Cedar Park Local

Share on social media:

Cedar Park Local E30

[email protected]

https://www.muducation.org/
wtcmud1.org
https://www.wilcotx.gov/331/Commissioners-Court

[00:00:05] Unknown:

Hello friends, and welcome to   Cedar Park local   mud update number three.   The 09/17/2025,   MUD board meeting   video was published,   and there was no response   to the allegations that I had,   read on   on my education   website.   And I believe the same   or similar   concerns were raised by Linda Faup   at that meeting during her public comment,   portion.   But   these were not addressed by the board.   Since,   since this lawsuit was filed by the board   against   former and current members,   I've been   looking at,   the old recordings of the old   older,   meetings,   trying to get a sense of what they were like. The the allegations in the lawsuit are are pretty serious,   and and I wanted to see if I could find examples   of this sort of behavior   that were alleged in the lawsuit.  

And one thing I noticed was that   in the older meetings, there were no security, and there were more chairs for the public. So the the the meetings had a more open, more welcoming feel.   And based on what I have reviewed,   and I've reviewed multiple,   meetings,   I haven't seen anything that warranted   having to get security.   So I'm not sure what the rationale for that was   since, since the MUD doesn't publish a direct response   to Mudducation's   allegations.   I'm left basically with just a lawsuit   and the allegations that the board made.   So   I went through and   picked a couple   to see if I can   find because   all the stuff I have reviewed, I don't see anything that resembles   the sort of   threatening chaos that that they describe   in their lawsuit.  

So I want to look at the specific examples   that,   that the lawsuit,   mentions.   One is   let's see here.   The 05/21/2025   board meeting   where   I think Linda Fobb   and someone else, I think,   was was accused of being disruptive.   And   so I had to watch that that whole,   that whole thing.   And   I didn't find   any disruption whatsoever.   There was a brief period there for about twenty minutes where there's a person in uniform, I presume law enforcement or security officer, who kind of comes into the camera   and just stands there   and then goes back off camera.   And that's the level of   excitement   that occurred during that meeting.  

It started boring and it ended boring.   So that allegation   doesn't make sense. It's also kind of a weird allegation in that   it it doesn't,   allege   anything observable occurred.   It alleges that   some calls were made,   and it was going to turn out badly. But other people made phone calls and diffused it.   But,   but it doesn't seem like that's a credible,   what if scenario.   I don't think there's any chance of,   the Williamson County Sheriff's   showing up,   and overreacting   to a board meeting that had,   you know, a quiet parking lot and exactly nothing but a boring board meeting going on inside. And it's   not like they were trying to swat themselves or something. It's, it doesn't seem like a credible allegation,   and nothing in the video,   supported it.  

And so let's see. The next one I looked at was   12/14/2020.   This is one where Linda Farrell is accused of   issuing threats   and interfering   with the deed enforcement,   process.   I tell you what attracted me to this one. This one is in exhibit c, appendix a number one.   And it was great because it's it's only got one sentence.   And I thought, perfect. Let me pick something because there's so many pages of these allegations.   I can only do samplings.   So I went,   I picked that one. I mean, it's first, but it's also short. So I thought that was promising, but not necessarily.   Also, it has a time stamp, which I which I because I don't have to listen and or watch the entire   two hours of recording.  

Instead, I can go through the time stamp   and see the actual threats   being made, and that'll make my job easy.   So I did,   and this is what I found.   The first voice you're gonna hear is   the female representative   from the   deed enforcement   contractor, I believe.   The second voice is, Catherine,   who sits on the Deed Enforcement Committee, as I understand. She doesn't have a last name   on the screen identifier.   And then a little bit later on, you hear Linda Fogg,  

[00:06:00] Unknown:

who at the time was a board member. It was mostly friendly notices. First formal, the numbers came down   a lot.   As soon as we went back onto the regular protocol,   they were cut in half. And,   the people that had   ongoing chronic situations with the parking,   those got fixed. So we did not have any fines.  

[00:06:21] Unknown:

Okay. But now we're into we're not enforcing overnight parking right now during the holidays?  

[00:06:26] Unknown:

We're not. The board voted to give a moratorium from Thanksgiving week until   January  

[00:06:32] Unknown:

oh, I think we're roughly fifteenth. For the first week? Yep. The fifteenth. Yes. Oh, that okay. Okay.  

[00:06:39] Unknown:

Okay. So anything else?  

[00:06:41] Unknown:

No. We do not we have not. For the fines that went out, we have not received any formal   or informal   appeals,   and we have worked with Inframark   to,   give them the information of which clients need to be posted to the accounts.  

[00:06:58] Unknown:

Okay.   Okay.   Okay. So,  

[00:07:03] Unknown:

I know that okay. So number agenda item four, pending appeals of We're not done with three. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. Sorry. I thought you'd say any discussion. I was waiting for you to say that. That. Okay. You ready? You wanna say it? Any discussion? Yeah.   Actually, I have a long list for item number three. Okay.   I thoroughly examined the tour report from Sage and only some of the letters that they sent to residents   this month for alleged violations.   I have many, many more letters to review. Bill sent a whole bunch right before the meeting started. So I haven't looked at any of those yet. But what I did look at, my very first question to you, Catherine, is who reviews the violation letters before they get sent out?  

[00:07:42] Unknown:

The violation letters are not reviewed by the subcommittee. They're not re well, Bill, do you review some sometimes some of the letters are really complicated, so do you review them?  

[00:07:52] Unknown:

I mean, only only if we're requested to. Okay. When the letters go out from Sage,  

[00:07:56] Unknown:

nobody would use them before they go out. Nobody would use them. Okay. You have a standard friendly letter. Right? You're talking about the friendly letter. I'm talking about all the letters are first fine, pre fine, all that. And let me, and let me just, I'm gonna save time here.   Every single letter I've looked at is riddled with errors and omissions. Everyone, no exceptions, including   the link to where to go on the website to find your deed restriction   or your deed period.   Most of the letters, if it's in Anderson, Mo West, they don't even identify they're in Anderson, Mo West. They just say section whatever.   There was a, a section 16 violation. The letter says section 161.  

Nobody could get back to their deed on the MUDs website with the information in that letter. Every letter uses the phrase, the deed restrictions   basically state in part.   There isn't a restriction out there that basically states anything. It's either in the deed or it isn't.   It's coupled with grammatical mistakes and inconsistency, and it is a mockery if you look and read those letters. I cannot believe that no one, no one has read those letters. So here are some of the highlights that I do not want you to miss. Okay. Wait a minute. I don't think that we, that we need to hear  

[00:09:08] Unknown:

all of this. No. We don't. Because what we're going because the solution is not to   to, you know,   continue to   to the solution is to is to move forward and have the deed restriction committee review the letter. So I'm noticing that,  

[00:09:25] Unknown:

Catherine,   who I understand sits on the deed enforcement,   subcommittee is is   is prefers not to discuss this in the open committee meeting.   And, Linda is trying to force the issue and bring up these concerns during the open meeting. And and this was this was informative to me. And   later on, I was able to have a better understanding  

[00:09:49] Unknown:

of why, each took the position that they took. No. It's more than that. It's more than that. What about the people that have gotten letters for things that are not contained in their deed?  

[00:09:58] Unknown:

What what we have to understand is that the letter the way I understand the way the letters were, are designed is that they had a very specific format in turn, and that had been approved   under   pre you know, previously, where we had a letter that looked like X for   friendlies, and then we had the two escalations, and then we went to the fines. Now if you're saying that we've got a problem with our letters that need to be reviewed, fine. Let's review the letters. But this board the board meeting is not the place to do it. That's the point I'm trying to make. Well, the point I'd like to make to you is that if I don't tell you what the problems are, you can't fix them, and you're on that committee, not me.   That's right. So I'm hearing you what the problems are. Okay. So now I'm hearing we got a problem. Yes. So, okay. So, what we're gonna have, so all I'm hearing now is that we're gonna have to have a review of the,   what I'll call the the the templates,   and then we're gonna have to have a more stringent review of the letters as they go out. Because basically, all of these letters   are custom letters because we are   correct me if I'm wrong, Jimmy and Diana, we are putting,   we're taking language from the deed restriction and and inserting it into the letter. Am I saying that correct?  



[00:11:17] Unknown:

And most of the letters when we are not sure on how to word it, we send them to legal and they go ahead and check them out for us   on those.  

[00:11:26] Unknown:

Okay.   Okay. So what  

[00:11:29] Unknown:

That doesn't work for me. That's not gonna work for me. You are literally trampling on people's rights claiming there are things in the deed that are not there. Well then well  

[00:11:38] Unknown:

then I'll We can take it to the committee, and we can work at it at the committee level if you all wanna change the letters. That's the committee's,  

[00:11:44] Unknown:

I want if it if deed enforcement has to happen in this district, it needs to be honest. It needs to be fair, and it needs to be just. And what I'm seeing And nobody arguing that. Nobody's happening. None of that is happening. I disagree. I disagree with that. Of course you do because you're on the committee, and you haven't read the letters.  

[00:12:02] Unknown:

Okay. You haven't read the letters. No. I haven't read the letters.  

[00:12:07] Unknown:

So that's a interesting,   admission, by Catherine who sits on the enforcement committee and admits that she has not read the letters.   And the fact that, Linda is bringing it to her attention,   she's,   and and the other   enforcement   lady, who I think is either from SAGE or from counsel,   they both are demonstrating to me   a pretty consistent preference for having this issue dealt within the committee.   And   and I think I figured out why each of them has a preference.   The committee is not subject to the,   Open Meetings Act, which requires there to be a record   and   and therefore,   subject to scrutiny by the public.  

And their inclination is to do this in the dark behind closed doors   with minimal scrutiny, which is why, as I understand it, Linda is bringing this up in the regular meeting because it is subject to the Open Meetings Act. And it is public, and it is open to scrutiny.   And   what Linda is saying here   is   defensible, in my opinion.   It is advocating for good stewardship of the people's money. And I don't find any of it,   bad. I mean, this is this is what I would expect   from people who are sitting on the board and whose job is to take care of the people who are subject to the board's authority.  

[00:13:36] Unknown:

So you're defending what you don't even know. I'm defending the process because the fact is is not working.  

[00:13:43] Unknown:

Okay. Well, then we'll fix the process.   You know? Okay. So what we're gonna so what we're gonna need to do then, correct me,   Jimmy and Diana, is we're gonna have to have a review of   the, what I'm gonna call the the letter templates that relate to each of the each of the process and we're gonna have and we're gonna have to go over   it with,   and get,  

[00:14:10] Unknown:

approval from Bill in terms of what the format is. Yes, ma'am. I'll add it to our agenda for our next committee meeting. Bill.  

[00:14:18] Unknown:

Bill, I would like to interrupt. I'm sorry, Catherine. If I am not allowed to illuminate the problems to the rest of this board, they never surface. They never surface and they don't get corrected. And I have almost two years demonstrated of this particular problem. It's not the first time you've heard of it, Catherine. I've given you these problems before. You've done nothing. And you've been point. Not here for the rest of this board not to know exactly what the problem  

[00:14:41] Unknown:

is. If what   Linda Fafa is saying right there is correct,   then,   it is it is,   malpractice on the board's part. If she has indeed been bringing up these legitimate problems for two years,   I can see why she is   so insistent on bringing these up at the open meeting. Otherwise, they get,   buried in the back,   behind closed doors as   sort of broken government   organizations tend to do. They like to just   bury problems and,   and,   you know, increase budgets. That's their sort of tendencies. And unless the public   forces them to, you know, course correct, they just,   by inertia, go down that road.  



[00:15:32] Unknown:

I'm not arguing that. But what I'm saying is the board meetings are not the place where you go fix the problem. The board meeting is the place to illuminate the problem, Catherine. That's right. I'm not and it has been illuminated. We have the DRC committee now has something that it needs to look at and it'll come and we will work through the process. I need the problems to be illuminated to the entire board so that they can be involved in the decisions going forward. It is committees don't make decisions, Kevin. Committees come up with processes that get brought back to get brought back to the board. They can't they can't respectfully   make decisions if they don't know what the problem is. I'm not going to argue that. I'm not going to argue that. Okay.  

Okay. So,   agenda item four, pending appeals of fines, violations of the district's rules governing, you know, I don't think we have any. I have an appeal that came to me.  

[00:16:27] Unknown:

There's nothing that says I can't take an appeal.   I guess you're right. Am I correct? Because normally they come to the DRC. Right? Well, yeah. We know how that works. Right? That's like the letters you're not reading. So let's not even go there. Let me give you this appeal.  

[00:16:41] Unknown:

I'm gonna let this section,   play out   just so,   the listeners can   hear the full,   full exchange   because at the end of this exchange is the threat.   So it's, good to see how it leads up to it. But the two board members are basically having a disagreement as to exactly how,   how an appeal may be submitted to the board. Linda has apparently accepted a   verbal,   appeal from a,   resident.   And Catherine is insisting that that resident needs to put it in writing and submit it through a board that way. Okay.  

[00:17:18] Unknown:

So I had a chat with the lady that lives on Birch Drive. Okay. Hold on. Nope. It's an appeal. Yeah, yeah, but no, no, wait a minute. I can't have a verbal appeal from you. I have to have a written appeal from the homeowner.   I'm sorry, I am not gonna accept a verbal appeal.  

[00:17:34] Unknown:

You, I've got to come from Jimmy and Diana Sagness on a, on a monthly basis.  

[00:17:39] Unknown:

Oh, they get they get emails. They respond they're responding emails. Well, then we'll we'll take a look at those next then.  

[00:17:45] Unknown:

Okay. I'm You want it in writing? I'll write it I'll write it up for you. No. No. No. No. No. No. Bill. Yes. It is.  

[00:17:51] Unknown:

Bill, correct me if I'm wrong. We had an issue of, last year where a child,   a 17 year old child, wanted to appeal the fact that she I'm not a 17 year old child, Catherine. That's not the point. That that's not the point I'm trying to make. That the 17 year old kid living in the house wanted to appeal the fact that he had generated a fine, and we said, your mother, the account owner needs to to make the appeal.  

[00:18:13] Unknown:

And so we kept waiting for the so that's that's If you would like a letter from miss Henry, I will be more than happy to deliver that to you personally.  

[00:18:20] Unknown:

Go ahead and have miss Henry send us an email.   That is fine. But appeals have to come from the account owner. We've had appeals that have come from people who lived in the house but weren't the account owner, and we keep saying the people who is the account owner is the person who has to do has to submit the appeal. Exactly. I'm not gonna deny you that. I Okay. Got it directly from the account owner. So, if you have a problem taking it from me, I'll give it to you in writing. No. I Not a problem. Not a problem.   Not a problem. Alright. Okay.  



[00:18:54] Unknown:

But you're gonna have a problem with this one that's gonna be long lasting.  

[00:18:58] Unknown:

That right there was the alleged threat that is quoted in the lawsuit.   You're going to have a problem with this one that's going to be long lasting.   That is a quoted threat   in exhibit c appendix a number one.  

[00:19:16] Unknown:

What? That pea that that people go to you and you verbally say this person wants to appeal? No. No. No. No. No. No. No. This whole situation, the the what she's described to me, the letters that been have been sent to her, the history that Diana wrote up about this whole situation   with this one particular resident   that is you violated  

[00:19:35] Unknown:

your own resident's rights. Okay. Let's okay. We're not because we're not We're not We don't want that to be in the public record. No. We're not hearing an appeal We're not hearing an appeal.   We we don't have the appeal yet. Okay.   Okay. So,   do we have any,   Jimmy and Diane, I know we've talked,   we've heard from a resident who wanted to have an appeal, but we haven't The board then,  

[00:19:59] Unknown:

moves on to the next agenda item   and,   and proceeds with the rest of the board meeting.   But digging down through this allegation   and the last couple of ones I've dug through, it just demonstrates to me that   these don't seem to be very well substantiated   allegations.   And if the rest of this lawsuit   is as,   unmeritorious   as these allegations   I have found to be, then I am   deeply   disappointed in an absolute waste of time and taxpayer money   in this lawsuit. It,   it appears based on   all of the footage that I have   watched and the documents that I have read and reviewed.   The balance of evidence is decisively   in favor   of Linda Faub on this one as I see it,   unless, the board can demonstrate some   substantial new things that I haven't noticed. But, I mean, I've gone down   their own specific allegations   to the timestamp   on videos that they   submit as evidence to support their allegations. And it is   it's nonsense.  

And   and this is what I found so far, and I'm sharing it with you, my dear listeners.   I hope,   I hope we can   find a path forward   to,   improve   the member and the member, on the board and the performance of the board and move on towards,   amending the deed restrictions that we have, maybe getting some things. I'd like to be able to have some   some chickens,   not a rooster, but some chickens to get some eggs because they're expensive.   And,   and, you know, these are the sort of, and and reduce the property taxes   if,   or the the mud taxes as much as possible.   And pay closer attention to and and apply more scrutiny towards,   the funds that are going out and the the bills that are being submitted to the board. This is where I would like to   see,   more,   effort   towards.  

And as best I can tell   from everything I've seen, and I haven't done an exhaustive review of whatever,   the tens and tens of hours of,   board meetings that are available.   But   I've done   some fair amount. And what I have found is that   Linda Fogg's,   approach appears to be   to be a good steward and   to expect the board to be accountable   and conduct this business   properly.   And she is being sued in an effort to silence her, and   we need   to push back against that.   Till next time. Bye bye.  

[00:23:00] Unknown:

Am I correct about that, that we're still waiting, to hear about the registration of the car?  

[00:23:05] Unknown:

He has not communicated with us,  

[00:23:07] Unknown:

on the registration on the car or on the appeal at this point. Okay. And that's where I left it. I I okay, we'll just wait and see if we get something from him.   Okay.   So,   let's see. Agenda item five, coordination of reporting between Sage Management and InfraMark on fines.   Okay.   So, I'm assuming that well,   we're everything is copacetic.  

[00:23:32] Unknown:

Tell me what's going on with that. Well, we had our committee meeting, and at the committee meeting, we were given the directive to start posting  

[00:23:44] Unknown:

the