[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6553861,"mediaKeyId","5065315-b0f7a60937165157f9ec120e098a73d5","parentId",5065315,"title","Commissioners approve $125,000 bridge funding for Health Care Foundation after grant reductions","audioSeconds",310,"startMs",5197000,"endMs",5507000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5065315-b0f7a60937165157f9ec120e098a73d5&start=5197&end=5507","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5065315-b0f7a60937165157f9ec120e098a73d5/thumbnail_5197000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6553861/Collin-County/Texas/Commissioners-approve-125000-bridge-funding-for-Health-Care-Foundation-after-grant-reductions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553861-ecf2d78066cb33cf0c9e812c0349f4d8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770487560&Signature=Uha0emwxOMfeZthuZTiyApBBiscZaURfxE~ux7VS0s7eZdqEHPsNDX1SbqJ5aVo8tDqBcjQhsstHd7iqY35jfg1GFgSPTUSJWixBdOIwyG9WAPqG~mjv2VTRo-o45rZoEthMgoOroFLUkXKcecciaK3ZbQP0htR9OZyHfAIXDj9pyRLW3DcGLjhOrMQddRXDsonkmBE5Mjpt1Sn7QrvaWO0v-FWDZGiiRhCiOyG4vbTgmObKuFc6coc~fv0DmD2yibHKqdhdAArNDY1HwPhpLZlOO5pjcwktZtss07aL9oIX-w1vGyaVpcAIlxkmioP-UBLbIgWKTeqGAiEqlTktBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Collin","date","2025-06-23T00:00:00Z","article","Collin County Commissioners Court on June 23 approved a $125,000 bridge funding request to sustain 11 public‑health positions for roughly one month while staff await federal‑to‑state grant subaward decisions. The motion passed 5‑0.

County staff told the court they were notified the prior week that one of the department’s grants was reduced by about 28 percent, immediately affecting staffing. Public Health officials reported three employees had already been laid off and that state subawards tied to federal grants had not yet been issued; historically the county later received reimbursements, but the timing and certainty of receipt were not guaranteed in the current federal grant environment.

The court authorized the $125,000 bridge amount to come from existing county budget lines (unused travel funds and a contingency/reserve bucket) and directed staff to restore those county funds if grant reimbursements arrive. If grant funds do not materialize, staff said positions funded by the federal grants would remain at risk and the county would have to limit programming accordingly.

Key clarifications and constraints: staff said the $125,000 request represents county funds moved temporarily to cover payroll for about one month while the grant award process is finalized; the request does not itself create a new ongoing county obligation but does use county budgeted funds and would require further action if the federal/state awards were not completed.

The court’s action was procedural and limited in scope: authorization of short‑term county bridge funding to avoid immediate layoffs pending grant award finalization.

Ending: County staff will continue to monitor grant awards and will return to the court with updates; if federal subawards are not issued, the county said it would revert to the standard grant policy of discontinuing positions not supported by awarded funds.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Collin - Commissioners Court Jun 23, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Collin County Commissioners authorized $125,000 in county bridge funding to cover up to one month of payroll for public health positions while staff await federal‑to‑state subaward decisions, following notice that a grant had been reduced.","taxTitle","Collin County, Texas","taxId",2696,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6553867,"Commissioners approve conditioned rescission and replat for Park Meadows Lot 5 after developer objections and owner confusion",4695,239000,4934000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5065315-b0f7a60937165157f9ec120e098a73d5&start=239&end=4934","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5065315-b0f7a60937165157f9ec120e098a73d5/thumbnail_239000.jpg","/articles/6553867/Collin-County/Texas/Commissioners-approve-conditioned-rescission-and-replat-for-Park-Meadows-Lot-5-after-developer-objections-and-owner-confusion","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553867-666edab84c53f0919a6283df6c148feb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770487560&Signature=CGbsAQ-7D0y0wOOVO9s7Yki1mL8fBMicsn4YLhpBKdKobdFyF09vWiKInxpojnEeAdk9mxwSLTn~~MBv1b66zWbWTyGbINj8hUcPYeK3Sve8~HHwAFSuin07m-tMvBOCUZja9fV-ERjxqdSa-YPJMxchn57JFJN5EtfhQ4MYQ6HFDgxW5Ty2nGRez3hsrAnEtZ2PqWiFCs5NUbYpIMK6pkj4TgdDGPVZVlerGBHbooh92BntSQdK66YWFTZEgtYanEzmuJ6TJVxxeZRxtl3dXMRWeYzdpZq8R2zuNZNwLfRiOeH8jvpwxBo1xKRkNYTickes3n7Q3JLVV~MhQUq1ZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Collin County Commissioners Court on June 23 voted 5‑0 to rescind an earlier replat approval for Park Meadows Lot 5 and accept a revised replat with conditions intended to correct technical issues before recordation.

The item—noticed as a public hearing on the rescission of a replat for Park Meadows Lot 5—drew testimony from Clarence Dougherty, the county’s director of engineering, and a representative of the developer. Dougherty told the court the original replat had been approved previously but not recorded. The owner of the lot later asked for the replat to be rescinded and replaced with a different configuration (reducing the original 10‑acre configuration into smaller lots); county staff reported a notice of objection had been received in response to the legally required advertisement.

A developer representative said he opposed subdividing the tract into smaller parcels because the roads and road‑maintenance arrangements were designed for the larger, original 10‑acre tract and expressed concern about undeveloped gravel roads and unpaid road maintenance fees. The representative clarified he no longer owned the specific lot under discussion but did own surrounding parcels and manages subdivision road maintenance agreements.

Commissioners pressed staff on outstanding issues, including whether the applicant was the legal owner or only under contract, whether the county’s ‘‘shot clock’’ timeline for plat approvals applied, and whether technical corrections—most notably correcting a power line marking to a recorded easement—were in order. County staff said the previously approved replat was conditional and had not been recorded; the replat could be rescinded and submitted again to cure the outstanding technical problems.

The court considered three options: rescind the previously adopted replat, rescind and accept a new replat, or take no action (allowing the statutory timeline to run and the replat to become effective by operation of law). After staff recommended rescission and replat to clear outstanding conditions, a commissioner moved to send and accept the current replat with normal technical conditions. The motion passed unanimously, 5 to 0. County staff noted the replat meets subdivision requirements pending the stated technical corrections.

What was decided and why: The court’s action rescinded the previously approved, unrecorded replat and approved the proposed replat subject to conditions (such as correcting the power‑line designation to an easement) so the replat can be recorded with accurate easement and subdivision data. Commissioners highlighted the need to resolve ownership and notification ambiguities before further action; staff and the moving party agreed to resolve outstanding issues and submit corrections.

Ending: County staff will work with the applicant to make the required technical corrections and return materials in recordable form so filing can proceed. The court did not levy penalties and observed it would be mindful of statutory timeline considerations when the ownership/shot‑clock questions are clarified.","After a public hearing and substantial back‑and‑forth about ownership and subdivision rules, Collin County Commissioners voted 5‑0 to rescind the previously adopted replat and accept a conditional replat for Park Meadows Lot 5, with technical corrections required.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6553873,"Collin County approves procurement steps for ballot-on-demand printers amid debate over hand‑marked ballots",7087,83000,7170000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5065315-b0f7a60937165157f9ec120e098a73d5&start=83&end=7170","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5065315-b0f7a60937165157f9ec120e098a73d5/thumbnail_83000.jpg","/articles/6553873/Collin-County/Texas/Collin-County-approves-procurement-steps-for-ballot-on-demand-printers-amid-debate-over-handmarked-ballots","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553873-e4bcd3b16d953a6b6d37d7bf59224cf3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770487560&Signature=QL1m9ZSIro6zvdnDk7ekfPHM9UuyBPKZkuAGkLyypqwLehcQk3ROITivn2yU4ZZUqKCTmLGeWLs2P9M0jEfaVy1L9UnOF63ixmPURbId1~~rcwOhjga62dymUbW-7vPaVUf2cgDk-dKBiKZFrDjlLqj3Zmjo0YOdCMtl5IkCi1ktvZwTDkfMYk~OqbbwwE-aip8IBtFpIsGBzMUJ9lYxc9FJdVJ~9OctQ32kI7s1rWB0PYsEpfYMs-2D-Y5AascHPeTojpT316GE-O-tcx9d4OT~KdcvRqExnHfdxi5b6qRgP1QR49nLOzoUoBpIP5zh8BBimIqAFHCulg36JNwRLQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Collin County Commissioners Court voted 5‑0 on June 23 to approve six items related to implementing a ballot‑on‑demand (BOD) system and related contract changes, advancing the county’s move toward hand‑marked, human‑readable paper ballots for the November 2025 election.

The court approved agenda items pulled from the consent docket: purchases for barcode scanners, laptops and printers to drive BOD printing in polling places, toner and drum units, voting booths and printer carts, amendment No. 10 to the county’s election voting systems contract, and a HAVA grant application to the Texas Secretary of State. The court vote was recorded as 5 to 0 in favor.

Why it matters: county officials said federal guidance and a presidential executive order prompted the change. Executive Order 14248, issued March 20, 2025, directs the federal government to update voluntary voting system guidelines (VVSG) and discourages voting systems that rely on barcode or QR codes as the primary tabulation source. County staff told the court they had discussed the executive order and state guidance with the Texas Secretary of State’s office and recommended moving now to secure equipment and avoid supply shortages before September certification deadlines cited in the federal direction.

County Elections Administrator Caleb Grove described a proposed implementation timeline and technical approach. The plan calls for air‑gapped laptops and laser printers to print full‑face, optical‑scan ballots on demand at polling places; portable carts to move two printers per location; privacy booths sized to reduce footprint; and barcode scanners used only to automate printing of the correct precinct/ballot style (not to tabulate votes). Grove said vendors reported a 60–90 day delivery window and that the county would need equipment in place by mid‑September to meet the November election timetable. He also noted that federal and state certification work remains ongoing and that at least one ballot marking device (BMD) per polling place would be retained to meet HAVA accessibility requirements.

Public comment was extensive, with speakers divided. Supporters of the move argued hand‑marked paper ballots are the most auditable and transparent record of voter intent and cited research from the National Academy of Sciences, the University of Michigan, and election security experts who recommended human‑readable paper ballots and risk‑limiting audits. Speakers referencing those studies and testimony argued that ballot‑marking devices that print barcodes create an unverifiable ‘‘translation’’ between voter intent and what is tabulated.

Opponents said the county’s current system had not demonstrated failures, expressed concern that hand‑marked ballots would lengthen lines and increase spoiled or undervoted ballots, and warned of additional burdens for older voters and people who need accessibility features. Several speakers and commissioners emphasized that staff must provide strong voter education and worker training to avoid delays.

County staff and commissioners also discussed legal risk and near‑term steps. County legal staff updated the court that the June 9 directive by the court instructed staff to procure items and present contracts and that no final contract awards were made on June 9; the June 23 vote authorized procurement actions for items on the agenda. Staff identified the ballot‑on‑demand printers and related hardware as urgent because of limited vendor supply and potential certification changes coming from the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and the VVSG update.

The court’s action items (the six agenda identifiers shown to the court) will let purchasing proceed to issue requisitions and purchase orders; county officials said the items are air‑gapped from pollbooks and that the county intends to maintain accessibility devices in each polling place. The court did not adopt a policy to eliminate all BMDs; commissioners and staff repeatedly said an ADA‑accessible device would remain available upon request.

Looking ahead: staff said they will implement training and voter education this summer and fall, and prepare forms and procedures for early voting and election day operations under the new workflow. Officials cautioned the timeline is tight and depends on equipment delivery and any further federal or state guidance.

Votes at a glance: The court approved six related procurement/contract items to implement ballot‑on‑demand printing and related contract amendments; motion carried 5 to 0.

Ending note: Commissioners emphasized they did not consider the June 9 court direction to be final policy but instead a directive to staff to prepare contracts and plans. The June 23 approvals authorize procurement steps so staff can meet implementation windows if certification guidance and vendor availability require it.","After weeks of discussion and extensive public comment, Collin County Commissioners on June 23 approved six procurement and contract items to move the county toward a ballot‑on‑demand, hand‑marked paper ballot process ahead of the November 2025 election.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners approve $125,000 bridge funding for Health Care Foundation after grant reductions

Commissioners approve conditioned rescission and replat for Park Meadows Lot 5 after developer objections and owner confusion

Collin County approves procurement steps for ballot-on-demand printers amid debate over hand‑marked ballots