Commissioner's Court January 29, 2026 Special Called Meeting

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

Hood County Commissioner's Court held a special called meeting on January 29, 2026, to address a proposed data center development by Sailfish Investors (Comanche Circle project) and consider a moratorium on industrial development. The court heard extensive public testimony expressing concerns about environmental impacts, water usage, wastewater treatment, property values, and the adequacy of the concept plan, alongside developer arguments regarding statutory compliance and economic benefits. Following an executive session, commissioners voted to table a motion to withdraw conditional approval and deny the concept plan, and scheduled a formal moratorium hearing for February 10. The regular court session that followed addressed multiple administrative matters including rescission of a prior letter of support for a development project, approval of engineering services requests, and public hearings on additional concept plans for the Fort Spunky Pacificico facility.

• Call to order and opening remarksThe special called meeting of Hood County Commissioner's Court was opened with invocation and pledges.
• Procedural rules for public commentThe judge warned attendees about conduct standards after prior disruptions, emphasizing civil behavior during the special meeting.
• Kenneth Meador statement on decommissioning funds and tax abatementsA Peluxy rancher urged the court to require escrow decommissioning funds and refuse tax abatements to major corporations.
• Kirk Tesky on LLC structure and Sailfish's legal strategyAn architect outlined the inherent risks of Limited Liability Companies and characterized Sailfish's objection as an attempt to minimize costs while maximizing gain.
• Kirk Tesky on facility scale and comparative conditionsTesky compared the Comanche Circle proposal to a smaller data center toured by a commissioner, emphasizing the vastly larger scope and stricter conditions typically required.
• Kirk Tesky on wastewater treatment and waterway protectionTesky cited scientific research warning of nutrient pollution from wastewater treatment affluent affecting aquatic ecosystems and cited three major waterway concerns.
• Bradley Morgan on contract misrepresentations and incomplete disclosuresA speaker described the contract negotiations as containing "incomplete truths" and raised concerns about water usage, environmental safety, and impacts on livestock.
• Bradley Morgan on Texas-wide water consumption projectionsMorgan cited research data showing Texas is on track for 1 billion gallons per day of water consumption by data centers due to counties permitting them.
• Bradley Morgan on environmental and health impactsMorgan raised concerns about chemical runoff, its effects on livestock and aquatic life, and cited scientific parallels to past environmental hazards like DDT.
• Bradley Morgan on stillborn livestock and decommissioning accountabilityMorgan described finding dead calves and asked if Sailfish would financially compensate for livestock losses from facility impacts.
• Brian Crawford on isolated threats and community oppositionA speaker acknowledged threats against Hughes were made but characterized them as isolated, emphasizing genuine opposition is based on project impacts, not personal harm.
• Brian Crawford on the inadequate concept plan and December timingCrawford criticized the original concept plan submission as cartoonish and lacking useful information, and characterized the December 3rd timing with 30-day approval during holidays as disingenuous.
• Brian Crawford on responsible developer expectations and conditionsCrawford contrasted Sailfish's approach with responsible developer practices and urged strict enforcement of conditional approval requirements.
• Kirk Scoggins on property proximity and cost-benefit analysisA property owner whose land borders the proposed project emphasized the need for thorough health and environmental cost analysis before voting to proceed.
• Kirk Scoggins on moratorium rationale and benefits analysisScoggins justified a moratorium to allow time for health and environmental studies and questioned whether the court and public have been informed of the project benefits.
• Kirk Scoggins on county attorney guidance and Hughes's financial motivationsScoggins praised the county's recent letter to Sailfish seeking clarification and characterized Hughes's interest as purely financial gain without genuine community investment.
• Brian Glenn on respecting conditional approval and opposing circumvention attemptsA speaker praised the court's conditional approval placement and urged them to resist Sailfish's latest attempt to bypass county laws.
• Scott Clayton arguing for project approval with safeguardsA speaker acknowledged community concerns rooted in past bad experiences but argued Comanche Circle is different and presents economic opportunity with proper conditions.
• Community concerns about environmental and quality-of-life impactsMultiple residents expressed concerns about environmental degradation, noise pollution, and threats to property values from data center development.
• Legal argument regarding Chapter 231 jurisdiction and subdivision rulesAttorney Adam Freriedman argued that the county has unique regulating authority under Chapter 231 and that the project is subject to Chapter 231 rather than Chapter 232 subdivision rules.
• Speaker concerns about developer credibility and project scopeJim Bell questioned the developer's transparency and raised concerns about data centers receiving higher priority in permitting than industrial uses.
• Resident request for deliberate process and fair considerationJudy Hatch called for a slower, more thoughtful approach to development decisions.
• Developer statement on regulatory compliance and shot clock requirementsRyan Hughes, managing partner of Sailfish Investors, argued the county has legal obligations to act within statutory timeframes and claimed the concept plan was compliant.
• Developer appeal to prior legal precedent and regulatory limitationsHughes argued the county's authority under Chapter 231 is limited to watershed protection and does not extend to regulating rural character.
• Speaker Mark Lowry on community opposition and threat contextMark Lowry expressed support for the development commission's governance process and warned commissioners not to pursue charges related to the reported threat.
• Judge's letter and community opposition statisticsMark Lowry quoted the judge's letter characterizing the project as a "transformational economic development opportunity" while questioning its compatibility with residents' well-being.
• Historical reference and call for commissioners to defend community interestsMark Lowry invoked historical defense of Texas principles and urged commissioners to take action protecting residents.
• Ron Sutton on community unity and constitutional obligationsRon Sutton emphasized broad community opposition and appealed to commissioners' constitutional oaths to protect liberty and quality of life.
• Tax abatement concerns and comparison to Abilene Stargate projectDan Falber, representing Protect Granberry Hometown, urged the court not to provide tax abatements and presented cautionary evidence from the Abilene Stargate project.
• Executive session recess and resumption of courtThe court convened into executive session with attorney Blakeley Fernandez at 10:18 and reconvened at 11:30 with no action taken.
• Commissioner statement on state law authority and Chapter 231 protectionsAn unnamed commissioner placed on record statutory authority for the county to enforce health and safety regulations tied to watershed protection under Chapter 231.
• County counsel position on Chapter 232 inapplicabilityThe commissioner stated disagreement with the developer's application of Chapter 232 subdivision rules, asserting Chapter 231 subchapter K controls the approval process.
• Commissioner motion to withdraw conditional approval and deny concept planCommissioner Eagle made a formal motion to withdraw the conditional approval of the Sailfish Investors concept plan and deny it outright.
• Commissioner discussion on centralized water and wastewater feasibilityCommissioners discussed whether Sailfish has adequately demonstrated a method to obtain centralized water and wastewater services as required by county regulation Section 5.4.
• Commissioner concern about legal and financial risks of denialA commissioner expressed concern that denying the plan could expose the
• Concept plan deficiencies and motion rationaleA commissioner explained the denial motion based on the applicant's concept plan failing to meet requirements under Chapter 231 Subchapter K.
• Conditional approval versus outright denial discussionLegal counsel and commissioners debated whether conditional approval with additional conditions or outright denial posed less legal risk to the county.
• Technical requirements and regulatory compliance debateCommissioners and counsel discussed whether the 20 development regulation steps were met and whether additional conditions like comprehensive drainage studies were properly required.
• Motion vote and tabling decisionThe motion on the conditional approval failed, and commissioners moved to table pending attorney language modifications.
• Item 2: Executive session notice and moratorum hearing schedulingThe court announced an executive session to discuss Subchapter K and a pending industrial development moratorum, with a formal hearing scheduled for February 10.
• Speaker: Adam Freidman on conditional approval legality and moratorum necessityFreidman argued that conditional approval is illegal per Sailfish's letter and that a moratorum is essential despite litigation risks.
• Speaker: Jim Bell on moratorum loopholesBell emphasized that the moratorum language must include the word "technology" to prevent the applicant from circumventing restrictions.
• Speaker: Ryan Hughes on shot clock provision and regulatory complianceHughes contended he invoked the legitimate shot clock to avoid litigation and that he is following existing county regulations without requesting waivers.
• Speaker: Hughes continued on judicial estoppel and legal defensibilityHughes argued that judicial estoppel prevents the county from reversing its prior position that county regulations are null and void.
• Speaker: Ron Sutton on moratorum necessity and county valuesSutton urged commissioners to reject development that would harm the county's natural resources and rural character.
• Attorney comment on Dunn case precedentAn attorney present challenged the applicability of the 2023 Dunn case to the current situation.
• Item 3: RFQ for water and civil engineering servicesCommissioners approved a motion to request purchasing to publish an RFQ for water and civil engineering services to support development review.
• Item 4: RFQ for transportation bond project engineering designCommissioners approved an RFQ for engineering design services to evaluate transportation bond projects.
• Item 5: Legal services for development regulation modifications tabledA motion to table item five regarding legal services for development regulation modifications was approved due to insufficient preparation time.
• Transition to regular commissioner's court sessionThe special called meeting concluded, and the regular commissioner's court session began with invocation and pledges.
• Service awards for court membersTwo commissioners received five-year service awards.
• Public comments: Scott Clayton on county renaming to Ruby CountyClayton delivered a lengthy poetic presentation advocating renaming Hood County to Ruby County in honor of Ruby Alexander.
• Public comments: Alan Kramer on stewardship and responsible developmentKramer, a new Hood County resident, advocated for stewardship principles, transparency, and temporary moratoria to study development impacts.
• Public comments: Chris Paulson on data center and power plant hazardsPaulson expressed disappointment with the conditional approval and outlined environmental and economic concerns specific to industrial facilities.
• Public comment on environmental and infrastructure concernsA speaker raised concerns about pollution, noise, gas plants, water usage, data centers, and environmental impacts, suggesting a moratorium and rethinking of projects.
• Vistra and Project Spectrum presentationPatrick Allen, director of emergency preparedness at Vistra, presented Project Spectrum as a partnership with Amazon to utilize Comanche Peak's 8,500-acre site for a data center development.
• Air permit and water quality concerns from residentsCindy Highmith read a letter to Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick requesting hearings on Texas Commission on Environmental Quality policies regarding air permits for gas-powered energy plants.
• Water resource and data center development concernsDonna Kellaher discussed water planning, data center impacts on aquifers, and the cost transfers to residents from industrial development.
• Engineering review of concept plansBrian Glenn, presenting an engineering review, raised concerns about drainage, water quality district intrusions, and insufficient details in the Pacificico, Fort Spunky, and Project Spectrum concept plans.
• Miscellaneous business—rescinding letter of supportThe court addressed Item 1: discussing and taking action to rescind the commissioner's court letter of support dated July 9, 2025, regarding an unidentified project.
• Public comment opposing secret agreements and tax abatementsCarolyn Fabber spoke against secret agreements with Bilateral Energy and private companies, comparing industry transparency to successful local examples like Vista Sand.
• Community values and opposition to data centersCindy Highmith stated residents value clean air, water, dark skies, and quiet, rejecting a previous tax abatement to a seller utility and opposing hyperscale data center projects.
• Proposed framework for future development communicationsJohn Highmith proposed that future response letters to developers include specific criteria addressing water usage, pollution, noise, light, and construction impacts.
• Concerns about transparency and lack of guaranteesMark Lowry questioned the transparency, guarantees, and positive benefits claimed in the July 9 letter, requesting commissioners to protect residents.
• Concerns about traffic, noise, water, and tax abatementsMac Bennett expressed concerns about traffic, aquifer impacts, noise pollution, tax abatement logic, and construction impacts from data centers.
• Concerns about lack of transparency and vague agenda languageTina Brown noted the July agenda item was vague with no backup materials or visible letter, and that commissioners voted 3–1 to support the project with only Nanette opposing.
• Commissioner context on July agenda and prior knowledgeThe clerk explained the July 8 agenda item had no backup materials, and the county judge made tweaks to the letter to make it vaguer and less committal during executive session.
• Letter of support rescission for Project PatriotA commissioner sought to rescind a July 9, 2025 letter of support for an unidentified project, citing inability to locate a marked-up version and changes in information since the original vote.
• Unemployment claims payment from HCAD refundThe court approved payment of 2025 unemployment invoice that exceeded budget by using available HCAD refund account funds.
• Advanced funding agreement bridge balance billThe court approved payment of a 2017 TxDOT balance bill for bridge repairs completed in concert with the department.
• Bond project reimbursement resolutionThe court authorized the county judge to sign a resolution expressing official intent to reimburse costs of November 4th, 2025 voter-approved bond projects using county money pending bond issuance.
• Hood County Library policy updatesThe court approved updated Hood County Library policies with revised vision and mission statements.
• Citizens collection center grant interlocal agreementThe court authorized the county judge to sign an interlocal agreement with North Central Council of Governments to accept grant funds for citizens collection center upgrades.
• Environmental health solid waste equipment procurementThe court authorized environmental health to proceed with procurement of equipment, construction, and services under the North Texas COG solid waste implementation grant from fund 55.
• Citizens collection center building design directionThe court appointed Commissioners Wilson and Andrews as a two-member committee to work with environmental health on building design specifications and options within budget constraints.
• Jail transport officer on-call payThe court approved on-call pay for jail transport officers consistent with county compensation guidelines.
• Fleet maintenance services contract awardThe court awarded RFP 2026-01 for fleet maintenance oil and transmission services to Midas as primary vendor and Thomas G. Meyers Automotive as alternate.
• Hood County language assistance planThe court approved the Hood County language assistance plan for placement on the county website, triggered by grant requirements for accessibility services.
• Development commission email and communication proceduresThe court established county email accounts for development commission members and centralized communication procedures to control external inquiries to the county attorney.
• Invoice certification and paymentThe court certified and approved payment of invoices for the period January 3–15, 2026 in the total amount of $1,253,347.
• Ports of Call addition replat (Lot 146R)The court approved the replat of Ports of Call addition combining lots 146 and 147 into a 0.297 acre lot.
• Landings East at Ranches replatThe court approved the replat of Landings East reconfiguring lot lines in the Ranches at Pomona Plantation to create larger lot 3799R and revised reserve areas.
• Public hearing convened on Fort Spunky Pacificico concept planThe court opened a public hearing to discuss and consider the concept plan for the Fort Spunky Pacificico development.
• Project overview and initial concerns on site characteristicsThe speaker reviewed the 862-acre, 16 gas turbine facility seeking 20,000 gallons of water daily from Actton Municipal Water District, with three 80,000-gallon on-site wells drawing from the Trinity aquifer.
• Floodplain administrator clarification on wetlands and permittingThe floodplain administrator and license officer clarified that the project is not located in the floodplain but will require a 414 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for wetland impacts, which the county does not control.
• Speaker Cindy Highmith testimony on state incentives and community impactsCindy Highmith testified that Texas has given data centers a pass on franchise taxes for 10 years worth billions and cautioned against additional tax abatements, noting lack of legislation on setbacks, end-of-life provisions, and community notification.
• Speaker Donna Kellaher testimony on watershed protection and recreational impactDonna Kellaher expressed concern that the project conflicts with the objective of Texas Parks and Wildlife Chapter 231K to protect the Brazos River watershed and provide recreation for all Texans, noting damage to riparian environment and bird habitat.
• Speaker John Highmith testimony on concept plan deficiencies and emergency preparednessJohn Highmith questioned the adequacy of a nine-page concept plan for a multi-billion dollar project near Pion Plantation, a community of 7,500 people, and raised concerns about fire response, evacuation, wetland verification, lighting, noise, construction impact, and vetting of temporary workers.
• Speaker Kevin Pratt response on project benefits and tax revenueKevin Pratt, representing Pacificico, addressed Commissioner Lowry's question about project benefits, stating that taxable value would range from $6 billion to $27 billion, potentially more than doubling county tax revenue even with a 50% tax abatement, and providing funds for schools, roads, and services.
• Pratt response on tax abatements and direct contributions to school districtsKevin Pratt explained that tax abatements are contracts allowing for direct contributions to Glenn Rose ISD, Granberry ISD, and Toller ISD, enabling benefits to flow to the community on the other side of the river most impacted by the project.
• Pratt remarks on concept plan purpose and administrative processKevin Pratt clarified that there is no total agreement on what a concept plan is, noting that historically it has often been less than nine pages or even drawn on a napkin and approved, and that the process is administrative rather than political.
• Pratt testimony on Sub chapter K 231 water quality district regulationsKevin Pratt stated that Sub chapter K 231 was not new to the developer, noting they reviewed the regulations and determined they could comply 100% with water protection and watershed rules to the county's approval.
• Pratt comparison to charter school experience and community supportKevin Pratt recounted his experience as founder and petitioner for a charter school in California, noting that despite visible opposition, hundreds of families supported the school but were afraid to speak publicly, and the school was ultimately approved with full enrollment and expansion.
• Speaker Jonathan Loper testimony on data center compatibility and precedentJonathan Loper, a Pion Plantation resident, questioned whether data centers are compatible with Hood County's land use patterns, infrastructure capacity, tax base, and long-term public welfare, arguing that approving Pacificico sets a precedent for industrial use adjacent to residential communities.
• Speaker Judy Hatch testimony on proximity and noise from existing facilitiesJudy Hatch, a Pion Plantation resident, expressed concern that she lives less than a mile from the proposed data center and already hears noise daily from the Bitcoin facility 3.8 miles away, and warned that cannot guarantee what data centers will occupy the facility.
• Speaker Lena Robinson testimony on real estate market impact and community characterLena Robinson, a real estate broker living in Pion Plantation, warned that the development will negatively impact property values and sales, is inconsistent with the community's built image as historic Granberry and Brazos River destination, and will destroy retirement dreams for residents who invested their life savings.
• Water quality district regulations and centralized water/wastewater requirementsDiscussion of whether the proposed data center facility must comply with water quality district requirements for centralized water and wastewater systems.
• Applicant's response to questions about facility appearance and operational impactsApplicant (described as power systems provider, not data center developer) addressed community concerns about visual and operational characteristics of the proposed facility.
• Stormwater and wastewater management designApplicant described stormwater capture and wastewater treatment layout to protect the Brazos River.
• Project acreage and disturbance areaCommissioner questioned the scale of the project based on total and disturbed acreage.
• Battery energy storage system (BESS) and NFPA 855 standardsCommissioner raised questions about compliance with fire safety standards for the planned battery energy storage system.
• Water service plans and AMUD application statusDiscussion of planned water service via AMUD with supplemental wells and regulatory compliance concerns.
• Turbine specifications and noise concernsQuestions raised about turbine type, quantity, and noise implications.
• Upper Trinity Groundwater District concerns and aquifer rechargeUpper Trinity Groundwater District representative discussed aquifer depletion and water availability for large-scale pumping.
• Groundwater district management tools and concernsUpper Trinity representative described regulatory mechanisms available to manage large permit requests and expressed concern about cumulative demand.
• TCQ air permit correction and traffic impact analysis requirementAdministrative and regulatory compliance issues identified in the application.
• Concept plan approval criteria and adversity standardsCommissioner clarified the legal standards for concept plan review and approval.
• Concept plan compliance and adequate facilities standardsDiscussion of regulatory requirements for concept plan approval, including natural features preservation, water service, and traffic impact analysis.
• Data center construction scale and traffic preparationApplicant acknowledged the massive scale of construction comparable to 1.5 times Dallas Cowboy Stadium and the need for county road preparation.
• Traffic study timing and compliance approachApplicant indicated willingness to provide traffic analysis if county specifies requirements, while noting completion analysis before site development plan is premature.
• Pacificico's energy generation and renewable energy positioningDiscussion of artificial intelligence-driven electricity demand, company experience with renewable and conventional energy sources, and clean energy definitions.
• ESG support and Texas state policy contextDiscussion of environmental, social, and governance goals, company employment by ESG-driven customers, and Texas state government skepticism of ESG.
• Gas power plant advantage and market positioningApplicant's personal perspective on natural gas power plants as preferable due to lack of government incentives and tax breaks.
• Motion to deny concept plan pending complianceCommissioner moved to deny the concept plan until applicant fulfilled regulatory elements including traffic study and water service.
• Applicant's final remarks on good faith compliance effortsApplicant emphasized year-long communication with county staff to achieve compliance and urged approval of concept plan.
• Public testimony on property values and development impactsResident who purchased land in PCON Plantation expressed concerns about data center proximity, property values, and noise mitigation.
• Subchapter K regulatory tool and moratorium proposalTestifier urged commissioners to use county regulatory authority under Subchapter K to protect river, citizens, and implement moratorium.
• Developer leverage and concept plan approval strategyTestifier warned that conditional approval would enable developer to proceed, and recommended stronger regulatory definition.
• Future planning and concept plan standards redefinitionTestifier urged commissioners to redefine concept plan standards and move beyond past practices to meet future development challenges.