax, at
the end of the day its all taxes and we all pay them. Strother’s goal is operate that as efficiently
maintaining the level of service that the residents expect at the least amount of dollars. Working
together, in Strother’s opinion, is the way to do it. Strother is a little discouraged by hearing “us”
and “them.” We’re all together here. Strother believes we need to look at as a unit of one, not
as a combined source. If we can do that in an open-minded process, and not go back to each
other’s turf and look at the common goal of what is best for the residents, that’s who is paying
for everything here. Strother believes we can get to an economical solution. Strother feels that
there’s still a lot fine tuning to be done. Strother stated that if we get away from a shared-cost
piece, there’s going to be an added cost on the Town side, so you need to add that back in on
the Town savings, and if the two together still end up with a net savings dollars, then certainly
that’s where we need to go.
Councilmember Sterling answered the outsource questions, stating that Town has looked into
outsourcing Streets and Building Inspectors. Part of what has plagued Council regarding the
idea of outsourcing is quality control, continuity, convenience and promptness of service.
Town Manager Emmons stated that this is about serving our community, and we have looked at
outsourcing. We have employees who are tired of having their position looked over and over
again. It always comes back to the quality of service versus price, sometimes the cost is more
but it’s a trade off. One specific example is during our budget workshop last year, Emmons
looked at the costs associated with the Inspections Department, looked at the number of
inspections conducted, projected out total number of inspections for year; got a couple costs
averaged for costs based on private inspecting firms, on the number of our projected homes.
The projected costs was about 49 homes less than what we actually constructed, the total cost
using an outside source averaged $183,326 based on 150 inspections. Town did 194 new
home starts last year, in-house inspections cost $90,000 to operate; over $100,000 savings to
the residents. There’s a cost to superior service but we have to remind ourselves that
government is a service agency.
Councilmember Wilson commented that there are some disingenuous statements being made
with regards to our argument. We’re asking the MUDs on the behalf of the taxpayers to do
something that we’re collectively one; we all serve one and so forth. It’s a lovely argument,
however, I don’t get that feeling when I deliver my liaison report to my council as to what they’ve
discussed, and it comes up about EMS; no, we’re not doing that. Okay, and that’s fine, if that’s
how we want to govern from our end. But I think it is very disingenuous for us to sit in here and
tell them that they are not thinking of what is best for our collective taxpayers, when we
repeatedly don’t express that high notion ourselves. In past budget workshops, I think we need
to examine various employees and consolidation and cost savings and what is the service that
TCMUD No. 1 148 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 14
is being delivered to the taxpayers with the cost analysis. I have not been met with any
reception of us doing that because we have Council-Manager form of government, and our
Manager makes those decisions, so therefore, end of discussion, and again; that’s okay, but
when we’re arguing on behalf of our collective taxpayers that the MUD Board needs to govern
their finances in a way, that is presented, again disingenuously, I don’t know what it is you want
me to say. For years, I’ve seen both sides, before I sat on Council, in budget sessions, they’re
not getting their 50% from the employee, and we aren’t really concerned with that, but we surely
want them to give us the money. The benefit of sitting in both meetings on a regular basis, this
Council snipes about the MUDs constantly, all the time; we can’t ever bring up MUD business
without a snipe. Yet, we want them to entrust all of their business, their productivity, their
employees to us, because that’s what’s best for the taxpayers. And I agree, I feel for our
employees. They don’t know who to answer to, they don’t know who they are allowed to be
seen talking to, I feel that way too when I walk into this office, I don’t know who I can talk to,
because it can have a reverberating effect, but I don’t think, talking sheer numbers, and that’s
why I think it’s very important for us to continue a frank workshop. We need to talk about trust
levels, and if we’re going to say collectively what is best for the taxpayers, that goes for us as
well. I’m not popular for my opinions, and that’s okay. It sounds really great, on behalf of xyz
and I’m a taxpayer, and I want to do what is right for me as a taxpayer. Well, I’m a taxpayer,
too, and I think there is so much aggregate nonsense at the top. Sounds great to argue for
wanting to make it more efficient, dollar for dollar for the taxpayers, but we’re not talking about
the problems at the top, and all I know is; they’ve paid and it’s not, they’re bad and we’re good.
They’re paying 50% for services they haven’t received. I didn’t even know what we were going
to be talking until I asked for a copy of this, and I reported on January 4th that they wanted us to
get involved and start talking about these things, and I asked my Council if they wanted a copy
of the SEMO report, and they replied, not really. How are we being genuine, in what they are
arguing with their research and what we’re preaching for them to do? We have expenses upon
expenses upon expenses, and yes we want them to kick in, and stayed kicked in, but I think we
have to legitimize our own expenses before we ask them to let us run theirs, as Kathleen
Wilson, 34 Meadowbrook, taxpayer for both entities.
Councilmember Rose asked to go to Attachment 1D, page 67, full-time accountant. On that
report, it says full time accountant $82,741, you roll back to Chart 1, that number is $45,000.
Mayor White stated the next item on the agenda is to set a date for meeting for Saturday,
February 6, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Director Budarf asked for input from the Board. Budarf believes it is worth discussing. It’s
important for the MUDs to do their due diligence, and this is part of it. In favor of it.
Director Henry stated there is an open mind, that’s all we need, as long as you’re willing to try to
come to find an answer.
Director Hase agreed with Director’s Henry.
Director Carr stated he would appreciate getting charts before the meeting; and asked the
Board and Council to come to the meeting with a mindset to solve the issue at the meeting.
Mayor White asked if anyone has any specific questions to forward those questions as soon as
possible, so that we can prepare.
Director Twomey stated there is an impact on the Town, on the citizens, and a definite impact
on employees, given all those issues, this is our first joint meeting. The only reason we’re
having this meeting is due to SEMO looking outside of the box, and Council realizing they might
TCMUD No. 1 149 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 15
have to take a hard look at their financials. There is an attitude that we’re the bad guys in some
people’s minds, but we’re also the only ones that are cutting taxes, we’re running an efficient
operation, and we’re tired of being put out like that. We cut our taxes this year and saved the
taxpayers $386.000, We’re going to be cutting taxes down until we get down to the single
pennies, in the next three or four years. Our water operation is run efficiently. It’s not there to
make profit; it’s not there to pass on money to some other entity; it’s to keep the water rates low.
The only thing we do is build up a little reserve just in case we have rainy summers, when they
say “rainy day fund”, they mean it. If we’re going to go in there with an open honest attitude,
let’s put everything on the table, because if we’re going to come in there and you’re going to
throw charts up there that aren’t meaningful, then you’re wasting all of our time, and the
taxpayers’ time, bottom line, if you’re going to be honest, let’s meet, if not, there’s no point.
Director Fair advised that there’s been a lot of constructive discussions, and thinks of himself
first as a resident citizen. Fair is optimistic that we are all of good heart, that we all have the
right mission the right outcome, and is for the meeting.
Director Thomas is in favor of meeting. Thomas would like Robert and Brandon to bring
numbers to the meeting regarding bringing EMS over to the MUDs.
Director Cantrell suggested that only elected officials meet.
Director Kohs stated he is in favor of open dialogue.
a. TCMUD 1 to take appropriate action regarding same.
Board took no action.
Action: Discussion only.
JS2 Set Next Joint Meeting Date for Saturday, February 6, 2010, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
and select the venue.
a. TCMUD 1 to take appropriate action regarding same.
Board agreed to meet without the attorneys on Saturday, February 6, 2010, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00
p.m.
b. Town Council to take appropriate action regarding same.
Council took no action.
Action: Discussion only.
JS3 Town Council to Adjourn
Town Council recessed at 9:40 pm
RECONVENE INTO SPECIAL SESSION
The Board reconvened into Special Session 9:42 p.m.
Adjourn.
Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
___________________________ _____________________________
TCMUD No. 1 150 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1 Special Session Minutes – January 25, 2010 16
DEAN HENRY, Joint President JIM BUDARF, Joint President
TCMUD No. 1 TCMUD No. 1
ATTEST:
____________________________ ______________________________
JIM HASE, Joint Secretary JAMES C. THOMAS, Joint Secretary
TCMUD No. 1 TCMUD No. 1
____________________________
MARY MOORE (Seal)
MUD Secretary
TCMUD No. 1 151 of 160 16 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-17-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:1/13/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:1/19/2010
Title:Set Next Meeting Date
a. Regular Session: Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Attachments:March 2010 Calendar.pdf
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 152 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-17-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Set Next Meeting Date
a. Regular Session: Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
TCMUD No. 1 153 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12/9/2010 11:08 AMMary MooreSMTWT F S1234567 8 9 10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22 23 24 25 26 2728 29 30 31March 2010SMTWT F S1234567891011 12 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22 23 2425 26 27 28 29 30April 2010March 2010MondayTuesdayWednesdayThursdayFridaySat/SunMarch 126:00amRepublican Party Primary Election (Svore Municipal 9:00amStaff Meetings (SvoreMunicipal Building Board Room)7:00pmParks & Recreation Board (Svore Muni310:00amChair Massage (PS Conference Room)48:00amTraining - Identity Theft (Svore Building )7:00pmP&Z Commission (Council Chambers)56786:30pmEDC B (PS Conference Room)7:00pmMOVED - Council (MUD Bd Rm)96:30pmTree Board (PS Conference Room)101112131415169:00amStaff Meetings (SvoreMunicipal Building Board Room)6:00pmTCMUD No.1 Meeting(Svore Municipal Buildling Board Room7:00pmTrophy Club Park SubCommittee (PS Confe1710:00amEAC (PS Conference Room)12:00pmCOURT (Svore Municipal Building Boardroom)187:00pmP&Z Commission (Council Chambers)192021226:30pmEDC A (PS Conference Room)7:00pmMOVED - Council (MUD Bd Rm)234:00pmTBD - ZBA (Svore Municipal Buildling Board Room)7:00pmCitizens Police Academy Alumni (Internal) (Police Dept. Training Room)24256:00pm Public Safety Advisory Committee (Internal) (Police Dept. Training Room)7:00pmTCWC (PS Conference Room)262728293031TCMUD No. 1154 of 16016 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-18-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:1/13/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:1/19/2010
Title:Review Monthly Tax Collection Report
a. January 2010
Attachments:January Tax Collection Report.pdf
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 155 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-18-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Review Monthly Tax Collection Report
a. January 2010
Body
Per Denton County Tax Office, we will continue to get reports for MUD 1 and MUD 2 until
December 2010.
TCMUD No. 1 156 of 160 16 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1157 of 16016 Feb 2010
TCMUD No. 1158 of 16016 Feb 2010
100 Municipal Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:12010-19-M1 Name:
Status:Type:M1 Agenda Item Regular Session
File created:In control:1/13/2010 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
On agenda:Final action:1/19/2010
Title:Items for Future Agendas
a. MUD 1's water contract with City of Fort Worth
b. Funding of Future Capital Projects; i.e., 2 MG Storage Tank
c. Water Study (Twomey)
d. Disaster Planning
e. Creation of TCMUD1 website (09-115-M1)
f. Agreement between TCMUD1 and the Trophy Club Country Club (TCCC) for the use of a portion of
TCCC's parking lot.
g. Fire Station Committee
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
TCMUD No. 1 159 of 160 16 Feb 2010
12010-19-M1 Version:File #:
Title
Items for Future Agendas
a. MUD 1's water contract with City of Fort Worth
b. Funding of Future Capital Projects; i.e., 2 MG Storage Tank
c. Water Study (Twomey)
d. Disaster Planning
e. Creation of TCMUD1 website (09-115-M1)
f. Agreement between TCMUD1 and the Trophy Club Country Club (TCCC) for the use of a portion of TCCC's
parking lot.
g. Fire Station Committee
TCMUD No. 1 160 of 160 16 Feb 2010