~~1~ ~,~~~. ~~ Item No. ^c. ii Consider^ and discuss continued use of vehicle in connection with administration of DSSF Rules and Regulations. (County Judge/Jim Hr•own7 Jim Br-own addressed Court. He stated that UGRA was still in need to the truck given to them 6y the county. It being the middle of the budget year could not p~.irchase a new one. He recommended to the Court that an Apr^il meeting should be planned to discuss the DSSF Rules and Regulations and UGRR role with the County and Flood F'lain Management. It was also recommended by Mr. McDonald and Commissioners' Court that a wor-kshop should be held in April between UGRA and Ker^r' County. Mr. Holekamp addressed Cour^t that the truck being used for• the Rnimal Control Facility was going to have to be repair^ed and it would cost a substantial amount to r^e pair. It was not known wether- to fix this tr^uck or^ to use to one currently being used 6y UGRA. It was decided by the Court to put this on next agenda to repair or- replace truck currently being used by Animal Contr^o 1. RE: OSSF and Flood Prevention Orders (Programs) Administration between Kerr County and UGRA Briefing Report The current issue under discussion is the County's interest in discussing the return of a 1989 F- 150 Ford pickup that was made available to UGRA, along with other assets, in the administration of the Kerr County OSSF Program. The real issue is much lazger in that the administration of the Kerr County Flood Prevention Order has created a negative impact on UGRA's cash flow through the necessity of a cash subsidy. Also, the contract with Ken County calls fora $5,000.00 per annum decrease in the County's program subsidy to UGRA over the next five years. I have divided the report into two sections; historical notes and fiscal notes. The historical notes on this matter include the followine: The County Commissioners Court representatives approached UGRA staff and entered into discussion regarding UGRA's interest in assuming the responsibility for the administration of the OSSF program in early spring of 1996. Staff presented the concept to the Board and requested approval to initiate a due diligence effort. With the Board's concurrence and the assistance of Judge Robert Denson, several UGRA staff and I visited the County's OSSF operation at the Road and Bridge Office, to observe the system and to interview the staff. At no time during this process was the floodplain program mentioned. The County Judge and certain members of the Court and I continued our discussions regarding the staff and the program. On July 22, 1996, the Court acted on the Memorandum of Understanding between UGRA and the County. In that M.O.U., page 2, item number 7, the two parties agreed to allow UGRA to use certain furniture, fixtures and equipment to carry out that program. The 1989 Ford pick-up was included in the list. Several days later, the M.O.U. was replaced by an Interlocal Agreement. It too was dated July 22, 1996 and appears to wrap the M.O.U. into the formal document. 26Janssarv, 1998 Page 1 of 5 drs c: ~dzbbrelmemoslmemoshe[Iffb.doc To: G. Granger MacDonald, President G. Granger MacDonald January 23, 1998 Page Two The only mention offloodplain administration in the contract is in Article III, Section 3.1.c., where UGRA agrees to review each OSSF application within the floodplain. Our first knowledge of the transfer of the floodplain responsibilities was on or about the actual moving date from the Road and Bridge office to 215 West Water Street, when County Engineer Franklin Johnson advised he had several floodplain items in his office area. It was during that discussion that we learned that County treated both programs as one departmental function. Both functions were budgeted under the Kerr County Environmental Health Department, and revenues and expenditures were lumped together, cloaking the sepazate identities of the two functions. We found the floodplain development applications literally dumped into two filing drawers, not in folders, not bound by staples or paper clips. I personally spent the better part of two days at the Road and Bridge office attempting to put some order into the program before we physically moved it to UGRA Headquarters. In my discussion with staff and limited conversation with the County Engineer, I concluded that the program had always been operated at minimal standards, but within the guidelines of the federal regulations. I also sensed that, in recent months before UGRA took the program, the County was forced to deny many applications for development in sensitive watershed areas due to the lack of staff or man hours available to do the in-depth reviews, site visits and coordination with the applicants' professional consultants. You may recall that, in many of my General Manager reports regarding the floodplain program issues, I have reported the numerous applications for development permits for high-end construction (six figure and up) in these areas. Some of these structures range from 3600 - 6000 square footage per unit. These projects are significantly enhancing the tax value of the land and, ultimately, the revenue stream for the County, UGRA, HUWCD and the appropriate school district. Many of these applications have been denied in the past, causing tax revenue loss and/or illegal developments in the rural areas. UGRA has paid for two employees to attend the week-long designated representative schools. We have opened a direct line of communication with Roy Sedwick, LCRA, the state representative for the floodplain program administrators association. Roy has helped UGRA reestablish the County's program. He is scheduled to spend a couple of days at UGRA in February. We continue to streamline the process and improve the administration of the program. Since Dan Keeler left UGRA, Charlie Wiedenfeld and I are splitting the floodplain program administration, with Charlie investing the larger amount of time in the program. Charlie is spending approximately six hours daily on the program, while I am devoting approximately one hour per day, usually between 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. The Kerr County Environmental Health Department had four employees assigned to OSSF, Fooodplain, animal shelter and solid waste functions. UGRA has two full time employees assigned 26Jommry, 1998 Page 2 of 5 drs c: idebbrelmemoslmemoshelljtb.doc G. Granger MacDonald January 23, 1998 Page Three to OSSF and one employee assigned to the floodplain program, by necessity. I have no knowledge of the time requirements for the animal shelter, nor the solid waste program. UGRA has automated the OSSF program, but the amount of time to process an application is still lengthy. For an example, the secretary/receptionist in that division spends 15 minutes to develop an application for a new system; 30 minutes up to three hours per real estate transfer; on a complaint on a failing or illegal system from initial contact through J.P. Court prepazation, on average two to three hours and up to five hours over a period of three to four work days; and for an unlicensed system and major repair permit, approximately one hour. Last year, there were 263 new system applications, 236 real estate transfers, 126 complaints on failing systems, and 109 unlicensed or major repair cases. The man hours above relate only to the actual permitting development process and do not include historical reseazch time, information to various interested parties and other secretarial duties, nor does it include actual field inspection time that is performed by another employee. When the County indicated an interest in UGRA taking the program, the following conditions existed at the County: Appeals from the County staff to the Court for variances averaged two to three per month. In the 18 months UGRA has had the program, there has been one appeal, and that decision was made by the former administrator. The UGRA test is "does the request meet the spirit of the law and County's program". We are spending a great deal more time with each permtttee. Response time to a permit often took weeks. UGRA's response time is two to three workdays from initial contact to notice to proceed. Customer relations were almost nonexistent. Citizens (tax payers) and professional installers and designers tell us how much they appreciate the courtesy and assistance we afford them during the process. Public relations were, like customer relations, almost nonexistent at the County. UGRA, several times a year, makes educational presentations to interested groups and supplies informative material to interested parties. The only time a citizens' group has appeared before the Court was when the word on the street was that UGRA requested additional support from the County to maintain the program. In summary, UGRA assumed the responsibility for a County program that was a burden on the Court. UGRA also assumed the "headaches" with the program and, in 18 months, UGRA has, for the most part, resolved those issues. UGRA was not prepared to accept the floodplain management program when we negotiated the contract with the County. In the Commissioners Court's defense, I am not sure the members had been fully apprised of the gravity of the floodplain 26Janry ~'fw~. x Jva. + va h ~{`e ~''-. +~ ~rl ~ a dY ~Se V ~ ~ ~, s'fr fkF )~., ~'' St 1 ! y~+KV .r. , " r ,t . `"1 n ~' \~f A~ \~ .: ~'rv '{ L, ti ,~ ~ ~' + d t , x' t n f f, ~ . A A 4 ~'ti,k 7.rz , ~. ~ ~ i r a t'' .^Ad .r' ~f mar . F ^ - * .' 3 l'.i a a F, 'fd ~{i r" -. J '" ° ~~ati,. ~t~"• ~.~ is ~}ry ., r v. :;'~ ° ~ °3~ v.. `~ d'~ 'n {" s ' y s ' $ ~ ~ ~ ~k ~r~ v s i %pp°J '"yy'~ ~nr'y'R. ~ ~ F F 4 ,.qe< 4M1 y 2~ ~h+rf }t!. eAw d °nF 5 r ~sF'Sfn`'k. ~,,.a aw^~° y'f`iq ~~d'T eey~M~L"~r~~,~~"yR 'F. ',~~F f vk ~$ tC4. ~4s x,2Fg nsd~ ~".i c}} ~ '~. a nn ' Y aY. x ,P ~ ~rFtu.y y r.:" .y r mw ux. ~ ,. ~:• 4 ~ ce F~... ., ~ .. ~1x y, + }>~ +4~~y~'~a' .., ~ -'., t ,U. l ~ n ~~ rf~gyx~+u i~'pi k :`a 'v ,~, i E~L r'~r xsx<"~~~ '. y~~lr ~ i"Y "~ ~~ ~ f 2~d~w ~° ~*1~, a~. ~,'~y~~n t'k Yc „ r, rf ~ a} x r ,. v as t r v}, ~ t H~r e',r? r ^`j ~ 4 ,rf Y"~ .) .~ d S e~'+ ,r q~ H'v~ 6PStuF~a4r `' r ,,. na r S +. f ~~ y ,e„Ar e ) ryf a ~. ~ e ~~~fr.. ~~6 `~t~z/M1~'A *+ r -~i a.yAr 1rx°b J,.,i w ~ _"";:t qF '. y}ki"s~ 1 qqE W a., a -a~s t c 'r.~ J~ a, a.; ~ en, ~ iy .i ty r yd~pi P ,k ~e >,} t fi'•a ~~ ~~, ", 6a ,.vi ,,)~k x ~: ;.s~.w,t.a',; a`'c" +... ,Wrniamhcr a3 _ 19B? ~,,,;, i !4 ~~ F' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,. I r. ~._ ~:.'. ~ _ .a ill ~~,61if ~Ii1H~~ WELCOME TO THE KERR COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM _' ~ On August 1, 1996, the Upper Guadalupe River Authority (UGRA) became the ° administrator of the I{err County Flood Plain Management Program through an interlocal `" ~ governmental arrangement between the UGRA and the I{err County Commissioners ~-..~~ Court. The UGRA was established in 1937 by the Texas Legislature pursuant to Article 16, Section 59 of the Texas Constitution and through subsequent amendments is empowered to manage certain physical and fiscal aspects of the upper segment of the Guadalupe River Basin. The UGRA's specific powers are regulated by the Texas Water Code and its operations are monitored by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). On February 1, 1996, the UGRA Board of Directors adopted a Mission Statement which includes, "To assume the responsibility of being the single umbrella agency that oversees all matters respecting the care and management of the waters of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority Basin within statutory limits by effective use of those powers granted to the "UGRA" in its creation document (as subsequently amended...."). The Program is designed to protect both lives and property and the natural hydrology of the Guadalupe River and its major tributaries. The Kerr County Flood Damage Prevention Order (Floodplain Management Plan), is a required program to provide for the property owners of I{err County, the opportunity to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Unacceptable deviations from the Floodplain Management Plan could cause the federal government to cancel the insurance program for the entire county. _ The UGRA philosophy in the administration of all regulatory functions is based on meeting the intent of the law, regulations or standards. Each case will be evaluated ,'~„ " individually and based on its merit. UGRA professional staff will not offer any services to the public that is otherwise provided for by private sector vendors such as the locating and establishment of a floor slab elevation. However, UGRA will provide you or your representative with a list of professionals who work in and are familiar with the I{err County area. FLWDPL4. mko 10'lSi96 P.O. Box 1278 215 West Water Street Kerrville, Texas 78029-1278 (210) 896-5445 Faz (210) 257-2621 y„sa.. . .......... .... ..... Kerr County Floodplain Management Program Page 2 We wish you the best of luck in your project and we will be available to assist you with your floodplain issues and questions. While our river is one of the most attractive in the Southwest, if not the nation, its determination, energy and power to follow its natural course can be detrimental to any mortal who attempts to defy it. J. .Brown eneral Manager Attachment: Kerr County Flood Damage & Prevention Order October /A. l996 FLOODPLA. mkc 1 NI5/96 Item No. 2.11 Consider and discuss continued use of vehicle in Connection with administration of 0.SSF Rules and Regulations January 26, 1998 Vol V Page 554