Kovacs’ Wildfire: Unraveling Fate City Manager ‘Fire-Support’ Scheme
In a developing investigation, the Fate Tribune has uncovered potential corruption within the City of Fate surrounding the Lafayette Crossing development project. Recent revelations shed light on a series of covert maneuvers aimed at advancing the contentious project while stifling opposition and shaping public opinion.
At the heart of this unfolding scandal is the mysterious relationship between City Manager Michael Kovacs and Ryan Breckenridge, proprietor of “BRK Partners”. Breckenridge is allegedly pivotal in what Kovacs has referred to as “fire support” and “public education” efforts concerning the Lafayette Crossing development.
Documents obtained by the Fate Tribune indicate that City of Fate administrators were unaware of Breckenridge until the moment of receipt of his invoice, suggesting that his connection was not with the City in general, but with the City Manager directly. According to email correspondence, Breckenridge was not listed as a “vendor” in the city’s database and administrators had no idea what to do with his invoice. Nevertheless, payment for BRK Partners’ services, totaling $4500, was directly authorized by City Manager Michael Kovacs without explanation.
In an open records request (ORR) made by the Fate Tribune, we asked for a copy of the agreement with BRK Partners. Apparently, no such contract exists, according to City Secretary Vickey Raduechel. The sum total of the explanation for the services to be provided by BRK Partners is on the invoice provided by BRK Partners themselves.
The absence of any formal contract delineating the scope of Breckenridge’s services raises serious concerns about transparency and legality. Moreover, the direct authorization of payment by Kovacs adds further suspicion of a coverup to this situation.
Breckenridge’s services, as indicated on their invoice, state “Strategic messaging and external communications consulting services.” But a timeline of events clearly shows what those services would include.
The timeline of events underscores a concerted effort by city officials to control the narrative surrounding Lafayette Crossing development.
On January 9, 2024, Kovacs referred to the project as “…our Olympics” in an email to the city council, emphasizing its significance and outright stating that an impending public relations campaign aimed at “educating” citizens would be underway shortly. Kovacs’ refers to this campaign as “fire-support”, allegedly to provide cover and backup to the Council. This suggests a covert strategy to be waged against people who might oppose the project was deliberately formulated by city executives. As the primary vocal opponent of the project, the Fate Tribune would be included in this group … we assume.
“We have some things in the works for fire-support to you all. Justin talking with PR team Thursday and we launch public education post info Friday (likely) or Tuesday (latest).”
Michael Kovacs in email to City Council
On January 7, 2024, Breckenridge joined the “It’s All About Fate” group on Facebook. Some might infer that that this was prep work for the campaign that was about to unfold. Four days later, Breckenridge was briefed on the project’s status during a City Teams Meeting on January 11, 2024, organized by Luke Franz, attorney for the Lafayette Crossing developers.
On the same day, after the ‘Teams’ meeting, Ryan Wells, Fate City Planner, forwarded the development plans to the “Fate Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Members”, via a blind carbon copy of an email to the council, indicating an attempt to be covert. One might infer that this too was part of the campaign as the development was scheduled to be presented before the Planning and Zoning meeting (P&Z) on January 18, 2024, and subsequently, the City Council meeting on February 5, 2024.
In email correspondence to the City Council, prior to the P&Z meeting, Kovacs states his assurances that the project will pass, albeit with a lot of conditions. It begs to question, what would give Kovacs such a firm belief that the project would pass without question? Did he have communication with P&Z members that was not recorded as part of the official documents? How would he know such things? Was the P&Z approval a forgone conclusion before the commission even looked at the submittal?
In a true Republic, every single member of the Fate City Council should be furious that the City Manager would take it upon himself to conduct a covert public manipulation campaign against private citizens or media … but apparently, the City Manager had no qualms about discussing this with the Council openly. This may suggest a mutual understanding and tacit agreement by the Council whose job is to oversee the City Manager.
The authorization for payment to BRK Partners without a formal contract, coupled with Breckenridge’s undisclosed relationship with the City Manager, and the apparent coordination between city officials and developers, raises serious ethical and legal concerns. The Fate Tribune would recommend the Fate City Council conduct a thorough investigation into the conduct of Michael Kovacs with regard to his contract procedures.
The Fate Tribune investigation into the City of Fate’s relationship with the developers of the Lafayette Crossing is ongoing and we are awaiting the distribution of additional documents, emails and text messages. As the controversy surrounding Lafayette Crossing continues to unfold, it is imperative that the voices of citizens and independent media outlets are not silenced by covert tactics and manipulation. The Tribune remains steadfast in its commitment to uncovering the truth behind this troubling affair and holding those responsible to account for their actions.
*Correction 3/18/2024 – We incorrectly referred to Kovacs note of “Fire Support” as “Fire Control” in one of the two paragraphs. We have corrected the article.
Council
Refugio’s Government Meltdown: Mayor, Secretary and Three Council Officials Arrested in Two Days
Refugio, TX — It is one thing when a Texas mayor gets arrested. It is quite another when the mayor, city secretary and three current or former council members are all swept into the same criminal investigation within roughly 48 hours. That is what happened this week in Refugio, a small South Texas town where local government has suddenly become the subject of a Texas Rangers investigation and multiple felony charges.
Mayor Wanda Dukes and City Secretary Callie Shreckengost were arrested Wednesday on first-degree felony charges involving the alleged misapplication of fiduciary property valued at $300,000 or more, according to reporting by Crossroads Today and Texas Municipal Watch. The allegations involve the town’s Economic Development Corporation funds.
Then came Thursday.
Mayor Pro Tem Ixtlazihuatl “Lala” Vasquez, along with former council members Michael Rocha and Frank Hosey, surrendered at the Refugio County Jail and were arrested on third-degree felony charges alleging abuse of official capacity involving government property valued at more than $30,000 but less than $150,000.
The Texas Rangers reportedly told Crossroads Today that Thursday’s arrests stem from the same grand jury indictment that produced the charges against Dukes and Shreckengost. Texas Municipal Watch reported that it had not independently reviewed the indictment and was relying on Crossroads Today’s account of the Rangers’ statement.
Under Texas Penal Code Section 39.02, abuse of official capacity involves a public servant intentionally or knowingly misusing government property, services, personnel or other resources under that official’s control for an improper benefit or to harm or defraud another person. At the dollar range alleged in the Thursday arrests, the offense is classified as a third-degree felony.
The identities of the officials involved are not in question. Refugio County records list Dukes as mayor, Vasquez as Alderman Place 1, Rocha as Alderman Place 3, and Hosey as Alderman Place 4. Town financial records also identify Shreckengost as city secretary.
But there is still a great deal the public does not know.
Texas Municipal Watch reported that the specific conduct allegedly underlying the charges against Vasquez, Rocha and Hosey had not yet been independently confirmed, nor had the outlet confirmed their release conditions or upcoming court appearances. The underlying indictment had also not been obtained at the time of its Thursday report.
The town council has apparently recognized that it has a problem. Council members Robert Jaso and Dana Alsop issued an identical statement Wednesday saying the town was aware of criminal accusations against officials, could not comment on an ongoing investigation, and intended to take steps to protect municipal resources. They also said a special meeting would be held as soon as possible to consider whatever action might be necessary.
Granbury, TX – A Granbury political fight that escalated into a criminal prosecution has ended with a jury refusing to convict Eva Royer, a Hood County Republican Party official who was arrested after questions arose over the address she used when filing to run for Granbury City Council.
Royer was found not guilty after facing charges of perjury of certain election procedures and election fraud stemming from her 2024 City Council candidacy, according to reporting by Erin Anderson of Texas Scorecard. The verdict closes a case that had already raised uncomfortable questions about how aggressively local government pursued what began as a dispute over residency.
The case began after Royer filed to run for Granbury City Council Place 5 in August 2024. She listed a Granbury address and stated that she had lived within the city for approximately two years and nine months. City officials later questioned whether that address was actually her primary residence.
Royer withdrew her candidacy before a scheduled City Council meeting could determine whether she met the city’s residency requirements. That could have been the end of the matter.
It wasn’t.
In April 2025, Granbury police arrested Royer on one count of perjury of certain election procedures, a state jail felony, and one count of election fraud, a Class A misdemeanor. She posted bond and was released the following day. The charges were based largely on allegations that she used a Granbury property as her residence even though officials believed she primarily lived elsewhere.
The prosecution focused heavily on three locations: Royer’s Granbury property, a home in Pecan Plantation belonging to her former boyfriend, and a Dallas condominium.
The state presented evidence that Royer’s vehicle entered and exited Pecan Plantation regularly. A security director testified that Royer had a guest pass connected to the vehicle, but also acknowledged under questioning from defense attorney Rob Christian that regularly visiting a boyfriend does not necessarily make someone a resident. He further testified that a guest tag indicated the person was not a resident.
Prosecutors also pointed to the fact that Royer’s Granbury property had been approved for short-term rental use. But testimony established that a short-term rental permit did not require the property to be rented for any particular number of days. In other words, having a permit to rent a house does not automatically establish that its owner doesn’t live there.
Then came the homestead exemption argument.
Hood County Chief Appraiser Jeff Law testified that Royer had not claimed a homestead exemption on the Granbury property. Her attorney countered that the property was owned through Royer’s LLC, making her ineligible for the exemption under the circumstances. Royer’s driver license also listed the Granbury address.
The trial also produced testimony about the investigation itself, including the use of license plate reader technology (FLOCK) to locate Royer. Texas Scorecard reported that her former boyfriend’s license plate had been placed on a “hot list” because of his association with Royer. Police eventually arrested Royer after locating her with Bolton.
And there was considerably more.
Defense questioning raised issues involving city officials, police leadership and communications concerning the prosecution. According to Texas Scorecard’s trial coverage, Granbury Police Chief Mitch Galvan acknowledged providing incorrect testimony during earlier proceedings and acknowledged that text messages concerning the case had not initially been produced despite court orders.
Royer’s acquittal ends the criminal case, but it leaves questions about how the dispute escalated to that point. Why was so much pressure brought against her over the address she used on her election paperwork? Why did multiple officials at the City of Granbury become so deeply involved in pursuing the matter after she had withdrawn from the race? And given the issues raised during the trial about the investigation and the handling of evidence, are there additional questions about how and why the case was pursued? Those questions remain unanswered, and whether there is a deeper problem within Granbury’s political or administrative structure is something that warrants further examination.
San Angelo, TX – San Angelo’s battle over massive data centers has moved from City Hall chambers to the ballot box, and two council members could soon have to defend their seats before voters angry about how the city has handled the projects. What began as a fight over water, power, development and transparency is now a full-blown political revolt, with recall efforts targeting Council Members Harry Thomas and Joe Self.
And the controversy comes at an interesting moment for Texas. Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered state regulators to conduct a comprehensive audit of data centers moving through the state’s electric grid interconnection process, saying the review must be completed before any data center project moves forward. ERCOT subsequently told Fox News Digital that Abbott’s directive “effectively pauses all data center projects” while the state reviews their demands on the grid.
That means the questions being shouted at San Angelo City Hall are no longer merely local complaints from residents opposed to a particular development. Texas officials are now asking some of the same questions.
Abbott directed the Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT to examine pending data center projects and gather information, including projected annual and peak electricity demand, water consumption, water sources, and whether facilities intend to generate some of their own electricity. ERCOT reported that roughly 90 percent of the 474 gigawatts of large-load interconnection requests currently under review are associated with data centers, more than five times Texas’ record peak electricity demand.
Back in San Angelo, the San Angelo Data Center Citizen Coalition has been pushing its own accountability campaign.
A petition seeking the recall of Council Member Harry Thomas, who represents Single Member District 3, was submitted July 15 with more than the required signatures. The city clerk later certified the petition after determining 53 signatures were sufficient, clearing the way for a recall election.
Following public comment, the City Council voted 6-1 to call the recall election.
Thomas has maintained that he has no intention of resigning.
“I weigh every decision I’ve ever made on behalf of the 100,000 citizens in San Angelo,” Thomas said after the petition was submitted. “Every time I vote, I vote for all the citizens. I have no plans to resign from my position.”
Self is now facing his own recall effort.
The coalition submitted an affidavit seeking Self’s recall and subsequently collected the signatures necessary to move forward. On Aug. 6, Self issued a statement saying he supports residents’ right to seek a recall but rejected what he described as misinformation about his involvement with data centers.
“I have not signed any non-disclosure agreements,” Self said. “I have not benefited financially. I have not voted in favor of a data center.”
Self said the council has instead voted on regulations that would apply if a data center is established in San Angelo.
That distinction between approving a specific project and approving regulations governing potential projects has become one of the central arguments in the political fight. San Angelo officials have considered rules addressing land use, water and wastewater issues as the city confronts proposals for large-scale data center development.
The proposed Skybox project has become particularly contentious. City officials have described it as a potential $7.2 billion investment, while opponents have raised concerns about water consumption, electricity demand, infrastructure, noise and transparency surrounding the development process.
The political consequences are spreading beyond San Angelo.
Residents in Temple and Granbury have also launched recall or charter efforts amid disputes over data center development. In Temple, opponents have cited concerns about land, water consumption and heat generated by facilities. In Granbury, activists gathered signatures seeking recalls involving the mayor and most members of the City Council.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login