By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
Tensions flared between members of Val Verde County Commissioners Court Wednesday during a discussion of streetlights in Precinct 4.
Eight items on the court’s regular meeting agenda dealt with streetlights in Precinct 4. Seven items dealt with the installation of new lights and one with upgrades to existing lights.
At the start of the discussion, Owens asked County Engineer Carlos Velarde to put up a map of the area in the county where the lights are to be placed. The map depicted a stretch of Cienegas Road in southern Val Verde County from the Duck Pond to a block or so east of Industrial Boulevard.
Owens told the court Gustavo Flores – County Commissioner Pct. 4 Gustavo “Gus” Flores – has replatted a three-and-a-half block piece of
Val Verde County. The lights were the subject of an increasingly tense discussion during the February regular term meeting of Val Verde County Commissioners Court on Wednesday. (Photo by Karen Gleason)
property on the west side of Cienegas Road, across from Brewer Drive to the Dollar General store.
Owens told the court a series of green pins on the map, along Cienegas across the street from the Flores property, depict the location of existing lights. Owens said each of the pins was marked with a number associating it with an agenda item.
Owens then showed the same areas to audience members.
“The order we just passed a little while ago, if these lights here, in green, were new lights, he (Flores) or whoever the developer is, would have to pay for them. They are not new lights,” Owens said. He noted yellow pins on the map indicated sites where a new light is being requested, but added none of the new lights were on, or across from, Flores’ property.
County Commissioner Pct. 3 Fernando Garcia asked about the number of lights shown, and there was some discussion of the location of the existing lights and new lights being requested.
When Wardlaw said he would not vote to approve one of the lights because he believed there was enough ambient light in the area, Owens said the court would take each request for the installation of new lights one by one.
He read the heading of the first item: “Discussion and possible action on approving an agreement with AEP for the installation of (1) LED streetlight and transformer at Cienegas and Finegan Roads for $637.36 to be funded from Precinct 4 operating account and to authorize County Judge to sign the agreement.”
After Owens read the heading, he called for a motion, and Flores made the motion to approve the item. When Owens asked for a second and did not hear one, he gave the second.
Owens called for the vote, and Flores and Owens voted in favor of the motion. County Commissioner Pct. 1 Kerr Wardlaw, Garcia and County Commissioner Pct. 2 Juan Carlos Vazquez voted against it.
“Motion fails,” Owens said.
He then began reading the heading of the next agenda item, which called for approving an agreement with AEP for the installation of an LED light and SEC cable at Cienegas Road across from the Dollar General, but before he finished reading, Owens said, “Well, is there any other ones on there, between (Items) 31 and 36. . .” and then asked if the members of the court wanted him to read every item separately.
Garcia commented, “I’m fine with the rest of them.”
Owens then said he would entertain a motion to approve Items 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, which all called for agreements with AEP for lights in various locations along Cienegas Road.
Flores again made the motion to approve the six agenda items.
When he asked for a second and again heard none, Owens again gave the second.
When he called for the vote, it fell out as it had before, with Owens and Flores in favor, Wardlaw, Vazquez and Garcia voted against the motion.
“Are you all voting for it or abstaining?” Owens asked.
“I’m voting against it, judge,” Vazquez said.
Owens then polled Wardlaw and Garcia, and they both said they voted against the motion.
“Motion fails. I’m going to make a comment. We did this. We’re going against policy, and at some point, does this become a safety issue, Mr. Martinez?” Owens asked, addressing County Attorney David Martinez.
Martinez replied, “We would probably have to do a study out there, judge.”
Owens then asked, “Could I file grounds for removal for these three (commissioners) because of safety concerns? Through the district courts?”
“Could you?” Martinez repeated.
“I guess I could, right?” Owens asked.
“You could. You absolutely could. Whether or not it would stand the test. . . ,” Martinez replied.
Owens said, “Because I think we are getting in everybody else’s precinct, and this is creating a safety concern. I just think that this has gotten ridiculous. For the three commissioners that are here, we did a map, we passed another (order) concerning streetlights, and we’re still voting against it because now we’re trying to aggravate somebody, in my opinion.”
Assistant County Attorney John Klemmer said, “If you will give me the opportunity, judge, I can look into whether or not the lighting issue would qualify as a safety issue.”
“Would you? If it qualifies, I will file for these three to be removed,” Owens said.
Vazquez then said he wished to comment.
Flores called out, “This is a high-traffic road. . .”
Owens then recognized Vazquez, who said, “I’ve got lots of property in Val Verde. This is the reason I’m voting this way, and for transparency, I cannot vote on something, judge, if I have property out of Val Verde, yeah, I’ve wanted lights for a few years now, but I just can’t do it to the taxpayers, it’s my opinion, I just can’t go out there and put lights across from where my properties are located.”
“But you have them now,” Owens said.
“No, they have always been there,” Vazquez replied.
“And (the lights along Cienegas) these have always been there; all he’s trying to do is upgrade them,” Owens said.
“That’s why I’m voting, whether it’s upgrading or so on,” Vazquez said.
Owens replied, “Again, when you have property out there that have lights out there, so you’re going to tell me that none of those lights, you’ve put them up?”
“I am giving you my word, I have not put up a light where my property’s at,” Vazquez said.
Wardlaw also asked to speak.
He told the court, “I’m putting up one light at a time in Precinct 1.”
“And they’re getting approved,” Flores interjected.
Owens said, “Listen. This doesn’t work if we talk over each other. We need to have the respect, and we all need to be able to speak.”
Wardlaw continued, “I’m putting them up one at a time to try and prevent light pollution in Precinct 1, and light pollution is an issue in Val Verde County. We have a Dark Sky Sanctuary north of here on the Devils River. When I was a kid, you couldn’t see from our ranch on Dolan Creek Road, you couldn’t see any glow. In the 90s, there started to be a dim glow. Now there’s just this huge glow coming off the city of Del Rio. And just putting up lights left and right, and everybody moving out into the country, and wanting lights in the country, makes no sense.
“There’s no reason for someone to move out into the country and wanting to put lights up. That’s just the way it is, you move out into the country and you’re out in the dark skies, and putting up lights willy-nilly and going really fast is not the way to go. I believe in putting up one light at a time.
“I went and drove down this road all the way to the ‘T’ intersection (at the Duck Pond) and back, and that’s what I said, that the light on Finegan, there is ambient light . . . You could see the whole road. That’s why I don’t want to put lights where they’re not needed, and I think going down that road, putting one at a time, is the way to go, and then put up the minimum amount,” Wardlaw finished.
Flores then asked to be recognized.
Flores said, “This is a heavy traffic road. It’s a safety issue. This is a populated area. We’re not talking about the woods out there. There’s thousands of people that drive up and down that road. These are lights, on existing poles. They have been there for many, many years. I did go myself, to Precinct 2, where Vazquez owns land, and there is one light, one pole; one light, one pole, a bunch of lights.
“Is he taking care of his constituents? I hope he is. Is he taking care of his personal property? I don’t know. But my concern is my constituents. Cienegas is the only way in and out for the people in Chaparral, Cienegas and Vega Verde, and you’re talking about 5,000, 6,000 people out there. If they want to go against a safety concern, against those people, if their constituents are hearing this, listening to this meeting, good luck to them,” Flores added.
Martinez commented, “Judge, I think there is a way that this can be looked into. I know that the term safety concern has been used a lot. It’s real easy. We can coordinate with the sheriff’s office and see where the accidents are, because the accidents are going to prove exactly what you all are talking about, and if there’s a history of accidents, there should be some evidence of that.”
Owens said, “There’s going to be a history of accidents, especially on the corner, where the high fence starts.”
“We’ll look at that whole section right there. The proof is in the pudding, as they say,” Martinez added.
Flores said, “The other thing I would like to state in open court, publicly, here: They’re not hurting me. They’re not hurting me one bit. They’re hurting the constituents, the people that live out there. They’re not hurting me one bit voting against my items.”
Garcia then asked to speak.
He said, “So we seem to be talking about new lights and refitting existing lights and getting this confused. I think what we voted on was the new lights, right? So now all of sudden it’s a safety concern, and we need to have six new lights. If this was a safety concern, it’s been a safety concern for the last 10 years, okay?”
“It’s got existing lights right now,” Flores interjected.
“I didn’t interrupt you, sir,” Garcia told Flores.
“I’m interrupting you because there are lights there, there are already lights there,” Flores said, raising his voice.
“Gus, we’re going to be civil,” Owens said.
“I’m being civil,” Garcia protested.
“We’re going to be civil, both of you all. We ain’t going to allow this to turn into a f*ing shshow,” Owens said.
When Constable Pct. 2 Danny Reyes called out from the back of the court, “Keep order in here, guys; keep the order in the court,” Owens told him, “I don’t need any help, Danny.”
Garcia continued, “So my thing is, if this is a safety concern today, it’s been a safety concern for years, okay? No one is saying we need these, we don’t need these. I think the question was, why now? And the quantity of them so close together. If you look at 32, 35, 36, it seems redundant, and we already have light 34, so if you look at 37-1, 37-9, 37-8, they’re all within two blocks, and there’s a heavy congregation of lights altogether, and then we’re just adding more to it, and is this quantity of lights necessary for the public good? I’m not going to say safety concerns. Is this many lights necessary for the public good? Because a lot of people that live on these little streets here, you still have to sleep at night, and you create light pollution. I’ve had complaints from people in Comstock that the lights are too bright.
“We’re also going to create a problem for the people that live in these streets, in this neighborhood here. So, it’s not personal, it’s policy, and while someone may not want to accept that, you know, it is what it is. If you want to file to remove us for voting on policy, fine,” Garcia added.
Owens said, “Well, I will tell you that I can’t say who to go vote for, but if someone is going to vote for the commissioner that sits in Precinct 2 (Vazquez), take your vote that you would have spent with me, and go vote for Bruno. I can’t tell you who to go vote for because it’s against policy, as a judge, but if you’re going to waste your vote for the county commissioner that sits in Precinct 2, do not for me, please. Go vote for somebody else.”
Owens asked Velarde and the county purchasing agent to get him a list of when the lights across the street from Flores’ property were put up.
Wardlaw then asked Owens to repeat his comments about the area where accidents have occurred, and Owens said the accidents happened on a sharp curve at the start of the Duck Pond property where the high fence begins.
“Because when I had the (Duck Pond) property, that’s where most of the accidents happened,” Owens said.
Owens then indicated the area on the map he had given the commissioners.
Wardlaw made a motion to recall Item 33 and to approve it: “Discussion and possible action on approving an agreement with AEP for the installation of (1) LED streetlight and transformer at Cienegas Road (before the Duck Pond on the right side) for $710.77 to be funded from Precinct 4 operating budget and authorizing county judge to sign the AEP CIAC agreement.”
Owens gave the second to Wardlaw’s motion, and the motion approved on a 3-2 vote, with Vazquez and Garcia again voting against it.
The court then moved to table the final item on the lights list, approving upgrades to nine streetlights in the same area.
The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com
