Latest news with #TexasOpenMeetingsAct
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Fairly resigns from AEDC board; Prescott calls move 'right for the city'
Alex Fairly has resigned as chair and member of the Amarillo Economic Development Corporation board, stepping down just three months after his appointment to the high-profile post. City Manager Grayson Path confirmed the resignation in an email Path sent individually to each City Council member and the mayor on Tuesday, July 15, in accordance with Texas open meetings law. As of Tuesday, no formal resignation letter from Fairly had been made public. Fairly also informed fellow board members of his decision near the end of Tuesday's AEDC meeting. According to board member Randy Burkett, Fairly said he had not planned to stay on long term and felt it was the right time to step away. 'He told us he didn't really enjoy being on boards,' Burkett said. 'He felt like he had done what he set out to do, but the structure of the Texas Open Meetings Act can make it frustrating. You can talk to one person, but not a second — and I think that held him back.' Burkett, who was appointed to the board in April, said he was surprised by the announcement and expressed disappointment over losing Fairly's input. 'I was stunned,' he said. 'I had no idea it was coming. I really thought he would stay on through the end of our first year. It's a big loss — I don't know who could replace him. Alex is one of the smartest guys I've ever met.' Burkett added that while he believes the board will continue to function effectively, Fairly's departure leaves a noticeable void. 'We'll be fine operationally, but his perspective and experience will be missed,' he said. 'I'll probably still reach out to him with questions. He's a good friend, and I highly respect the guy.' More: Alex Fairly interview: Amarillo businessman talks about money, politics, and education Fairly was originally appointed in November 2024, following a wave of mass resignations from the AEDC board that left only one member in place. The Amarillo businessman was later named chair and reappointed in April to the newly restructured five-member board. Councilmember David Prescott, who has long questioned Fairly's appointment, said the resignation was appropriate. 'I think it's the right thing for the city,' Prescott said. 'Any time large political donors are appointed to positions of power based on campaign contributions, that's problematic.' Fairly was one of the most significant donors in recent Amarillo city municipal elections, contributing heavily to political action committees supporting the current council majority. He was reappointed in April following controversy over a $750,000 allocation to a politically connected nonprofit. 'We went through a lot to put him in that position, and now he's stepping away quickly,' Prescott said. 'From discussions with AEDC staff, our deal flow is near zero. We've got a lot of work to do to rebuild trust with businesses considering Amarillo.' Prescott added that Fairly had never formally applied for the board and criticized the selection process. 'These roles shouldn't be handed out based on who someone supports politically,' Prescott said. 'Applicants should be vetted and chosen for their qualifications, not connections.' Prescott voiced support for the AEDC's ongoing nationwide search for a new president and CEO. 'We need an open, apolitical process to find someone who can grow the AEDC and help drive the city's economic future,' he said. Fairly declined to elaborate on his decision but told the Globe-News, 'It was best for me to move on and quietly step aside.' As of Tuesday, no time frame had been announced for appointing a new board member or selecting a new chair. This is a developing story; more information and further comments will be added as they become available. This article originally appeared on Amarillo Globe-News: Alex Fairly resigns as chair and member of Amarillo EDC board
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge rules $440M Hays County road bond void, Commissioners Court unlawfully called the election
HAYS COUNTY, Texas (KXAN) — A district court judge ruled Monday that the $440 million road bond approved by Hays County voters in November 2024 is now void. 419th Civil District Court Judge Catherine Mauzy found the Hays County Commissioners Court violated the Texas Open Meetings Act when calling for the bond election in August 2024. 'Because the Hays County special election for Proposition A road bond on November 5, 2024, was never lawfully ordered by the Hays County Commissioners Court, the Court declares the election void,' according to court documents. An attorney representing the plaintiffs told KXAN that Hays County will have an opportunity to appeal this decision. We have reached out to the County to determine if it will do this. It is not clear if any of the road projects have already started. On Aug. 14, in a 5-0 vote, the Commissioners Court approved pushing the bond election forward, setting in motion 30 transportation projects across the county by adding $0.02 per $100 valuation to the county tax rate – that would break down to about $80 a year for a home valued at $400,000. In November's election, 55.8% of voters approved of the proposition, while 44.2% voted against. In total, almost 116,000 Hays County residents voted on Prop A — a turnout of about 62.3% of registered voters. Four Hays County homeowners previously filed a lawsuit, alleging that the Commissioners Court violated the Texas Open Meetings Act by not specifically outlining the scope of the bond package. Hays County residents sue Commissioners Court over the transportation bond election 'County commissioners hatched this bond package in secret, ordering it onto the ballot at the last minute and in blatant violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act,' said Les Carnes, one of the plaintiffs, in an October press release. 'Hays County residents were deprived of both the required public notice that a bond proposal was being considered and the right to participate in determining what should be included or excluded, what the total price should be, and what it will mean for our taxes,' he continued. The lawsuit said that several controversial projects were included in the package – some that would go over environmentally sensitive areas like the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. County officials said the bond improved safety and mobility, responded to the city's continued growth, addressed existing roads, created new ones and supported economic development across Hays County. Digital Data Reporter Christopher Adams contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge sides with city of Austin in lawsuit involving former American-Statesman site
A judge this week ruled in favor of the city of Austin in a case involving the former American-Statesman site just south of downtown along Lady Bird Lake. The ruling denied a motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by the Save Our Springs Alliance, an environmental watchdog group. The lawsuit alleged that the Austin City Council violated key provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act in 2022 when it approved a special type of zoning known as a planned unit development, or PUD, for the former Statesman site. The lawsuit sought to void the council's Dec. 2, 2022 vote to approve the PUD, based on the alleged open meetings violations. The Statesman moved several years ago from the site at 305 S. Congress Ave. to a new location near the airport. In arguing their case before District Judge Jan Soifer on May 15, Save Our Springs attorneys Bobby Levinski and Bill Bunch contended that the council granted the PUD zoning in violation of two key mandates of the Texas Open Meetings Act: proper public notice, and a reasonable opportunity for the public to speak before the vote was taken. Levinski said today that the Save Our Springs Alliance might appeal the ruling. "Given the importance of this case for governmental transparency and proper enforcement of the Texas Open Meetings Act, we'll be evaluating our options for appeal," Levinski said. "This case ultimately impacts the ability of residents to weigh in on important matters that affect their community, including the relocation of the Hike and Bike Trail and removal of the natural, tree-lined aesthetic of the Lady Bird Lake shoreline. Every case has its challenges, and we may need to work on it a little longer to ultimately prevail." More: Lawsuit seeks to halt planned redevelopment of former Statesman site on Lady Bird Lake Casey Dobson and Sara Wilder Clark represented the landowner, the Cox family of Atlanta, along with Austin-based Endeavor Real Estate Group. The Cox family hired Endeavor several years ago to create plans to redevelop the prime waterfront site. The site formerly housed the newspaper offices and printing plant. Cox sold the Statesman but retained ownership of the 18.9-acre site, a property many developers had long coveted and said was ripe for new development. Dobson did not immediately respond to an email for comment about the ruling and what it means for future plans to transform the property into a mixed-use project with high-rise buildings and other uses, which could include housing, office and retail development. Richard Suttle Jr., an Austin attorney and the spokesperson for the planned redevelopment, said he hasn't seen a final judgment yet in the case, so couldn't comment on what it might mean for the future planned redevelopment. Dan Richards represented the city in the lawsuit. Richards said Soifer's ruling, signed Monday, means "the trial court case is basically over." At last month's hearing, Richards told Soifer that voiding the PUD could jeopardize the developer's ability, in the current economic climate, to secure a new amendment offering the same level of community benefits — such as 6.5 acres of green space — at the site. At the same hearing, Dobson and Wilder Clark said the PUD zoning change was properly noticed, and the public was given sufficient opportunity to speak at nine different meetings. However, Levinski said that, while the PUD was listed on the council agenda as a zoning item, that posting was misleading because it failed to provide "full disclosure of the subjects to be discussed." The proposed PUD ordinance encompassed "numerous provisions that extend well beyond traditional zoning regulations," Levinski told Soifer. Those included "sweeping changes" to environmental protections and other city land-use codes, including a failure to disclose height limits, setbacks and the elimination of two restrictive covenants. "There are so many different parts of this (PUD) ordinance that are not zoning, yet it was sold to public as a rezoning," Levinski said. The zoning changes included modifications to the Lady Bird Lake shoreline; the relocation of the Ann and Roy Butler Hike and Bike Trail inland away from the lake; the removal of more than 90 mature trees; code waivers; and "amendments to almost every chapter of Austin's land development code," Levinski told Soifer. In arguing their case before Soifer, Leviniski and Bunch said that the Texas Open Meetings Act requires a public notice identifying these major changes to city standards and a public 'right to speak' on them before council granted the approvals. The Cox owners and Endeavor have the right to build high-rises — up to 725 feet tall — within 140 feet of Lady Bird Lake. The development would be "forever exempt from a plethora of water quality, parkland and lakeshore rules and regulations," according to the Save Our Springs Alliance. "The key here is the Statesman PUD went beyond zoning," Levinski said. "This didn't give sufficient notice to the public to say what is occurring with this zoning." Among other issues, he said the PUD included "non-zoning provisions, including items the council doesn't have authority over." There was a way the city could have described with greater detail what was occurring with the zoning case, "but they chose not to, and it's deceptive that they chose not to," Levinski said. The level of specificity "gets enhanced" when the issue involves matters of "significant public interest," Levinski said. "It's not enough to rely on the assumption that the general public may have knowledge of the subject matter." Dobson and Wilder Clark, however, told Soifer that the public notices complied with the Texas Open Meetings Act. The notices properly and adequately disclosed the subject of the PUD at various meetings on the council's printed public agenda, Dobson and Wilder Clark said. Moreover, all the details that Save Our Springs claims were lacking from the notice were available at "the click of a link" in backup materials on the council's online agenda, Wilder Clark said. "Not only did (the public) get to talk in meetings, but they got to submit written testimony," Wilder Clark said. She also noted that the council postponed meetings on the case. Showing slides of newspaper articles, Dobson said the proposed redevelopment of the Statesman site was front-page news. He said the case was "noticed out of the wazoo." "(Opponents) think this was done in the dark of night, with adequate notice to nobody," Dobson said. "In fact, the polar opposite happened." Dobson said no special notice was required, and opponents "didn't need it. They wrote letters, they spoke at length to (the city) Planning Commission and City Council. This did not take place under the shroud of secrecy," Dobson said. Countering the city's arguments, Bunch said the city "invented out of whole cloth" its position that it upheld the open meetings act, saying "there's no support for that in the entire body of open meetings cases." Early in the hearing, Dobson showed a photo of the current Statesman site "in all its glory," showing a low-slung building surrounded by a near vacant parking lot with lots of asphalt and concrete. Attorneys for the city and the developer stated that "virtually no one" opposes the proposed development, which may include condominiums, apartments, a hotel, office space and retail areas. Noting the site's popularity as a prime location for viewing the famed bat colony under the Ann Richards Congress Avenue Bridge, they emphasized the new development will enhance the bat viewing area. Additionally, they said the project has the support of bat conservation groups. Last year, the Save Our Springs Alliance won a lawsuit contesting the city's creation of a special financing district, a so-called tax increment reinvestment zone, to fund infrastructure improvements within the proposed Statesman redevelopment project. A judge ruled that financing method unlawful. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Judge rules for city in case involving former Statesman site
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Paxton, Travis County agree on terms for transparency laws
AUSTIN (KXAN) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said an agreement was reached Wednesday that would require the Travis County Commissioners Court to comply with government transparency laws. The final agreement from the AG's office stemmed from the Commissioners Court authorizing the transfer of county funds for the security of Travis County District Attorney José Garza in November 2024. In September 2024, Paxton sued the Commissioners Court with violating the Texas Open Meetings Act for 'secretly' discussing a measure to allocate money for security services for the personal residence of Garza. RELATED | Travis County sues Paxton to avoid releasing records about DA security 'Government cannot be transparent if its elected leaders secretly vote on important matters that are required by Texas law to be discussed in open meeting,' Paxton said in a press release Wednesday. Paxton continued, saying the judgment would ensure the Commissioners Court would 'abide by all government transparency laws.' Travis County released the following statement regarding the agreement with Paxton: 'The Travis County Commissioners Court is pleased to reach agreement with the Texas Attorney General regarding the Texas Open Meetings Act. This agreement acknowledges the Court's belief that they acted in accordance with the requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act for conducting executive closed sessions, and they agree to continue compliance as it has always done. This agreement balances public transparency with security concerns like those permitted for discussion in executive closed session, thereby protecting our employees and elected and appointed officials.' Travis County Spokesperson Hector Nieto RELATED | Travis County DA reveals threats against him, reasons for security requests KXAN previously reported that the Commissioners Court, in total, authorized $115,000; however, only $64,000 of the approved amount was used to improve security at Garza's home. KXAN also reported according to auditor records, 'this was the first time county funds were used for 'security services' for District Attorney José Garza's office since he took office in 2021.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Commissioners, AG Ken Paxton settle open government lawsuit over Jose Garza security
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Travis County commissioners have settled an open government lawsuit over a decision last year to use taxpayer money to make security enhancements to the home of Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza. Paxton sued commissioners in September after the American-Statesman reported that they used a vague, non-descript agenda item to route $115,000 to Garza's budget for his safety, including to his residence. The use of public money for security improvements to an official's home was a highly unusual public expense with no policy about how and when the county funds such projects. Paxton said in the suit that commissioners violated the Texas Open Meetings Act by not adequately notifying the public about the expense. "The public was deprived of the opportunity to comment on the proposal," Paxton said. Paxton brought the suit on behalf of Travis County residents Craig Staley, Courtney Pore, Kimberly Brienzi, and Douglas P. Keenan. Commissioners took corrective action a month after the suit, voting again on the item on Oct. 22 with clearer language. Commissioners did not acknowledge a violation of state open government laws in the settlement, but agreed that they would comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act. "Government cannot be transparent if its elected leaders secretly vote on important matters that are required by Texas law to be discussed in an open meeting," Paxton said. "This judgement requires the Travis County Commissioners Court to abide by all government transparency laws." Travis County commissioners released a statement through spokesman Hector Nieto that said they are pleased to reach an agreement with Paxton, which "acknowledges the court's belief that they acted in accordance with requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act for conducting executive closed sessions. "This agreement balances public transparency with security concerns like those permitted for discussion in executive closed session, thereby protecting our employees and elected and appointed officials," the statement said. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Travis County commissioners, Texas attorney general settle lawsuit
