Bagwell had complained that the Wall and Swift were guilty of "holding hostage" his Old Grove plat approval, based on problems they had with the Monticello pond they blamed on other Bagwell developments.  Bagwell had previously pointed out that, while he was the General Partner of other developments, the businesses were different and had different partners.

David Bagwell points out on a large map of the area showing drainage flow that his Old Grove project was not the culprit of complaints in Monticello.

Bagwell pointed out that the claims by Wall and Swift were not valid because their complaint about the pond in Monticello could not have been caused by the Old Grove project that was being considered.  The plat was finally approved,  Swift was the only commissioner to vote no.  Swift said the President of the Monticello HOA told him the silt problem was caused by Bagwell.

Under direct questioning by Frank Hill, Earl Swift said that he still believed the problems were caused by Bagwell.  Besides he said, "Bagwell no longer attended the hearings about his developments, instead he sent his representatives."

Earl Swift said Bagwell deserved blame. Click Here to see opening statement.

Swift proved to be a combative witness under questioning by Bagwell's attorney. When asked if Swift thought it was right for a commissioner to hold one developer responsible for another's action, he responded that Bagwell was the problem and yes he though he should be held responsible. Bagwell had previously stated that due to the problems with P&Z and the "over regulations" in Colleyville that although he had done 15 to 18 projects that he did not feel he could do business in Colleyville again.

During testimony, Swift admitted that his information was "second hand from Andy Surrell," and that he had thought the city's chief engineer had concurred that silt problems in Monticello were the fault of Bagwell developments.  Swift admitted that he was confused about the source of the information and never spoke directly to any of the engineers.

Kasselman (on right) and Hill engaged in a spirited argument over Swift's use of notes.

Swift's attorney Conrad Kasselman and Bagwell's attorney Frank Hill got into a dispute over the use of notes by Swift.  Swift testified that he had written the notes the day before and Hill demanded to see the notes.  Hill was allowed to see the notes and put the notes into evidence.

Hill asked Swift if he had ever made the statement that "Bagwell should be run out of town and that he was a "pain in the ass."  Swift that he "may have" made the statements.  Hill pressed Swift on the question if a public official should conduct himself in that manner.  Swift replied, "I am only human."

Jeff Wall took the stand and basically said he relied on the city staff to make his decisions.  Wall said that he often joked to Barry LeBaron that, " I work for you."
Concerning comments that were derogatory about Bagwell, Wall said that he may have made comments but they were "off the record."

Jeff Wall's attorney, Kathy Lanford only joined in objections when attorney Kasselman lead the way.  However, Lanford basically asked no questions of any of the witnesses. She is seen on left glaring at Frank Hill during a heated exchange between Kasselman and Hill during Swift's reluctance to allow Hill to have full access to his notes. Jody Boyd of the Bagwell company testified that the EPA had made a check of the area and concluded that Bagwell's development was in full compliance.

During the hearing on Old Grove tapes of that meeting, include Wall saying "I develop lots."  Thereafter, Wall said that based on his expertise that aspects of the plats were not a good idea "from a business standpoint."

However, when asked about his experience as a lot developer, Wall said his family owned forty acres in California that was developed and he was the managing partner.  He added that there was a person in charge in California and he was living in Texas at the time.

Another apparent discrepancy in Wall's testimony had to do with his knowledge of a lawsuit concerning Montclair Parc and one of Bagwell's developments.  Wall had stated during hearings that, "I have read the lawsuit," however, on Thursday's hearing, Wall said he had "only read about it in the paper."

The committee completed taking testimony for the evening and went into executive session.  However, no decision was announced except that the hearings should start again next month.

Contact Us | Help |About the Publisher
© 2000-2004 Local News Only.com™ 
Copyright - All rights reserved
  Published by Local Net Com, Inc.