Commissioner's Court January 13, 2026

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

The Commissioner's Court met on January 13, 2026, to address a Charlie Kirk Memorial Parkway proclamation and to hear extensive public comment on proposed data center development in Hood County, with speakers raising concerns about water consumption, noise, environmental impacts, and rural character preservation. The court extended the standard comment period to accommodate 15 speakers and received recommendations from the development commission to enact a temporary moratorium on industrial development pending comprehensive regulations, with a public hearing scheduled for February 10, 2026. In addition to the data center discussion, the court approved several operational matters including jail expansion design services, equipment purchases for emergency services, contract renewals, and conditional approval of a 36-lot residential concept plan with conditions. The court also set a public hearing for a replat proposal and approved various road, facility, and grant-related items.

• Charlie Kirk Memorial Parkway proclamationThe court issued an official proclamation to honor Charlie Kirk's life and legacy by dedicating Williamson Road as the Charlie Kirk Memorial Parkway.
• Citizens comments at large—procedural adjustmentThe court extended the standard 30-minute comment period to allow 15 speakers five minutes each due to the topic and number of attendees.
• Matt Long—moratorum authority and growth concernsSpeaker requested the court approve a moratorum on development, citing existing state authority under Texas Local Government Code subchapter K and precedent from 26 years prior.
• Gary Foreman—frontier loss, planning concerns, and heritage tourismSpeaker expressed concerns about losing the county's rural character, criticized poor American planning practices, and advocated for heritage tourism over industrial development.
• John High Smith—noise pollution and data center impactsSpeaker provided technical information about noise additivity and logarithmic scaling to illustrate how multiple turbines create compounding noise problems for nearby residents.
• Cindy High Smith—need for study, environmental analysis, and cautious approachSpeaker praised the court's handling of jail and road bonds through thorough analysis and public input, urging the same careful process for data center decisions.
• Scott Clayton—county name change proposalSpeaker proposed renaming Hood County to Ruby County to move beyond the Confederate heritage associated with the current name.
• Greg Herrell—subchapter K authority, legal exemption, and moratorum requestSpeaker detailed Hood County's unique legal authority under Texas Local Government Code section 231 subchapter K and urged the court to place a moratorum on all development pending legal review.
• Kate Kylie—filmmaker documenting data center expansionSpeaker introduced herself as a filmmaker producing a film about data centers' rapid expansion across the country and requested interviews with commissioners.
• Kenneth Meadow—rancher concerns on water usage, heat, and cumulative impactsRancher speaker detailed environmental and operational concerns including massive water consumption, heat island effects, and cumulative impacts not studied by regulatory agencies.
• Chris Paulson—power industry expert warning on pollution, water, and rate impactsPower industry veteran with 32 years of production experience and advisory board member warned that data centers offer only money to the county at the cost of pollution, groundwater depletion, and rising utility rates.
• Carolyn Reeves—water, food, health threats and oath of officeRancher speaker warned that data centers will deplete water, compromise livestock production and human health, and urged commissioners to honor their oaths by protecting constituents over corporate interests.
• James Wall—data center complexity and water pollutionSpeaker thanked the court for the Charlie Kirk proclamation and outlined data center concerns including minimal job growth, massive water consumption, and pollution impacts.
• Data center concerns and electricity costsSpeakers raised concerns about data center development in Hood County, citing impacts on electricity costs, water resources, and rural character.
• Development commission and health director concernsTina Brown praised the development commission's work and raised concerns about health code enforcement and the need for a health director.
• Concerns about pace and scale of developmentRachel Jacobson expressed that development projects, particularly data centers, are occurring too rapidly and at a scale that exceeds community input and infrastructure capacity.
• Data center opposition and subchapter K authorityRon Sutton stated he is pro-development and pro-technology but opposed data centers that do not benefit citizen safety and well-being.
• Water quality and ultra-low frequency sound concernsJim Bell, a Wat's Edge resident, raised concerns about inadequate knowledge of data center impacts, water pollution, and unmeasured ultra-low frequency sound.
• Development commission moratorum recommendationThe development commission chairman presented the commission's recommendation to enact a temporary moratorum on industrial development pending comprehensive regulations.
• Engineer's technical concerns with Sailfish concept planBrian Glenn, a retired Lockheed engineer with 30 years experience, identified numerous inadequacies in the Sailfish concept plan from an engineering perspective.
• Environmental and economic concerns with Comanche Circle projectKirk Scoggins, whose property borders the proposed Comanche Circle data center, expressed support for a moratorum to conduct thorough due diligence.
• Chemist's rebuttal on water filtration and employment concernsJohn Hackenbach, a retired chemist, rebutted claims about permanent water pollutants and advocated for data center development to provide living wage jobs.
• Long-term growth and development planning concernsMatt Bennett expressed concern about Hood County's growth and advocated for listening to the development board and slowing development.
• Water rights and cumulative effects concernsKenneth Matter raised concerns about water availability and TCEQ's failure to consider cumulative effects of multiple data centers.
• Tourism and small-town character at stakeTracy Crowe, who works in tourism and lives near the proposed Fort Spunky site, expressed concern that data centers will deplete resources and damage Granbury's "Best Small Town in America" reputation.
• Water and agricultural impacts on Somerville County propertyWilliam Bradley Davis, whose family owns property adjacent to the proposed Comanche Circle in Somerville County, expressed concern about water impacts.
• Environmental impact concerns on water resourcesMultiple speakers raised concerns about data center projects' effects on Prairie Creek, Peluxy River, and Brazos River, citing unchangeable environmental damage.
• Public health concerns from data center operationsDr. Wendy Bonell, a board-certified pediatrician at Roose Place Clinic, detailed health risks from large-scale data center operations on vulnerable Hood County children.
• Property and lifestyle preservation concernsTommy Davis, representing a family ranch owned since 1887, requested protection of rural property and lifestyle choices against data center development.
• Wildlife and endangered species protectionCraig Jackson detailed federal protections for bald eagles, golden cheek warblers, Brazos water snakes, and monarch butterflies at risk from data center projects.
• Development regulations and "orderly development" concernsTrevor Trager, a Hood County land owner, opposed data centers and power plants, citing inadequate development regulations and Subchapter K protections.
• Water quality and comprehensive environmental review neededLindsay Patterson, a resident 1.8 miles from proposed Fort Spunky site, urged commissioners to adopt a moratorium pending proper environmental studies.
• Future energy source and regulatory preparedness concernsBissell Smith, an investor and aerospace executive consultant, warned that commissioners are underprepared for future micronuclear power plant regulations that data centers will ultimately require.
• Public hearing scheduled for development regulations and moratoriumThe court set a public hearing for February 10, 2026, to review development commission recommendations and consider a moratorium on data center projects.
• DRG Architects jail expansion contract authorizationThe court authorized the county judge to sign the DRG Architects contract for jail expansion design services with clarifications on fee structure and reimbursable expenses.
• SART biannual reports submission mandateThe court approved submission of Sexual Assault Response Team biannual reports to the sexual assault survivors task force by February 1, 2026, as mandated by House Bill 47.
• Hood County Radio System Advisory Board organizational documentsThe court directed the Hood County Radio System Advisory Board to develop organizational documents including mission, goals, roles, and project timeline for future approval.
• Transport travel budget increase from contingencyThe auditor requested an $8,000 increase to the transport travel budget from contingency due to higher-than-expected demand.
• Transport travel budget increaseThe court approved an increase to the transport travel budget to fund fugitive retrieval operations.
• Clear View Chiropractic Care contract renewalThe court authorized renewal of a contract with Clear View Chiropractic Care at 5717 Act on Highway Suite 101 Granberry, Texas with a 365-day termination notice provision.
• Ballistic vest account establishmentThe court established a ballistic vest account in Fund 55 for $4,500 to purchase three self-contained breathing apparatus vests while awaiting grant approval.
• Hood County Firefighters Association mobile emergency notification system reimbursementThe court approved reimbursement of $7,867 to Hood County Firefighters Association for renewal of a five-year contract with I am Responding for the mobile emergency notification system.
• HVAC units repair and replacement fundingThe court approved an additional $75,000 top-up allocation for HVAC unit repair and replacement from Fund 55.
• Annex one dealer tag office alterationsThe court approved facilities maintenance alterations to the dealer tag office in Annex One at no additional cost to improve accessibility and customer service.
• HB 3000 rural ambulance service grant applicationThe court authorized the county judge to submit an application for the HB 3000 Rural Ambulance Service Grant for up to $350,000.
• Crescent Volunteer Fire Department SCBA air packs reimbursementThe court reimbursed Crescent Volunteer Fire Department $83,986 for early purchase of 14 self-contained breathing apparatus air packs and masks.
• Advanced funding agreement for railroad crossing markings and signageThe court authorized the county judge to sign an advanced funding agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation for railroad crossing safety improvements at no county cost.
• Steve Barry reappointment to Sentinex Rural Transportation DistrictThe court reappointed Steve Barry to the Sentinex Rural Transportation District for a two-year term.
• Consent agenda approvalThe court approved the consent agenda as stated.
• Star Holler Road speed limit establishmentThe court established a 45 mph speed limit on Star Holler Road from Bluffdale Road to Farm to Market Road 56.
• Public hearing set for Landing East replatDevelopment staff recommended setting a public hearing for replat of Landing East Lot 3759R2.
• Homestead Acres final plat approval for recordingThe court approved the final plat of Homestead Acres for recording by the county clerk.
• Orchard 15B replat approvalThe court approved the replat of Orchard 15B, Lot 3614R in Precinct 2 after public hearing.
• Concept plan approval for Comanche Valley 36-lot developmentThe court approved the concept plan for a 36-lot residential development on 33.6 acres in Precinct 3.
• Public hearing opened for Comanche Valley concept plan speakersPublic hearing convened at 1:25 p.m. with 10 registered speakers; each speaker allocated five minutes.
• Concept plan submission and vested rights under Texas lawThe applicant submitted a concept plan as the first step in the permitting process, triggering vested rights protections under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 245.
• Eight regulatory criteria for concept plan reviewThe county's regulations establish eight specific criteria for reviewing concept plans, distinct from subdivision review which is governed by state law.
• 30-day statutory deadline for actionState law imposes a strict 30-day deadline for the court to act on the concept plan submission; failure to act results in automatic approval.
• Conditional approval as regulatory optionThe regulations allow the county to conditionally approve a concept plan, permitting collection of additional information and setting standards that must be met before site plan submission.
• Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District water permitting overviewDoug Shaw, general manager of the Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District, explained the district's well classification system and permit requirements for the proposed project.
• Water allocation calculation and spacing requirementsThe district allocates water based on a formula multiplying aquifer thickness, acreage, and a factor of 500; new wells must meet spacing requirements.
• Penalties for exceeding water permitsThe district has escalating penalties for overproduction of water under a permit.
• Applicant's hydrogeology study and coordination effortsThe applicant's representative, Brian, clarified that a hydrogeology study was commissioned and outreach was made to the district to align with permitting expectations.
• Applicant's water strategy and formula complianceThe applicant stated adherence to the standard allocation formula and emphasized reliance on groundwater after the failed Somerville County water deal.
• Public comment on incomplete concept plan—water treatment and power systemsA member of the public with 32 years in the power industry raised concerns that the concept plan omits critical water treatment and power generation infrastructure.
• Staff response on concept plan scope and state regulationCounty staff explained that the concept plan is a preliminary step and that many details (sewer plants, building permits) are regulated by state agencies outside county purview.
• County authority under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 231A county representative explained the scope of regulatory authority granted by Chapter 231, subchapter K.
• Public comment citing county's delegated water protection responsibilityA member of the public read from the development permit regulations, highlighting the county's stated responsibility for water resource protection.
• Staff recommendation for conditional approval with additional information requirementsCounty legal counsel recommended conditional approval with conditions requiring comprehensive information before site plan submission.
• Public comment on 50% lot coverage criterion and incomplete planA member of the public argued that without the power plant footprint, the court cannot determine compliance with the 50% lot coverage limit and therefore cannot approve.
• Concept plan review and conditional approval frameworkAttorney discusses regulatory criteria for concept plan evaluation and the conditional approval process to address community concerns about watershed and downstream impacts.
• Water treatment and rejection water concernsCommunity member Chris Paulson raises issues about wastewater treatment plant and water recycling involving brine, acid, and caustic rejection waters.
• Public hearing closure and speaker continuationStaff announces closure of public hearing portion and transitions back to Commissioner's Court with Brian Glenn as first speaker.
• Brian Glenn engineering and drainage deficienciesGlenn critiques the concept plan for missing engineering details, inadequate drainage study response, and traffic concerns related to construction access.
• Sailfish development intensity and buffer analysisGlenn explains how the developer is attempting to fit within rural development requirements but is exploiting weaknesses in those rules.
• Discharge points and Prairie Creek jurisdictional concernsGlenn identifies three water discharge points, with the main one being Prairie Creek, a dry creek until heavy rain that flows to the Brazos River.
• Well spacing requirement violationsGlenn disputes developer's claim of meeting well spacing requirements, finding four of five wells within insufficient distance.
• Water pumping capacity concernsGlenn expresses doubt about nanotube capacity to process water volume from detention ponds and five wells.
• Kirk Tesky architectural and regulatory analysisKirk Tesky, executive vice president of large architectural firm, critiques the concept plan as lacking information normal jurisdictions expect for multi-billion dollar projects.
• Topographic and detention pond deficienciesTesky identifies missing topographic information and unrealistic detention pond design with 100-foot elevation difference.
• Water and wastewater systems documentation gapsTesky points out missing facilities documentation for water processing and wastewater treatment placement.
• Traffic impact analysis absenceTesky emphasizes the absurdity of lacking traffic impact analysis for a project as large as the city of Glenrose.
• Attorney guidance and recommendation optionsTesky references attorney's confirmation of approval/denial/conditional approval options and recommends denial with detailed resubmission.
• Brian Crawford non-compliance and inadequacy findingsBrian Crawford, residing in Somerville County, states the Comanche Circle concept plan is inadequate and non-compliant with Hood County regulations.
• Project scale and impact magnitudeCrawford describes the massive scale of the proposed AI data center complex with 45 buildings equivalent to 112 Walmarts.
• Sworn responsibility and plan denial urgingCrawford invokes the court's responsibility to protect citizens and urges denial of the inadequate plan.
• Buffer zone deficiencies per Section 4.2DCrawford cites Section 4.2D criteria for acceptable concept plan and documents buffer inadequacy.
• Selfish Investors response contradictionCrawford documents a November 3 response from Selfish Investors claiming 0.5 miles distance that contradicts the actual 300-foot proximity shown in plan.
• Traffic impact analysis and local safety concernsCrawford cites Section 4.2D criteria number 15 regarding transportation facilities and traffic analysis, emphasizing local safety risks.
• Developer inexperience in hyper-scale projectsCrawford characterizes developer as inexperienced in completing hyper-scale AI data center projects.
• Developer response: regulatory pathway and complianceDeveloper Hughes advocates for concept plan approval, explaining the staged development process and regulatory oversight at each phase.
• Groundwater well permitting and Upper Trinity DistrictHughes explains groundwater wells will be registered with Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District under their spacing and pumping rules.
• Wastewater facility and TCEQ regulationHughes clarifies wastewater system design and TCEQ's regulatory authority over centralized systems.
• Traffic access and TexDOT permitsHughes describes traffic access via FM 51 and FM 56, with TexDOT oversight and potential safety improvements.
• Stormwater detention and drainage studyHughes describes detention design compliance and staged drainage study provision through site development plan phase.
• Concept plan approval pathway and next stepsHughes explains that concept plan approval is first step enabling progression to site development plan with detailed engineering.
• Abene project comparison and project ownershipCommissioner questions Hughes about property ownership and asks comparison to Abilene project regarding scale.
• Wastewater during construction periodCommissioner expresses concern about worker sanitation during multi-year construction before wastewater treatment plant is operational.
• Comanche Peak construction wastewater precedentCommunity member shares experience from Comanche Peak power plant construction with 13,000 workers during peak and 1,000-person wastewater treatment capacity.
• Data center development profitability and water contingenciesThe developer addressed questions about project viability under various water availability scenarios and whether the project would proceed regardless of obstacles.
• Power plant specifications and concept plan presentationThe developer explained power plant water usage and addressed why the facility was not shown on the concept plan despite being central to operations.
• Commissioner Andrews' data center visit observationsA commissioner shared firsthand observations from a Metroplex data center visit regarding water usage, cooling systems, noise, and nearby property values.
• Commissioner Eagle's legal and regulatory concernsA commissioner raised statutory interpretation questions about watershed jurisdiction, water quality districts, and the legal process for conditional approval versus denial.
• Legal counsel recommendations on concept plan conditionsCounty legal counsel explained the statutory options and rationale for conditional approval to gain oversight and additional information.
• Conditional approval motion for Comanche Circle projectThe court moved, seconded, and passed a conditional approval of the Comanche Circle concept plan with specific conditions and 45-day timeline for submission.
• Invoice certification and bill paymentThe court approved payment of invoices and reviewed financial reports for the specified periods.
• Financial reports and bank reconciliationsThe court received and reviewed financial reports and bank reconciliation documents prepared by the audit department.
• Special meeting call to order and owner's agent RFQA special session opened with invocation and pledge, followed by discussion of jail addition construction manager procurement.