Commissioner's Court June 9, 2026

Open with transcript & summary →Search this meeting's transcript →

The Commissioner's Court met on June 9, 2026, and devoted substantial time to reconsidering conditional approval for the Comanche Circle development project, hearing extensive public comment addressing concerns about traffic and water studies, applicant viability, unmet approval conditions, infrastructure impacts, and legal authority questions. The court also addressed several replat applications for residential subdivisions and voted on the Sailfish conditional approval motion. Additionally, the court handled routine administrative matters including grievance committee appointments, event authorizations, professional services approvals, a dispute with Flock over unperformed license plate reader services, and acceptance of financial reports and invoices totaling approximately $643,875 for the May period.

• Call to order and opening proceduresThe meeting was called to order with invocation and pledges of allegiance.
• Executive session and adjournmentThe court adjourned into executive session to discuss development matters with outside counsel.
• Return from executive session and development discussion openingThe court reconvened at approximately 10:40 a.m. with no decision made in executive session to discuss reconsideration of conditional approval for Comanche Circle.
• Public comment: Christine Lewwich on documentation and applicant conductChristine Lewwich questioned the timing and good faith of traffic and water studies provided by the applicant.
• Public comment: Denny Wander on municipal utility district oppositionDenny Wander, board member of active municipal utility district, expressed opposition to AI projects and water supply concerns.
• Public comment: Jennifer Carrie on water supply analysisJennifer Carrie presented detailed water supply calculations showing claimed demand versus available capacity discrepancies.
• Public comment: Bob Slater on county's legal authorities and optionsBob Slater identified four major issues (roads, water, thermal fires, emergency preparation) and county authority to block projects.
• Public comment: Lonnie Roi on spiritual and creation concernsLonnie Roi characterized AI data centers as a Satanic plan attacking God's creation.
• Public comment: Reed on resource depletion concernsReed expressed concerns that data centers would deplete water and food resources and destroy capital.
• Public comment: Rita Bennett on applicant company viabilityRita Bennett from Public Citizen questioned financial viability of Sailfish, the applicant company.
• Public comment: Lana Robinson on lawsuit precedent and construction workforceLana Robinson urged county to seek special legislative session and raised concerns about construction workforce influx.
• Public comment: Reed on unmet conditional approval requirementsReed Porter detailed unmet conditions from the January conditional approval by the court.
• Public comment: Brad (farmer) on livestock harm from vibrationsBrad, a farmer on Kuxy Highway, warned of livestock harm from project-related vibrations.
• Public comment: Renee on electromagnetic sensitivity health impactsRenee described personal health impacts from electromagnetic sensitivity and relocation to escape exposure.
• Public comment: unnamed speaker on property values and county protective dutiesAn unnamed speaker warned that data center approval would reduce property values to zero and urged commissioners to protect residents.
• Public comment: Andrew Walford on developer vetting standards and Hughes communicationsAndrew Walford urged application of federal Coast Guard vetting standards and detailed problematic communications with Hughes.
• Public comment: Rio (Reed) Porter on legal advice and conditional approval failureRio Porter, lawyer and Protect the Plexi board member, urged court to follow Bracewell legal advice and noted Sailfish has not met conditions.
• Public comment: Laura Crawford on missing water facility approvalsLaura Crawford, board member and treasurer of Protect the Fluxy Valley, detailed missing water approvals for the project.
• Public comment: Joanne Carr on court backbone and Hughes communicationsJoanne Carr, co-founder of Protect the Plexi, asked court to show backbone and detailed excessive Hughes communications with Commissioner.
• Public comment: Brian Crawford on inadequate concept plan and Hughes's dismissivenessBrian Crawford, whose property adjoins the proposed Comanche Circle site, criticized the inadequate original plan and Hughes's disrespect for court authority.
• Public comment: unnamed speaker on Bracewell legal advice and Hughes deal-makingAn unnamed speaker questioned whether commissioners will follow Bracewell legal advice or yield to threats, and raised concerns about communications with Hughes.
• Public comment: Mary Joe Bloomquist on statute compliance and project destructionMary Joe Bloomquist cited local government code regarding purposes and stated project will destroy Hood County.
• Public comment: Craig Jackson on Hughes's legal claims and developer unsuitabilityCraig Jackson, president of Hood County organization, refuted Hughes's legal claims and questioned his suitability as business partner.
• Public comment: PSJ (R) on community autonomy and eroded county authorityPSJ argued that opposition to data centers is matter of community autonomy independent of technical considerations.
• Public comment: Jim Bell on statewide data center project concentrationJim Bell presented data showing massive influx of data center connection requests statewide, with many concentrated in Hood County region.
• Public comment: Jim Bell on Hughes's legal authority claimsJim Bell challenged Hughes's core contention that commissioners lack authority to set conditions.
• Citizen statement on values and community impactA speaker addressed the court with concerns about prioritizing profit and growth over community well-being and environmental protection.
• Traffic impact analysis document receipt timeline disputeA commissioner questioned when the county received traffic impact analysis documents, revealing confusion about the submission timeline and document distribution.
• Development regulations and traffic impact analysis requirements confusionA county official and attorney addressed ambiguities in development regulations regarding when traffic impact analyses must be submitted in the approval process.
• Staged development approval process and legal gamesmanship concernsA speaker characterized the conditional approval process as a deliberate "chess game" designed to advance projects through preliminary stages.
• County attorney defense of legal position and process constraintsThe county attorney responded to accusations of impropriety and explained the legal constraints imposed by Texas law on county authority.
• Attorney general opinion on moratoria authority and conditional stakesThe county attorney publicly committed to accepting an attorney general opinion on whether counties can impose development moratoria.
• Legal expert summary of two-step approval process and regulatory requirementsA legal expert (Deborah, paid consultant) summarized the regulatory framework separating concept plan and site development plan stages with distinct requirements.
• Texas legislative authority limitations and state-imposed restrictions on county powerThe legal expert and county officials explained that Texas state law intentionally restricts county regulatory authority over data centers and related development.
• Resolutions and legislative advocacy efforts regarding data center authorityCounty officials described efforts to petition the state legislature for expanded authority to regulate data centers.
• Emergency services impact considerations and drainage study requirementsA speaker raised questions about whether emergency response and drainage analysis could justify delaying or conditioning approval before the site development plan stage.
• Sailfish conditional approval motionCommissioners voted on whether Sailfish has satisfied conditions from the county's conditional approval letter to proceed to site development.
• Marleene 15 subdivision approval motionCommissioners voted to approve the B flag of Marleene 15 edition blocks one and two.
• Day Ranch 5B replat public hearingPublic hearing held to discuss and consider the replat of Ranch 5B block 15R and 16R, block seven in precinct 3, combining three lots into two larger lots.
• Sierra Blanca phase one replat public hearingPublic hearing convened to discuss the replat of Sierra Blanca phase one lot 3R and 5R in precinct 3, creating two larger lots from three lots.
• Comanche Harbor section E replat public hearingPublic hearing held to discuss the replat of Comanche Harbor section E, lots 13R and 15R block 9, in water quality district precinct one.
• Public hearing scheduled for Reclaim to Preserve phase twoCourt set public hearing date for the replat of Reclaim to Preserve phase two lots 22R and 23R.
• Citizens comment—health authority and public health enforcementSpeaker Kenneth Meadow read Texas Health and Safety Code section 121.003 regarding municipal and county authority to enforce laws protecting public health.
• Citizens comment—community concerns on elected officials and data centersSpeaker expressed frustration that elected officials do not have constituents' backs and urged court to be more persistent in challenging higher authorities.
• Citizens comment—processes and accountability concernsSpeaker Mark raised concerns about poor business practices, lack of process clarity, and examples of inadequate oversight on development projects.
• Citizens comment—Apache Hills project deficiencies and safety concernsSpeaker raised questions about approval authority for Apache Hills project and cited unresolved deficiencies and proximity to daycare.
• Citizens comment—housing development oversight and builder quality concernsSpeaker Bonnie Ro discussed lack of inspections and poor construction practices by builders in rapid housing developments.
• Citizens comment—public event announcement and planning clarificationSpeaker Nikki Sochek announced public event and clarified purpose of concept plan review process.
• Citizens comment—legal authority for zoning and land use regulationsSpeaker Christine Liquitch discussed Texas Association of Counties handbook and Hood County's zoning authority in unincorporated areas.
• Citizens comment—sales tax on data services revenue opportunitySpeaker Donald Keller discussed potential sales tax revenue from Bitcoin and data service operations.
• Grievance committee member pool approvalCourt drew and approved names from grand jury pool to form grievance committee in accordance with local government code 152.014.
• City of Granberry Fourth of July event courthouse parking authorizationCourt authorized county judge to sign city of Granberry's event application for use of historic courthouse parking lot for Fourth of July celebration.
• Granberry event application for courthouse parking lotMotion approved to authorize the judge to sign a Granberry event application for use of the historic courthouse parking lot.
• Removal of item due dates from Commissioner's Court scheduleMotion approved to remove item due dates listed on the Hood County Commissioner's Court date schedule for June 25th and June 29th due to an extra week in the calendar.
• Tyler Technologies jury summons form modificationsMotion approved to authorize the county judge to sign Tyler Technologies Professional Services quote for $350 for jury summons form modifications within the jury management system, charged to account 0744341 3300.
• Flock refund dispute and potential legal actionDiscussion held regarding Hood County's $130,000 paid to Flock for license plate reader services that were not performed, with Flock refusing refund and county considering legal recourse through mediation and arbitration.
• Public comment on Flock contract and county business processesMark Flowers, former law enforcement, spoke regarding performance failures by Flock, improper contract authorization by emergency communications director, and concerns about the drone first responder program.
• Rural Ambulance Service Grant acceptance and Texas EMS sub-agreementMotion approved to accept the rural ambulance grant and authorize the county judge to provide electronic signature for the Rural Ambulance Service Grant Program Award Agreement, contingent on establishing sub-agreement with Texas EMS as sole source provider.
• Lake Granberry Harbor community cleanup vouchersMotion approved to provide 10 vouchers for the citizens collection station to facilitate community cleanup in Lake Granberry Harbor, expiring September 30, 2026.
• Consent agenda approvalMotion approved to accept the consent agenda as stated.
• Interlocal agreement with City of Latexo renewalMotion approved to renew interlocal agreement with City of Latexo for a two-year term, as the previous agreement expired in 2020.
• Certification of invoice payments for May 5–28, 2026Motion approved to pay invoices for the period May 5 through May 28, 2026, in the amount of $643,874.92.
• Bank reconciliation review and acceptanceMotion approved to accept bank reconciliations received and reviewed by the audit department for the period May 1–15, 2026.
• Financial reports review and acceptanceMotion approved to accept financial reports received and reviewed by the audit department for the period May 1–15, 2026.
• AdjournmentMeeting adjourned.

• Public comment: citizen speaker on unmet conditional approval requirements →
• Public comment: citizen speaker on water supply analysis →
• Sailfish conditional approval motion →
• Texas legislative authority limitations and state-imposed restrictions on county power →
• Public comment: citizen speaker on statewide data center project concentration →