MUD Forum

Killeen City Council member Steve Harris talks with council members Shirley Fleming and Gregory Johnson during a Municipal Utilities District (MUD) No. 2 at the VFW 9191 Auxillary in Killeen on Thursday, March 8, 2018.

Editors note: This story has been updated to correct a quote.

A Killeen council member alleged collusion in the city’s 2013 contract to create a 3,750-home subdivision on the southern outskirts of Killeen.

During a town hall forum hosted by Councilman Steve Harris to discuss the city’s contract with developer Bruce Whitis for the Bell County Municipal Utility District No. 2, Harris said the contract was not mutually beneficial for the city and was concerned about collusion or coercion between the developer, some council members and city staff.

“First thing’s first, I think there needs to be an investigation, into collusion with the MUD,” Harris said.

After a rundown of the contract by City Council at-large candidate Mellisa Brown, former Mayor Dan Corbin stood before the audience of around 25 and said: "Are you intentionally misrepresenting the facts or are you just grossly ignorant of the facts and the law?"

Corbin was mayor during the council’s approval of the contract in 2013.

That led to a back and forth between Corbin and Brown, in which Corbin accused Harris of intentionally misleading the public.

Bell County Commissioner John Fisher, who represents Killeen, then asked to clarify some of the facts of the presentation before he was denied a chance to speak.

“There’s hundreds of MUDs in the state of Texas — go to those communities and ask them how it’s going for them,” Fisher said, before leaving the Veterans of Foreign Wars 9191 Auxiliary.

The presentation largely focused on the contractual stipulations of the city’s agreement, most notably the city’s obligation to construct road and water-sewer improvements in concert with Whitis as the subdivision builds out.

As a municipal utility district, the subdivision will operate independently of the city and use resident property taxes to pay back the expected $238 million in debt floated to pay for district infrastructure.

Part of the city’s obligations explicitly listed in the contract are the construction of a 1-million-gallon water tank — which the city has since expanded to 3 million gallons — and the expansion of Chaparral Road to a five-lane thoroughfare.

The contract stipulated the developer would recoup some of the money back to the city for those improvements while following city standards on construction and infrastructure. In turn, the city would have the right to annex the development at a later date, taking over property tax revenue.

By Brown’s count, the improvements would cost the city around $30 million without developer reimbursement and possible federal funding.

Former councilman Jared Foster, one of four members who voted to approve the contract, said the allegations of coercion were “disingenuous.”

“That MUD was the most difficult vote I made as a council member; however, it is disingenuous to suggest anyone was coerced or colluded,” he said. “We were presented with plan, some of which I did not like. Considering the growth there, it was the best option available.”

Foster had previously voted against a prior proposal by Whitis which would include 4,500 homes in the subdivision and conform to few of the city's demands on the building and infrastructure.

Harris said he was using the forum as a tool to circumvent council consensus on a possible MUD investigation and potentially court new council members in the coming May 5 election.

“This election is very important,” Harris said.

In fact, the forum appeared to be a campaign event of its own with nearly half the audience comprised of City Council and mayoral candidates.

In attendance were council members Shirley Fleming and Gregory Johnson, who is running for re-election; council candidates Patsy Bracey, Brown, Bruce Bynum, Placidio J. Rivera and Tolly James Jr.; and mayoral candidates Hal Butchart and Holly Teel.

kyleb@kdhnews.com | 254-501-7567

(14) comments

Heather12

NOW A PROPERTY OWNER WITH THE HELP OF PROSPER LOAN: prosperloanfirm@yahoo.com
Share this to help a soul right now, Ya'll will agree with me that the rate of online scamming is increasing by the day. I'm also a victim of it as i was scammed about 25,000usd all in the quest of seeking for an home loan. I actually gave up until a government official directed me to PROSPER LOAN FIRM, Despite the fact of my plight i had to give it a try since it was coming from a top government official. All comment ya'all see online are bullshit and crap, I know the pains i went through just because i was looking for a loan i had to keep on selling valuables to keep paying unforeseen fees. I and some great personality have started a movement to end online scam because people are dying everyday, losing their homes, selling their property just because they need a loan. Apart from been a beneficiary of about 295,000usd in PROSPER LOAN FIRM lending scheme , We have also made a research to see that they are the best around the globe as far as online lending is concern, They have proven their self trustworthy and reliable back to back without failing. To end people debt, financial burden and been victimized here is the details of prosper loan firm. Email: prosperloanfirm@yahoo.com OR call +1(816) 366-8769 to put an end to your financial needs now. I'm Heather Patrick from Georgia, United States. It doesn't take you anything to share this great information and good news. Email: prosperloanfirm@yahoo.com OR call +1(816) 366-8769 and celebrate financial outbreak for the rest of your life.

Heather12

NOW A PROPERTY OWNER WITH THE HELP OF PROSPER LOAN: prosperloanfirm@yahoo.com
Share this to help a soul right now, Ya'll will agree with me that the rate of online scamming is increasing by the day. I'm also a victim of it as i was scammed about 25,000usd all in the quest of seeking for an home loan. I actually gave up until a government official directed me to PROSPER LOAN FIRM, Despite the fact of my plight i had to give it a try since it was coming from a top government official. All comment ya'all see online are bullshit and crap, I know the pains i went through just because i was looking for a loan i had to keep on selling valuables to keep paying unforeseen fees. I and some great personality have started a movement to end online scam because people are dying everyday, losing their homes, selling their property just because they need a loan. Apart from been a beneficiary of about 295,000usd in PROSPER LOAN FIRM lending scheme , We have also made a research to see that they are the best around the globe as far as online lending is concern, They have proven their self trustworthy and reliable back to back without failing. To end people debt, financial burden and been victimized here is the details of prosper loan firm. Email: prosperloanfirm@yahoo.com OR call +1(816) 366-8769 to put an end to your financial needs now. I'm Heather Patrick from Georgia, United States. It doesn't take you anything to share this great information and good news. Email: prosperloanfirm@yahoo.com OR call +1(816) 366-8769 and celebrate financial outbreak for the rest of your life.

Alvin

This is the personal opinion of this writer.
@Majag89: Copy from the first installation of your presentation, Mar 9, 2018 8:51am

Am I the only one who sees the irony behind Mr. Harris accusing folks of collusion when his meeting appears to be public evidence of he, himself colluding with other in violation of the Texas Open Records Act?
In the article Mr. Harris is reported to say he was deliberately using the forum to circumvent the Council. The picture accompanying the story clearly shows Mr. Harris, Ms Fleming and Mr. Johnson (i.e a quorum of the Killeen City Council) discussing this matter.'
Continuation of copy: 'Mr. Harris is clearly reported to have said that his intent in this meeting was to discuss raising awareness of the issue so that the council could/would at a later date start an investigation of the matter. And the picture associated with the story clearly shows three city councilmembers discussing that very topic.
Now I'm sure KDH got this story wrong and Mr. Harris, Ms Fleming and Mr. Johnson were just discussing where to eat after the meeting. Otherwise, Mr. Harris' quote and the accompanying photo are proof positive of the textbook definition of a "walking quorum".'

@Majag89: Mar 12, 2018 7:29am
Copy: 'Quorum or not a quorum, that is the question we must ask each other. Please read the legal case I cited in my previous post.'
Continuation of copy: 'It's called a "walking quorum". As defined by the Texas Open Records Act, a walking quorum occurs when members of a governmental body meet in a series of meetings, in person or via phone or other electronic communication in numbers LESS Than a quorum to discuss public business AND avoid requirements of the Texas Open Records Act.'
Continuation of copy: 'So let's recap for the audience playing at home (and the KDH asleep at the wheel). We appear to have a picture of three council members discussing public business (investigating MUD contract) at a forum specifically organized by Mr. Harris to circumvent the council.'
Continuation of copy: The select few of the 4.58%, who voted, seem ready to tar and feather past city council members with far less evidence of collusion, but can't see the log in their own eye.
Oh the IRONY.'

@Majag89: Mar 13, 2018 2:09pm

Copy: 'I clearly stated that 1) I thought investigating MUD might be something worth while to pursue, 2) I called all three council members honorable 3) I stated the picture could be as innocent as discussing dinner plans for after the meeting and 4) that KDH probably got the story wrong.' End of copy.

Wow: There is not on shades of black and white to these writings, but also every other color in the prescribed rainbow and it starts with 'Am I the only one who sees the irony behind Mr. Harris accusing folks of collusion when his meeting appears to be public evidence of he, himself colluding with other in violation of the Texas Open Records Act?' and ends with 'Wow! I really don't know where to start. So because I tried to illustrate that things aren't always as they appear, I've been branded a good ole boy, accused of being used by or being a willing participant in a campaign to discredit council members and told to "stand down".'
Now as to your presentation that, in my opinion, you seem to be stating that 'once an individual prepares, delivers, is successful at running of an office, you state that:

Copy: ' It's called a "walking quorum". As defined by the Texas Open Records Act, a walking quorum occurs when members of a governmental body meet in a series of meetings, in person or via phone or other electronic communication in numbers LESS Than a quorum to discuss public business AND avoid requirements of the Texas Open Records Act.' End of copy.

Or in essence, if someone runs for office, gets elected, then by definition, 'a person is restricted from any form of communication be it electronic or otherwise if they are contacting with or in any form of communication, because the Texas Open Records Act, which defines a walking forum does not have any definition of that being a majority but simply implies that 'other than the individual him or her self cannot communicate on any sort of governmental plans, procedures, or anything relative to any form of this governmental activities whether it be past present or future.
That to me conflicts with our First Amendment Rights of our Constitution and as for my opinion, is 'unconstitutional'. This is an attempt to negate the Freedom of Speech' of this person, which this newspaper has been doing for a long time now by not allowing me to look at and review the internet copy of the KDH which is freely distributed, but now is wanting to 'have me buy for a price which I do not think is being charged to other viewers. This then, in my personal opinion, is restricting my Freedom of Speech/ Another thing that this newspaper is and has done in the past is drop an article in which I commented on and then replace it with an almost identical article that does not have my presentation reflected in it.

Now it seems to me that I commented on councilman Harris, when it first came up before the council, our city manager was quoted as saying that he was introducing a new forum in which instead of allowing councilman Harris to go forward with his presentation, it would be necessary to call for the question of whether or not councilman Harris would even be allowed to call for the question and when this item was introduced, the 4 council persons rejected it so that councilman Harris could not even get it before the council for discussion.

To my knowledge, this has not been asked of the city council again.

I am also aware of the city manager bringing up a question of a 'super majority' of requiring a vote of 6 to 1 in matters relating to this city council. I have asked many questions of this administrative group and have received zero answers.

In the meeting, Councilman Harris mentioned the fact that on many occasions, such as the secretive meetings in which no minutes are ever taken, he alluded to the fact that 'there is a division between the group of 4 members not including the mayor and the 3 members in which they do not constitute a simple majority. With this my suggestion was to get beyond that formulation by asking for a vote in which it would be required that the super majority would be voted on and accepted, thus requiring in all future meetings that would be the required vote. Another issue in which this came about was the avenue that was put in play in 1990 that the KEDC was able to conduct contract negotiations without he formal approval of an 'in session' city council, that this last episode of the chemical plant, the 3 other city council people was not even aware of 'what was going on', and that resulted in an inquiry that this be voted on by the entire 'in session' council minus the 2 council people and the mayor who sits on the board of the KEDC, but no action has been taken on this either. And it goes on and on.

One of the more recent questions I have asked is, 'it is my perspective that if a contract for bid is 'let', then that is a 'zero' in the column of bid number'. If it goes through a number it iterations, then it is assigned an alpha designation until it is designated as a final copy for construction. Then any and all changes to said drawings are numbered in sequential order.

This bid document that went to 3 competitive bidders and this company was almost $3 million dollars below the city estimate, I am assuming that this was not provided to any other company or individual, so how does it get to a change that is number 18 or 19 I think, and then qualifies for a resultant almost $90,000 dollars decrease???? It just doesn't make sense to me that this situation can be plausible.

In answer to this question by @Alvin: on Mar 12, 2018 7:01 pm this person wrote:

Copy: 'This is an attempt by Texas legalese to quantify what 'any members of a governmental body has construed so that when any governmental officer holder regardless of what level or position they have obtained, that said governmental holder of said office is 'restrained from speaking his mind regardless of what said conditions are. So, according to Texas law, unless you speak to the open wind, if two or more holders of any level of a governmental office, you are restricted to ' talking about how the weather is only', that it against the law to speak, in any form or format, about conditions of said service, either for or against, unless you have a 'legal walking quorum in which the other members are free to cajole and harass the other members of said quorum, 'in an open manner'. Or in other words, 'this council is not free to conduct a meeting in which they are asking for help from the general public. To err is human except in this city's Charter in which it will be severally condemned.

Now I ask you, 'are you of the opinion that these city council persons are free to promote questions of this nature or do you feel that this council can be restricted by the ' Texas Open Records Act' in which it is by definition 'not a question of this country's Constitution and Bill of Rights' and should continue to be a limiting factor???? I would like for you to answer please.

This has been the personal opinion of this writer and nothing shall be used, in context or without or changed in any way without first notifying, and receiving explicit approval from this writer.
One of the 4.58 % who voted.

VetA42

No Sir You are not alone.
Collusion a word that was the delight of the politician and news media.
Investigation, accusations, careers, reputations ruined because of this word.
Now We have in Killeen risen to the challenge that collusion is now part of Our City Without Limits.
I wonder what the MUD situation would be called if collusion hadn't become a choice of the politician and news media. Is it possible that deception, deceit maybe manipulation.

MAJAG89

Wow! I really don't know where to start. So because I tried to illustrate that things aren't always as they appear, I've been branded a good ole boy, accused of being used by or being a willing participant in a campaign to discredit council members and told to "stand down".
Did you even read my initial post overseer?
I clearly stated that 1) I thought investigating MUD might be something worth while to pursue, 2) I called all three council members honorable 3) I stated the picture could be as innocent as discussing dinner plans for after the meeting and 4) that KDH probably got the story wrong. (which according to all of you, they did).
By the way, I did check out Mr. Harris' responses on KDH Facebook page. I'm convinced Mr. Harris does not like the MUD contract and because of that he believes something illegal went down. He might even be right. He even has the right to express his belief in forums just like the one he organized.
However as a council member he must remember his actions must be above reproach. He cannot let himself be misquoted or appear to be working in defiance of the law. He cannot continue to incorrectly think that a walking quorum means majority. It does not. It is black letter law.
That means he has to ensure his interactions with other council members or even future council members cannot be called into question. He didn't do that here and I thought it was ironic since he is alleging that the former council did something that appears not be correct, which is why I said something in the first place.
Which by the way, I have the right to do and for someone to tell me to stand down the war is over is highly offensive. What's next? You going to tell me "Boy, you best be learning your place before someone gets hurt? Those on the side of truth do not ever fear civil discussion. I'm actually one of the 1% who served and defended our constitutional freedoms, including the freedom of speech, so I will not stand down.
In conclusion I would just summarize by saying this. In your quest to take down a perceived evil, don't become the evil itself. There's more than one-side to a story. The former Mayor has a right to defend his name. Don't be surprised when he does. And when he does, it doesn't mean he's guilty (as Mr. Harris alleges in his Facebook post). Nor does it mean he's innocent.
Of course the obvious irony here is an investigation would clear the matter up once and for all. The real question is when the investigation disproves Mr. Harris' claims, will he and his followers be willing to accept the answer or will they scream cover up? Because if Mr. Harris truly wants an investigation, he has to be prepared for and willing to accept that the investigation might prove him wrong.
Not every bad decision is illegal, though ever illegal decision is bad by definition.

overseer

@ MAJAG89 Is it safe to assume that you are one of those people who believe President Trump colluded with the Russians? It does appear to this individual that you are trying to use that same self-hate of our president to, somehow, categorize the council members in this picture. Let's say, the Herald takes hundreds of pictures of you at an office party and decide to post one of them. Unfortunately, the one they choose to post, is a picture of you talking with an attractive person of the opposite sex or, even of the same sex. With that picture, they insinuate that you are engaged in some type of extramarital affair and, people believe it. Are you ok with those people accusing you when they didn't even know what the two of you were talking about?
I defend these council members as, I have learned that this picture was taken after Councilman Harris had finished his portion of the presentation. Have you even tried to consider any other reason he may have been speaking to them? "How did I do?" "What did you think?" "Hey guys! Glad to see that you made it!" It is quite dismaying that you appear to honestly think that, after a presentation that these three would get together and begin discussing ways to "circumvent" the will of the council? That sounds like lawyer talk...sounds like "our former mayor" type of talk.
For the reporter of this story to use the word "circumvent" is to me, as the word was also used in this column, "Disingenuous". Did you notice that the "reporter" quoted every other one of Mr. Harris' statements but, for this particular statement regarding the word "circumvent", he did not. This implies that this "reporter" used what is called in the writing business, "personal interpretation" of a statement. This "reporter" did not, as reported to me by individuals present at the presentation, hear Mr. Harris say these words. The "reporter" created these words on his own. This alleged attempt of this "reporter" causes me to question if he is part of the "fake news" people that councilman Juan Rivera was accusing the Herald of at the candidate forum last week. Maybe councilman Rivera was right. Perhaps you, yourself, are on the side of those who would wants the "good ole boys" to continue to have their way in Killeen. Consequently, as a result of your statements, I will say that, "If it looks like a "good ole boy", walks like a "good ole boy" and quacks like a "good ole boy", it must be a "good ole boy."" Again, I contest that it was not a walking quorum. You are being used or are willingly participating in a campaign to try and discredit the good works of a man and his fellow city council members trying to help our city, not harm it - legally. Stand down Maja, the war is over. Circumvention, as described in this article, is not Mr. Harris trying to get around the "will" of the council but, in my humble opinion, trying to save the citizens from the council's decision at that time, circumventing the "will" of the people. I was around when that happened and citizens were not for the agreement. Go and read his post responses on the Herald's Facebook page. The discussions there is much more robust and informative than on this page alone.

Alvin

This is the personal opinion of this writer.

@MAJAG89:
Copy: 'It's called a "walking quorum". As defined by the Texas Open Records Act, a walking quorum occurs when members of a governmental body meet in a series of meetings, in person or via phone or other electronic communication in numbers LESS Than a quorum to discuss public business AND avoid requirements of the Texas Open Records Act.' End of copy.
Or just to say: This is an attempt by Texas legalese to quantify what 'any members of a governmental body has construed so that when any governmental officer holder regardless of what level or position they have obtained, that said governmental holder of said office is 'restrained from speaking his mind regardless of what said conditions are. So, according to Texas law, unless you speak to the open wind, if two or more holders of any level of a governmental office, you are restricted to ' talking about how the weather is only', that it against the law to speak, in any form or format, about conditions of said service, either for or against, unless you have a 'legal walking quorum in which the other members are free to cajole and harass the other members of said quorum, 'in an open manner'. Or in other words, 'this council is not free to conduct a meeting in which they are asking for help from the general public. To err is human except in this city's Charter in which it will be severlly condemned.

In that case, we should start a drive, within this city, to 'outlaw all forms of walking meetings, secret meetings, and/or other forms of meetings other than a duly formed 'in session' meeting, which would include study sessions, committee's, sub committee's in which participation of a city council member, mayor, or city manager participates in'. In this manner we can cut out just what these council persons are talking about. Or in other words, 'you cannot have your cake and eat it too'

I believe this should be brought up in the first 'open session' of the city council.

Copy: 'So let's recap for the audience playing at home (and the KDH asleep at the wheel). We appear to have a picture of three council members discussing public business (investigating MUD contract) at a forum specifically organized by Mr. Harris to circumvent the council.' End of copy.

So let's recap for second time: If these 3 city council persons, who by definition, I believe the First Amendment was written for just such a condition so as to 'stifle the free speech of each and everyone of us, and in turn allow each to speak in an clear and concise voice for all to hear just what is said by said individual, and allude to just what is taking place in those secretive meetings, and to illicit the membership of the citizens of this city as to just what is going on'.

Or in other words: 'Sure looks like, smells like and quacks like walking quorum', and one that should be brought out into the open and voted down'.

This has been the personal opinion of this writer and nothing shall be used, in context or without or changed in any way without first notifying, and receiving explicit approval from this writer.
One of the 4.58 % who voted.

MAJAG89

Quorum or not a quorum, that is the question we must ask each other. Please read the legal case I cited in my previous post.
It's called a "walking quorum". As defined by the Texas Open Records Act, a walking quorum occurs when members of a governmental body meet in a series of meetings, in person or via phone or other electronic communication in numbers LESS Than a quorum to discuss public business AND avoid requirements of the Texas Open Records Act.
So let's recap for the audience playing at home (and the KDH asleep at the wheel). We appear to have a picture of three council members discussing public business (investigating MUD contract) at a forum specifically organized by Mr. Harris to circumvent the council.
Sure looks like, smells like and quacks like walking quorum.
The select few of the 4.58%, who voted, seem ready to tar and feather past city council members with far less evidence of collusion, but can't see the log in their own eye.
Oh the IRONY.

THUGNIFICENT KILLED ME

Let me consider, there are SEVEN council ROYALS, led by one KING or QUEEN.
Three attended the event captioned. Someone asserted THREE comprises a QUORUM, thus the presence of the THREE is said to a council meeting. Go figure, news to me. QUORUM = the minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.

Alvin

This is the personal opinion of this writer.

Copy: 'Am I the only one who sees the irony behind Mr. Harris accusing folks of collusion when his meeting appears to be public evidence of he, himself colluding with other in violation of the Texas Open Records Act?

Continuation of copy: 'In the article Mr. Harris is reported to say he was deliberately using the forum to circumvent the Council. The picture accompanying the story clearly shows Mr. Harris, Ms Fleming and Mr. Johnson (i.e a quorum of the Killeen City Council) discussing this matter.' End of copy.

As I understand t, in order for there to collusion between the council of 3 members, it clearly states that for there to be a quorum, at least 4 members of the council is required, and not 3 as you stipulate. Another point that I would like to introduce to you is the fact that there is clear testimony of a form of collusion between parties of have and have not's in the fact that at last night's meeting, it was clearly stipulated that in the quarrelsome attitude were on;y exhibited during the periods of apparent secrecy that would not be evident to the general public. So where you propose that an individual, such as councilman Harris, Councilwoman Fleming, or councilman Johnson should bring up this dastardly conduct of the 4 other council persons if not in an open meeting such as this one was????

Copy: 'Mr. Harris is clearly reported to have said that his intent in this meeting was to discuss raising awareness of the issue so that the council could/would at a later date start an investigation of the matter. And the picture associated with the story clearly shows three city councilmembers discussing that very topic.' End of copy.

Again, as far as I am concerned, to be a quorum, there must be at 4 individuals for it to be considered as a violation of the Texas Open Records Act as evidenced in the case of the council not being able to perform any business in regards to the city when the council was recalled during the reign of mayor Hancock's term of office.

Copy: 'Mr. Harris is clearly reported to have said that his intent in this meeting was to discuss raising awareness of the issue so that the council could/would at a later date start an investigation of the matter. And the picture associated with the story clearly shows three city councilmembers discussing that very topic.'

Continuation of copy: 'Now I'm sure KDH got this story wrong and Mr. Harris, Ms Fleming and Mr. Johnson were just discussing where to eat after the meeting. Otherwise, Mr. Harris' quote and the accompanying photo are proof positive of the textbook definition of a "walking quorum".' End of copy.

Again, why did this one particular photo show up regarding in this caption???? Many photo's were gleaned from this meeting, but the only one that has surfaced is this one. Shame on you for trying to make it to something it is not. Again, what is the criteria that constitutes 'a walking forum'???? Is it not 4 of the 7 members????

To refresh your memory, this meeting was in the effort to make the public aware of just what is going on behind the scenes of this council. To refresh your memory, the first time councilman Harris broached this subject the city manner introduced a measure at that time to require the city council to 'reflect on what type of material could and should be introduced to this council, and it was decided that this was not an applicable subject material and as I recall, with a 4 to 3 decision, it was decided not to introduce this subject. So councilman Harris was just attempting to build up the general public as to 'what is going on'. Now if you are attempting to deny a councilman the right to make the general public aware of this type of activity, give me your opinion on just 'how this individual or individuals are to go about making this type of activity known to the general public.

I am not aware of a vote concerning this avenue of concern and to the best of my knowledge, the city manager has not broached this subject since, only the one single instance.

And as far as I know, the fact that the city council members and the potential city council members 'did not occlude, or any semblance of occlusion by 'sitting down to discuss any fragment of city business as you are suggesting. Again,what avenue would you suggest for a matter that is pressing on the city council and continues to rear it's ugly head.

This has been the personal opinion of this writer and nothing shall be used, in context or without or changed in any way without first notifying, and receiving explicit approval from this writer.
One of the 4.58 % who voted.

MAJAG89

Am I the only one who sees the irony behind Mr. Harris accusing folks of collusion when his meeting appears to be public evidence of he, himself colluding with other in violation of the Texas Open Records Act?
In the article Mr. Harris is reported to say he was deliberately using the forum to circumvent the Council. The picture accompanying the story clearly shows Mr. Harris, Ms Fleming and Mr. Johnson (i.e a quorum of the Killeen City Council) discussing this matter.
Espeneranza Peace and Justice Center v. The City of San Antonio decision clearly states that any action deliberately taken to avoid the Open Records Act to discuss public business in order to later ratify said discussion in a later meeting is a violation of the Open Records Act.
Mr. Harris is clearly reported to have said that his intent in this meeting was to discuss raising awareness of the issue so that the council could/would at a later date start an investigation of the matter. And the picture associated with the story clearly shows three city councilmembers discussing that very topic.
Now I'm sure KDH got this story wrong and Mr. Harris, Ms Fleming and Mr. Johnson were just discussing where to eat after the meeting. Otherwise, Mr. Harris' quote and the accompanying photo are proof positive of the textbook definition of a "walking quorum".
All three of these council members are honorable people and there's no way they would be colluding, right? KDH must have gotten this story wrong.
Killeen City Council members would never do anything wrong.
BTW, there probably does need to be an investigation on this matter, but City Council members and potential city council members shouldn't be meeting together to discuss that prior to officially discussing it in open or closed session of the city council.

overseer

This article IS AMAZING! Is it somewhat curious that a meeting that was meant to the citizens find relief from a catastrophic deal that presented the citizens as a "sacrificil lamb" to pass it, has been turned into an attack on the one who is trying to save this city's future and finances. I do hope that Councilman Harris does reply to this. I am with you Mr. Harris. By the way, this was NOT a walking quorum and shame on the writer of this story to even give it a "Top Story" status.

Cherbear

I started hearing about this MUD last year. I really hope Harris can get some backing from other council members and put a stop to it. I am curious as to why Corbin is getting so worked up since he is no longer mayor. I wonder just how much 'skin he has in the game' The whole thing seems shady and needs to be stopped.

Alvin

This is the personal opinion of this writer.
Copy: 'A former mayor of Killeen and a Bell County commissioner stormed out of a forum Thursday after a Killeen council member alleged collusion in the city’s 2013 contract to create a 3,750-home subdivision on the southern outskirts of Killeen.' End of copy.
So what's new???? When you have a former mayor, who initially pushed through this water plant and a commissioner. Who was manning the same boat, what do you think is going to be the outcome????

Copy: “First thing’s first, I think there needs to be an investigation, into collusion with the MUD,” Harris said.' End of copy.
I'm on the side of councilman Harris. I tend to think that there was a form of collusion, or connivance that took place in the fact that there was a total of 3 from the county, of which 2, that being a majority and were connected in some to the Whitis corporation and who could gain recognition. Not only that, where was the recognition of someone who would be 'the city's law arm'? And what I heard was the fact that 'there was no one qualified to represent the city council and determine just what was the total and accurate portrayal of what the existing law, and contractual law represented? It was stated that the city council, of which only 4 members constituted a simple majority, was not told that by negating this vote, it not necessarily mean a dooms day for the city of Killeen. Now that, in my mind, would not 'throw the city of Killeen into the lions den, thus a negation of complete and total fact.

Copy: “There’s hundreds of MUDs in the state of Texas — go to those communities and ask them how it’s going for them,” Fisher said before storming out of the Veterans of Foreign Wars 9191 Auxiliary.' End of copy.

What I would like to ask: Who determines the representation of a MUD?

I think that the answer to this question is 'the Whitis corporation'.

Who is the owner of all of the equipment that constitutes the MUD 2 organization?

I think the answer is 'MUD 2'.

Who is responsible for the payment of and pertaining to all of the materials and equipment that constitute 'MUD 2'.

I think it is the city in conjunction with the other surrounding cities with Killeen being responsible for the majority of the contents as Killeen is the largest source of water.

With that in mind, who has ownership of all of the equipment that constitutes the water plant? Again, it is my understanding that MUD 2 will own all of this equipment with Killeen getting 'what the little boy shot at', nothing.

Who has ownership of the water, with it's associated rights?

MUD 2 is the owner of all water until it flows through the final flow meter. Killeen does not have ownership of any and all water until after that point of measurement.

Who is responsible for the maintenance of these facilities?

I believe it is the city of Killeen who has the responsibility for the operation and maintenance of these facilities.

So as one of the gentlemen said, and I paraphrase: 'MUD 2 gets the gold and Killeen gets the shaft. Well put Sir. This is exactly what the city of Killeen has set in motion for the citizen of Killeen.

Copy: “There’s hundreds of MUDs in the state of Texas — go to those communities and ask them how it’s going for them,” Fisher said before storming out of the Veterans of Foreign Wars 9191 Auxiliary.' End of copy.

Well I cannot speak for the vast multitude of MUD's, but I can speak as to what will be the outcome of this 'home grown', that does not constitute an ownership and or rights to and for the city of Killeen and it's residents. Killeen gets the shaft, again. And he, Mr Fisher, and Mr. Corbin, got up and 'stormed' out of the meeting not to be seen again. Talk about a dramatic withdrawal.....

Copy: 'The presentation largely focused on the contractual stipulations of the city’s agreement, most notably the city’s obligation to construct road and water-sewer improvements in concert with Whitis as the subdivision builds out.'
Continuation of copy: 'As a municipal utility district, the subdivision will operate independently of the city and use resident property taxes to pay back the expected $238 million in debt floated to pay for district infrastructure.'
Continuation of copy: 'Part of the city’s obligations explicitly listed in the contract are the construction of a 1-million-gallon water tank — which the city has since expanded to 3 million gallons — and the expansion of Chaparral Road to a five-lane thoroughfare.' End of copy.

So how is it that this is cut and dried as to what the city's obligations are, but not the contractor/developer as if I, as a MUD 2 developer and as a developer of 3,750 homes yet to be built, that it seems to me to be a form of collusion in aspect itself. You are developing property for your own exclusionary benefit.

Copy: 'The contract stipulated the developer would recoup some of the money back to the city for those improvements while following city standards on construction and infrastructure. In turn, the city would have the right to annex the development at a later date, taking over property tax revenue.' End of copy.

This development of mutuality would only take place at the conclusion of certain milestones. The interjection of 'annexing', if I am not mistaken would only be after 20 or 30 years, if at all.
Copy: 'Former councilman Jared Foster, one of four members who voted to approve the contract, said the allegations of coercion were “disingenuous.” End of copy.

I find it to be that this councilman, Mr. Jared Foster, would employ the syntax, 'disingenuous' as to just what that word means: 'Artful, perverted, misrepresented, perverted, or twisted' as in the light of this conversation all that was said was 'they did not say to these ladies and gentlemen of the then city council that it was permissible to 'not vote in the negative'. In my mind then this does not constitute anything that would be construed as 'disingenuous; in any stretch of the imagination, but could remain as a form of collusion, or coercion.

Copy: 'Foster had previously voted against a prior proposal by Whitis which would include 4,500 homes in the subdivision and conform to few of the citys’ demands on the building and infrastructure.' End of copy.

Why does one want to vote in the negative aspect of 4,500 homes, but changes his vote when the number is dropped to 3,750 homes???? Why???? Why does one say that 'there is not to be the necessity of conformity with all of the city's use of rules and regulations in the performance of this particular project???? Why????

Copy: 'Harris said he was using the forum as a tool to circumvent council consensus on a possible MUD investigation and potentially court new council members in the coming May 5 election.' End of copy.

Yes, in this I agree that there may have been foul play in the performance of this city past council session thus negating this and every vote that preceded it so I ask this present day city council to once again commit to this venture and say without a doubt that this is the very best bargain the city of Killeen could attain, and not by the normal 4 to 3 simple majority, but instead, as the city once said, a super 6 to 1 majority. Either that or take it before the citizens of Killeen for a vote on whether or not they want this contract to remain or killed.

This has been the personal opinion of this writer and nothing shall be used, in context or without or changed in any way without first notifying, and receiving explicit approval from this writer.
One of the 4.58 % who voted.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.