~,
L J 1
z
3
4
5
6
7
8
s
10
11
12
~. 13
14
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
COMMISSIONERS' COURT
U.G.R.A. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Special Joint Meeting
Tuesday, June 30, 1998
1:30 p.m.
Guadalupe Basin Natural Resources Center
125 Lehmann Drive, Suite 100
Kerrville, Texas 78028
PRESENT:
Commissioners' Court:
ROBERT A. DENSON, County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. I
T. H. "BUTCH" LACKEY, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
U.G.R.A. Board of Directors:
GRANGER MACDONALD, President
MARSHA COPELAND, Secretary-Treasurer
GEORGIA CHRISTLEY, Director
GERRY GRIFFIN, Director
BILL WILLIAMS, Director
JIM BROWN, General Manager U.G.R.A.
DEBBIE SCHICK, Executive Secretary U.G.R.A.
fAed~ Day of JLL7[A.D.1 ~ TIME^
81LLIE G. MEEKER
Clerk County Court, Kerr County 7exes
ey: ,~,
!~'~1
L_J 1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
s
10
11
12
~,,, 13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
On Tuesday, June 30, 1998, at 1:30 p.m., a special joint
meeting of Commissioners' Court and U.G.R.A. Board of
Directors was held at the Guadalupe Basin Natural Resources
Center, 125 Lehmann Drive, Suite 100, Kerrville, Texas, and
the following proceedings were had:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. It's 1:35 on the 30th of June,
1998: We're calling our half of the meeting to order as
posted. This is a joint meeting with the Board of U.G.R.A.,
and we're going to consider and discuss the interlocal
agreement between these two entities as to the on-site sewage
facility rules and regulations, as well as flood plain
programs.
block.
MR. BROWN: Let me be the guy on the starting
JUDGE DENSON: And if I may, Jim -- excuse me for
interrupting, but we have a court reporter now that's taking
our notes. And so for identification purposes, as we begin
moving through our discussion, when each of you speak, if you
could give your name the first time around, and then she'll
have it from then on. But this is Jim Brown that's speaking
at this time. And your title, Jim?
MR. BROWN: General Manager, U.G.R.A.. And for her
benefit, maybe we should go around the table and introduce
ourselves. Get our name on the record. Start with Debbie,
~~
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
s
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
za
25
if you would.
MS. SCHICK: Debbie Schick, U.G.R.A.
MS. CHRISTLEY: Georgia Christley, U.G.R.A.
MR. MACDONALD: Granger MacDonald, U.G.R.A.
MR. GRIFFIN: Gerry Griffin, U.G.R.A.
MR. WILLIAMS: Bill Williams, U.G.R.A.
MS. COPELAND: I'm Marsha Copeland, same.
MR. BROWN: Just a brief introduction. Let's see.
We've got -- we have one new Board member here; Mr. Griffin
was not here when we entered into this original interlocal
agreement. So, just as a matter of introduction, on July 22,
1996, the County and U.G.R.A. entered into an interlocal
agreement where the County -- where U.G.R.A. agreed to
administer the County's on-site septic program, and although
the interlocal agreement doesn't speak to it, the -- the
flood plain program, which is known as the Kerr County Flood
Prevention Order, in Article IV of the contract, we set out a
payment schedule. The first year the subsidy fzom the County
to U.G.R.A. -- this is '96-'97 year -- the subsidy was
$90,000. Year two, '97-'98, was reduced to S35,000. The
year three, '98-'99, reduced to $30,000. And then year four,
from '99 to '02 -- I'm sorry, '00, was $30,000, and then
thereafter, $30,000 a year through September 30th, 2001.
Subsequent to that, U.G.R.A. went to the County in the latter
part of year two, which was the '97-'98 fiscal year, and
.- ~ ~ 3
~~
L J
i i
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
io
~i
12
13
is
is
is
n
is
19
20
21
22
23
za
2s
requested that the County reinstate the subsidy from 330,000
to $35,000 and the County agreed to do that. And subsequent
to that, U.G.R.A. -- about the only thing we've done is that
when we received this building, we received ample office
equipment, filing cabinets and things of that nature, to
house the -- the offices, or at least to provide an
environment for the -- the official functions of the office,
and returned, I believe, all of the County's furniture to the
County. The only item we still have is the infamous Ford
pickup, which is still in the County's name and U.G.R.A. is
still using. In my last visit to the Court in which we
discussed this particular interlocal agreement, at that point
the County had indicated that they desired to have the pickup
truck returned to them. At that point I indicated that it
was the middle of our fiscal year and would create a
financial burden on U.G.R.A. to report -- to return the
pickup at that time. It was at that meeting, I believe, that
the Court had asked me to come back to my board, U.G.R.A.
Board, and suggest that -- that sometime prior to the
initiation of our budget planning for the -- for the '99
fiscal year, that we meet and discuss the program and our
relationship in the program from that -- this point forward.
So I think that's why we're here today, a very brief and
general statement. And at this point I will -- I will step
back and let the leaders go through the conversation. I have
9
C"`1
L_ ~
1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
1a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some -- some exhibits. When we get into talking about the
budget, if you will, for your convenience, I'll put them on
the screen and we can all go through them.
MR. MACDONALD: Maybe ya'all can see that the staff
has prepared five different options in different plans based
on the expenditures required, each a combination of increased
fees and increased subsidy. I think as the cover letter
states, we can't live with Plan Number 1. I doubt if ya'all
can live with Plan Number 5. So that leaves 2, 3, and 9 to
discuss.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is the breakdown between,
I guess, the numbers between flood plain and O.S.S.F.?
MR. BROWN: Flood plain, probably, at best estimate
-- this is based on timesheets -- would be about 20 percent
of the program, somewhere between 10 and 20 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are there fees associated with
that?
MR. BROWN: There is a $15 fee charged for each
flood plain determination.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it doesn't generate, really,
much revenue?
MR. MACDONALD: It doesn't cover it, if that's what
you're asking.
MR. BROWN: That's for the release -- that's where
the real differential is in this whole scenario is -- is the
5
n
L J
1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
s
to
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
1e
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
amount of time it takes to do a flood plain permit, and --
and the compensation package that comes in for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only reason I brought it
up, I'm just -- I knew this meeting was on the horizon, and
flood plain -- and Jim's comment has pretty much subtly been
that flood plain was kind of added on, not a whole lot of
discussion about it. And maybe that's something that we can
discuss when we have Commissioners' Court, go to the County
Surveyor or County Engineer and see if we can get that
program -- work out an arrangement with them, and to stretch
what we already have in the department, and it might not cost
us any more money.
MR. BROWN: Well, that one program has created
additional cost to U.G.R.A., unanticipated and not in the
budget. And the budget doesn't speak to it, but in the
litigation of Apple Valley Joint Venture versus U.G.R.A. and
Voelkel Engineering, et al, U.G.R.A. has spent close to
521,000 defending ourselves in the suit, and it's not our
program.
MR. MACDONALD: 520,690, if you're counting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is -- what is that
lawsuit?
MR. BROWN: Well, Apple Valley claimed that -- that
they bought that piece of property not knowing that it was in
a flood plain, and that their first -- they first --
6
C"`1
LJ
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
za
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is Shelton's old property,
is that Apple Valley? I mean, is that what we're talking
about?
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Wellborn.
COMMISSIONER LETZA; Wellborn property?
MR. BROWN: U.G.R.A. has -- has been successful
through Richard Mosty's effort to get a non-suit brought
against U.G.R.A., but it cost us 21 grand to get there.
Frankly, I don't know why they didn't sue the County; it was
your program and not U.G.R.A.'s. But apparently they didn't
do their due diligence on who they wanted to sue, either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ya'all are more noticeable.
MR. BROWN: Either that or you guys are just a lot
luckier than we are. But, anyway, the flood plain program is
a program that -- that has a long liability exposure to it.
The fees are insignificant when it comes to the capture of
the cost to do the program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I mentioned this to the
County Surveyor, who is Lee Voelkel. I said, you know, is
there any way -- He said the -- he agreed, basically, saying
the biggest problem is the liability. He says, you know,
that he felt we could probably work out an arrangement with
the County Surveyor to do it, with liability being the big
thing to have. That he, you know, has to have coverage on it
anyway. That's something more for the -- I guess for the
7
f~`1
~J
.-.
1
2
3
4
5
s
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
Commissioners' Court to look at as well. There may be other
options on flood plain where we wouldn't take it back
directly, but U.G.R.A. would keep it, you know, help them out
as well.
MR. BROWN: Well, we have an interest in the
knowledge of what's happening in the flood plain, because
that affects our water quality/quantity issues. We don't
necessarily have to be the administrator of the program.
That's management's position. The Board may have another
position.
JUDGE DENSON: Let me say that I was present on the
Court at the time that all these issues were addressed.
Commissioner Baldwin and Commissioner Letz were not. And let
me preface my comments by saying that Kerr County was
experiencing many problems with the flood plain management
program as well, and mostly with the on-site sewage facility
program and problems that arose from the operation of those
programs with personnel involved. The Court was being
inundated with complaints; I mean, numerous complaints from
all factions in the community, from consumers on up to
realtors, contractors, installers, designers, what-have-you.
It was almost that the Commissioners had become a daily
manager of the program, themselves, which neither I, nor any
of the four Commissioners at that time, felt like it was our
role. U.G.R.A., in my opinion -- and I think it was shared
8
L J
1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
za
25
by everyone on the Court at that time -- is in the position
that it is your business to deal with water issues. And when
Jim Brown brought this subject up at that time, I agreed 100
percent, again, as well as all the members of the
Commissioners' Court. And, I think it was maybe through
oversight that the flood plain management program wasn't
actually on the table and discussed in detail as the other
program was. We hammered out this agreement, entered into
the agreement, and then subsequently realized and agreed that
the flood plain management would naturally follow, because of
the work that ya'all are already doing with Headwaters and
with the on-site sewage facility. Not that that can't be
changed. But another issue I want to point out that we
talked about back then, and I want to know where we're going
on this, is that the County felt like -- well, we're the
designated agent by T.N.R.C.C. insofar as the on-site sewage
facility program goes. I personally like to see government
reduced rather than increased, and I thought this was an
excellent opportunity for Kerr County to get out of this
business and put it where it should go naturally. I think
Mr. Brown agreed at that time, and we talked about at some
point in the future -- and in relatively short-term, I think
was the intent, or it certainly was mine -- that after
U.G.R.A. got their feet on the ground, got a hold or
acclimated to the administration of these programs, then a
9
r-~
~~
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
joint application or whatever the procedure would be that's
necessary would go to T.N.R.C.C., and U.G.R.A. would be the
designated agent and the County would be out of this business
completely. So in the spirit of cooperation and reaching
some kind of interlocal agreement, with these numbers
presented today, you know, where are we going with this?
I've already commented that I want -- I personally wanted
Kerr County to get out of the business because it fit better
somewhere else. If we're going to continue just simply
indefinitely in the future with U.G.R.A. as the County's
agent through contract to administer the program, then maybe
Kerr County needs to rethink and say, "Let's go ahead, if we
have to, and set up a department within the County government
and operate this thing ourselves." Just some quick numbers:
Back then we were -- we were spending $100,000 a year with
operations, but we also included, I think, Solid Waste back
then, and we also had the fee reduction. I forget -- I think
some of the numbers we put together, it was costing Kerr
County $50,000 or 560,000 a year, net, to operate those
various programs, with the headaches that came with it. So
in our discussions today, I''d like to focus on these things
that were discussed back in '96.
MR. BROWN: Let me make a quick comment. That was
our discussion, and that U.G.R.A. would eventually raise its
-- increase its tax rate to a point where we could generate
10
f"`i
~~

r
t
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
that subsidy within. Unfortunately, we have not been able to
do that and stay out of the rollback. Our tax rate is so low
that -- that for us to raise an additional 560,000 at
U.G.R.A. puts us in a rollback position. And so we just --
we have not been able to -- with the additional cost that
we've taken on, we've not been able to get there. And I'm
not sure -- this has been something my Board is going to have
to decide is -- is are we willing to take that exposure, I
guess, of a tax rollback if we take the program on and
subsidize it totally. I would say that unless there is
unusual growth in the tax base in Kerr County, I don't see
U.G.R.A., at any time in the near future, being able to -- to
absorb the difference between the fee schedule and the actual
cost of operation of the department without exposing
ourselves to a tax rollback.
MR. MACDONALD: Our tax receipts are slightly more
than $300,000, so this would be a substantial piece of that.
You know, an $80,000 deficit, you would -- you know, if we
took the whole thing over, that would require some -- about a
90 percent tax increase. I'm not real excited about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a comment to what the
Judge said. You know, obviously, I wasn't on the Court when
the County did have O.S.S.F. programs, so I didn't benefit
from all of the problems that were going on. And I -- but I
was running during that period, and I was aware that there
11
P"`l
L_~
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
were a lot of problems. Two things: one, to me these
regulations -- O.S.S.F. regulations are very close with
subdivision regulations. They're almost hand-in-hand. And
we obviously need subdivision regulations. I'm a little
reluctant to want to get rid of this -- of some of the, I
guess, oversight of this program. Because they do fit, to
me, very well with that. The other issue goes from -- and it
isn't a very politically hot issue, but we're elected; ya'all
are appointed, and I think there's a real difference as to
administering -- and it's good and bad that we're under more
pressure for variances and things like that, I guess, as
well. But I'm not -- I'm just tossing that out. I'm not
sure that is a good move, to remove it from the public.
Further, to me, if it goes to U.G.R.A. with this program
officially, administering it is one thing, but from being
totally removed as designated agent, that means -- I mean,
ya'all have it until you find someone else to take it.
MR. MACDONALD: But I think the Judge's point is
well made, that if -- we really do need to kind of think
about where we're headed long-term. And if we're going to
work as just ya'all's agent, it's one set of criteria for us.
We're not eager, working as an agent, to lose anything on the
procedure. At that point I'd be better off to get Buster's
truck back with the files instead of without the files.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I heard you the first time.
12
L ~
1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
MR. MACDONALD: And it just -- I think we're in a
position where, if we're going to end up as the designee, the
only thing fortunate about us having to increase our taxes is
-- if that's what this Board decides to do -- is we're
talking about the same set of taxed citizens. And then, of
course, ya'all can lower your taxes accordingly; nobody will
be upset. But, you know, I think it's -- there needs to be
some sort of a -- some long-term discussions as well as
short-term discussion about that. I agree with the Judge on
it. And if -- you know, if you guys want to keep it in the
subdivision process, I'd say that's a decision ya'all need to
make on your side of the table, and tell us what you want.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, from a financial standpoint,
when you start talking about adding several more employees,
and particularly with the expertise that's necessary to
manage this, our cost -- cost to Kerr County is going to be
more than the cost of having U.G.R.A. operate the thing. And
I think that's real -- real clear. When we start talking
about cost to the taxpayer, we're probably better off where
we are right now from a strict financial standpoint.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Better off, but U.G.R.A. is
projecting taking an $80,000 loss. I mean, if they weren't
taking the loss, it would be about the same as if the County
had it back. I mean, you know, it's both the same taxpayers,
but just -- whether it's on their tax bill or our tax bill,
13
rr~
L J
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
1s
n
18
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
it's costing the same amount of money.
MS. CHRISTLEY: So you're saying if you took it
back and it cost you that much to process the O.S.S.F., then
taxpayers would have to pay County taxes to the Court?
JUDGE DENSON: Well, I mean, it's --
MS. CHRISTLEY: You'd have to raise those, is what
you're saying?
JUDGE DENSON: I think you're right.
MS. COPELAND: Any way you look at it, whoever has
it has had a loss. I mean, Judge Denson already said that
they had 560,000 -- close to that, you know, you were losing
on this program. And now we've got it and we're losing on
this program. So, you know, we've got to come to some kind
of terms here on how we're going to operate this program,
whether it's you or us, to serve the county without losing
money.
MR. GRIFFIN: Gerry Griffin, U.G.R.A. I thought --
setting the money aside for a second, which is hard to do,
but just from a pure management and program standpoint, it
seems to me -- and I don't know -- that the current
arrangement makes a lot of sense. It keeps the County with
the oversight that you mentioned, and it keeps us hands-on in
the water quality/water quantity issues. So that setting the
money aside for a second, it sounds like that the County,
using U.G.R.A. as its -- the outfit to carry on the program,
19
('"i
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
15
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
makes a lot of sense. It keeps every -- it keeps the right
entities involved. So now we've got to figure out, as Marsha
says, how do we make sure that we get the bogey covered.
Same taxpayers. But I -- I guess what I'm saying, Bob, is
that in the long-range, it seems to me that the current
arrangement's the better one. Not to turn it -- get it back
into a department over there, 'cause it -- then I think it
would blind us to some degree on the things that we want to
see in the O.S.3.F. and the flood plain.
M3. COPELAND: Can I add to that too? I recall
hearing, if I heard you correctly, that this was nothing but
a problem, a headache for you from all the complaints that
you had and --
JUDGE DENSON: It was an expensive headache.
MS. COPELAND: And if ya'all take it back, maybe
they could run all this into the Commissioner-elect's office
there, since he wants to do it so bad.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I get calls now, and it's just
more -- it's difficult for a Commissioner now. I've had in
the past probably three complaints, and -- you know, and
working with Jim and Charlie and Mark. I mean, it's -- I
still have to deal with it; it's just I have to go to another
whole organization to do it. It's not like I can just ignore
the complaints.
MS. COPELAND: We've had fewer complaints. Is that
15
l~" l
~J
1
2
3
4
s
6
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
not right, Jim?
MR. BROWN: We have. As a matter of fact, there's
only been one appeal sent to the Commissioners' Court since
we had the program, and that appeal was filed prior to the
time we took the program over. So that doesn't mean that
there's not a lot of administrative hearings conducted in my
office, and that's where they're getting resolved, as opposed
to sending them over to the Court. We have one issue that
may come over to Court now, I believe the first issue we've
had since we've been in the business, and that's not on the
part of a -- a homeowner. That's probably going to be
between two designers who are not satisfied with each other's
design work. And there was an attempt to set some standards
this morning, industry-wide standards, and that's going to --
that's going to probably have to be sent out to a committee,
but that's the only complaint I know. Now, we have another
serious problem, a serious headache for whoever has this
program subsequent to August 1, and that is the new
T.N.R.C.C. licensing situation for designers and installers.
And, unfortunately -- Mark, am I correct in saying about 50
percent of our local installers have not yet passed?
MR. BOWERS: They either have not passed it or have
not taken it.
MR. BROWN: Either have not passed it or not taken
the licensing provision, which means come August 1, there's
16
L~
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
going to be half of the -- half of the folks doing all the
business out there. And that's going to be the market, and
market's going to affect price, and price is going to make
the phone ring.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: John, we can park that truck
out there; they can put all their complaints in the back of
it.
MR. WILLIAMS: When we drive it around, they'll
blow out. Judge Denson -- I'm Bill Williams. To me, the
overriding issue is water quality. And it has to be
paramount in our minds as to how we attain and maintain
maximum water quality throughout the county on a taxpayer
basis, it seems, and I would hope that from this discussion
today, we can find a way to make certain those tax dollars
get to cover costs so that we can continue to monitor
quality. That's the overriding issue.
JUDGE DENSON: Very true.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The only comment I have, I
want to agree with these two, that I think the program is in
exactly the place it's supposed to be, because U.G.R.A. --
and you're -- what you do here, I mean, you're water-minded,
and that's what this program is all about. So I think it
needs to be here where you guys can keep your hands on it and
-- and work it. However, I'm with Commissioner Letz, too.
And forgive me for this, but it's just the way I am. I
17
nY4l
LJ
e--
t
2
3
a
5
6
e
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
t6
n
1a
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
believe that -- that the accountability factor of an elected
position needs to be in place, so I think we're doing exactly
the right thing now. I think we'd better get back to this
deal here and see what we need to do. I've got a couple of
questions about it. I don't know if it's bad ink or maybe my
eyes are not as good as they used to be, but Option 2 -- it
seems like to me Options 2 and 3 were -- didn't you say,
Granger, that that looked like maybe the only two that we'd
be able to work with?
MR. MACDONALD: 2, 3, and 4 are the only ones that
are conceivable from either party's side, obviously. Option
1 is skewed one direction; Option 5 is skewed the other, and
I don't think either would be in the best interests of the
County or the U.G.R.A., respectively. So, you've got to
start looking for it there towards the middle.
MR. GRIFFIN: I've got a question just right quick.
Is there any room, realistically, where we could raise the
fees? I mean, I know there's -- there was a concern over
raising taxes or raising fees of any kind, but it sounds like
that what's happening is the taxpayers are really subsidizing
this cost.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly it.
MR. GRIFFIN: And why don't we pass at least some
portion of that -- let's pass it on to the -- to the user.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you can see, those last
la
f~'`~
~J
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
s
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
18
1s
2a
21
22
23
2a
25
two columns there exactly double that --
MR. GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- those fees, and I am
wondering if there isn't some happy medium in there
somewhere, where the numbers could -- 'cause it -- you know,
I look down here at the bottom line; my god, ya'all are
talking about sinking $60,000 and S70,000 of your money into
programs. There's got to be a way to relieve that. And I'm
not -- I'm not a fan of sending in tax dollars. We can look
at the user fee. You use it, you pay for it, or you don't
necessarily have to live here.
MR. WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
MR. GRIFFIN: Comments? Staff?
MR. HROWN: What I have here, I've asked the staff
to take the current fee, which is in this column, and expand
it by 50 percent or at 100 percent, and that's what we're
looking at. Let me play the devil's advocate on the -- on
the fee expansion. We're having -- we're experiencing some
bootleg systems out there right now where people are going in
and they're bootlegging systems in without coming in and
getting a permit. And we're not staffed large enough to get
into the policing side of that issue. The -- the chart
you're looking at doesn't consider the 50 percent increase in
fee. It does consider the -- the 100 percent. I made an
application in Hays County a month ago for an on-site septic
19
r~-°1
LJ
1
2
3
a
5
s
a
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
system on a piece of property that I have -- have an interest
in. They're charging me $400 to review my plans on that
piece of property because it's a -- it's an alternative
system. We charge -- we do not charge anything for plan
reviews here; that's another issue we could look at. My fee
over in Kerr County was -- I mean, I'm sorry, in Hays County
was $250. Hays is one of the fastest growing counties in
that area because of the San Antonio corridor. We've got
some folks in Center Paint and Kerrville South and in Ingram
who probably can't afford to pay 3250 for a septic tank fee.
Maybe we're looking at a combination of -- of the alternative
systems, which are really the critical systems that require a
lot more inspection and a lot more hands-on, maybe we look at
pushing that fee up, oh, a bit more, and leaving the little
mom and pop conventional systems down at the lower end. Now,
there's a lot of room for those systems down in -- in the
eastern part of the county. But when you get to Ingram,
Ingram is faced with a situation right now where most of the
soils suitable for conventional septic systems in Ingram have
been developed. The only way for that community's tax base
to grow is for the development to push up into those caliche
hills, and when you get into the caliche hills, you're
talking about alternative systems. Obviously, Ingram -- the
answer to Ingram's problem is to get off of septic tanks and
get onto wastewater systems, and that's what U.G.R.A.'s
.-~ 2 0
r^~
L~
1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
98-month plan is about. Either the City does it or U.G.R.A.
does it. But as you go out in the Hill Country and you get
beyond Ingram, the people are paying the prices for land out
there, and most of those hillside developments -- view lots,
I call them -- most of those folks can probably, without a
problem, pay the 5250. So, if we look at fee adjustment, I
don't think we can just -- I think we'd be -- think we'd be
hurting our growth if we just did a flat double the fee or --
or 50 percent times the fee, because we've got some folks in
this county who have been here for a good while, who need to
maintain their low conventional systems, that we place those
folks right out of -- right out of business. So -- or maybe
there's a provision for hardship. Some counties --
MR. WILLIAMS: What about a sliding scale based on
square footage?
MR. BROWN: Well, square footage doesn't -= square
footage is not really what drives the cost.
MR. WILLIAMS: Number of bathrooms or whatever?
MR. BROWN: What drives is cost is the soil
condition.
MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. BROWN: As opposed to the square footage in the
house.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You addressed -- when you
first got up, you addressed -- I can't remember. Was it plat
21
f~ l
LJ
•--
i
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
s
i0
i~
12
13
is
15
16
17
18
~s
20
21
22 I
I
23
2a
25
review or planning?
MR. LARRY GRIFFIN:
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
MR. BROWN: Yes.
I think plan review.
Plan review?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And those folks down there
charge $2007
MR. BROWN: They charge $900 -- well, mine was --
this is an aerobic system for a house with three -- four
bathrooms. They charged me $400 to review the plans for the
septic system. Here we charge nothing for plan review.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's pretend that we did
adopt something similar to them, $400, or just adopt a
program that we're going to review the plans. Would that
cause an increase of employees?
MR. BROWN: No.
COMMISSIONER $ALDWIN: Oh, okay. I wasn't
expecting you to say no.
MR. BROWN: No. The only -- I think as long as we
stay within the -- you know, the particular program activity
we're looking at now, we can do that internally. What we've
had to do is we've had to bring our people in and we have
what we call a quiet hour from 8:00 till 9 o'clock in the
morning, and that's when they review plans. And they come in
at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and follow up on their
inspections. We were able to -- when we first took this
22
fT`1
L_~
1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
za
25
program on, we were able to make inspections within 29 hours
of the time somebody walked in the door, which is like a week
ahead of where the County was at the time. It took sometimes
a week to get -- from the time you made an application to get
your first inspection. We just realized that we were pushing
the staff to the point that they couldn't do -- that wasn't
fair to them. They were leaving here tired, some of them
having stayed till 5:30, 6 o'clock in the evening to get
their work done. So what we've done is we're doing less
inspections, but we're still getting people out of here
within two work days. Is that fair, Mark? Is it two work
days from the time someone makes application for a -- a
system till we can have a chance to get out on the ground?
MR. BOWERS: Oh, yeah. There's times when it's the
same day. At times. In most cases 99 to 36 -- or 29 to 36
hours.
MR. BROWN: So, two workdays at the most.
MS. COPELAND: Jim, I kind of like Bill's
suggestion on the sliding scale of some sort, and yet you
seem to indicate that this is not done in any other area for
MR. BROWN: Well, it's not done based on square
footage, to my knowledge, in -- in the Hill Country area.
Because it's not the size of the house that generates the
problem; it's the type of soil that dictates the more
23
f'~1
L_J
1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
elaborate kind of treatment system.
MS. COPELAND: But we're kind of talking about
equalization of cost here, and you were having concerns about
those customers that couldn't afford any more of an increase,
and yet they're paying the same now as those that can afford
and are putting in these great big homes --
MR. BROWN: Yes, ma'am.
MS. COPELAND: -- that depend on septic systems.
MR. MACDONALD: And one of the ways you could you
do that is by number of gallons in the system, number of
bathrooms in the house. There's several that I've seen where
you count the number of lavatories, bathrooms, and showers
and sinks that you have in the house and you charge on that
basis, which you have -- if you have a mobile home in the
Center Point area, it's going to be a lot different than if
you have something up here on Sheppard Rees Road with five
baths. And that -- that could be an alternative. One of the
things that maybe we ought to think about doing is perhaps
you appointing a committee to take and look at these things
and come up with a schedule. I think that we're kind of
getting to a consensus that nobody wants to go to the
taxpayers and say, "This is a robbery," until we can support
all these other -- this growth in the county, and that the
County ought to pay for some growth -- I guess what Buster
said, and Jonathan too. And probably what we maybe ought to
24
LJ
t
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
s
~o
11
12
13
14
is
is
n
18
i9
20
21
22
23
2a
25
do is have a committee to look at these fees. That gets us
somewhere between Items 3 and 9, with a number that we can
live with, ya'all can live with, and puts this thing on a
fairly firm footing.
MR. GRIFFIN: I think that's a good idea.
JUDGE DENSON: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we appoint John Letz.
MR. GRIFFIN: One suggestion or thought to go along
with that, though. That committee -- I think simple is going
to be better than too complicated on structuring fees; that
gets so hard to administer. Somebody said something about a
-- maybe a hardship deal. Now, if we double these fees, say,
to $250, and if somebody -- and I haven't thought this
through so it may be full of flaws. Seems to me that if
somebody can't pay that, that there ought to be some sort of
hearing or something and make somebody -- I think if we start
getting into bathrooms and lavatories and all that, you're
going to find people playing games to beat the band. You're
going to have to go police all that and probably count them.
MR. MACDONALD: Another way, if you want to do
hardship cases, you can use, say, dollar value for the house
and you have the taxpayers go ahead and set the dollar value
for the house. If they fall under that, they can make an
application for a waiver.
MR. GRIFFIN: Absolutely.
25
~~
LJ
1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
1s
17
18
19
zo
21
22
23
2a
25
MR. MACDONALD: Taxpayer's going out there anyway;
he's going to put a number on it.
MR. BROWN: What we have -- what we have occurring
around here occasionally is that we have someone who has a
mobile home out here on an acre, 2-acre lot, and it's not in
good condition, but it beats living under a tree. And so
they sell that to someone else who -- who's in that same
socioeconomic bracket. And then they come in for their
septic transfer. If that system is failing and they have to
take a permit down to -- to get the new permit, they could
probably -- they could probably come up with 5125 as easily
they could come up with 5250, and we've got some folks like
that out here. Now, unfortunately, in the City of Ingram --
and, thank God, Ingram, I think, is going to change their
ordinance, but right now, real estate transfers are not
recorded in the Ingram on-site septic program. They're
recorded in Kerrville and in Center Point and in Kerr County.
So we've got a lot of those mobile homes out there that are
still operating on either -- either cesspools or just running
-- running the fecal matter out on the ground where the kids
are playing. We have found open pipes coming out of some of
those mobile homes out there where that kind of discharge is
on the ground. Now, the immediate danger is to the people
who live around it. Secondly, the danger of that is when it
rains, and -- if it rains again -- and all that gets washed
26
f'""i
~J
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
1a
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
off into a creek and that creek goes into the tributary and
the tributary ends up in the river, and then we've got -- we
have a high fecal count in the river. And so we -- those are
not -- those are exexceptions, they're not rules, but we've
got to think in broad enough terms that allows you to --
MR. MACDONALD: If you go by appraised value, you
get there.
MR. WILLIAMS: Jim, are there exceptions in the
current fee structure right now?
MR. BROWN: Not to my knowledge.
MR. MACDONALD: I think there are some people who
might need to come in and can't afford the S125 that we're
asking right now.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's why I'm asking are there any
exceptions now.
JUDGE DENSON: I think we all have to agree, going
back to water quality, that in the long-term -- and it's
always been the County's intent, in the long-term, to try and
get every system that's in the county licensed, every
existing system. And, so you make those transfer fees or
repair fees or whatever fee that's applicable to an existing
system very reasonable to encourage the people to come in and
apply the rules. New systems -- and I'm talking about new
construction, a new house, a land developer coming in and
cutting up property -- then I think you can increase those
27
r~^~
L. J
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
1s
n
18
1s
2a
21
22
23
2a
25
fees substantially, and it should be part of a person's
consideration or decision making on whether they want to buy
this piece of property.
COMMISSIONER LET2: I agree with that.
MR. MACDONALD: And to carry that a step further,
Judge, when we get off the ground with any sort of sewer
plant work, we're going to have tie-on fees, usage fees that
are -- that are going to be more money than what we're
talking about here, to tie onto a sewer. I mean, there'd be
no way we'd get business and not --
MR. JOHNSTON: When you have the so-called
"alternate system" or "aerobic system," then there is an
added charge for that which is more than your fee, and then
there's a construction cost. And those systems cost, what,
thousands of dollars?
MR. BROWN: Well, yeah. You can be talking about
adding anywhere from 510,000 to $20,000 per lot when you get
up into the aerobic -- I mean into the alternative systems.
MR. JOHNSTON: That will make that fee look pretty
small compared to it.
MR. MACDONALD: I think you're right, Franklin. If
we based a fee that was a percentage of that when you went to
the specialized other systems, I think it would be a
reasonable thing to consider, 'cause you're getting into some
$20,000 systems like that (snapped fingers).
28
~	JUDGE DENSON: These may be some issues that the
J 1	
	committee that it's suggested be formed could wrestle with.
2	
	What -- from a timing standpoint, where are we?
3	
	MR. BROWN: We both have to set a tax rate in
a	
	September. You're getting ready to start your budget
s	
	process; we're getting ready to start ours. We need to look
s	
	at this and be on some sort of a path toward a decision by
7	
	the end of July.
8	
	JUDGE DENSON: Let's see what the -- can you tell
9	
	me off the top of your head, what does the contract call for,
10	
	the upcoming --
11	
	MR. BROWN: The upcoming year is $30,000.
12	
	JUDGE DENSON: And ya'all can't live with that, can
~ 13	
„	you?
1a	
	MR. BROWN: No, sir.
15	
MR. GRIFFIN: Was that done in real-year dollars or
1s	was there intended to be a C.P.I. or anything like that?
n	
	MR. BROWN: No. That's just a simple sliding
18	
	subsidy, because when we originally talked, I think U.G.R.A.
19	
	thought maybe that they wouldn't become the designated
20	
	representative from T.N.R.C.C. The County wanted to move
21	
	that out of their bailiwick, and so we had planned on
22	
	increasing a set-aside of about $5,000 a year in the U.G.R.A.
23	
budget in order to absorb this. And so at the time the
2a	
	County stepped out, we would have our tax rate up so our
25	
.-,	
	29
r'~l
~J
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
1s
zo
21
22
23
2a
25
folks would realize it. What's happened to us this year, as
you recall, is we've lost the 7 cents per thousand gallons of
water charge.
MR. MACDONALD: Eight.
MR. BROWN: Eight cents. Eight cents per thousand
gallons water charge. And so the whole water quality program
funding for U.G.R.A. next year is up in the air. We're going
to have to go to the taxpayers. I think the taxpayers would
run every one of us out of town if we just said we don't have
the money in the budget to keep the water quality program
going in Kerr County. And, so, you know, U.G.R.A. is looking
at the possibility of a tax increase this next year.
MR. MACDONALD: There will be a tax increase next
year. The question is what's appropriate, how much.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. Didn't you come to us
last year, Jim, and rather than us implement the -- the next
year's decrease, we --
MR. BROWN: That's correct.
JUDGE DENSON: What number are we working on right
now?
MR. BROWN: All right. If you look at this
flowsheet here --
MR. MACDONALD: The answer is $35,000.
MR. BROWN: $30,000.
MR. MACDONALD: This year has been 35.
30
r"~	MR. BROWN: Last year they increased it back to 35,
L_J 1	
which was the same funding level of '97-'98 budget year.
2	
	JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Let's for a moment discuss
3	
	the purse, because we do have a budget coming up ourselves,
a	
	as we all know. And we're -- of course, Commissioners' Court
5	
	is not interested in increasing our taxes at all, so if we
6	
	maintain that 535,000 level for purposes of one year, you
	know, we can -- I don't think we can reasonably expect a
a	
committee to report back in 60 days -- or 30 days, I think.
s	
	I think, just from my experience with committees, it's going
10	
	to take them a little bit longer.
11	
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
12	
	JUDGE DENSON: You don't think it's going to?
13
^	
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can get -- if it's
14	
limited to fee structure only, I think we can get that within
15	
	the month.
1s	
JUDGE DENSON: You think so?
17	
	MR. GRIFFIN Yeah, I do.
18	
	JUDGE DENSON: We need to have some people on the
19	
	committee other than U.G.R.A. and the County.
20	
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
21	
	JUDGE DENSON: We need to get some people, so we're
22	
going to have to come up with names first; we're going to
23	
have to have another meeting. You know, we need some pretty
za	
	tight numbers by the middle of next month on our part.
25	
	31
~~
L J
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
1s
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hut I think -- I mean, it would
be a matter of finding, I think, where other counties -- one,
how much revenue -- additional revenue U.G.R.A. needs to make
it work, and then -- and I think Jim can come up with that
real quickly, and then we can lust get copies of what other
counties that are in our growth situation like we are and
their type of soil, what their fee structure is. I think
with one committee meeting, we could probably come up with an
answer.
MR. BROWN: I'll tell you what we need to look at.
We need to look at the counties along the Lower Colorado
River Basin, because they have the same sort of water quality
issues and soil issues that we do. We did a survey year
before last and we surveyed the counties around us. Well,
their rules are not anything like our rules, so we found that
the set of rules that are nearest ours are those set of rules
in Hays County, Travis, and I believe Burnett County. And we
can go back and get that. I have Hays, because it was a
shock to me when I walked over there with $150 in my pocket
and had to go to the bank.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever counties you think are
appropriate, that are comparable, and I think we need to look
at the neighboring counties just from a dollar standpoint, as
well. But other counties that are similar.
MS. COPELAND: I concur with that. I think if you
32
`'~`'
L~
1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
1s
zo
21
22
23
24
25
gather all the information together, you should be able to
come up with something in one meeting.
MR. BROWN: And U.G.R.A. staff can start pulling
that together tomorrow. The time you -- your next
Commissioners' Court meeting is two weeks away?
JUDGE DENSON: It will be the second Monday in
July.
MR. BROWN: 13th.
M3. HARDIN: July 13th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. At that meeting we
can appoint the committee, and then maybe late in the month?
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. I'm certainly willing.
MR. GRIFFIN: We can start doing some homework now.
MR. BROWN: We could have something by the -- at
the latest, maybe the first week of August, the time you go
back to your next -- your August Commissioners' Court
meeting.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's have the committee -- let's
talk in terms of membership of the committee. A member from
U.G.R.A., a member from the County. Maybe a realtor. Maybe
a developer. Maybe a couple of consumers, average citizens
on it. That's six people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about installers?
MR. BROWN: How about a designer?
MR. GRIFFIN: Designer.
33
r-~
~J
2
3
a
5
6
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
1s
17
1e
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
MR. MACDONALD: I think a designer would give	you
an odd number.	
JUDGE DENSON: And I'm prepared to appoint --	to
move to appoint Commissioner Letz.	
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.	
JUDGE DENSON: From the County. All in favor?	
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)	
JUDGE DENSON: So that's -- that's done. Are	
ya'all in agreement with what I'm suggesting there? And	then
ya'all have a member, select a member today or whenever.	But
we'll have some realtor, some land developer, a couple	
consumers, and a designer, and before our next meeting.	And
we'll all give that some thought, but if you gentlemen a	nd
ladies have a suggestion, we'll -- we would welcome your	
input.
MR. BROWN: Judge Denson, as far as consumers, I
throw this out strictly for the Court's consideration, to --
is that we have one from east Kerr County and one from west
Kerr County, because it's like two different worlds when it
comes to septic systems.
JUDGE DENSON: I think that's a good idea. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we -- you know, it
might be helpful to get -- and it doesn't matter where the
break is, but one of the consumers may be a new resident;
another one, maybe, that's a long-term resident of the
34
f''~'
L J
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
s
io
ii
12
13
is
15
76
n
is
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
county, to get some different perspective as well. They
think very differently.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Is there any other business
to discuss or let us address the issues that --
MR. BROWN: I think this is it, Judge. We --
depending on how this shakes out, we do need to think about
revisiting our plan for the -- the County's current order.
And looking at -- and in comparison to some of the changes
that have been in the State order, our order -- our order is
-- is much greater than the State's regulation. However,
there are a couple of minor conflicts in there that will
become effective August 1 that we need to brush up on. What
we will do is -- and I think that we've already started this
process -- we're taking the -- we take your order and then
we'll come back and do a legislative redline in a different
type where we think there's a conflict. So -- do you have
that on disk?
MS. HARDIN: No.
MR. BROWN: The current County order, I guess we
need to scan it; we can get it scanned.
MS. HARDIN: Do ya'all still have it from the
computer that came over here? If you do, I could probably
read it on mine, but I don't have a disk.
MR. BROWN: We still have that computer -- we
35
r'"~
~J
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't? We've got a problem in -- in trying to build our
database. Someone built in a security locking device in that
computer, and no one knows who it is. So, we -- we run into
a Chinese wall.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you get the keys with
the truck?
MR. MACDONALD: We have to have a conclusion from
here pretty quick, 'cause the truck needs tires.
(Several discussions going on at once.)
JUDGE DENSON: The court reporter is having some
difficulty taking down everybody.
MR. MACDONALD: Is there anything else on the
agenda today? On the U.G.R.A. side, is there a motion to
adjourn?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes.
MR. MACDONALD: All in favor, say aye.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: On the part of the County to
adjOllrn?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
COMMISSIONER SALDWIN: Thank you guys very much.
.-~ ~ ~ 3 6
p--=1
L~
1
2
3
a
5
s
7
a
s
10
11
t2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C E R T I F I C A T E
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
Official Reporter of the Commissioners' Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
Dated at Kerrville, Texas, this 6th day of July, 1998.
Q .~
Kathy E Banik
Certified Shorthand Reporter
37