A member of the public raised a series of questions about the county’s new courthouse during the commissioners court public comment period, asking for clearer public information on inspections, unresolved exterior construction issues and the project’s cost and impact on property taxes.

The speaker identified herself on the record as Miss Fern (public commenter) and said she had reviewed prior news coverage and asked whether a city occupancy permit had been issued, whether stucco issues had been resolved and when construction would be completed. “There has not been a statement indicating that all the inspections have been completed. Was the city occupancy permit issued? Was the issue with the stucco resolved?” she asked.

Fern also told the court she believed the building is located in a natural drainage runway and that water runs from University into the courthouse parking lot; she called for clearer public disclosure of the project status and ultimate cost. “In the real world, things do not always work out as planned. So here we are in January 2025, seven years later, and the public has no idea concerning the project status or the ultimate cost,” she said. She asserted that the total cost for the facility and other county projects increased property taxes for residents.

Why it matters: Public confidence in large capital projects depends on clear reporting of inspection status, occupancy permits, outstanding construction issues and fiscal impacts. Drainage around public buildings can have safety and maintenance consequences.

What the record shows

- Public comment: Miss Fern asked that the county provide clearer public notices (newsletter or Facebook) explaining who pays for emergency service districts and the courthouse project, the project status, outstanding inspections and drainage mitigation plans.
- Commissioners did not provide a detailed timeline or technical inspection status during public comment. County staff later continued agenda business and several construction and drainage items were considered in the meeting’s project approvals.

The record contains the public comment verbatim and the court acknowledged the comment and moved on to the next agenda item. No formal action or staff directive appears on the record to respond to the specific requests for a public update or technical inspection certificate during this session.

Provenance: public comment begins with the open-forum segment recorded in the transcript where the commenter asked about occupancy permits, stucco repair and drainage into the courthouse parking lot.