The Story · Breakaway Springs Park

The park

At the end of Chitina Court, where Breakaway Park meets Silverado Ranch, there are 7.38 acres of live oak and cedar, a pond that swells to several acres after rain, and a well-worn trail that residents of both neighborhoods use to walk between them. Deer bed down in the prickly pear. Kids hunt eggs there in the spring and paint rocks for the trail. School-age athletes run the trail to train. Families have canoed on the pond for decades. Neighbors maintain the trail themselves.

No County money bought it and no County money maintains it. When the subdivision was platted in 1991, the Commissioners Court asked that maintenance responsibility be placed on the subdivision, not Williamson County, and the plat says so.

How it became a park

In 1990 this land was inside the City of Austin’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. Austin’s parkland dedication ordinance required new subdivisions to set aside land for parks as a condition of approval. Austin’s reviewer calculated the requirement for Breakaway Park Section 3 — 0.35 acres for 25 homes — and identified the 7.38-acre tract the developer had offered as the land that would satisfy it. He wrote that the final plat “will not be approved” until the developer delivered a recorded deed to Williamson County, a letter of acceptance from the County, and proof of clear title. Austin’s review records

The developer, Carolville, Ltd., signed the deed on October 30, 1990. It conveys the land “exclusively for parks and recreational purposes for public use by the citizens of Williamson County,” and adds that “by acceptance of this conveyance, Williamson County hereby dedicates the herein described property for park and recreational purposes.” The deed

On November 19, 1990, the Commissioners Court voted 4–1 to accept the deed. County Judge Don Wilson signed a separate instrument titled “Park Land Acceptance.” Both were recorded the next day. The vote

In January 1991, Commissioner Mike Heiligenstein wrote to the City of Austin to confirm that “Williamson County has received and accepted a deed from Carolville, Ltd. for 7.38 acres of land … to be used as park land.” Austin approved the plat the next month. The plat labels the tract “7.38 AC PARK / WILLIAMSON COUNTY,” and its notes state that “Williamson County, Texas is the owner of this approved parkland tract.” Two later plats, in 1994 and 1995, say the same thing. The plat

What the County did

Between September 2018 and January 2019, “possible sale of County-owned 7.38 acres in Breakaway Park Subdivision” appeared as a closed-session item at thirteen consecutive Commissioners Court meetings. No action was taken in public. In May 2019 an engineering exhibit in the County’s file divided the park into three lots. The 2019 exhibit

In June 2025 the Court met three times in closed session about “legal matters relating to a 7.42-acre tract” in Breakaway Park. Over the following months, and without any public vote, the County hired a broker on a 4.5% commission, ordered a title commitment, compiled residential land comps, obtained and recorded a release of a 1959 drainage easement, and had a second three-lot layout drawn. In December and January the developer exchanged redlines of a sale agreement with the County. The timeline

The developer signed on February 13, 2026. On February 24, the Commissioners Court approved, in a batch vote, “a development agreement … regarding the sale of certain property owned by the County.” The agenda gave no address, no parcel number, no acreage, and attached no agreement. Another development agreement on the same agenda, Item 56, had the full contract attached. On the meeting video, a commissioner thanked the broker by name, described the property as “a small piece of land that is currently unused,” and said proceeds would hopefully go to the Parks Fund. None of that appears in the written record. Item 71: what the public saw · The video

Two hearings the record does not show. Texas law sets out two public processes before a county park can be put to another use. Local Government Code Chapter 317 provides for a published notice and a hearing at which the Commissioners Court decides whether the public interest is better served by keeping the park or closing it, followed by an order in its minutes either way. Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 26 requires notice, a hearing, and findings that there is “no feasible and prudent alternative” to taking the park and that the project “includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm.” The County’s agendas, its minutes, and the records it released under the Public Information Act show no notice, hearing, order, or finding under either chapter for this tract. The County’s answer, written into the agreement, is that the land was never a park. Whether that is right is the question at the center of this dispute, and no court has decided it. Both statutes, quoted in full

Under the agreement, 55% of the net proceeds from selling this public land go to the developer and 45% to Williamson County, after the County’s broker takes 4.5% of the gross sale price. The agreement · The broker contract

On April 17, survey crews appeared on the park. On April 21, Commissioner Cynthia Long emailed the broker a draft letter. On April 25, the broker hand-delivered it to homes near the park. It said the County “never accepted” the land as parkland (a statement the County’s own recorded acceptance, minutes, and plats contradict), had authorized its sale, and planned three residential lots. That letter was the first notice anyone in the neighborhood received. The letter · The emails

On September 3, 2026, County Judge Steven Snell signed an amendment removing the agreement’s $4-per-square-foot minimum price. The County is still pursuing the sale. The amendment

From three lots to one. The 2019 and 2025 engineering exhibits, the surveyor’s March 2026 work order, and the April letter all describe three lots. The agreement itself requires only “one or more” single-family lots, “with septic (if necessary) and water well service.” The County’s own floodplain exhibit places four of the tract’s 7.4 acres in the 100-year floodplain, and in October 2025 the Commissioner wrote to the broker that “septic and well will have to be up closer to the front of the property.” By September 2026 the broker’s sign offered the whole tract as a single 7.38-acre lot. The reason for the change is not stated in the public record. The floodplain exhibit · The emails

What the County says, and what its records say

The Development Agreement’s third recital states that the property “was never formally accepted or designated as parkland by proper official action of the Williamson County Commissioners Court, and/or … has never been used or maintained as a park or recreation area by the citizens of the County.”

“Williamson County … does accept the grant of park land as hereinabove described.” — Park Land Acceptance signed by County Judge Don Wilson, recorded at Vol. 1960, P. 444

“Motion: To accept the Warranty deed from Carrollville Ltd. and authorize it to be filed … Vote: Motion carried 4–1.” — Commissioners Court minutes, November 19, 1990

“Williamson County has received and accepted a deed from Carolville, Ltd. for 7.38 acres of land … to be used as park land.” — Commissioner Mike Heiligenstein to the City of Austin, January 11, 1991

“Williamson County, Texas is the owner of this approved parkland tract.” — Breakaway Park Section 3 plat, 1991; repeated on the Section 2A and 1A plats

The same agreement cites the deed at “Vol. 1960 Page 449.” The deed is recorded at Page 440. The title commitment the County ordered in July 2025 lists the deed restrictions and the plat’s ownership note as exceptions to coverage. The title company saw them. The title commitment

The agreement’s answer to the deed restriction is Exhibit B: a release to be signed by Carolville, the 1990 grantor, declaring the park restrictions “fully released, abandoned, terminated, and forever discharged.” Carolville’s general partner today is Silcar, L.L.C., managed by Henk Morelisse — the same person who signed the agreement as president of the developer, Skalmor, Inc. Corporate records

Why it matters beyond one street

The County’s own exhibit places four of the tract’s 7.4 acres in the 100-year floodplain, with 1.2 acres of pond, and the land drains to a tributary of Brushy Creek. Silverado Ranch homes back directly onto it. What changes to this ground would do to high-water flow during heavy rain is a question for those homes, and no engineering study in the public record has answered it.

The exhibit labels its floodplain “100 YR FLOODPLAIN (ATLAS 14).” The County’s own Flood Studies map today shows the Atlas 14 100-year floodplain of Brushy Creek Tributary AX running through the tract. The Commissioners Court adopted the Atlas 14 Floodplain Mapping Study on March 24, 2026, one month after it approved the agreement to sell the park. The County’s announcement says the adoption “provides the county with authority to officially regulate these floodplains and require permits for encroachment.” The County’s guide to the study adds: “None of the effective FEMA studies incorporate Atlas 14 rainfall.” County Flood Studies map · County announcement, March 25, 2026 · Understanding Flood Exposure Information (PDF)

FEMA’s effective flood map says something different. On FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Map panel 48491C0470F, effective December 20, 2019, the tract is in Zone X, an “area of minimal flood hazard.” That is the map used for federal flood insurance requirements, and it was made before the Atlas 14 study existed. The County’s own study, which the County now says gives it authority to regulate these floodplains, maps four acres of the same ground as 100-year floodplain. FEMA Flood Map Service Center

The County’s Atlas 14 100-year floodplain in blue and 500-year floodplain in dark blue, drawn over the aerial photograph beneath the County’s 2020 exhibit, with the exhibit’s own orange floodplain line and the white parcel boundary. — The County’s adopted Atlas 14 floodplains drawn on the photograph beneath the County’s own January 2020 exhibit: 100-year in blue, 500-year in dark blue, the exhibit’s 2020 100-year line in orange, and the parcel boundary from the Williamson Central Appraisal District in white. The map layers were fitted to the exhibit by matching that parcel boundary to the property line drawn on it. North is toward the upper right. County Flood Studies map

The pond is not full every year, but it is full often. The County drew its floodplain exhibit on an aerial photograph in which the pond is full. The County’s May 2019 survey exhibit uses a photograph in which the same pond bed is dry. Google Earth’s imagery history shows the pond full again in 2010, 2013, 2020, and 2024. The six views below are aligned to the same frame, with the floodplain boundary from the County’s exhibit drawn on each.

Google Earth view of the park in 2010: the pond is full, with the County’s 100-year floodplain boundary drawn as an orange line. — Six views of the same ground, aligned to the frame of the County’s January 2020 floodplain exhibit. The orange line is that exhibit’s 100-year floodplain boundary, the blue line is the 100-year floodplain from the County’s adopted Atlas 14 study, and the white line is the parcel boundary. North is toward the upper right. The exhibit’s own photograph is shown with its orange shading removed so the water shows; the County’s 2019 survey photograph is rotated and scaled to match. Neither County exhibit states when its photograph was taken. Google Earth’s history also includes years in which the pond bed is dry. Google Earth imagery © Google. The floodplain exhibit as produced · The 2019 survey exhibit

Google Earth view of the park in 2013: the pond is full, with the same orange floodplain boundary. — Six views of the same ground, aligned to the frame of the County’s January 2020 floodplain exhibit. The orange line is that exhibit’s 100-year floodplain boundary, the blue line is the 100-year floodplain from the County’s adopted Atlas 14 study, and the white line is the parcel boundary. North is toward the upper right. The exhibit’s own photograph is shown with its orange shading removed so the water shows; the County’s 2019 survey photograph is rotated and scaled to match. Neither County exhibit states when its photograph was taken. Google Earth’s history also includes years in which the pond bed is dry. Google Earth imagery © Google. The floodplain exhibit as produced · The 2019 survey exhibit

And for every taxpayer in the county: the deal gives a private developer 55% of the proceeds from selling public parkland, and pays a broker 4.5% of the price, for land that cost the County nothing to acquire and nothing to keep.

More than that: if a recorded deed, a signed acceptance, a Commissioners Court vote, and three plats are not enough to make a park a park, then no dedicated parkland in Williamson County is safe from a “certain property” agenda item. And if an agreement to sell public parkland can be negotiated for eight months, signed by a developer, and approved without the public ever being told what land it covered, then the notice requirements that are supposed to let citizens participate in their government are not working.

What we are asking for

Cancel the Development Agreement with Skalmor, Inc.
Acknowledge, on the record, the County’s 1990 acceptance and dedication of the tract as parkland.
Release the records that were withheld or never searched for, so the public can see how this decision was made.
Work with the neighborhood on a permanent arrangement — a conservation easement, a transfer to a park district or land trust, or simply leaving the park alone — so this never has to be fought again.

If you are considering buying any part of this land, please read the notice to prospective buyers, which collects the recorded instruments, statutes, and court decisions that bear on the title.

We are neighbors, not lawyers. Nothing on this site is legal advice, and nothing here has been decided by a court. We have tried to state only what the documents show and to link to every one of them so you can read them yourself.