Below is the agenda for this meeting, and underneath that are my agenda analysis and meeting analysis.
A. Agenda analysis: 1. Item 12, Goals and timelines, Community Center: As my regular readers know, I typically don't address the goings on at the County Commissioner's meetings. (Here is my last post involving the County.) There are two reasons for that - my limited resources (this blog is a solo unpaid gig), and the County's property is not flooding me. Indeed, the County's property at the City Park is at a lower elevation and, like mine, is getting flooded by the same stormwater source as I am: Irion County ISD. So, this particular agenda item touches on a key part of my analysis about how our elected officials are addressing stormwater issues: our government is flooding itself. That is, stormwater from IC ISD is by design directed into city streets, with the acquiescence of the City of Mertzon, and ultimately reaches City Park, where 3 governmental bodies (IC ISD, City of Mertzon and Irion County) all share space. Thus, all 3 are stakeholders in controlling stormwater flooding. 2. Public comment, item 3: Note that the County allows for a 5 minute period per person for public comment. The City and IC ISD, in contrast, allow 3 minutes. The law, Texas Gov't Code 551.007, does not provide a specific time. It says that the governmental body is permitted to limit the time and that the time must be "reasonable". My experience is that governmental bodies use either 3 or 5 minutes as a standard. I prefer 3 because if I can't say what I need to say in 3 minutes I risk loosing the attention of the elected officials.
B. Meeting Review 1. Here were my comments during public comment
Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I would like to briefly speak on agenda item 12 relating to your goals and timelines for renovation or replacement of the Community Center in City Park.
This Spring will mark my 9th year attempting to get some relief from IC ISD’s stormwater runoff from their buildings. I consider this Court a stakeholder because that part of the School’s runoff that passes over my property also floods City Park and impacts County property there. Another part of the School’s runoff drains north down 1st Street and impacts the Community Center parking area.
I am here to ask, as you start this process of Community Center development, that you keep your vision looking uphill to the School and factor in how their stormwater plans, or lack thereof, will impact your potential development. While the 2024 bonds included money for flood diversion, I am suspending my judgment about whether anything will be accomplished. Unfortunately, there is still sentiment on the School Board that the School can dump its stormwater runoff onto City streets and be absolved of any sins because the City does not have any stormwater ordinances. The City’s failure to regulate is not a legal defense for the School, however. This argument by the School is nothing more than a convenient misdirection.
There is also sentiment on the Board that there is nothing legally or morally wrong with flooding private property with stormwater runoff. This disregard for private landowners by the Board goes back several decades at least. Maybe it’s born from the fact that the School’s wealth is from the minerals, not so much from residential or rural real estate. In any event, every chance I get I remind folks: be good to your neighbors, and don’t flood them because you never know when you will need them.
My other request is that you move forward with an appreciation that flooding is a community wide problem. This has been my central message since I first spoke about flooding in April 2019. Like the School, this Court is also a governmental body. You have the same Constitutional prohibition against taking private property by stormwater runoff that the School does. So, if you increase the impervious footprint of the Community Center, you should not flood our neighbors in the houses along Oak Avenue. We are all in this together. I don’t want my tax dollars to go to an improved Community Center if it means that my neighbors along Oak Avenue lose their homes. You as community leaders shouldn’t want that either.
If we all shared an understanding that flooding is a community wide problem we wouldn’t be in the pickle that we are currently in. All the stormwater that enters my property leaves my property and hurts someone else.
My final request is that your plans include the real potential for increased stormwater runoff from future development at the School. The Texas legislature has made it far too attractive for the School to issue bonds. The School is going to stay in debt for the foreseeable future. There will be even more development that will displace even more stormwater after the 2024 bonds are spent. Whether the School’s growth will be sustainable given their M&O revenue is a debate for another day. In the meantime, this Court should plan, like I am, for ever increasing volumes of stormwater.
Thank you for your time.
To put my comments into perspective, look at above topo map done by Hibbs & Todd for the City of Mertzon back in 2023. It is showing that Areas 1-4 all drain stormwater into Area 5, which is City Park. I have added the red, black and blue lines showing, respectively, the Community Center, Football Stadium and where all the stormwater for all 5 areas must exit. So, both the Community Center and Football Stadium are effectively in the bottom of a 547 acre basin. The Community Center is owned by Irion County, City Park is owned by the City of Mertzon, and the Football Stadium is owned by IC ISD on land leased to it by the City of Mertzon. If any of these 3 local governments refuses to cooperate on stormwater management, all are assured of being flooded, at taxpayer expense. Regrettably, it is a perfect storm of government flooding itself.
Action taken by the Court on Agenda item 12: The Court took an extended break in the middle of the day, and I was unable to return to hear their discussion on the Community Center. When I later contacted Judge Criner by email about whether any action was taken on this item, she replied: "No, it was more of a brainstorming session about the kind of information we might like the community advisory committee to gather from residents."
The County's approach to public comment, item 3: Before the meeting, I was visiting in the hall with a few Commissioners and the County Attorney, James Ridge. I commented to them that I thought the County was being quite generous during the public comment portion of the meeting by allowing to public to speak a full 5 minutes as apposed to the typical 3 minutes that most governmental bodies give. Mr. Ridge quickly pointed out that the County wanted to hear what citizens had to say and that it was best to give ample time for citizens to make their point. Whether it is 3 or 5 minutes, in my opinion this is exactly the approach all governmental bodies should have. Let citizens say what it is they want to say...unless there is some indication that violence is about to occur. I have personal experience with the former leadership at IC ISD throttling my public comments (refer to this page at Meeting analysis 1). The best reason for those managing public meetings to adopt the approach Mr. Ridge is taking is that encouraging input from citizens tamps down their anger and prevents them from becoming principled about their cause. Once a citizen is angered by their government and becomes principled because they sense their speech is suppressed, well, they might start blogging about it.
Like I said in my public comments above to the Commissioners at this meeting, I'm almost 9 years into my advocacy to get flooding relief from IC ISD. I'm not close to being done yet because our stormwater flooding is a community wide problem. This blog isn't just about me and the injustice of a school district flooding my property.
Copyright 2025 G Noelke