Dissecting The Agenda - March 19, 2025

March 19, 2025 Agenda

The March 19th agenda suggests that not much is happening in the district this month — at least not on the surface. But there are some telling details buried in the order of business that reveal what’s really being prioritized. Let’s break it down.

Deed Restrictions Take Center Stage

The agenda — now prepared by Beth Jones — places deed restrictions before the engineer’s report, before the general manager’s report, and before new business. That’s not an accident. It’s clear that Jones’s top priority is telling people how they can (and can’t) live on their own property.

Adding to the curiosity, the deed restriction committee (Jones and Rocco) plans to brief the board on enforcement matters. This is interesting because at last month’s meeting, Jones claimed the board had been getting “lots of emails” about deed violations. After hearing that, I submitted an open records request for all director emails related to deed violations. And guess what? Not one single email was produced. Not one. Jones lied — and then doubled down on the lie.

To make matters worse, there are no attachments to the agenda that explain any deed enforcement procedures. It’s all being left deliberately vague. And as for the vague “discuss signage” item — if this board tries to claim it’s serious about enforcing deed rules, that would be another blatant falsehood.

Engineer’s Report: A Masterclass in Wasting Money

The engineer’s report includes the usual streetlight discussion. Inframark — the company paid to manage and maintain the district’s 329 streetlights — gives a monthly “streetlight survey” where they claim to have checked them all. Problem is, they don’t even know which lights belong to the district and which ones belong to Cedar Park. So what does this board do? Assigns the task of figuring it out to one of the most expensive resources in the district — the engineer. Log this under waste.

The engineer will also cover power washing district walls and provide an update on sidewalk repairs. (More on that later.)

New Business: Destroying Records, Limiting Accountability

Next up: a discussion on a document retention policy. For context, the Texas State Library and Archives Commission determines how long records need to be kept. But Rocco’s approach is simple: destroy records so that when residents request them under open records laws, there’s nothing to hand over. That’s not speculation — he’s already demonstrated this by failing to turn over all constituent emails after last month’s meeting.

Also under new business:

• Changing the board meeting time.

• Changing the amount of time citizens can speak.

None of this is surprising. Limiting public input makes it easier to avoid accountability.

General Manager’s Report: More of the Same

The general manager will discuss the Badger Meter contract — which was signed just seven months ago — and the installation of the remaining meters and endpoints (fewer than 40 left). What she should be talking about is the plan to purchase more meters this year, or this project will just keep dragging on.

Court striping? Already discussed and approved last month. Rocco even picked the colors. Apparently, the general manager wasn’t paying attention.

Security Committee: Waste Disguised as Safety

Jones and Avila will be discussing “security services replacement,” which likely means finding a replacement for Constable Stinson, who passed away on March 10, 2025. (May he rest in peace.)

But the real issue is the roving patrol service — the one that shows up on weekends to check if doors are locked. This service does absolutely nothing to deter crime and is a complete waste of tax dollars. But since it’s Beth’s pet project, expect the waste to continue.

Parks Committee: Landscaping Priorities

Jones and Avila will also discuss landscaping at the entrances. Because… priorities.

Old Business: Hatch Lift Station — Still Unresolved

Under old business, we have the Hatch Lift Station debacle. If you remember, the lift station suffered a catastrophic failure on March 9, 2023, due to Inframark’s negligence. The district sent a demand letter to Inframark after repairs were made, seeking reimbursement for the over $1 million in damages. Inframark’s lawyer responded — and nothing has happened since.

Attorney’s Report: Something’s Off

The attorney’s report is limited to a formal motion on director positions, with a ratified vote.

Stay tuned for the meeting recap — it’s bound to be interesting.