Thirty-six years, in order

The Commissioners Court discusses the “park” area of the proposed subdivision — who will maintain it, what it will cost, and “whether or not it will be a ‘County Park.’” The Court asks that the final plat state the County will not be responsible for maintenance, and approves the preliminary plan 4–1.

The land is in the City of Austin’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, and Austin’s ordinance requires subdivisions to dedicate parkland. Austin’s reviewer calculates a 0.35-acre minimum for 25 homes, identifies the 7.38-acre tract as the land that will satisfy it, and requires a recorded deed to Williamson County, a letter of acceptance from the County, and a title policy before the final plat can be approved.

The warranty deed conveys the land “exclusively for parks and recreational purposes for public use by the citizens of Williamson County,” and states that “by acceptance of this conveyance, Williamson County hereby dedicates the herein described property for park and recreational purposes.”

Agenda Item 17. The Court votes 4–1 to accept the deed and file it in the Deed Records. The same day, County Judge Don Wilson signs a separate instrument titled “Park Land Acceptance.” Both are recorded the next day at Volume 1960, pages 440–444.

Commissioner Mike Heiligenstein writes to Austin’s planning department: “Williamson County has received and accepted a deed from Carolville, Ltd. for 7.38 acres of land … to be used as park land.”

Approved by the Austin Planning Commission on February 12 and by Williamson County on February 25; recorded February 26. The plat shows the tract as “7.38 AC PARK / WILLIAMSON COUNTY,” and its notes state that Williamson County “is the owner of this approved parkland tract.” The deed’s one-year condition is satisfied.

The Section 2A plat (October 1994) and the Section 1A plat (March 1995), both approved by the County, restate that the parkland requirement was satisfied by this tract and that Williamson County owns it.

Carolville donates two adjacent tracts — 2.4 and 10.8 acres — to the City of Cedar Park. The legal descriptions in those deeds use the County’s 7.38-acre parkland tract as a boundary, confirming its location and status fourteen years after the dedication.

“Discuss possible sale of County-owned 7.38 acres in Breakaway Park Subdivision” appears as an executive-session real-estate item at thirteen consecutive Commissioners Court meetings. The minutes record no action each time.

An engineering exhibit in the County’s file divides the park into three residential lots.

At three June meetings, the Commissioners Court consults with counsel in executive session about “a 7.42-acre tract owned by Williamson County in the Breakaway Park Subdivision.” No action is taken in public.

McAllister & Associates is retained on a 4.5% commission. A title commitment is issued with the buyer “to be determined”; it lists the park deed restrictions and the plat’s ownership note as exceptions. The broker compiles residential land comparables at $6 to $13.56 per square foot.

Commissioner Long asks the Upper Brushy Creek WCID to release its 1959 easement on the tract. The release is signed August 27 and recorded October 3 — a closing condition of an agreement that would not be voted on for another four months.

The broker finds a Cedar Park sewer main crossing the tract. The Commissioner replies that Cedar Park probably ran it there “because they thought it ‘parkland’” and that “the tracts are still developable.” Bleyl Engineering produces a three-lot topographic exhibit the same week.

The developer returns two rounds of redlines on the Development Agreement. The County has not produced its own drafts or responses.

Henk Morelisse Jr. signs the Development Agreement as president of Skalmor, Inc., eleven days before the Commissioners Court votes on it. Mr. Morelisse also manages the general partner of Carolville, the 1990 grantor whose signature the agreement requires to release the park restrictions.

Item 71 is approved in a batch vote. The public agenda gives no address, parcel number, acreage, or attached agreement. On the video, a commissioner thanks the broker by name, calls it “a small piece of land that is currently unused,” and hopes proceeds go to the Parks Fund. County Judge Snell signs the agreement the next day.

A survey crew appears on the park at 8 a.m. They tell one neighbor they are doing a “topographic and tree study” and another that it is “mosquito control.” County parks staff say they have no knowledge of any survey. The crew’s employer identifies Bleyl Engineering as the hiring party.

In an email to the broker, Commissioner Long writes the text that will be delivered to neighbors: “The County never accepted it as parkland and does not intend to do so in the future.”

A hand-delivered letter on McAllister & Associates letterhead states that the County “has authorized the sale” of “the 7.6 acres at the end of Chitina Court” and plans three residential lots. It is the first notice anyone in the neighborhood receives.

Within days, neighbors send a certified notice to the County Attorney, retain counsel, file Public Information Act requests with the County, the City of Austin, and the water district, and begin a petition that gathers more than sixty signatures door to door.

When the survey crew returns, a neighbor photographs the work order on the crew’s clipboard, with the crew’s permission. Project: “Chitina Ct – 7.38 acs.” Client: Henk Morelisse. Billing: Skalmor Inc., Naples, Florida. Instructions: “Prepare 3 lot subdivision.” Date: March 31, 2026 — five weeks after the vote on “certain property.”

Through counsel, the County’s General Counsel provides the executed Development Agreement. It names the tract, recites that it “was never formally accepted or designated as parkland,” and sets the 55/45 split of sale proceeds.

In response to an eleven-category records request, the County releases 27 files. Every email comes from a single Commissioner’s office. Nothing is produced from the County Judge, the other Commissioners, the County Attorney, or outside counsel. The County asks the Attorney General for permission to withhold the rest.

The City of Austin releases 306 pages from its 1990–1991 subdivision files. They show the park was required by Austin’s ordinance, that Austin would not approve the plat without the County’s acceptance, and that the County confirmed acceptance in writing.

After the Attorney General allows the County to withhold a “representative sample” of its records as attorney-client privileged — a ruling that decides nothing about the park itself — neighbors send the County an itemized list of what its production is missing: records from every custodian other than one Commissioner’s office, the County’s own drafts, the Item 71 attachments, and the easement-release correspondence. They ask for production by September 4. No substantive response has been located.

The Commissioners Court approves a First Amendment 5–0 as Item 63 on September 1 — again described only as “the sale of certain property owned by the County”; County Judge Snell signs it September 3. It removes the $4-per-square-foot minimum and requires the County and developer to “mutually agree” on any offer. The 55/45 split stands. The sale is still moving forward.

A McAllister & Associates sign appears at the end of Chitina Court: “7.38 ac LOT FOR SALE.” Four days after the Commissioners Court approved the amendment removing the minimum price, the park is publicly on the market — offered as a single lot, not the three described in April.

The neighborhood names the tract Breakaway Springs Park and adds it to the map. On September 16, residents of Breakaway Park and Silverado Ranch form Breakaway Springs Park Alliance, a Texas nonprofit association, “to preserve Breakaway Springs Park as publicly accessible open space” and to oppose “any sale, conversion, or private residential development that conflicts with those goals.”