By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
Val Verde County Commissioners Court members Tuesday rejected claims by a local activist organization that a road in a semi-rural area in the far south of the county is a county road and thus due public maintenance.
The court made its decision during a special meeting, held at 6 p.m. instead of the usual 9 a.m. time slot, after listening to a handful of speakers who urged the court to adopt the road and maintain it.
Before listening to the speakers, Val Verde County Judge Lewis G. Owens Jr. opened the court’s discussion by acknowledging Old Foster Road is on the county’s list of roads that have been accepted for maintenance. Owens said he believes the road was placed on the list in error.
After listening to the speakers, Owens said, “First of all, the first person that came up to talk, he talked about the water, and you hit the nail on the head. (Old Foster Road) needs to be a county road before we can apply for grants for water, or we have to designate it a county road, and this is the same thing we’ve said all along. When we were looking it up, we can’t find anywhere where that road was ever a county road or that the county’s accepted it.”
He noted in 1982, then-County Judge Sergio Gonzalez signed a plat for Moreno Valley. Owens brought a copy of the document to the meeting, and pointed out Gonzalez had made a typewritten note on the plat that reads, “Approved for filing by the Val Verde County Commissioners Court without obligation, or responsibility on the part of Val Verde County to construct or maintain any streets, alleys or public areas as shown on these plats.”
“So, first of all, in my opinion, I don’t believe that this road is a county road, and I’m talking about Old Foster Road . . .When people bought land out there, you already knew what you were buying. It’s not an excuse; it’s just a statement of fact. You already knew there was no water, the road was not maintained, there was nothing there,” Owens said.
The county judge said the county has presented Moreno Valley residents a plan in which they could pay for a portion of the materials necessary to reconstruct the road to standards, but added that plan was rejected.
“In my opinion, I don’t think that it’s fair for everybody else to pay for a subdivision that was not put in properly and for all the other taxpayers to pay for it . . . I haven’t changed my mind. I’ve always said I don’t believe it’s a county road. We’ve talked to our engineer. We’ve visited with our county attorney, and I don’t believe it’s a road that should be maintained by the county or that it’s a county road,” Owens said.
Sandra Fuentes, a co-chair of the Border Organization, was recognized at the podium. Fuentes noted an Austin law firm, Allison Bass, had placed Old Foster Road on the county road log.
She said the mistake is not the fault of the property owners in Moreno Valley and said she believed the county had recognized the subdivision and road since it placed signs for the road and the subdivision.
Fuentes pointed out the owner of the Moreno Valley lots, who sold them to local individuals and who has since died, told prospective buyers “the county’s going to come in.”
“The real estate agent told purchasers they would have to dig their own wells, but neglected to tell them the water is sulphurous and undrinkable,” Fuentes said.
County Attorney David Martinez said he has spoken with the Austin law firm and noted when he explained the note on the original plat, a representative of that firm agreed that Old Foster Road was on the list in error.
“So if we come back to square one. I think there may be some confusion as to whether or not a county road is necessarily a public road or vice versa. I know you’ve indicated there’s signage indicating where different things lie. The fact that a road may be dedicated to the public doesn’t automatically make it a county road . . . So that may be an explanation as to why the previous (Precinct 4) commissioner may have placed some of that signage there, but again, the simple fact that a road is a public road doesn’t in and of itself qualify it as a county road,” Martinez said.
Fuentes said it was her understanding “there was a whole process” to place roads on the county maintenance log.
“Yes, ma’am,” Martinez said.
“How is it their (the residents’) fault that the checks and balances were missed?” Fuentes demanded.
“I don’t think anybody’s saying that it was anybody’s fault. The facts are what they are. I don’t think anybody’s saying that the residents are at fault for this. I don’t think you’ve heard that from any member of the court,” Martinez said.
Owens told Fuentes, “I can give you my opinion, and it’s my opinion, just one of four. I won’t vote to accept this road in the condition that it’s in unless the landowners that are there put up some funds to bring this (road) to some kind of standard other than the way it sits right now. I don’t think it’s fair to everybody else to have to absorb that money, absorb that burden.”
Owens reiterated the county had presented property owners in the subdivision with a plan to pay “a certain dollar amount” to have the road brought to standard.
When Fuentes asked how much he estimated the project would cost, Owens said he estimated had the cost at $278,000.
“There are some lots that are 210 feet and some that are 235 linear feet across the front. If you do that math, on a 235-foot lot, it be would be about $5,640,” Owens said.
“Let’s say that this court tonight would say, yes, we’re going to maintain the road and improve the road, how much would it be for that?” Fuentes asked.
“How much would it be if we were to approve the subdivision and then go through it? All this right here is just taking into consideration, the part of Old Foster Road that is in Moreno Valley, that’s $278,000 and that’s just for material. That’s no labor involved,” Owens said.
When Fuentes suggested $600,000 as a total cost, Owens agreed that would probably be correct.
“As a community, as commissioners court, we have misspent, misused, more than $600,000. Right?” Fuentes said to scattered applause.
“So, back to my question. Could the court, this court tonight – and I know Commissioner Nettleton isn’t here tonight, but he confirmed that in his opinion, it’s a county maintained road – and you’re not arguing that, you’re arguing that it wasn’t supposed to be on that list to begin with. Why don’t we just leave it there? It was a mistake 10 years ago, 12 years ago. It’s on the books. Let’s just move forward with that,” Fuentes said.
“If there’s an issue, now that you all are coming to us and telling us there’s an issue, we have to correct the problem, so either we accept it and leave it or we take action in order today we’re not going to accept it and then, if we do that, we’re going to move forward with the process of having it removed from our county road log,” Owens said.
“So how long has this court, or you, Mr. Martinez, known it’s there by mistake?” Fuentes asked.
“Ever since we’ve been talking about it,” Owens said.
“So why hasn’t it been removed? Because we’ve been at it for two years, right? So why hasn’t this court done the process to remove it?” Fuentes asked.
“Because that action could be started by the citizens as well, to keep it there,” Martinez said.
“And that’s how come we called this meeting and called it at night, because you wanted a meeting at night, so you could have people here, so we could make a decision one way or another, and we’ve been going around and around with this, but we still wanted to listen to you all and move forward, but I think we’re at the point now where we need to make a decision, and whatever that is, either we accept it and we figure out how to pave it or we say look, this isn’t our county road and we’re going to have to go through the process to have it removed from our county road log. That needs to happen tonight,” Owens said.
“But as of right now, it is a county-maintained road,” Fuentes said.
“It is not a county-maintained road. It’s on the road log, but it’s on the road log by mistake,” Owens said.
“I have a lot of compassion for people, and I’m here to listen, and I’m listening to everything, but I do want to follow what David’s advice is. He’s our county attorney,” County Commissioner Pct. 2 Juan Carlos Vazquez said.
County Commissioner Pct. 4 Gustavo “Gus” Flores then made a motion.
“I will make a motion not to accept this road on behalf of Val Verde County or Precinct 4. The road does not meet model subdivision standards and also to include in this motion for our county attorney to move forward with the process of removing this road from the road logbook,” Flores said.
“David, within that motion, is there enough in that motion not to say that the road should be on the road log,” Owens asked.
“I believe so, based on what we know of the history of the plat,” Martinez replied.
“I second Commissioner Flores’ motion,” County Commissioner Pct. 1 Martin Wardlaw said.
“I will restate my motion. There was an error by (the law firm) putting this road on the road log book, so it needs to be removed as soon as possible,” Flores said.
Wardlaw again gave the second.
Owens then called for a roll call vote, and every member of the court present voted in favor of the motion.
County Commissioner Pct. 3 Beau Nettleton was not present during the meeting.
Owens said after the vote, “There is an option. If you all come up with some money, we’ll bring it back to the court.”
“We have a backup plan, and we’ll follow that,” Fuentes said.
—
Contact the author at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com
