r^~ i ,{ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Regular Session Monday, February ar 1999 9:00 a.m. Commissioners Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas HENNEKE, County Judge pct. 1 FREDERICK L• B~,pWIN, Commissioner Pct. 2 PRESENT: H "BUSTER" Commissioner WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, pct. 3 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner I I II it , Uf74'ri~l:l 1 ~'.` .~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 I N D E X February S, 1999 PAGE Visitors' Input Gene Richey - Hill Country Airborne 4 Commissioners' Comments Commissioner Baldwin 5 Commissioner Williams 5 Commissioner Letz 5 Judge Henneke 7 X1.1 Pay Bills 8 1.2 Budget Amendments 12 1.3 Late Bills 13 1.4 Read and Approve Minutes 16 2.1 Historical Commission annual report 19 2.2 Union Church lease agreement 27 2.3 Insurance renewal - TAC 54 2.5 U.S. Audiotex - credit card processing 56 2.9 Texas Cattlewomen - informational item 56 2.8 Solid Waste - Code Enforcement Officer 71 2.7 Revision of Kerr County Personnel Policy 74 2.6 Annual Account - status of Probate investments 76 2.10 Burn Ban 81 2.11 Motor Fuel Tax allocation - county road system 84 2.12 State assistance - capital murder trials 85 2.13 Census 2000 Participant Statistical Areas Program 86 2.19 Constable 3 - process for appointing replacement 88 2.15 Rules of Procedure, Conduct, & Decorum 91 2.16 Hiring construction consultant 97 2.17 Proposed revisions of Courtrooms 1 & 2 102 9.1 Action taken on Executive Session matters 129 5.1 Reports from Commissioners 136 5.2 Road and Bridge Monthly Report 136 5.3 Maintenance Monthly Report 136 3 r'^ P" 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Monday, February 8, 1999, at 9:00 o'clock a.m., a Regular Session of Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's 9 o'clock and we'll call to order this meeting of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County. Mr. Williams, I believe you're responsible this morning for the invocation and pledge of allegiance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I am, Judge, and it's my pleasure to introduce to you one of the two pastors Zion Lutheran Church is fortunate to have serving our community. I'll now ask Reverend Stephen Qualben to lead us in prayer. (Prayer.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, for the pledge of allegiance, my friend and neighbor, Lieutenant Commander Richard Weaver, United States Navy, Retired, will lead us. LT. CMDR. WEAVER: Will you join with me in the pledge of allegiance? (Pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. At this time, any citizens wishing to speak to the Court on items not on the regular agenda may do so at this time. Do we have anyone who would like to address the Court on an item not on the regular __- _T-0-`'_TT_'T__~- 1 ICI ~ r i~N~~i~.", w.Y~ 4 r~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 agenda? MR. RICHEY: Good morning. My name is Gene Richey, and this is my friend, Kip Morgan, and we're here on behalf of the Hill Country Airborne to make a little presentation to the Sheriff, because we think she's doing a fantastic job of drug fighting. So, we have 200 posters that we want to donate to her to go throughout the county. Sheriff? (Sheriff came forward.) MR. RICHIE: Use these as you see fit. SHERIFF KAISER: Thank you. MR. RICHEY: On behalf of the Airborne and numerous individuals and businesses. SHERIFF KAISER: Thank you, I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does the poster say, Commander Richey? MR. RICHEY: You didn't get one this morning? You've got to show up a little earlier. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those folks may want to see what it says. SHERIFF KAISER: We'll have one for everybody that would like to have one. MR. RICHEY: We think the Sheriff's doing a great job and we just wanted to show our support throughout the county. So, thank you for your time. (Applause.) ~~ 5 fi i-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Gene. We appreciate that. Anyone else that wishes to address the Court on an item not on the regular agenda? Seeing no one else, we'll turn to the Commissioners' comments. Mr. Baldwin, you're up. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I don't have any comments. I overstayed my welcome last meeting, so I'm going to just move right on, Judge. Thank you very much. JUDGE HENNEKE: You're welcome. Bill? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I have just one. I want to publicly and personally commend the Kerrville City Council on passing its resolution regarding its desire -- or willingness, I think, is a better way to put it -- its willingness to be a wastewater -- regional treater of wastewater when and if that comes to pass. And I would urge us just to consider a similar resolution of support, and I will prepare and draft and introduce that at a subsequent meeting. JUDGE HENNEKE: Very good. Anything else? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Jonathan? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two things. One, again, thank Gene Richey and the members of the Hill Country Veteran's Council, the work they're doing in turning out a week or so ago at the V.A. in appreciation of the employees out there. And, they have done a remarkable job in getting the attention 6 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 of the Washington elected officials, and doing a lot of behind-the-scenes good work, and I think it's going to help the V.A. program, certainly locally, and probably nationally. They've really raised the issue, and I think they should be commended for that. And, the other issue is I was in Austin on Friday for meetings with the Water Development Board. And, I guess I'm -- after a year of tending to work with bureaucracy and rules and everything else regarding Region J and Senate Bill 1, I think we're finally at a point to start actually doing real work in looking at our water needs and assessments for the future. In the coming months I'll be visiting, I think, all of the counties in Region J, making presentations to both City Councils and Commissioners Courts, including here, and going over what we're doing and what the impacts are to the citizens of, basically, the Hill Country under Senate Bill 1. The -- it's far-reaching; the impact is going to be extraordinary, and I think we really need to try to get it to the public to participate in this process as much as possible. There will be a number of public meetings. But, it's going to really determine how water is going to be handled in the State of Texas, statewide, and, you know, in the next century. So, we're finally at the point where we're going to start doing things. The budget for our particular region, six counties, is $632,000, which will be for new r_ _ 7 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 studies and analysis of the water situation. And, statewide, over $20 million is going to be spent in this effort. In that regard, I have some handouts here that I'll leave up here. Anyone's welcome to pick it up. It's kind of a summary of Senate Bill 1, planning process, and goes over who the representatives are from our region. That's it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, very good. I also would like to applaud the Kerrville City Council for taking the action they did with regard to solving the -- or beginning, beginning the process of solving the wastewater problems in the county. I think it's an example of how government units can work together for a greater good, that we have gotten to the point where the City of Kerrville is willing to at least entertain the idea of being the regional wastewater service provider for Kerr County, which is an important element of our future and our expectations here in the County. I'd also point out to everyone the obvious, which is that construction has started on renovation of the Annex ,-. today, and the area below-grade where we used to go in has all been taken away from us for purposes of construction. And we all need to be conscious of construction going on, and safety, and the safety not only of our employees, but of the people who come here for business. And this is a process that's going to be with us for a while, so we lust have to kind of get used to it and -- and cooperate with them the 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2i 2? 2~ 2! best we can so that we can utilize that space effectively for the future of all of us. With that, if no one else has any comments, we'll turn to the approval agenda. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, where is our colleague from the western end of the County? JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Griffin had an unavoidable conflict that he had to be away today, of which I was aware of in advance. He's given me two dates that he'll be gone. Turning to the bills, does anyone have any question about any of the bills? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, I have one question. I'll direct your attention to page 9, Justice of the Peace, the rental for office space out in Ingram to Mr. Priour. I guess my question is why we're paying a partial month's rent out there for J.P. 4, and then, on page 5, the Tax Assessor, the bills don't show up in there for the same rental. MR. TOMLINSON: We didn't have a line item set up for rental for -- for the Tax Office During the budget process. We -- we thought that we would be building a facility out there, and we put those funds in Permanent Improvement. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. f•'` MR. TOMLINSON: And so we're going to have to determine, for the future year, what to do or how to treat a n u uw~ .+a+ ~ 9 ,~", ,~^~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those funds. I mean, whether or not to take them out of Permanent Improvement and transfer them to her budget, or -- or transfer them to, maybe, the Maintenance Department or -- or to J.P. 4. I mean, I don't -- I think -- I think that's discretionary as to what we do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I was just wondering why we're not paying the Tax Assessor/Collector's at the same time we're paying J.P. 4. Let me ask -- JUDGE HENNEKE: It's my understanding that that is the rent for both offices. MR. TOMLINSON: It is. JUDGE HENNEKE: Am I correct on that? MR. TOMLINSON: It's together. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, this is, here? Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. I thought you knew that was the rent for the total amount. That's the total amount. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you're going to adjust it when you do a budget amendment to get it funded to the Tax Assessor's office? MR. TOMLINSON: She has some -- some capital equipment to purchase, and once -- once I know all -- everything that she needs and the bottom line, then we'll make the transfer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. /'` I II I I IS .I rlltlM~IdA7 4 10 f r-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we'll create a line item in her -- okay, good. My only other question regarding -- is the -- have we paid a month's rent for J.P. 9 in his prior office space? MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that one, but I'm -- I feel sure we have. MS. NEMEC: I do that the 1st of every month, so I wasn't told not to. Is he going to be there the whole month? Is he going to have a whole month to move out, or -- MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. It's probably a 30-day notice at least, anyway. I'm not sure. MS. NEMEC: That's another thing. Have they given them notice that they're moving out? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. My concern is that we don't pay rents two different places. JUDGE HENNEKE: I understand. We'll look into that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, that's all the questions I had. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couple quickies. On page 7 under Line 690, Environmental Health. I didn't know we had an Environmental Health Department any more, so I was curious as to why we had a line item there. MR. TOMLINSON: That's the -- the Solid Waste falls under that. 1 II I I I3 ''I dllkl4: i.~Y.+ I 11 C~ .~-~ r-. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Solid Waste. And on page 8 -- really, I guess I'm directing this to Jonathan. This is a budget unallocated fund. The water plan, is this part of the County's ongoing responsibility for funding of studies? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was in the last budget. We went to all of the counties -- we actually went to Del Rio and Kerrville -- City of Kerrville, Verde County, Kerr County requested that each of them allocate $5,000 for the administrative expenses. And we were requesting those from all of the entities at this time. Kenedy County's already paid. I think Real County budgeted a thousand of what we asked for. We're doing it mainly because Springhills has been absorbing this up till now; they're about $16,000 in the red, and Cameron Board is about to kill them. They need the money down there. JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, no questions. JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, I had a question on page 1 on the Commissioners Court, the vehicle maintenance. Do we have a vehicle that's -- MR. TOMLINSON: The van. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- that's carried under the Commissioners Court? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. JUDGE HENNEKE: Who uses the van? 1 it I I ii i 'I .71{iVw hY: I 12 /^ r.-,.. ~"~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Community -- Adult Probation uses it, Sheriff's Office uses it, and it's available for -- for anyone that needs it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's that blue one parked down there. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz that the bills be paid. Any -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That includes Indigent Health Care? MR. TOMLINSON: You have something in your -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. If you want it to, it can be. MR. TOMLINSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Including Indigent Health Care, which totals $15,038.20. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion passes. Budget amendments? 11- I1 1Y it ..II{14w ,~Y+1 13 /^ r'"` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MR. TOMLINSON: No. JUDGE HENNEKE: No budget amendments. Any late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: I have -- I have two. One is from Michael Walker for his services for January. It's $5,865. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there a reason why that's -- we need to do that today? MR. TOMLINSON: We got it too late to put in on the regular bills. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that because he got it to us too late or -- MR. TOMLINSON: That's generally correct, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this the bill that has additional services on it? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. It's 3 hours of design, 17 hours of coordination meetings, 12 hours inspecting technical entity, 33 hours of drafting, and 7 hours of travel and clerical. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I recommend we hold that bill until we go to our item 2.17, and the reason -- I was aware of this coming in late. The reason is that these are services that are beyond what he feels is the scope of his contract with us, and the reason is the numerous revisions called for by the District Clerk and the District Judges. And, I put it on here mainly lust to point it out. I did it - - _- -- N 19 .r-~. r^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- handled it in this manner so everyone is aware of the expense that we have been caused because of the changes that have been made by the Judges and District Clerk, and it's -- it's beyond our contract, so we can't ordinarily pay witin the normal scope of bills. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good, 'cause I have some questions about that correspondence. JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll say, generically, I'm opposed to paying late bills because the vendor got the bill in too late to be included with the bills. So, I think that the census of the Court is that we hold that bill at least until we take an opinion -- discussion of the revised plans. What's the other late bill, Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: Actually, it's -- it's an item that you may want to defer till the agenda item for the resignation of Constable 3. It's a bill that's related to that office, that -- as far as the pager service that -- that the County has never paid for. He's paid for it. But -- and it was supposed to have been turned in, the pager was, but apparently hasn't, so I have a bill for $54.94 that somehow we need to deal with. JUDGE HENNEKE: Who's the contract with? MR. TOMLINSON: It's Mobile Comm. JUDGE HENNEKE: But with whom, with the County or with Mr. Shaw? I it 14 I! it ; 4{i6Yl:A+ I 15 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MR. TOMLINSON: It's with the County. But he agreed -- I mean, it was not budgeted for that office, and his -- his agreement was to pay -- to pay that himself. In other words, it was -- the device itself was contracted through the County. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, where is the pager today? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, anyway, we need to cancel the contract. JUDGE HENNEKE: We definitely need to cancel the contract. MR. TOMLINSON: We've done that, because there is a -- there is -- part of the bill is for non-returning -- not returning the pager. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let's defer that. Unfortunately, if the contract's with the County, we probably don't have any alternative but to go ahead and make the payment, but we need to find out what happened to the pager. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the pager is County property, then, so it should be returned. JUDGE HENNEKE: It's probably Motorola property and was leased, as opposed to buying it. But -- MR. TOMLINSON: That's all I had. r'"" 1 it In .4 N4;+i'i 1 16 r` /'` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, thanks. Read and approve minutes. Anyone have any questions on the minutes? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve, sir. JUDGE HENNEKE: We need -- I would -- is there a second to that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved and seconded we approve the minutes. After discussing the -- what we did last meeting with regard to the Deputy Constable, I'm of the opinion that when we entered the Order approving the Deputy Constable for the purpose of the Solid Waste Management Program, we went beyond what we were permitted to do under the Open Meetings Act, since the item was posted only for approving the Deputy Constable. So, it's my opinion that what we need to do is go back and amend Order No. 25790 to do what the item -- the posted agenda item said, which is to allow the Constable of Precinct No. 1 to appoint a Deputy Constable, and delete the phrase, "for the purpose of the Solid Waste Management Program." And then we'll come back today and tie it back up again. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have -- JUDGE HENNEKE: The reason fox that is because, if we go back and look at the agenda, the agenda item was, "Authorize Constable 1 to appoint a Deputy Constable," period. I II I I ~ .AUCd. ".F+ 1 17 ~~ /"~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why are you looking at me? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right. Judge, you're absolutely right. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, can we take it that your -- your motion to amend -- to approve the minutes would be "as amended"? Would you accept that? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: So we have a motion from Commissioner Baldwin to approve the minutes as amended. Did you second that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, my question is, that -- but that's not what we voted to do. I mean -- JUDGE HENNEKE: But we didn't have -- we did vote to -- to authorize Constable 1 to hire or appoint a Deputy Constable. We did that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. JUDGE HENNEKE: But we went further and tied it to the Solid Waste Management Program, which was not a proper agenda item. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: What we want to do is go back and simply have us on record as having approved the agenda item, and we come back today and then tie the two together if we need to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm just making sure ~~ ~r ~. i~i~b{~IY+I.bbal 18 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we're doing the procedure correctly, is my question. It seems we're going back and changing a -- the motion that was made. If someone goes back and listens to the tape, the motion was clearly what's in the minutes. I agree, it's not right; we shouldn't have done it. We went beyond what we were supposed to. But, lust by -- can you go back after the fact and amend the order that was actually made? JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it seems -- JUDGE HENNEKE: I mean, the Court has the authority to do anything, as far as amending or revising or changing its mind -- up to a limited degree, obviously. But, I lust want us to stay within the Open Meetings Act. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem with that, as -- you know, I'll lust trust you, that your way of doing it is the procedurally correct way, because I don't know. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, your second stands? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz to approve the minutes, as amended. Any further discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.} JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 1 1 + i. ~NIIYW'•wY ~ 19 r"^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Minutes are approved. Turning, then, to the regular agenda, the first item is item 2.1, consider and discuss appointing Local Historical Commission for purpose of initiating and conducting programs suggested by Commissioners Court and the Texas Historical Commission for the preservation of historical heritage of the county and accepting their annual report. Mr. Rector, welcome. DR. RECTOR: Thank you. Honorable Judge Henneke, Honorable Commissioners, it's a pleasure to be here before you today. This is an annual event when we appear before you and talk about what we have done this past year and present to you the County Historical Commission report, which will be sent to Austin for their records. You have in your agenda package a copy of that report, outlining what we have done this past year as an extension of County government. As you will note from the report, we have one area that we would like to improve next year, and that is to increase the number of members which we have participating in the Historical Commission. And, as you'll see as we look at appointing the officers for next year, we have dealt with that by looking at a -- a portion of our Board to head that -- that area. You'll also find included in your packet a list of members for 1999 and the year 2000 which we would ask that you appoint to the Historical Commission, and a proposed ----__-- ---n---r --~-~ _ I II I I II- Illlll~' i:G I 20 r r^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 slate of officers for the years 1999 and 2000. The incoming chair we would request that you consider is General Walter Schellhase, who has done a tremendous job this past year with one of our major projects, the Union Church relocation and renovation. First Vice President, Dr. Laurent Sorell who is here this morning, will head up our membership program. Second Vice President of Programs will be Bobby Rector, one of our local archaeologists. Secretary, Brenda Craig, and Treasurer, Haskell Fine. That is our slate of proposed officers for the incoming year. The final item in your packet is a review of 1998, what we feel -- a list of items that we have worked on during the past year, and some of the areas that we felt we have had an impact for the community. The first is, we are pleased to say that the old City Hall has been renovated; it will soon open as a Union Bank building, and it is, I think, looking like a tremendous addition to our community. We're very -- very pleased with Mike Allen and his wife, Cynthia, and the work that they have done for the community in taking that building and renovating it. We will be talking in a few minutes about the Union Church building and the progress that has been made during the past year on a project that has been ongoing for the last several years, and we feel like that we are nearing completion of a major phase of that renovation. We have 1 11 n r fN11414 4a 1 21 /~ i-- ~"~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 moved the county -- the archives of the Kerr Historical Commission out of the County Clerk's office. They are moved into their own home in the basement of the courthouse. We feel this is positive. It is a secure location and area where our member historians can go and work, and we feel like that it is positive for the -- for the County Clerk's office and also positive for the -- for the Commission. We have received several gifts for the archives this past year, one being a significant postcard collection from Sanford Smith, which we are most grateful for. We're still working on the display cabinets for the foyer of the courthouse. We hope to have those for you within a matter of months, have those installed. A marker has been approved for Schreiner College, which will be dedicated on April the 21st this year. We have had a great deal of success this past year with public relations. Miss Jackie Bovee, who is here with us today, has been in charge of public relations and has done a tremendous job with publicity, with items in the newspaper, to try to bring our -- our community's awareness up about our historical buildings, about our historical activities. And, it's only by having these things before the public that we ~I can engender enthusiasm for this type of activity, and she's II done a tremendous -- tremendous job, and we look forward to her working with us during the coming year and continuing the a ~ ~ ~ lu ll~. i6 ~ 22 ~"~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 momentum that she's set forward this past year. We have been -- we received a portion of hotel/motel bed tax this past year, which we were very grateful for. It will be utilized for the renovation -- as part of the renovation for the Union Church. One of the major projects we've had is the -- the institution of an Oral History project. It's a very active project; it's been in the newspapers several times this past year. We have done a number of oral histories, approximately 21 during the past year. Ann Bethel is chairing that committee during the coming year, and we look forward to many more oral histories being done this coming year. We have created a new group called Friends of the Historical Commission, that we have received our charter for it. It will be primarily a fundraising group to help us receive funds from the private sector in order to accomplish the projects of the Historical Commission. As you're well aware, it's very difficult to do anything without funding, and we think that the Friends organization will be a way to not only encourage participation and enthusiasm in the Historical Commission, but also to encourage financial participation by the -- by the community. The last thing that I would like to bring to your attention is, for activities this past year, we have applied for the Distinguished Service Award for the Kerr County 23 r^ ~. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Historical Commission with the Texas Historical Commission, and we look forward to being awarded the Distinguished Service Award for 1998. I believe that you have a -- a packet -- your packet contains a copy of that application, which lists some of the details, the items that we have talked about this morning. That's our report for the year, Judge Henneke, and we appreciate the opportunity to work with the County and work with the County government for historical preservation. JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any questions of Dr. Rector? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one with regard to they appointments, Dr. Rector. DR. RECTOR: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As I went down them, a couple things came to mind. I see where the list has Julius Neunhoffer twice. Is that intended, or is one of them intended to be Marvin? And the other is Victoria Roberts, I believe, has a new -- a new name that -- DR. RECTOR: You're absolutely correct on both of those items. They both represent typographical errors, although Julius has worked hard enough that he probably should be listed twice. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's going to work twice as hard, right? '~"` it II i .I IUIlVU i..6: I 29 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DR. RECTOR: That's exactly right. He has been absolutely a -- one of the stalwart workers on the Union Church preservation project, and has done a lot of the labor himself and really should be listed more than twice. Thank you for pointing that out. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I missed that one. Bryant Saner is also listed twice. I missed that one. DR. RECTOR: I have to tell you that I'm totally responsible for all those typos. I've been trying to keep the roster this past year, and with Dr. Sorell taking over the membership, he is -- that is going to be his responsibility, and I assure you that next year when they come before you, you won't find those kind of errors, but hopefully you'll find a much larger list to look at. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only comment I have, I appreciate the fact that y'all are really making a goal to increase the membership. I hope, in that regard, you -- I notice that the -- the extreme edges of the county, the east or west, are lacking in members, and I hope that you are able to bring more people in from the Center Point and Comfort area and from the Mountain Home-Hunt area. DR. RECTOR: We hope also -- and one note on that is, as you may be aware, Center Point has a historical commission or historical society or a group that's interested -r 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 in historical preservation in Center Point. We have made overtures to them to ask them to work with us, to be a part of our group, and have tried to devise ways that would not diminish any of their ability to do things in their community, but yet be a part of our group. There are people that have encouraged that, but at the present time they feel like that they would like to remain sort of on their own and 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 separate, and that's fine. We're all in this for the same goal, and that's to encourage historic preservation. And if -- and that's obviously what they're doing, and if they feel like they can do it better at this time, not being a part of our group, then we -- we certainly are pleased with their activities and encourage them to continue. And, whenever they're ready to participate as members of the Historical Commission, we will welcome them with open arms, however -- on whatever terms they would like to be included. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a requirement that you have to be a resident of Kerr County to be a member? DR. RECTOR: No, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I ask is that Comfort also has a Historical Commission, and because many of them live in the City of Comfort, they're Kendall County residents, but they own property and have a great interest in Kerr County. So, you might go to that, the Comfort Historical Association or society. I I; I I a it 14llhiC' LL1 l 26 /" r"'~ /" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DR. RECTOR: You would not need to be a member of the County to be a member of the Commission, Historical Commission. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? Before you make a motion, I'd like to thank Dr. Rector, General Schellhase, Julius Neunhoffer, and all the other people who are working so hard to preserve the historical basis for Kerr County, and I particularly want to to single out the Oral History project. I think that's a remarkable project that you all are undertaking, going around and capturing the history of our County on tape before that history escapes us through the demise of the people who have lived here for so long and built what we enjoy today. So, in particular, I want to applaud you all for that very worthwhile effort. DR. RECTOR: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Now, Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I move that we approve appointing the Historical Commission and accepting their annual report. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we appoint the Historical Commission members and approve the annual report. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise 1 1 I I ! 1 14k itlN.' IFx 1 27 f ,~-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Ali opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. I believe we'll now turn to item 2.2, which is consider and discuss lease for the Union Church between Schreiner College and Kerr County, and authorize County Judge to sign the same. You're still up. DR. RECTOR: May I ask General Schellhase to join me at the podium for this part of it7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Certainly. DR. RECTOR: General Schellhase has been a -- been Chairman of the Union Church Building Committee. He has done a tremendous job, as you'll notice from your packet, with organizing this effort that has been on the -- the agenda of the Commission fox a number of years, and we've made tremendous progress during the past year. I'd like to go ahead and ask General Schellhase to present the lease agreement and any background that he feels is pertinent for you. We've worked a great deal with Schreiner College on this lease, with the movement of the building there, and it's exciting to see it coming to a -- to fruition at this point. Walter? MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you, Dr. Rector. Well, ~'^~ 1 II ~. I I .I IUN4L14i. 1 28 ~- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 we're successful in getting the lease to the table. We hope it will be accepted by the Commissioners Court as prepared. We have two blanks in it; one, the insurance, and one, the area to be included in that land lease. The survey was completed by the County Surveyor on Friday and given to the attorney. It's acceptable as it is, and will become an attachment to this, as he referred to Attachment A. it turns out to be exactly one acre of the land that we're going to have for the entrance, the parking, and the location of the building. The other blank is the insurance, of which he's left blank, 'cause he'll accept the County's coverage. I see it's on y'all's agenda to look at today for renewal. We hope that building will be covered under that. The lease pretty much says we're prepared -- as you know, it's a landlord's lease; it's not a tenant's lease. We're the tenant. And, we have only one thing added since the original lease was prepared of any significance, and that's the hazardous waste, dealing primarily with the lead-based paint, which we're sure the building has in it; we've agreed that that will be removed as we do the renovation according to the federal guidelines. So, the lease is as you now have it, and we ask that you approve it. Any questions? COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: The only question I have -- or comment I have, General, is you obviously do your work _T_~ 29 r"'` P^~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 well. I have three contracts -- I've landed here this morning with three contracts. I don't even know which one is the working -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're all the same. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're all the same? Did I hear that this morning here? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I did -- I have two, and they're the same. I don't know what your third one is. MR. SCHELLHASE: I think the change that you have on that, Commissioner Baldwin, is the hazardous waste. DR. RECTOR: If you'll look at Item 17. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 17, okay. MR. SCHELLHASE: On page 3. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. DR. RECTOR: In there is a final paragraph that talks about lead-based paint. MR. SCHELLHASE: Flip over to page 4, the top of page 4. That's the one that -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is the one right here. DR. RECTOR: That is the current contract. MR. SCHELLHASE: That was the item that was added by someone higher up in the college than we've been dealing with. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one question. i"~ I ~ I ~M{~YI4 IY. 1 30 s~ /`^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On page 2, Item 6, defined as a security deposit. I guess that really is more a performance bond than a security deposit. Is that sort of correct? MR. SCHELLHASE: Our plan -- how that's going to be right now is not exactly in -- in concrete, but the plan is, on our side, that because of the funds that the Historical Commission has from the book sale several years back, we have those funds in the -- in the bank. We will be purchasing a C.D. and pledge that C.D. to the college. That -- that deposit remains only until the exterior of the building has been completed to Schreiner's satisfaction, of which we agreed that we will have that completed by February 1 of 2000, only dealing with the exterior. Then that deposit will be -- or that security will be returned to us and we'll use that for the renovation of the interior. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While it's really not, I guess, germane to the lease agreement, as such, the question does come to mind as to what plans the Commission has to raise the necessary funds to complete the project. It's an ambitious project that's going to require the better part of 5150,000. MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes, we're at $187,000. We've set our goal for 5200,000. That would be a general fundraising that will be -- we'll have involved the community, corporates in the area, and also grants. We applied once for a grant at -r I I II It 1 IpllIW II•Y.1 31 ,~ r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Peterson Foundation, and we withdrew that grant because we didn't realize -- we didn't have enough understanding of what it would take to get that grant. Also, we did not have a permanent site at that time. Now we have a permanent site, which was a big issue. We believe we'll be in good shape to go back to Peterson for a foundation grant. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I commend you for your efforts. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is based on that same Paragraph 6, and it goes to the completion date. It's a little bit less than a year from now, for exterior, anyway. MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that seems really ambitious. And, I mean, is that a realistic date to have the exterior completed -- completely done by then? Because the County's taking on the liability if it isn't. MR. SCHELLHASE: The -- it is ambitious. We didn't have too much choice. The problem with Schreiner is that, as you know, the building right now doesn't look too well, and their concern is with this building sitting on their site for more than a year in that condition. So, we agreed that we would make the effort to complete that within this time frame, and we're going to work at it. -- I II. I I II.IYIld'ii 6R 1 32 i- -. s-• 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my concern comes in that, if it isn't done, I mean, the County is almost -- we don't have any money, obviously, budgeted for it, but it's the County's responsibility to get it done. And, you know, I don't know how we need to work, from the County's standpoint, to get -- I mean, the intent all along has been that the -- this will be done through fundraising and various efforts through the Historical Commission, and the only County funds would be expended once the building is done, on the upkeep and the maintenance of the buildling in the future. MR. SCHELLHASE: I think that with the -- with the volunteers that we've had so far, from the standpoint of materials and labor, I believe we're going to be able to do it. I don't see it as being a big issue. With the monies that we now have, which are about $30,000, we believe we have enough to complete that outside in an acceptable manner. It's up to Schreiner -- at the end of the February 1, 2000, it's their choice to use our deposit to move it off the site if they were to so choose. That's what this lease says. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. SCHELLHASE: We don't believe that would happen, in the event we would go in and ask for an amendment to the lease and ask for a time extension. I think our relationship with the people who are dealing with us over there is extremely good. In the event we didn't make that 33 /" ,~^~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and we're showing progress, I believe it would be extendable if that really happened. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, have we asked our civil attorney or County Attorney to review the contract? JUDGE HENNEKE: We have Mr. Pollard here, and he provided his comments on a sheet you should have received. Did y'all receive those? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did not. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I ask that is because this is certainly not a typical lease the County goes into, because it's pretty onerous, from my standpoint. But we are the tenant, and I know we're doing a really -- mainly, the reason we're named is because we have to be in this situation. MR. SCHELLHASE: One of the things that's in the lease that Schreiner did request at -- because of this, they requested that a sign be placed on the property showing what the building will look like once it's renovated. So -- so, they want everyone to know that that's not what's being placed on the building as they see it when it arrives there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's consistent with the signage they have on the hole that they're digging on the other end of the campus. JUDGE HENNEKE: General, I'm concerned about 1 II. II ii IU174SId.C I 34 r-^- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 several things. MR. SCHELLHASE: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: One of the things I'm concerned about is the early termination date. MR. SCHELLHASE: Twenty-five years? JUDGE HENNEKE: No. MR. SCHELLHASE: Oh, the five years. JUDGE HENNEKE: January 31, 2009. It seems to me like you all, through the County, could be obligating yourself to an enormous effort only to have the rug pulled out from under you just about the time you really get it up and rolling. What can you tell us about that? MR. SCHELLHASE: They added that in in the last go-round because of, I think, a couple of things. One, Schreiner asked that they be allowed to use the building free all the time, any time that they chose. We felt like, being as we were going to have a fee schedule established and we're going to lease the building out for use, that they ought to fall under that same category. I think their intent here is they want to be able to review that in 2009. And one of the reasons, way back when we first started discussing this issue, Schreiner had desires to use the building on a regular basis, feeling like they had the need. I believe it was three times -- as much as maybe three regular scheduled days a week that they would consider using it, as opposed to I II I I I A IA41k¢i~Gt I 35 r ,~'` <"~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 putting that in. I think they're going to recognize their needs to use this building might be more than, maybe, are spelled out in the lease, and by that time, they'd like to sit down and take a look at it. And, we didn't really have a problem with that. They certainly have the capability to pull the rug out, as you say, but Schreiner's indication all along is this is going to be a big asset to their campus. It's not going to be a liability. It's going to be something they're going to be wanting to use, or they would not have included in this that they have the right to use it on-call. If you might say we were able to get that paragraph changed to within a 2- or 3-day notice so that, in the event we had the opportunity to book a fee user in the building, that they wouldn't be able to kick us out of that fee. So, that's one of the paragraphs in the lease. DR. RECTOR: I think one of the -- one of our feelings, talking with Ed Wagoner at Schreiner College, is that if what they foxsee is that they may need this particular site for a future building plan, and if that were -- they don't have that plan at this time, but if that were to occur, they can forsee us being asked to move or them moving the building to another location on Schreiner College so that they could utilize that particular site for something else. And, it was not my feeling, from talking with them, that they were talking about saying, "We want you out of i iusx;e:i 36 ,r^ /'` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here; take the building and go somewhere else." It's like, you know, "We didn't think so 10 years ago, but today this may not be the best site for the college's plans. Can you look at this area over here as a relocation site for it?" JUDGE HENNEKE: And I -- I don't want to dwell on this unnecessarily, but that concerns me. If you all are going to spend $180,000 moving the building, putting in the parking lot, putting in the foundation, running utilities, renovating it, making it a true showcase, which I know you will, and in 8 years or 10 years, the college comes along and says, "We want that for a parking lot; you've got to move the building half a block down the road," you're looking at another huge expense, not just to move the building, but to prepare the site and to move the building and then do any revovations, corrections, repairs that are occasioned by the moving of the building. And it just seems to me like 10 years really is -- is not a very long period of time within which to enter into an agreement like this. And, unfortunately, you have to look at it from what is the shortest possible window in which you can have -- have a disruption like that. And I'm troubled by that, because, to me, it doesn't, quite frankly, do credit to your efforts, and I'm disappointed that Schreiner would take such a short-term look at this. Do you perceive any flexibility? MR. SCHELLHASE: With Schreiner? I t I I .I INAYYW ,IOW. 1 37 ~'` r i"` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHELLHASE: I haven't personally talked to Ed about that paragraph since they've added it to the lease. Having dealt with them over the last year in trying to get this lease, and knowing -- and having seen their 25-year plan, master plan, which does not include the utilization of this site at all, it means it would be something that has to be developed within the college that hasn't been on the table as of this time. Whether or not it's something that's coming up that they know about that I don't know about, it's very possible. But, I -- my relationship with them at this time is I don't think it's a big issue. I'm -- I'm convinced that the 25 years is not even a big issue. I believe after 25 years is up, I think this building will be a bigger asset to the college than it is to the community, and their utilization will probably be more than ours. JUDGE HENNEKE: Another question I had was their requirement to approve the plans and specifications in the ultimate renovation of the building. Have you had any preliminary discussions with them so that they're going to sign off on what you have in mind? MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah, we've given them a plot plan that's acceptable to them at this time. We've given them preliminary drawings as to how the building's going to be renovated on the inside. It's far more than they expected to li. i xnn. .F+ 38 /"` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 have, because we have -- we do have plans to have two handicapped-accessible restrooms in the building, so it will be usable -- you know, a wide range of users. They have a photograph of the outside, so they know what it's going to look like when it comes back on line as a finished building; and, of course, everybody else does too. We've had this in the paper, so we don't see this as even being an issue. They just want to see what's going to be done. The -- you know, one thing that was added in the last renovation is they want to approve the landscaping of the outside. We had not really discussed landscaping too much, but the last time that I met with them, they were concerned. What's it going to look like when it's finished? We're not going to leave it blank outside, you know; there will be landscaping. They asked that they approve that. We said sure, and we've had some volunteers to do the landscaping, so that will be something that will be coordinated with the school. COMMISSIONER LETZ: A question that I have -- and I know we went over this, I'm sure, last time this was brought to us, the whole idea of coming to the -- using Schreiner College's location. I'm sure it was, but I can't remember the answer. It seems it would be easier to give the church to Schreiner College than Kerr County. Is there -- was that -- but I vaguely remember we discussed that several months ago. /"` 39 ~".. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MR. SCHELLHASE: We did. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And for the Historical Commission, then, to enter an agreement with Schreiner College and they could achieve the same thing, and be a lot easier than having the County involved. MR. SCHELLHASE: When I first brought this to the Commissioners Court, the Court's request was, Could we agree to donate this to Schreiner College? Our discussions with Schreiner College had been that for one year. Until the Executive Committee met on the 20th of September of last year, that's what we thought the whole ball game was about. Then, all of a sudden, when the Executive Committee met, it changed and said, you know, We agree to the site and the location, provided you retain ownership. So that's how that came about. JUDGE HENNEKE: How do y'all propose to handle the scheduling of use of the building? MR. SCHELLHASE: We have not arranged the scheduling right now. The -- we have three proposals that we presented in the document that we brought to you several months ago. One was that Main Street do the scheduling. One was the possibility of whoever's doing the Ag scheduling now do that scheduling. The third was the possibility of someone within the Historical Commission doing it themselves. We're looking more for, maybe, the same way the Ag building is r^`^ I I I I.INkI1L 1Y. 1 90 r-~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 scheduled. Main Street has volunteered to do that, so that is one of the things we could do. The fee schedule is being developed by a committee; that will be brought to the Commissioners Court for approval as to the uses of it, what those will be. We've prepared a budget that we think -- dependent upon the use that will take place in the building, as to what the annual budgets will be for the operation of that building. That will be coming before you once we know we're going to move the building. JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you all contemplating that the County do the basic maintenance of the building as far as janitorial? MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. MR. SCHELLHASE: Or, a -- a private maintenance -- maintenance service, based on what the revenues are from the building. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on that topic, that was, I guess, one of the major points of discussion when it came to us several months ago, and the thought was that the fees generated would hopefully offset, maybe not 100 percent, but certainly a large portion of the maintenance and daily janitorial service and upkeep of the building. So, it was supposed to be a wash, hopefully; although it was also thought that that may not be -- it might be similar to the Ag ii I I ~ ~Nl I1F ~Ne I 41 r 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Barn, where we certainly don't, you know, make a profit out there, enough to cover our expenses out there. But it was a simple type of arrangement where the fees would hopefully offset that and we would get the revenue from those fees. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I don't want to get -- engage in lease language tinkering, but it would seem to me, under 33, early termination of the -- if all is well and there is no request on the part of Schreiner College to terminate the lease early, that would be an ideal time to evergreen, extend it for the 10 years that it's expired. MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes. DR. RECTOR: And I think that we are not terribly enthused about the early termination clause either, and I think those are very good thoughts, Judge Henneke, that -- and it -- it is somewhat concerning that, as we go and look at grant requests, that that may end up becoming an issue. And, it's one of those -- those items that, right now, our relationship with Schreiner College is excellent; we do not feel like there is going to be a problem. But 10 years and, certainly, 25 years down the road, the people involved will change, attitudes may change, and what we say here today they may not remember. So, that is -- it is a concern. We've worked a great -- great deal for a long time on this lease. We certainly could work further, if that's the -- the will of the Court. But, today, it seems like that the early r"'~ I II I I II. IAIIl1 l.Gi l 42 r` ~^`~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 termination clause is not a significant problem. It could -- it certainly could in the future. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You need a lease in place now before you begin your plans to move the facility, right? DR. RECTOR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are your plans to move it? MR. SCHELLHASE: The plan right now is, if you agree to the lease, that we'll be moving it on the 19th. Sunday, the 19th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know -- Mr. Nugent's been very generous in allowing the amount of time so far to get there -- if he'd allow another extension on that. But I guess the -- the lease -- I'm not real fond of it, but I -- an equal concern is that I really think that we're at a point that the County and the Historical Commission need to come up with an agreement, written in writing, who's doing what and what obligations are expected, because I think if you just look at this by itself, it's not clear that -- it appears almost that the County is taking on a huge amount of liability. I think, in reality, the Historical Commission is, you know, agreeing verbally to raise these funds and do these things that -- y'all are putting up the deposit, which is $8,500, out of your own funds. I think we really need a firm agreement between the County and Historical Commission, -1- iu uw ~~ u 93 ~^. /'` 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because I think the County is at a little bit of liablity right now. That's what I'd like to see, if it can be worked out. I think there are some other concerns, probably, reading the letter that our civil attorney has given us on lease terms, but I think one of the concerns he has is making sure that we tie down a formal relationship between us and the -- you know, and the Historical Commission. MR. SCHELLHASE: You have to keep in mind that, you know, we're an arm of the County government. And, you're right; you're taking on a liability, you know, and if you're not comfortable with that, then obviously we need to look at it real closely and get everyone comfortable, because that's what it is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's exactly where I think we are, unfortunately, yes. I think we can, you know, probably get to that by the 14th, and I know Jim -- Mr. Nugent really wants to get that church moved as far as he can. I'm -- you know, I don't think we're willing to approve the lease as it is until some of these other issues are revolved, but I don't have a problem if Schreiner College would be agreeing anyway to, you know, pass a resolution or whatever supporting this concept still, but say we need -- more work has to be done on the lease and some of these other liability issues for the County. I don't know if that would satisfy them; I doubt it would. I I. I I .I 1711i~ ~C± 1 44 ,~'^, ,~-~ ~"~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DR. RECTOR: Last time I talked with Schreiner College, with their attorney, they felt like that it was important to have some kind of agreement between the County and between Schreiner College before the building was physically moved. Without having something pretty well worked out, an understanding pretty well in agreement, that it was perhaps premature to move a structure on there. As far as County liability is concerned, I think, on face value, the Historical Commission is the people really at risk at this time. If we move this building -- we're moving it with Commission funds. If we move this building to Schreiner College and we're unable to perform our guarantee and have the exterior renovated to Schreiner College's satisfaction by February the 1st of the year 2000, the $8,500 will be -- is Historical Commission funds, and the worst that would happen is Schreiner College would utilize that $8,500, pick up the building, and move it off of their property somewhere else, onto some County property. So, the real risk here, I think, is to the Commission at this time. The Commission has the -- has some private funds raised, the monies to make this deposit and to begin the renovation of the -- of the structure. I do not see the County, from the County budget, itself, being out additional funds if we fail to fulfill that commitment at the present time. Unless -- you know, unless the County would, through I i. I I ;I 17114 .4t 4 45 ,~ r1 !"'` 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some unforseen situation, decide to contribute additional funds, and we are not proposing or asking you to do so at this time. And if you chose not to, the worst that would happen is the Commission would lose the $8,500 or whatever it costs to move the structure off the property. JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a question for Tommy or Barbara. Is the building currently covered by our insurance or umbrella insurance? MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's not. JUDGE HENNEKE: We have accepted ownership of this building prior to -- I mean, this is our building. MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know that. I can explain the insurance problem, if you want to know. JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure, go ahead. MR. TOMLINSON: In the -- I think Schreiner College is asking for a million dollars in liability coverage. And, because -- because of the Tort Claims Act, our carrier cannot -- which is the Texas Association of Counties, cannot provide that amount of insurance. So, in order to satisfy the million dollars in coverage, we're going to have to go out -- go to another market to obtain that coverage. And, so, I called an agent -- local agent last week, I think it was Wednesday, and he was trying to get a ballpark premium amount for a million dollars on that kind of property. And, as of Friday, he -- he had not obtained that. He told me that -- . i -~NI.11 ANY r. 46 ~-- 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 that his best estimate was a minimum of $500 annually, so -- and that's not certain. So, at this point, we don't -- I don't know what the coverage will be. JUDGE HENNEKE: What kind of -- what kind of coverage do we have, just under our umbrella through TAC? MR. TOMLILNSON: It's $300,000 aggregate, with $100,000 per -- per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage, and -- right, yeah. So, I mean, because of the Tort Claims Act, the Association does not offer any amount over that. JUDGE HENNEKE: I understand, and I don't think we should, either. I'm a little bit befuddled here, because the building was accepted by the County in 1995 by order of the Court. So -- MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think -- I don't think it's listed. I can make sure, but -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I'm just curious, because when we start talking about liability, I have the advantage of everyone because I have the County Attorney's file here, and by Court Order No. 2297, dated October 23rd, 1995, the Court unanimously approved to accept the old Union Church building. MR. TOMLINSON: I may be wrong, but I don't remember -- I don't know. JUDGE HENNEKE: If that, indeed -- if that is now, ,~" u .I {NN 11 li 64 i.. 47 .-t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 indeed, a County building, we have some liability already for the condition of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't that automatically put us under the County's liability umbrella? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we have -- there's a schedule of property with that, and we would have to schedule that property, and I'm not sure that it is. I'll -- I can research that and find out. JUDGE HENNEKE: Weil, that's a loose end, because we're not in the situation where Mr. Nugent is giving the building. He's already done gave the building; it's ours. The question now is putting it in an appropriate place, which is what the Historical Commission has -- MR. TOMLINSON: Which was not -- I mean, I do not know that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Like I say, I have the advantage of everyone, 'cause I have a file here that no one else does. DR. RECTOR: We have been visiting with Schreiner. They're obviously uncomfortable with a $100,000 limit. Let me say that their Board, which is composed to a large degree of attorneys, is concerned about the fact that the County has a maximum liability of $100,000 exposure per incident. We have talked with them about ways to solve this. We've also talked with them about the -- the liability environment in Kerr County at the present time. And -- and they -- ! i 1 NYI 111 .YI 48 ~. ~^ r"t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 Schreiner College understands that, but their Board does not, and we're looking at ways to possibly solve that outside the County. And one way that were looking at right now is having this building added to the Schreiner College policy as an addition, thinking that this may be the least expensive way as to have that, as a -- as an added structure to their coverage. And if there is an additional amount required for that, then they may approach us for the additional -- for reimbursement of the additional premium. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, it seems there are two separate issues; the lease with Schreiner College is one issue, insurance is another. But insurance is important, in that once you lack that thing up and start moving it down Main Street, it ought to be insured, I would think, for a whole variety of reasons. But if there's no other questions about the lease, I'd like to move the lease so we can see what happens. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, before we do that, I think we ought to allow Mr. Pollard, our civil attorney, who is here -- and thank you for coming on short notice -- to address the Court if he wishes. I mean, he has done a review. MR. POLLARD: I'll address it from here, if that's okay. I haven't had a lot of time to look at it, but I do have to look at it from the County's standpoint, from the liability standpoint, and it seems to me that it's obligating II-111dN I .y4 49 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the County to a number of things over a period of years. Even after certain deadlines are met, there's further liability that occurs after that and during that term. So, I think the County, itself, is committing itself to something in the future, even beyond those dates. I have a concern about that. Interestingly, the indemnity clause where Schreiner College wants the County to indemnify Schreiner College from all acts of negligence damages out there, it doesn't -- that even covers the situation when Schreiner College is using it, as I read the terms of the lease. So, then, if Schreiner College were using it and were negligent at the time, the County still indemnifies Schreiner College from any damages on that. So, I have concerns about that, that paragraph. I have all of the same concerns that you all have voiced here today, as well. I lust feel like this provision about the $8,500 deposit says the County puts it up. I think maybe that lease ought to be modified, if I'm -- based on what I'm hearing here today, to provide that Schreiner College will accept whatever agreement it is that the Historical Commission is offering them in lieu of the County actually putting up its $8,500, which is what the lease says. It lust needs to be modified in several respects. And, I really do think that it would be, perhaps, a little premature at this time to approve that lease in that /^ 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 form. I do think there needs to be something in written form between the Historical Commission and the County setting forth -- delineating who's going to do what, all those things that they're saying they need to do. I have not seen a bill of sale on that house yet. I -- you've quoted some minutes saying that it was accepted back in 1995. I did not know that until I heard you say it here today. Was there a bill of sale delivered at that time? JUDGE HENNEKE: There's none in the file, so I'm not aware of any, if there was. MR. POLLARD: Well, has the County been paying rent for leaving that house over on Mr. Nugent's property since that time? Has the house been abandoned because it hasn't been picked up in four years? You know, there are abandonment statutes that apply. I mean, if -- folks, this could be a real mess, okay? And a lot of things really need to be looked at before we -- before you jump off, I think. That's just my opinion. I'll answer any other questions that you might have. JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Pollard? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question of the Court. Why -- it seems to me we've been working on this thing a long time. I really would like to get it moved, but because of counsel's concerns -- and we have to pay attention I q: I ;. IM41iR Bpi 4 51 '" " r- 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 to that. Why is it -- I mean, can we ask Mr. Pollard to get with these folks and let's work out a document that makes most people happy and let's get back in here at the end of this week sometime? Can that be done? MR. POLLARD: As you wish. I'm your servant. JUDGE HENNEKE: I mean, I'm -- I'm amenable to calling a special meeting Friday afternoon, if that's what the consensus is, and allow Mr. Pollard an opportunity to talk to Schreiner's attorney, who I believe is Dwaine Machann; is that correct? DR. RECTOR: That's correct. JUDGE HENNEKE: And also to -- I don't want to put too much of a burden on Mr. Pollard, 'cause he actually does have -- does other things from time to time. He might be able to -- I don't know if he could come up with a very minimal agreement between the Commissioners Court and the Kerr County Historical Commission, just kind of a schedule of responsibilities is what I envision. I think that's probably what he envisions, as well. Mr. Pollard, what do you think? MR. POLLARD: It's up to you; I'll do what you want. JUDGE HENNEKE: What do you all think? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good plan. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to ask Dr. Rector, do you think it's possible we could work this thing { I I I 1 IYI IIW IYY Y 52 /'` 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 out -- reconvene, perhaps, on Friday, and work this out? DR. RECTOR: I hope so. I think we have good relations with Schreiner College, with Ed Wagoner, and I think we can work this out. I -- I have to feel like that the early termination clause that Judge Henneke brought up is probably the single most important item that we're -- we're discussing. And, from my standpoint, I see it as a concern, because as we go out and look for grants and funding, people may point to this and say, I don't feel like I can give something to a 10-year project. Perhaps a modification to say that if Schreiner College needs that particular property for some reason, that at the end of 10 years, another site on Schreiner College will be offered or a mutual site will be selected agreeable to the County and to the -- to the College, something that makes it more -- less of a termination statement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The correlary issue there, Dr. Rector, in an early termination -- I don't want to beat it to death, but in the event Schreiner College were to exercise its latitude to terminate early because of its own needs, is Schreiner College willing to pay for the moving of the building to the other site? DR. RECTOR: That has not been an issue brought up. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think I hear a consensus here that we defer this issue until Friday and ask Mr. Pollard to l it I I ~i Iql llw» .GI G 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 get with Mr. Machann, and also to do what he can with Dr. Rector or General Schellhase regarding the interlocal agreement with the Kerr County Historical Commission. I will tell you, Dr. Rector, that if it's -- if my presence at a meeting with Mr. Wagoner or Dr. Biggers would be useful, I'll make myself as available as I can. DR. RECTOR: Thank you. That would, I'm sure, be helpful. We'll see if it's needed. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We want very much to move it forward. DR. RECTOR: I thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: You can clearly understand that we want the project to happen; we just have to take the necessary steps in order to make sure that we protect the County, fiscally and otherwise. DR. RECTOR: Yes, sir. And we in the Commission truly appreciate as much as time as you've spent on this item this morning, and we will work diligently this week to try to bring Friday -- bring something back to you Friday that addresses those concerns. JUDGE HENNEKE: We will anticipate a Friday afternoon -- special meeting? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. JUDGE HENNEKE: Trying to kind of get a nod from everybody on that. ,. I fl I I l I VN41W ~Yi d 59 ,~'^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 DR. RECTOR: Thank you very much. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, doctor. JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item on the agenda, Item No. 2.3, consider the renewal of general liability, auto liability, and property insurance with TAC. Our Auditor. MR. TOMLINSON: I think you have a -- a memo from me explaining the situation. Our renewal of these basic coverages is April the 6th. Previously, in last year, we've -- we discussed the -- along with this, some representatives from the private sector, and that they'd like to bid on our coverage. We talked about trying to have all of our basic coverages come due at the same time so that the private sector can bid effectively. What has happened, according to them, is because TAC does give us these discounts on worker's comp -- on workers compensation coverage, that the private sector cannot -- cannot effectively bid. So, my -- my recommendation would be, at this time, to renew from April the 6th through December 31st, at which time we could bid these basic coverages, plus worker's comp, plus our professional liability all in one package. I think -- I think if you can bid all the basic coverage at one time, you get a better bid from TAC, as well as -- as the private sector, because there II I I + IIIIIµiY. h 55 i"• ,~-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are some underwriters that -- that prefer to write different coverages. And, if they had the opportunity to -- for all of it, I think we could get a better deal. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree totally. I move -- we need to go forward. JUDGE HENNEKE: I hear that, as well. I mean, there's no doubt about that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we extend the policies as you recommended through December 31st. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From April 6th to December 31st. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And consolidate it and so forth, put it all out for bid. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner Letz and seconded by Commissioner Baldwin that we extend the insurance policies outlined in the Agenda Item 3 to December 31st, 1999. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.? JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let me ask a question. Is there a microphone on that thing? ,~'~ 11 14 it Illl IN ~N~ 4 56 1^ t'~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, there is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does it work? I mean, can anybody tell me that it works? I can't hear it. {Mr. Tomlinson tapped on microphone.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh, it's working. I couldn't hear this, either. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm like you, I can't hear it. MR. TOMLINSON: They can hear it out here, I think. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's the important part. JUDGE HENNEKE: As long as you're up there, Mr. Auditor, why don't we do Agenda Item No. 5, consider memorandum of understanding about U.S. Audiotex for credit card processing for credit card payment of fines and fees. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I visited with Russ Duncan and the -- the Justice of the Peace, and he is also listed with the County Clerk concerning this -- this arrangement. What it is, is Audiotex is a broker, I'll call it, for lack of a better term, for Visa, MasterCard, Discover. And they're -- they specialize in -- in governmental agencies. In other words, what happens is -- is that they -- they are able to collect fines and fees via credit card, without any merchant fee or -- or any kind of a discount to the governmental agency. In other words, this is -- this is -- II I I Illifi••» i1 G 57 s^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 would be with no additonal charge to the County. We would get 100 percent of our fine or fee. I visited with -- with two different counties about -- about this in the state that currently use the system, lust to find out if there's been any problems, and they tell me that they have not had a problem. What intrigued me about the service was two or three things. One was no charge to the County. The other was that since we have -- the interstate goes through our County, our J.P.'s get a lot of fine monies from -- from residents of other states, as well as other parts of the state, and they -- they spend a lot of time corresponding -- in correspondence with -- with those people to collect their fines and fees. This would give them -- those people an opportunity to pay their -- their fine or fee by picking up the phone and dialing an 800 number and having -- having it collected through their credit card. So, Russ and -- and I are recommending that -- that we -- you know, we use this system to further our attempt -- to further our collections of fines and fees. JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm curious. You said there's no charge to the County, but they talk here about the "convenience fee." MR. TOMLINSON: That's charged to the cardholder. JUDGE HENNEKE: To the cardholder. But it says U.S. Audiotex will invoice Kerr County for the convenience ..._ 58 /^ r"~ ,f^` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fee? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the -- the fee is billed to us, and then, in turn, we're -- through collection of those -- of those funds, then we get the money and then, in turn, pay them. It's lust a wash. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Charged to the user, right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Same thing. MR. TOMLINSON: The way we obtain our funds is that the -- the funds are wired the next day to our account after collection. And, also, next day we get a fax that indicates the name, the citation number, I think the Social Security number, and the date of birth of the -- of the payor. JUDGE HENNEKE: Ms. Nemec? MS. NEMEC: I have a question. Are those funds going to be wired to the individual offices in the county? MR. TOMLINSON: No -- well, that's a technical thing that we can -- MS. NEMEC: I hope so. MR. TOMLINSON: It would be -- it could be transferred to one account or more than one account. JUDGE HENNEKE: I was going to ask Barbara, do you have any questions or concerns with this, or where are you on this? MS. NEMEC: I would be for it if they're going to be wired to their accounts and then those fines and fees are r~~r' II I I II Illli'r« ill. 59 /" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 going to be turned in to my office at the end of the month with their monthly reports, the way they're done now. The other way, I'm just afraid that my office won't be able to handle it. I mean, we're already in a real bind with all the direct deposits that we're getting from the State. And this would be just be another one of those, is how I see it, if I just went into one account trying to keep track of -- of whose payment is for what office, 'cause they all go into different account numbers and different funds. MR. TOMLINSON: We could pick and choose what accounts we'd want to use. JUDGE HENNEKE: I clearly think it's something that we ought to try, but I don't want to add to the Treasurer's -- having to take a lump sum in and then sort it out and bring it back. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bandera County is doing this? MR. TOMLINSON: It's on the table for them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They haven't -- they don't have it up and running? MR. TOMLINSON: No. The Commissioners Court approved it, with blessings from their County Attorney. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's worth trying. I mean, I think that as long as it works out that it goes to individual J.P.'s -- 1 I I IYt1iM' Itli i 60 ~"~ v^ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Its a 6-month trial; is that correct, the way I understand that? MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. That's right. It's a 30-day cancellation, anyway. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move that we -- MR. TOMLINSON: I would -- we will work this out before -- I mean, the mechanics of this before -- you know, before we try it, make sure that -- that it's not something that's a burden, anyway. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we want a motion today and then let you work out the details? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we enter a contracted with U.S. Audiotex, as presented, subject to the Auditor and Treasurer approving the format. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, to enter a contract with U. S. Audiotex for credit card processing for credit card paying of fines and fees, subject to the Auditor and the Treasurer working out an acceptable method of accepting payments. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) ,.__ _ __ ----rr-r--r-~r nma-rar¢- i. ~ o ~~ w~ 61 ~'^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion passes. Thank you, Tommy, that's a good idea. At this time, with the indulgence of the Court, we'd like to take up Item 2.9, informational report by Sharon Spenrath, Past President of Texas Cattlewomen. And, after that report, it is my plan to take a short break. Does any one have any objections to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None at all, Judge. I mean, to you doing that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to introduce Sharon Spenrath. She's a resident of the eastern portion of the County, from a ranching family for years, very active in the Texas Cattlewomen Association, which is one of the, I think, outstanding organizations in the State of Texas. And Sharon, I think, just -- I've talked her about this basic topic. I think her concern is -- and most, if not all, of the Court shares that -- the federal government tends to get in our business a little bit too much. We need to be aware of that. And they tend to do some mandates and various things; I think she's going to discuss some of those. This is a reminder for us to be aware of some of the things coming in Washington. MS. SPENRATH: Thank you, Mr. Letz. Honorable Commissioners and -- and Judge Henneke, I appreciate the time that you gave me, the eight minutes that I will be standing .~-^, 11. I I 19611xi Wx 6 62 r" 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here visiting with you. I will share that time with my fellow member, Carol Schreiner. And I think you'll find this a little more entertaining than what we've been through so far. I won't put you to sleep; I might scare you. But, to begin the presentation that I have, I'd like for you to mentally answer these questions as I ask them of you. Sustainable development policy has flagged Kerr County; true or false? Negatives associated with grants sometimes outweigh the benefits? The Executive Order 13083 decreases Kerr County Commissioners Court's authority? NGO's, nongovernment organizations, influence your decisions? And, will you have an opportunity to vote on the topic of sustainable development this year? And I will go through a process that will answer those questions for you. The person seated next to you in this room will have that chance to vote on the subject of sustainable development or policy. His vote could be perhaps yes, because he believes that expanding government control is important; perhaps yes, if he only slightly misunderstands or is misinformed about the subject of sustainable development; or definitely no, if he understands where sustainable development leads. These are my goals, sir, for today: to encourage you to learn the signs and adverse effects of sustainable development. I have presented to you a packet; Mr. Letz has _ ~' I I ' ;I I11 IiF I11: G 63 r^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 already had my packet to review. It's background and information on where my information comes from. And, ask you to help in protecting the rights and liberties of Kerr County, and earn your respect as an information resource. Little bit of national history. President's Council on Sustainable Development, possibly a council you've never heard of, was formed in 1993. Their report came out, "Sustainable America, A New Consensus." In it was -- they have the "we believe" items; it's what they stand for, what their objectives and goals are. The eighth "we believe" -- and you'll find it in your packet. It says, We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions. It also contains the information that individual freedom, private property rights, and national sovereignty are all concepts which this report recognizes as obstacles to be modified or overcome. President's Council on Sustainable Development, 1993. Every federal government agency has adopted sustainable development policy. It has never been debated or voted on bye, our elected officials on a state or national level. NGO's, II nongovernment organizations, who embrace environmental and ~' human rights issues provide additional support for sustainable development policy. Federal government, in collaboration with selected NGO's, is encouraging the creation of local sustainability councils, which are to i; i t 1 I !I II I!~ l9~ 6 69 ~.,,, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 become the driving force in the reorganization of society. Sustainability councils' functions are preplanned, their procedures are preconceived, and their work is predetermined. It's based on the belief that government bodies aren't effective in implementing policy. That includes you. That, therefore, new methods are needed. For example, some of the new methods are -- are the next-step councils, the Hill Country Roundtable, Mason Town Meetings, Nongovernment Organization Project, and grants. It always includes a visioning process and a consensus process, tools to implement and execute sustainable development policy. Visioning councils, roundtable committees, federal grants, special designations. For example, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. And I commend you, as a board, for signing the petition to not wish to request the Guadalupe River as part of a special designation; you had the foresight. At present, those 10 national rivers that were designated -- the whole fundamental idea that was presented to you at first was that it was supposed to be grassroots, what the community wants, the local people drive it. However, at this point, all the federal regulation fundings are being requested from everything from agencies to nongovernment organizations, to have input and administration over it, so I commend you for that. Border Regions 21, which came into existence under the r"` r. I I ~ it II I!4„ 1~6 @ 65 ,~'` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 NAFTA agreement, which you probably didn't know; I didn't. It was under the La Paz, which is part of NAFTA, which designates the Border Regions 21, 60 miles on either side of the border, under sustainable development, 13 federal agencies and nongovernment organizations implementing the policy within that territory. One of the items that they do implement is the subject of colonias. Colonias coming from the Board of Region 21 has been extended through federal agencies, whether it be HUD or the Department of Agriculture. A colonia is still a colonia under a national agreement. Local assistance programs; there are many. And the waste of water. County Commissioners, you're part of the tool, and community consensus. Community consensus is actually the collaborative decision-making process. No votes, no debates. It avoids conflict. For your better understanding of what consensus is, if I said to you, Gentlemen, do you see any harm or do you have any disagreement with me on the fact that our water needs protecting in Kerr County? Silence. No response implies that a consensus has been reached. Not a one of you is accountable under a vote. The process is designed to take the public policy-making function -- public policy-making function away from elected officials and place it in the hands of professional bureaucrats, while giving the appearance of public input in the decision-making process. ii I I l ~ i' 111Q'wm id1 k 66 ,~"` 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But, remember, gentlemen, it's already been predetermined, preplanned, and the outcome has been preconceived. My hope is that you will be able to visualize this in all the issues that you are faced with, gentlemen. And, some of the main focuses -- the common focus of every sustainable policy is economy, environment, and social equity. You will never find any -- anyone to say that those issues are not important. Economy is vital, environment is vital, and social equity is vital. But you put a political agenda behind it, and I don't think I have to describe it any farther. This is the history of what's occurring immediately and over the past two years that I am aware of. I've researched this for two years in Kerr County. The process of implementing sustainable development policy is now occurring in Kerr County and in 21 other counties. It started with a visioning council in 1996 in targeted counties. I happened to be invited as guest to one of these new visioning councils. It had 12 members on it. One of the segments of the council wished to be called a Sanctuary Group. It was financed by an interactivity foundation out of West Virginia, to the tune of 51,000 a piece. I don't know what the facilitator was paid. You will find documentation of all that. You'll find tax returns, you will find papers going to the interactivity foundation. I don't know what interactivity foundation has for Kerr County. Thirty-two -,~r-__ ------_ _ - i . I ;11~-I~t G 6? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 County Judges were targeted with the soft-sell approach. We're seeking endorsements from organized, recognized organizations with existing community or area assistance programs. The 1998/99 Roundtable -- Hill Country Roundtable Committee is a product of the 1996 visioning councils or next-step councils, the outcome of that. The roundtable members were selected by surrounding county visioning councils. The visioning councils for the roundtable committee were voted on by the community they wish to recognize or reorganize. No vote. No election. No one in my community had an input. The objectives of sustainability councils is land use control, loss of private property rights, stop urban sprawl, ecosystem management, reinvent government. For example, Executive Order 13083. If you are not familiar with that federal Executive Order, it simply says -- it begins beautifully. It`s in your packet. Statements are all wonderful till you get to the very bottom line, and it tells you gentlemen that when and if the federal government finds a 'i reason, whatever it may be, that they do not approve, or they feel that they have reason to become -- what would be the correct word? They feel that their issues are important and must occur as they wish in our county, then they can so do. It simply takes your authority away. And it is, at this point, not dead; it is quiet. However, it is going to come I ~ I HIPS IWE 68 /^ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at you again through the national government -- National Governor's Association. And the reason for that is the national I.D. system. So, it's coming again; it's not dead. But I do ask you to watch that, because I prefer for you to handle my business. Also, these councils give the appearance that it's the reorganization of society as a result of local initiative and reflects local desires, and I would ask Carol Schreiner to now discuss the Hill Country Roundtable. MS. SCHREINER: Good morning, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Morning. MS. SCHREINER: After an article appeared in the Kerrville Daily Times announcing the meeting of the Hill Country Roundtable and inquiries were made of a local resident on the committee, we, the Hill Country Cattlewomen, decided it was in our best interests to attend. Two of us went with a member of the Texas Justice Foundation from Boerne, Texas. The newspaper had led you to believe that they would be discussing what was best for the Texas Hill Country as far as land use and water management, and which of these issues should be lobbied for in Austin. The meeting was held at the Bamberger ranch in Johnson City on October 23rd, led by Mary Sanger, Texas Center for Policy Studies, Paul Suggs, Texas Association of Counties, and Jim Lewis was the lobbyist. I _ 1 I I I I'' 1141iG IWi f. 69 r^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 After some questions were asked of the committee, it was learned that the funds -- it was funded by grants from several foundations, such as Penney's, Robert Ayres Foundation out of San Antonio, and the Meadows Foundation. The first half of the meeting was commentary about the procedures developers should follow when planning subdivisions. To file plats with Counties before subdividing with the County determines their own futures, citing lawsuits that fought for subdivision regulations to protect the purchasers, sewers, streets, water. They were conservative in their government regulations. They stated that low-income subdivisions in cities put extra children into our school systems without substantial tax base, citing colonias as an example. The second half of the meeting was a different story. The tone changed. Bob Patterson, a professor at the University of Texas School of Architecture and Planning, discussed citizens' strategies to plan the future of our communities. Verbiage like "quality of life," "consensus," "community-based planning," "participatory planning," "broad-based consensus," and "stewards of quality of life" for the Texas Nill Country, citing developments in upstate New York, the Tughill Commission, Barnstable County, Massachussetts, the Chesapeake Bay area, National Heritage Corridors, and Bluegrass Tomorrow. I. I I I 1 gkIIG IYi k 70 r"`. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 If you've done any research at all or read anything about environmental issues, bells had to begin to ring. These are all the buzzwords that alarm a property owner which -- who wishes to protect his or her personal liberties given to us by the United States Constitution. Committees like the Hill Country Roundtable want to be the driving force behind you gentlemen, our Commissioners Court, and want land use control and sustainable development. We have to be very careful not to relinquish the control of our futures to committees like these. What do we want to accomplish that is not being accomplished by other means? Most of the matters can be accomplished through basic concepts of conservation through the protection of our private property rights, lust like the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. We can get the money from the government without having to have that designation. We need to remember that we believe in the protection of our rights under the Constitution, the U.S. Constitution. And we need to be ever watchful of the green movement and other radical environmentalists dictating what they think is best for our community, and we need to keep control of our future with the Commissioners Court. Thank you. MS. SPENRATH: Thank you. That brings our presentation to a close. Sustainable development is a preconceived political movement with its own agenda. Just a ~'^, i ~ u w ~w w, .. 71 ,~. !^'` 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 couple questions for you gentlemen. I don't know that you can answer them now. What can councils or committees do that can't already be done through current local governments and elected officials? Before the designation policy, were there not already funding and policy in place to assist impoverished areas, such as Center Point? Does it take a designation to get them their funding? That's what I'd like to know. Because, in turn, when you designate, there has to be a reason behind it. Thank you, gentlemen, for your time. Are there any questions that you might have? JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not at this time. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you very much. We appreciate your time in bringing that issue to our attention. At this time we'll take a 10-minute break; let's reconvene at 10 minutes to 11:00. (Recess taken from 10:90 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Court will now reconvene. At this time we'll proceed with the regular agenda. Except Ms. Pieper is not here. Neither is Ms. Nemec. Okay. Let's go, then, to Item 2.8, consider and discuss allowing Solild Waste Department to advertise for part-time Code Officer. This is essentially what we discussed earlier when we were taking up the minutes. Does anyone have any questions? ~''` I II I I' .Y6 PW 'Yi 4 72 ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a comment or two about the proposed advertisement. If Glenn were available, I'd like to make that comment to him, but -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't you make your comment for I the record? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the record, I think that the advertisement should be changed lust a little bit, the sentence that says, "This position also requires..." I think it should say, "This position" -- there he is. Just in time. MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I'm not the Judge, but yeah, we're talking about it. I just got to make a comment, Glenn, about your proposed advertisement, the language. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where it says, "The position also requires community education program," I'd like it to read in the advertisement, "Position also requires the ability to prepare materials and present community educational program." MR. HOLEKAMP: No objection. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. HOLEKAMP: Absolutely. I was -- with your background in the newspaper, i was hoping for a little bit of __ - -- .. _ 73 ~^ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 help with cleaning that up. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No charge. MR. HOLEKAMP: Appreciate it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone else have any questions on this? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The only thing I had was prior to our amendment this morning, i really thought that the authorization to advertise was in the -- in the motion. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was implicit? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Prior to. JUDGE HENNEKE: Right, prior to. I understand. Any further -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, that's all. JUDGE HENNEKE: If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we authorize the Solid Waste Department to advertise for part-time Code Enforcement Officer. MR. HOLEKAMP: One question. JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes? MR. HOLEKAMP: Is the -- the closing date, is that acceptable to y'all as far as the dates are concerned? f"`` ~,. i ; I G ;III!'~~' !@~ ,~"` /^ r.., 7 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 74 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's your department. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever you feel. MR. HOLEKAMP: No problem for y'all? JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You might want to talk about how to spell closing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Just -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks okay, other than that. JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you, Glenn. MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll now return to -- MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry, I was checking on your prescription. JUDGE HENNEKE: Don't say that on the record. MS. NEMEC: I was. JUDGE HENNEKE: Return to item 2.7, consider and discuss revising Kerr County Personnel Policy. Our esteemed Treasurer, Ms. Nemec. MS. NEMEC: Thank you. Sorry. The policies that we are working with now were adopted in February of '96, so ~ i I. !IUi'~~'l~! l ~"` rte. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 zl 22 23 24 25 75 we've been working with those for three years now. And, I have several revisions -- recommendations to make some revisions to them that I think would work good for the County, and also benefit employees. And there's some steps that I would like to take in -- in revising them, rather than I 3ust work on them and revise them and bring them to the Court, since it's not only going to be me that's going to be having to work with, them but the other departments, as well. And, one is to make revisions to the policy; I would do that. And, the second after that, send a draft copy to all elected officials so that they could review them, and then hold a workshop with elected officials and department heads and get their input. And, at this time, when we have this workshop, I think it would be a good idea to have someone from the Court there as well, either one or two Commissioners or the Judge, whoever. And then get the input from them, and then make revisions further, if needed. And then, after that, I would send a revised copy to Richard Slagel, the personnel specialist over at TAC, and have him review the policy. He did come down, I guess, about a month, month and a half ago, and we went through the policies together, and he also made some recommendations to it. So, then, after he would review that, then I would bring it back to the Court for approval. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions? ~ i I G illl'w'I~I t ,~'~ I i 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 76 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's great. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's great. Only one question. When you send out the revisions, are you going to have -- like, frequently, I think, you've done -- you draw a line through the old language and show the new language. MS. NEMEC: Yes, so you can see what's being revised. And there -- there aren't too many things that need to be changed, but there are a few things in the policies that we're currently not doing, and -- and it was, you know, the advice of Richard Slagel that they really don't need to be in there. So, if we're not going to do it, they really need to be out; we don't need to have it in there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be good. JUDGE HENNEKE: Can you give us a quick description of what the revisions are in the areas you were contemplating? MS. NEMEC: A major part of the revisions is going to be the drug policy. If you read the drug policy now, we -- there's an E.P.A, part in there that -- that currently we don't have in place. And -- and in this workshop, these are things that we can talk about. We don't have to have that in there, and it's Mr. Slagel's recommendation that we don't. This is done more in the private sector, but it's it's, you know, up to us if we want to do it. So, just issues like that that are going to -- that we need to talk about. r^ ~ ~ ! G !Ill;al !IIE E r 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 77 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? Drive on. MS. NEMEC: Okay, thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Now that our County Clerk is here, we'll take up the -- MS. PIEPER: I'm sorry, gentlemen. I got back to the office and -- JUDGE HENNEKE: -- take up 2.6, approve annual accounts of the status of investments pursuant to provisions of Section 887(b), Texas Probate Code. Ms. Pieper? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ms. Pieper, before you get into that, would you explain to me what this -- I don't recall ever seeing this. MS. PIEPER: I don't -- it's my understanding that you have never seen this. I could be wrong. But, according to the Probate Code, that Section, 887(b}, I am required to show you this report no later than March the 1st of each calendar year. This is accounts that the County Clerk is directed by court order to deposit funds in different accounts, and once a year we have to make a report of each account. We -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: (to Ms. Nemec} Do you track them along with her? MS. PIEPER: No, sir, these are just completely 78 r ~"`. r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 separate. These are completely tracked in our office. Depending on what the Court order says, it directs the County Clerk to -- as far as what bank to put it in and if we have to put it in an interest-bearing account and such as that nature. COMMISSIONER to invest monies, huh? heard of it. It blows the only one that had MS. PIEPER: COMMISSIONER course. BALDWIN: I mean, me away. that resp So, this BALDWIN: County Clerk has authority I'm not -- I've dust never I thought the Treasurer was onsibility. is the -- And the District Clerk, of MS. NEMEC: What kind of money are you -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: A lot. MS. NEMEC: From what source? MS. PIEPER: Probate Court, civil court, guardianships. MS. UECKER: Court registry funds, court-ordered. JUDGE HENNEKE: What's the total, do you know a ballpark? MS. PIEPER: I've never added it up, sir. I don't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I bet it's half a million dollars. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that represent all of --- --r- - i . i i~~ ws 79 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it? MS. PIEPER: This represents all of them, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's one for $291,000, one for $60,000, so we're at $350,000. MS. PIEPER: Some of them are recent that have been opened up in the last year or so, and some of them, from what I understand, have been here for a good while. Until a child reaches the age of 18 or whatever the court order states. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then what happens when the child reaches 18 or whatever the court order states? MS. PIEPER: Most of the time, the court order would state that we would release the money to the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To the child? MS. PIEPER: To the child, who is now an adult. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. Jannett, do you basically follow the investment policies established by the Court to manage these funds, or do you have a separate method by which you invest these funds, different from the investment policy? MS. PIEPER: We have to go by whatever the court order says. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because the County sets some investment policies for the Treasurer to follow. MS. PIEPER: Basically, the court order will just say that we're going to put it in First National Bank, so L. I I li i6616c II YI l 80 ~~ /" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 that our -- my bookkeeper goes down and -- with that court order and opens up the account, along with the check. MS. NEMEC: So, the money's not actually invested; it's just in an account? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're just kind of a custodian of it? MS. PIEPER: Interest-bearing account, if it states in the order. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the record, I would like one thing -- a comment -- I made, probably, a false statement a minute ago. The $290,000 appears to -- most of that's been paid out, which is the largest one of these, so we're probably looking at less than $50,000, as opposed to $900,000. So, the $291,000 shows the total balance to-date is $166. So, I mean, if I'm reading it right, there's not much in that, actually. It originally had $291,000. MS. PIEPER: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's been disbursed in some manner. MS. PIEPER: And it's all disbursed by court order, as well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions? If not, I'd entertain a motion to approve annual account, subject to the provisions of the Texas Probate Code, 887(b). 1 I 1 I 11 IY411M IWf f 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So move. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.} JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you. MS. PIEPER: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll next jump all the way to Item 2.10, consider and discuss passing burn ban resolution. I placed this on the agenda. I'm not sure that this is something we need to do at this time. I put it on the agenda largely because I understand that Kendall County has instituted a burn ban, and Bandera County is seriously considering one, if they haven't done one. It is real dry out there, but I have not had calls from the fire departments or the volunteer fire departments -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- regarding this, so I put it on the agenda. If you want to adopt it, fine. If not, I think we'll need to keep a close look at this. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had a call on my message line from former Commissioner Lackey, who said that there _~T---- i II L ;CIlG'I~1 82 F'"^ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have been several fires out of control in his area, and urged us to do that. COMMISSIIONER LETZ: Well, I've -- at this time, I don't think it's necessary. I visited last week -- you know, in the past, we had -- you know, Bruce was out in the west and Butch -- we kind of had people more out in the -- I guess, in the country, per se, than we currently have on the Court. So, I took the liberty last week of calling the Kerr Wildlife Management Area and talked to their Director, Don Priour, and Bill Armstrong, probably the expert on fires in Kerr County, and they both recommended we do not do it at this time. I talked with Bill Reiter -- William Reiter and Mr. Franklin with Soil Conservation Service, and they both also said they would urge you not to do it at this time. The reason is that this is the -- the main month for controlled burns. And the benefit -- while this is -- we're getting into a dry situation, the benefit to rangeland far outweighs the risk of fire right now. In fact, while we are dry from a rain standpoint, we've had -- most mornings are fairly similar to what we've had this morning, and, if anything, we're having a problem getting fires to burn, from a prescribed burn standpoint. They both felt that it would be premature -- both institutions felt it would be premature right now to do it. If we don't get rain by early March, it /'` -- _ _--- -_. _. _ __-- --T I I I I; L@lliw''I@d l 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will be something we probably should reconsider. And they also didn't have a problem with us saying that it -- a burn ban except for prescribed burns, where people are following set procedures, whether they're done by individual ranchers under their own management plans, or through Parks and Wildlife or Soil Conservation Service. They're real concerned that we -- I think think that's what, actually, Bandera County did, is exempted prescribed burns from its burn ban. But I just don't think it's that critical right now. We're about to get -- the warm weather stays much longer, and even as dry as it is, we'll get a lot of green growth, which is going to deter it little bit. So, I don't really think -- we probably should wait a little bit. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in agreement with Commissioner Letz. I notice that the -- those guys out in the Wildlife Management Area, that really -- burning is a science to them. You know, they factor in many, many things, and the month of February is that month that they do all their stuff. And, I'm in agreement; I think we're okay. I noticed a lot of people burning all weekend, though. Lots of brush fires. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what we need to be careful about. I think it's included in the book, the rainfall, and we had 1.73 inches in December, which is slightly less than average, but we had .05 inches in January. And, to my ~M ue.. w. e 84 ~~ ,~^ r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 knowledge, we've had no appreciable rain so far in February. So, I -- I think I have no problem with deferring this issue, but I think we'll bring it up again, probably, the first of March if we don't have some significant rainfall. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd ask the same with regard to the two papers, to write articles that -- you know, to make people aware that -- I mean, fire is a problem. The winds have been pretty strong this year, and they probably will continue. We need to be aware of it. And if you are going to burn, you should have a prescribed management plan or plan fox burning. And, I think ranchers that don't have that, they can contact Soil Conservation or Parks and Wildlife for assistance. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moving right along, we'll take up item 2.11. Again, this is one that I put on the agenda, consider and discuss approving resolution requesting the State Legislature to allocate a portion of the Motor Fuel Tax to counties for support of the county road system. This resolution and the resolution which we'll take up next were urged upon us by the Texas Rural Judges Association at a meeting I attended in Llano the end of January. The purpose of the resolution is obvious, which is to ask the State to return to the counties some of the motor fuel tax money which is currently captured and not totally utilized at the county level. Does anyone have any questions? ~ • a u~ 85 ,r- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- is there any bill pending that we should reference or we could reference or -- in a cover letter? JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I'm not aware of any bill that's pending on this specific issue. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So this will just be something we would forward to Representative Hilderbran and General Wentworth just as a bill for their consideration? I mean, I'm in favor of it; I just want to make sure that we're targeting the correct -- I think it's a good idea. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion to adopt the resolution as presented, and authorize the County Judge to -- at our request, the County Judge to send it to the representatives. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz to adopt the resolution, seconded by Commissioner Williams. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.} JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Agenda Item 12 is a comparable resolution from the Texas Rural Judges -, I, I 11 IRN~4, I~Yi 4 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 Association. This resolution would request that the State assist monetarily with the cost of capital murder trials, which, in some of the real small counties, has flat bankrupted them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Check with Bandera. JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Check with Kerr. JUDGE HENNEKE: As a matter of fact, I think there's one county in west Texas where the cost of a capital murder trial was actually a deterrent to an indictment, that I'm aware of. Any further discussion? If not, I'd entertain a motion to adopt the resolution. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I so move. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Second by Commissioner Letz. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think there is an actual bill on this one floating around. JUDGE HENNEKE: Probably. Motion carries. Next item is 2.13, consider and discuss Census 2000 Participant C~ 87 ,r.... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 Statistical Areas Program. This, again, is my agenda item. I've provided for each of the Commissioners a brief discussion -- description of what this program is. Basically, the Census Bureau has come to us and said, We want you to redraw the population and census borders for your county, which are artificial. Say, so many people live in this block, so many people live in this block; you have minorities here, you have minorities there. They've given us the opportunity to do that ourselves, rather than have them do it for us. The initial deadline to have this done was February the 12th, but we have written off and received a 120-day extension. I've discussed this with T. Sandlin. He thinks that, based on mapping that's available through the 9-1-1 program and other programs, that we can accomplish this. I bring it to the Court, really, lust as an informational item so that y'all know what's going on out there. It's something that we need to do ourselves, because many state and federal grants are based on these population blocks and census tracts. So, in a nutshell, that's what this is all about. Does anyone have any questions? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is not sampling, as we know it? JUDGE HENNEKE: No, this is not sampling, as we know it. It has nothing to do with sampling. r" i. I 1 IfH~G ' Y~ 4 88 o,.,, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does it require an action? JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't feel it does. I really just bring this to the Court's attention. I think when we do -- when we do have the lines redrawn, we will bring them back to the Court for official adoption. So, if there's no further discussion on that, let's proceed on. Item 2.19, consider and discuss formally accepting the resignation of Constable, Precinct 3, and process for replacement constable. I've included if your packet Mr. Shaw's formal resignation, as well as a brief description of what a constable is. Why don't we do this in two steps, and first take up accepting the resignation of Constable Shaw. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner Letz and seconded by Commissioner Baldwin that we formally accept the resignation of Mark Shaw, Constable of Precinct 3. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Commissioner Letz, it's your precinct. How do you want to proceed? ~~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should probably just ~~ ~ f 1541n;.0.Yf l 89 r"`` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ask the papers to publicize it and have -- if anyone comes in, direct our administrative assistant to let them know, as well, that we will be accepting resumes during the next -- during the time period so that we can have it on the agenda for our first March meeting, and at that March meeting, look at the applicants and make a choice from that group. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you intend to make a recommendation after talking, perhaps, to J.P. Tench? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I mean, I probably -- I'm sure I'll have a recommendation. I'll visit with -- I know Angel Garza is one who's showed an interest; he's in court today. And there may be others. And I will visit with Judge Tench as well, see if any he has any recommendation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it required or just preferred that applicants live in the precinct? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's required, but I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: No. I have some information on that on my desk. It really doesn't. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It -- I think -- help me here a little bit. I think it -- it says that -- I can't remember the -- MS. PIEPER: As far as the constitution, it is not required to appoint someone in the same territory. r^ I I I I' !mlf3~a ll~t 90 /" r.^. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, the word "territory." MS. PIEPER: However, the Texas Election Code, as far as an election, you are required to live in that territory for six months prior. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But the definition of "territory" is what we don't know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if we appointed someone and the individual did not live in the territory -- appointed somebody for the unexpired term of Mr. Shaw -- MS. PIEPER: I called TAC in reference to that, and they just suggested that we get an opinion from our District or County Attorney. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my preference, certainly, would be to have a resident from the precinct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think I would recommend someone outside of that precinct. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be the procedure. We'd ask the press to publicize that. And, any resumes or applications should be sent to myself -- to the Judge or myself? Or -- JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd defer to you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To myself. And I will visit with Judge Tench. 91 /" 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, you're going to come in here the first meeting in March with a recommendation? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, one that I recommend. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good. That's what I want to hear. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions? Everyone clear on that? All right. 2.15, consider and discuss adopting Rules of Procedure, Conduct, and Decorum at meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. You have in your packets some proposed rules. These are based on some rules that were discussed and passed out as examples at the training session which Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Griffin and I attended in Austin. It appears, basically, to memorialize how we do our meetings currently, and it's really just useful in any public procedure to have a set of written guidelines and procedures that people can rely upon. Does anyone have any questions or discussion regarding the proposed Rules of Procedure, Conduct, and Decorum? COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comments -- I don't have any problems with coming up with something, but, like, there is some duplication in this with the court order that we did the first or second meeting regarding the agenda items and things of that nature, and I would -- my memory tells me that we acted on something similar to this in the past couple years. 92 e,.., ,.-, 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I know we did something regarding time limits, it seems, in the prior Court. And, you know, I'd hate to see us have duplicate documents for the same basic topic. I'd like to -- really, I don't have any problem with the content of this, but just make sure we end up with one document, as opposed to having numerous or more than one. I think there definitely -- number one, I think, is to make sure that they're in, you know, exact agreement in the language. And, one point that I remember is regarding, I think, Item 3, talking about getting items on the agenda. I think the verbiage should be -- you know, to avoid confusion to the public -- exactly the same in those two orders. Or repeal the prior order and make this one all-encompassing and add things that were in that order and not in this one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frankly, to me, that would be preferable, so you don't have any ambiguity, make this the document by which we conduct our business. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there are some things on this that are not -- that we talked about at that earlier -- that are not here. JUDGE HENNEKE: The early order is specific to the agenda, so it's much more specific. It talks about any specific item must be approved by the Commissioner of that precinct and things like that, which are not in these rules. G ~llfw''I~! 93 ~^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We can merge the two; we can do whatever we want to. I think that, however, I would like to suggest that we do proceed along and come up with some acceptable Rules of Procedure, Conduct, and Decorum. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I agree. I think it's a good idea, so we have something to fall back on that the public is aware of. The only other area of concern I had is the issue on time limit. And -- I think it's good to have it, but if we're going to have it in writing that each speaker has a limit of 3 minutes, I think we have to enforce it all. And, the -- I know that has been a rule as long as I've been on the Court. I believe we've had -- I guess we didn't. We talked about about putting it on the prior Court. We didn't put in a 3-minute time limit. I think wP nPac3 t~ really think about that. We almost need to get a clock so that the speaker is aware of the amount of time they have, and do it in the manner that the larger cities seem to do. In Austin, I know, you see their time on TV; in San Antonio the speakers are aware, and it is -- the button is punched when they start and it's -- you're cut off the at the end of it. I think it needs to be -- do it that way or don't do it at all. I don't see it -- you know, to -- it seems kind of ambiguous in here to leave it up to the clerk to keep track of it. I mean, that seems like it's an extra burden on that person, to me. 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess I have one question about that. We talk about each member of the public who appears before the Commissioners Court, limiting them to a maximum of 3 minutes. I guess we're not stating -- we're talking about that applying to speaking for or against a particular issue, not a presentation to us as we've had this morning? JUDGE HENNEKE: No, that's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That will be a nonagenda item. JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. Or, like, a good example was the resolution regarding Center Point, you know. We could have, under these rules, limited those people to a certain max period. And we may have other occasions when there are a large number of people wanting to speak, that we may want to limit our time in order to maximize our -- our efforts. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This morning's issue -- at the end of 3 minutes, you're not going to tell General Schellhase and Bob Rector they have to leave? JUDGE HENNEKE: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm certainly not. JUDGE HENNEKE: If they are presenters -- if you look at the next paragraph under that issue, -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. ~- - - - - - - _ _ __, -rr_---,~ r-n~mnr^~rRr, 95 /'` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- it sets forth -- and these are just discussions -- that any agenda item is limited to 30 minutes. They're the presenters of the agenda item. Their time does not -- they're not limited by the 3-minute rule. They are limited by the 30-minute aggregate. That's what we want to do. That may not be enough; we may want more, but we all have to understand that if we say each speaker can have 10 minutes, they're likely to take 10 minutes. And, if each agenda item can be 45 minutes or an hour, some of them are going to take that long. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, I agree. I think that -- in my mind, 3 minutes may not be enough and 30 minutes for an agenda item is probably too long, I think. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that, you know -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 5 and 20 or something. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5 and 20, 5 and 15. If you can't make a presentation to us in 20 minutes, you need to redo the presentation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Along the same token, if it can't be said in 3 minutes, it can't be said. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. You know, but I just -- you know, my concern is us passing a rule that we're not going to enforce. I think if we're going to do it, we need to enforce it. ~^ ~ II I~lli'~ !I&t 96 >~ .~^ r~"- 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And another one of those, in Paragraph D, proper attire is mandatory? Who says what proper attire is for men and women and children? JUDGE HENNEKE: At any public forum discussion, that comes down to what a majority believes. But, I think -- I think it's -- I really don't want to get down to defending proper attire, but I think, surely, if someone came in here in a bathing suit and a tank top, we'd all agree that that was not proper attire. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I would agree with that. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, I understand your concern, but I'd hesitate to even suggest that any of the good citizens of Kerr County would come inappropriately attired to this Court. Why don't we -- does anyone else have any specific comments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nothing, other than are we going to -- personally, I'd like to have a couple of days to be able to go back and pull up -- see how many previous court orders we can find and just kind of see if we can compare them and just have the opportunity to clean it up. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that's what my suggestion was going to be, that let's defer this. Provide me with any comments you might have, any suggestions you might have. I'll take another run at it and we'll put it back on the agenda, if not in two weeks, at the first meeting in March. ~r V I~IIII'.'ICI l /"~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that sounds good. I think we need to get something. I think it helps us. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like most of it. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Turning next to Item 2.16, consider and discuss hiring a construction consultant to oversee Phase II construction. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last -- it was Monday, Commissioner Griffin and myself interviewed the applicants that we submitted for the consultant position, and we had four people that were all qualified that we interviewed. And our recommendation is to go with Keith Longnecker. He's a retired architect with a great deal of engineering experience. He has done things similar to this, and -- or, I guess, in his professional career before he retired. His rates are, I think, great. I'm surprised we can find someone who's willing to do it at the -- at -- it's $25 an hour, with a commit -- or, I guess, an average of 20 hours per week committed by the County. And, one of the reasons he's willing to do it at that rate is because of Social Security. It's -- he can only make a certain amount, and that brings it out to 20 hours at $25, what he can do and not lose money. I think he'd be here today, except his wife had surgery last week and he is at home with her today, working and getting things situated with her in her convalescent period. But, he submitted the proposal that is included, which I .~"~ ~'^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 98 asked him to prepare, kind of outlining what we'd discussed at this meeting and so that we have something in writing, because I feel pretty strongly, we need to have something in writing when we do this. I think, probably, we should -- I don't know if we need to defer it to our civil attorney for preparation, or if this is sufficient with a few modifications. But, the recommendation is to go with Keith Longnecker at $25 a hour, with a guaranteed minimum of 20 hours per week. One item that I didn't see included in here that I would like to add is -- is the terms of this agreement. I think it should be set out that it goes until substantial completion; the end of this project, standard language, I think, is what -- what the past order said, affirming substantial completion of the project. And I think, at that point, this agreement would terminate, unless it was terminated earlier by either party. JUDGE HENNEKE: Comments? Questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd just like to point out one item here. In his letter to Commissioner Letz and Griffin, he states in here that he -- for some reason, that if he wouldn't be able to to perform his duties, he has a backup with the same name, Longnecker. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not related. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No relation. I just think i"~ i. i ~ li !~ Ilr, I~( I ~'", 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 that is so unique. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also an architect. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the same town. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same town. Keith lives over on Lytle Street, and the other Keith Longnecker lives out in, I believe, Hunt. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's incredible. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Neither one of them in my precinct, though. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're not related. They've met, I believe, you know, when they were in private practice and both ended up moving up here and worked together. Any other comments? Questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-oh. Get his name and address. MR. WALKER: Mike Walker, 1303 Vesper, Kerrville, Texas. Just about Commissioner Letz' comments, I would -- because sometimes things tend to linger on, you might want to consider final completion instead of substantial completion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Final completion? MR. WALKER: Because there may be some things that linger. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And I will also remind the Court that we do not have funds budgeted for this item. ~, G ill III: I~! [. .- ~^'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 loo COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was going to be my next question. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This was a -- a -- I guess, a direction or decision that was made after the budget process. I think it was an oversight by the prior Court. It was just not contemplated when we were going through the budget process last summer. COMMISSIONER WILLAMS: Annual basis would be $11,000 for this gentlemen. We're talking about from March -- from this point forward to October, so the max it could be is, what, $8,000, $9,000, something like that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I would recommend the funds either coming out of Commissioners Court Contingency, if we can, as long as we can. We do not have a great deal of funds budgeted; I'm not sure what the balance is, and not go into Reserves for -- but I think to start out, we could certainly -- for several months, we could just use Commissioners Court Contingency, and as that starts going down, we can go into other funds, reserve funds. I think this is something that was just a mistake on our part during the budget process. JUDGE NENNEKE: Okay. Questions or comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will make a motion that we hire Keith Longnecker -- of 1306 Lytle, so we'll know which Longnecker we're talking about -- to be our consultant in the courthouse renovation project, at $25 per hour with an f^ I ~ I' l 1 rRI.II'd. i141 4 101 ~~ r^ /^~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 average guaranteed minimum of 20 hours per week. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. MS. NEMEC: Jonathan, I'm sorry. In that motion, should you not put that this assistant would also take his place in case he's not able to? 'Cause if he submits a bill under a different name than with this court order, we can only pay -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I will -- you know -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know why that's necessary. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You'd be paying a substitute. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'd pay him, and he would pay him. MS. NEMEC: Okay. So, any bills that are turned in are going to be directly to him, and then he can take care of -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, any subs he hires. MS. NEMEC: That will be easier. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Commissioner Letz moved, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we hire Keith Longnecker, 1306 Lytle Street, Kerrville, Texas, as the construction consultant to oversee Phase II construction. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- should we put it in I. • I I l li Iklli9 'I tlE A 102 /`. r•'` ,~'~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the order where those funds are to come from so MS. NEMEC: (Nodded.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the funds will come out of Commissioners Court Contingency. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or Reserve. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have you to declare an emergency to use Reserve. JUDGE HENNEKE: Funds will come out of Commissioners Court Contingency. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I will get with Keith Longnecker and finalize the -- in writing. JUDGE HENNEKE: Next agenda item is Agenda Item 17. consider and discuss services for and proposed revisions of Courtrooms 1 and 2. Our architect, Mr. Walker. MR. WALKER: Thank you, Judge, Commissioners. I think you've received a plan, a colored-up plan in there in your packet that sort of, very schematically, tells you t he revisions that were made. Linda Decker is not here right now, but, primarily these changes came about as a result of a decision that was made by the District Judges and their 103 ~^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 staffs after the final plan was set. I think what happened, lust to give you a little bit of background, is that they went down and saw the -- one of them had experience in the new courtroom in Boerne, and they didn't like what they saw, even though what we had was nothing like the courtroom in Boerne, but I think it started making them have second thoughts about some of these things. And, since that, they -- they delved deeper into it with their staffs, and this is what they came up with, was that they wanted to make a few changes. Those that you see that are highlighted in yellow, if you can read those, are basically what was made. And this is by no means totally definitive, but that gives you a rough idea of -- of where some of those changes are. It had -- it had mostly to do with a flop -- flip-flopping the court reporter's and the District Clerk's stations, changing a few offices so that they could more easily access their new stations. And then, also, if you look in the old courthouse, that Storage 2 used to be a break room or lounge, and now it -- it has got to be converted into a storeroom, and all of these will entail a minor amount of money. The -- the flip-flop in the courtroom, all other things being equal, will probably be a wash. The item with the storeroom or lounge into a storeroom is probably a couple of thousand dollars in changes, and that is simply because we've l04 r- /^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 got to -- we were reusing a lot of those doors up there. We're not going to be able to reuse this particular one, because we've got to keep a door on it. We had removed that door and put it in a different place, and those doors are very expensive -- like these doors right here, very expensive to replicate. And then, also, she wanted some shelving built in there. So, that is primarily what those were. Is part of this agenda item for me to go over the -- the A.D.A. stuff too? Okay. COMMISSIONER LET2: Also to go over your bill. MR. WALKER: Oh, okay, great. The items in pink there are, again -- and I can go into much more detail if you want to hear it all, but those were the items that are either revised for A.D.A., or we're still in contention on some of these items. If you've got notice, we're having a meeting latex this week to try to thrash some of these out. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mike? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Forgive me. MR. WALKER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, forgive me. I'm saying I'm sorry. MR. WALKER: Well, I'm sorry too. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, let's go back to the yellow, please. i . .u n. w~ 105 ~"~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WALKER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And clear Buster up. I understand the storage room. I mean, I kind of understand the witness benches here in front of the Judge's bench. They want them to be elevated or something like that, as opposed to -- isn't that -- MR. WALKER: They wanted to be on the open side of where they were; the court reporter wanted to be between the Judge -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about these offices, Office 2 and Office 3? What kind of changes are we talking about there? MR. WALKER: Pretty minor. We had to build some shelving and change some electrical in there. But, essentially, what they wanted to do is be on the -- if you`ll look at Courtroom No. 1, see the -- see the desk with two chairs? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. MR. WALKER: Okay. That is now the District Clerk. The District Clerk wanted to be closer to the offices that she needed to get to, and so that's why this Office 2 and 3 are highlighted; we flip-flopped them from the other side. If you look over where it says Storage on the -- what would be the west side of the courtroom, that was their office before. ;~' in: iii 106 /"` r"~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. MR. WALKER: They just need to be more convenient to their office, or offices. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. MR. WALKER: Sorry. Okay. On the -- back to the A.D.A., with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. As I pointed out, there are some things that -- I that we're really having some problems with, and I'd ask, perhaps, the District Judges and Judge Henneke to write some backup letters to help us with that item. In particular, with reference to getting rid of two of the toilets up there, simply because they wanted to make them accessible. We don't understand -- we cannot get a clear explanation on what that is. We applied for a variance; they turned it down. They -- they historically have granted very few variances from what the -- what either the rules say, or their interpretation of what the rules say. But, what it amounts to is that they wanted to take us -- we have shown five toilets there in those three restrooms -- four restrooms. They were going to get us down to two, and we didn't think that that was fair, and so we've -- we would like to go into the appeal process on that. And, for that, we'd like a little backup from the Judges and the District Clerk. Keep in mind that the primary use of these restrooms on this floor is for females; most of the employees are - - ~'- i II l I' 14lIILL; 16t 4. 107 '."", r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 females. And, they're taking away toilet fixtures faster than we can put them in. So taking -- replacing five with two just did not seem to be logical, and so we -- we wanted to do that. The -- the other items were -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mike, are you telling me that the State is telling us that we can only have two commodes when we want five? MR. WALKER: That's right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's not the State -- well, the State enforcing the -- MR. WALKER: State enforces the federal regulations. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I love this country. That is so incredible. And then we will turn around and they're going to require us to have more before it's over with. MR. WALKER: Well, and -- and being of male gender, you would appreciate the fact that they -- by their interpretation of the rules and what they want us to do, we've had to take also a urinal out of one of the judge's toilets back there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, that makes it better. MR. WALKER: So, it's all fair. The other thing that they required, that we still don't understand why, is that they -- they want both of the Judge's benches in ~"` ~ I f t4l U4. ILt ;. 108 ~~ /.. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Courtroom 1 and 2 to be fully accessible. You know, we do not have to put -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Handicapped-accessible. COMMISSIONER WILLIAM3: Oh, handicapped. MR. WALKER: We're not putting the lifts in, because you don't physically have to put the lifts in until you need them, but they're -- we had to massage that around so that we could get a lift in both of them. And the District Judges are not particularly happy with Courtroom 1, but they're willing to live with it, simply because the -- there needs to be room for all the doors to open and close and so forth. So, basically, we eliminated some of their security in getting into the courtroom, but hopefully -- they went along with it. The Judges went along with it. It's not compromising the situation too much. So, that, and -- I'm trying to remember. A few of them were lust door swings, things like that, but these were some of the changes that we had to make. Let me touch on the Texas Historical Commission, and then I'll come back to, if I may, to what our cost is for doing this. Texas Historical Commission, the items you see there in blue. Essentially, they did not like the whole concept of taking the courtroom out of the courthouse -- historical courthouse, and putting it in the annex. ~r~.ir., ut; 109 ,''^, r"~ /"` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 Obviously, we had to have one courtroom in there anyway. What we wound up with in the previous plan that was designed by the previous architect was a situation where we had to run a -- another bridge from -- I'm going to point here, if you don't mind -- from what's now the jury room in the District Courtroom over to the annex. We knew that the Texas Historical Commission would never go along with that, so we tried to compensate here by -- by keeping the bridge close to where it is; actually pulling it back in so it's not so obvious, and making it so that it's comfortable and aesthetically not too intrusive. There's a lot of things on here we haven't shown you, but one of the things they want us to do is -- was to make the dad-gum thing only a 3-foot passage in there, which meant that, you know, somebody in there that got caught in a wheelchair couldn't even turn around, and plus lust being a very miserable space. As you know, that bridge now, if you've been through it, is pretty miserable. So we tried to make it as open and as appealing, as attractive a link as we could. Structurally, it had to be rebuilt, which I've gone through with you before, because of structural problems. So, that is why the elevator is highlighted, because it was a whole argument about the configuration of that. I think that we can probably win that argument. But, again, lust so everybody understands, in -- the requirements are they can i~ I V I W4114i ~M. i 110 ~~' 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 stop you for six months from doing anything, which would cause a severe cramp in our style right now, but they can't stop you completely. In other words, after six months, you can do what you want to. The theory behind the six months is that, if they felt like they wanted to rally the local folks behind them, the local Historical Commission, that they could do that. But, it's lust a postponement; it's not a typical -- it's not a complete stoppage. There's some other things. You see the stairs highlighted; that was simply a matter of they didn't like the way we were doing the ceiling. We've really agreed with all the points that they wanted to do. If you read our letter that we sent back our answer to -- to the Texas Historical Commission about that, and down to the point that we're -- if I can get Linda to agree to it, we will fix this doorway between her office and the workroom, so that's what we're going to meet about tomorrow. They're coming down tomorrow to meet with us. So, these are some of the issues that -- and I haven't gone into all of them, but these are some of the issues. Finding a handicapped secure 7ai1-type fixture was -- was like pulling teeth, because, dimensionally, the ones that they -- the people market that say they're accessible are not. So, we -- we've gone through a whole charade on finding this, and finally they've given us the name of one that they Ws uv wo 111 /~` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 say will meet those requirements, height requirements, clearance requirements, and so forth. That's for those two holding cells that have to be put there, male and female. Now, can I answer any questions about that before I talk about the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: One comment. This is just -- the reason the two courtrooms were put to the new side was -- as Mike said, was to get rid of the second bridge. The reason the second bridge was there is because the Judges pretty much said -- or demanded that they will have security, they need security. And I think they're correct. They wanted a -- a design where they were, you know, not having to walk through a hallway where the people that they were -- would be in the courtroom, and I think that's a reasonable, you know, request from their standpoint. The only way to do that, if we left the courtroom here, was to have a second passage lust for the the Judges to use to get back to their offices. In lieu of doing that, we decided it made more sense in the overall plan to move both courtrooms into the annex, and that it can be configured such that the Judges from either courtroom can get around to where the offices are, and there be secure hallways the those areas. That was the reason we made that decision, basically, a year ago or more. MR. WALKER: Thank you for explaining that. r`` L. I I i I". Ip161L; 'I We 4 112 ~`' /"'` 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mike, the holding cells you just made reference to, are they at the rear of the courtroom? Is that what I'm -- MR. WALKER: Right. If you look on the plan, you see one that's right behind the courtroom, and then you'll see a female holding that's across the hall over there. Those are the two toilet fixtures. We were -- our original plan was to use the two that were left over up here in the juvenile center with the old jail, but we couldn't do that because they're not accessible. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, my second question, then, is how are -- are the prisoners brought up to the second floor? MR. WALKER: Sure. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The old elevator that's in the annex now? MR. WALKER: Yes. That -- that Salle-port and old elevator will be used approximately the way it is -- well, it was when the jail was up there. It is -- it is a secure entry for the Sheriff in bringing those being tried to the holding cell before they go in the courtroom. This elevator is also to be used -- except, maybe, in very secure times, is to be used by employees. You know, we'll have a keypad in that so that people can get in that door, so the judges or whoever, really, can enter from that direction and not have {i I I + II lflFlx IP. 113 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to, you know, traipse all the way through the courthouse. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you said that the director from the Historical Commission is coming tomorrow? MR. WALKER: Yeah. It wound up not being the director, but the director of the Architectural Division is coming with his -- the fellow that keeps writing us letters. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's when you anticipate to get the issues of the restrooms and so forth resolved? MR. WALKER: We will get issues of the courtroom use resolved. That seems to be the main hanging point. And really, it's a matter of what we can do to please them about maintaining the old courtroom, so that someday in the future, should somebody -- some future Court decide that we're going to make that into a courtroom again, take all the little historical -- like the little artifact above your head, those are upstairs also. Those will be kept intact so that all that can be ressurected. .~-~ But, what they had objection to is, like, we were putting holes in -- in the wall, openings in the walls for windows so that Linda could keep an eye on her employees and what's going on. And -- and the microfilm room, same thing. A lot of nitpicky things like that, which I think we can resolve those issues pretty clearly. It's just a step that we've got to go through to do that, but we want to make sure that all the other issues -- see, they haven't answered us on ;, ~n o.,, sue 114 ~`` ~'` 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anything here, other than they wanted to come speak with Judge Henneke and whoever about -- about the reuse of that courtroom. Please understand that we brought -- in every instance here -- and we didn't -- I won't say we were in constant touch with these people, because we weren't, but we brought the Texas Historical Commission architectural representative down here in -- at the end of May, and we went through this plan with her, and at that time there was no -- nothing said about that courtroom. The only reservations that she had was about the connecting-link bridge. And we subsequently showed them that, and, again, they're not real happy with it, but something's got to be there so that -- that portion is taken care of. Same with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. We -- we've applied for a preliminary review of that. And, a lot of the items that were brought up here -- for example, those -- taking those five toilet fixtures and turning them into two, that was not mentioned. So, what's coming up here is a lot of last-minute -- when they get that final review, they're finding a lot of nitpicky things. Well, some of them aren't nitpicky; some of them are pretty important things that need to be fixed. The nitpicky things we can pretty well take care of. It's these big issues that -- you know, that we're losing toilet fixtures or we're I l U~~lllJltE i 115 ~'" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 losing function at, that we feel like they've certainly got to be addressed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This brings us to your bill. We didn't pay your bill this morning. MR. WALKER: Thank you. I'll be glad -- I'm never glad to talk about my bill, but I'm always glad to talk about my bill. Yeah. Our -- obviously, the things with the District Court, I can't give you an exact date, but the early part of June or end of May, that was approved by the District Court officials upstairs as the plan. And, as -- as I think Commissioner Baldwin and Letz can attest, that came up many times, and it went through about three evolutions of people signing and signing and signing, and finally was -- we got the one that said, This is it, and we based our plans on that. And we went through and thoroughly finished the construction documents, the bidding documents with those changes on there. They came back and they started flip-flopping things around, and I can certainly go into detail with you about how many sheets, but we have 13 sheets of drawings to change as a result of these little yellow marks that you see on the paper right there, which are not going to materially, as I told you before, change the cost of construction. So, therefore, we're just doing a lot of, I guess -- not wheel-spinning, but doing things over that, you know, we based our plan on. So, 116 ~. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 once -- once a plan is set, as per our contract, then we finish those plans, and if they change, then we have to come back to you and get approval to spend more time and money. So, if you look at that little spreadsheet, if you want to call it that, that we did for you, that first column of District Court revisions, that's what that's all about. That's $1,028. Likewise, our position on the A.D.A. and the Texas Historical Commission issues are that -- that when we got their -- their tentative approval to -- this is the way things are going to be, and we drew it up that way and specified it that way, and then they're coming back and they're adding other requirements and we're having to spend a lot of time thrashing through those requirements, then we feel like that that is a justifiable expense. In other words, once we've taken their first review comments and we've plowed them into the contract documents, then -- and submitted them, as we should do, as we're required to do, then we've met our obligation. And when they start coming back with more and more things, then we have to sort of raise the flag and say, Help, Commissioners. You know, we choose not to try to absorb all of that. The -- we gave -- in addition to that, we gave a -- in the fourth column there, we gave a tiny bit of help to Commissioners Court in working up the questions to ask the I I I II !~IIP~ IC! 117 r- ,~'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 owner's rep or, as you call it, the construction consultant. And then the last column is for the asbestos abatement, which, frankly, we're not supposed to have anything to do with, as I pointed out to you before at our previous meeting earlier this year. So, we are -- we are doing things there that are considered as additional services -- at least we consider them. I'd also point out that we did not charge you for all of that time. We felt like that we should -- we should -- well, you're very good clients and we wanted to take care of that obligation. But, at the same time, we're asking for a little bit of help in the areas where we should not be expected to do things over and over again. Now, having said that, if you've looked at our copy of our invoice, you will note that we're doing this on an hourly basis against a max fee, which is set as a percentage of the construction cost. After being -- well, I can't say how it was set, but we've established a 6.75 percent guaranteed maximum amount of construction cost. We have then kept a record of everything that we consider as additional services, and we have charged you for a portion of them. The amount of difference there, which you is see as a savings, is -- I guess it's a tribute to your efficiency and our efficiency. In other words, we are saving you that much money over what -- if we were just charging you a straight percentage fee. So, there's some $11,400, almost, of -- of savings there that r ~ ;~-'a'ICIi 118 ~^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is to be realized. Well, you could say, Why don't you just apply these extra items to that? And all I can answer there is, we're not through yet, and we don't know what's going to happen in the construction phase and we don't know how much of that will get used up. Historically, I think most architects will tell you that it's -- we lose money during construction. There may -- this may change somewhat, because when we initiated this contract, we did not know you'd have an owner's rep, and you do. So, we are forever hopeful that we will continue to save you money and that, overall, the net bottom line will be that you came out at 6.75 percent or less. So, I plead my case, and I'll try to answer any questions you might have about that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one. I understand the invoice, Mike, and the anticipated savings, and I understand the analysis. What I don't understand is the cover letter dated August 5, 1998, in which you reference a February 2 invoice. MR. WALKER: Excuse me, that should be February 2nd. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comment is, I certainly -- I mean, I think you should be additionally compensated for h I I G iItl41Pa II VI i 119 r~ ~'` 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the redraws that were caused by County personnel, District Judges and whatever, you know, because they did sign off on that plan. I mean, they formally -- they had to sign it, so this was a final plan, and they have then come back and changed their minds several times. And I think that, you know, that's something that is our fault or their fault, or -- you know, for doing that. Mike shouldn`t be responsible for that. I'm not quite as agreeable to paying additional funds for the A.D.A. and the Historical Commission stuff, because -- you know, I understand at some point your services should not be -- I mean, if you're getting into an appeal process, I think the standard professional services -- that there is an additional amount due. But, at the same time, based on the experience you've had with the Historical -- well, actually, both of them, especially the A.D.A. issue on the renovation of this floor of the courthouse. You know, I would think that you should have known what you were up against with those people in Austin. Because you and I have had several discussions two years ago about A.D.A. and restrooms and things, you know, that were required, and I think -- and I don't -- I think that you should be aware of that phase of construction renovation. And, you know, until you get the final approval from them, you know, I think -- I think that that should be s 1 IR 114 ~. Y7v 120 /'` ~^^ r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 covered. Now, if you're going to appeal some of that, I agree totally, that that should be additional service. I mean, that's lust my point of view, and you probably see it differently. And, also, I do think that you can probably -- there will be some savings to you from your time standpoint, assuming you and Mr. Longnecker are -- can work out a good working relationship where he will save you a fair amount of time during the construction phase. And I think -- I don't know -- I know you've visited with him to some degree, and I think that will be something that you will be able to work with. MR. WALKER: Could have used him this morning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are my comments. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nothing, other than I heard this same conversation over two years ago, exact same conversation. MR. WALKER: May I put something in historical perspective, please? When we signed this contract in '96, the Historical -- the A.D.A. was almost a nonexistent factor in this. We knew we had to submit plans. Knowing now what we have to do, and were we to specifically include A.D.A. compliance into it, I would never have agreed to 6.75, which the Commissioners talked me down from what I can tell you is 7.25. So, I think we need to keep that in perspective, is 1 I I 1' ilCllll II Li i 121 f~~ r"~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that they continue to tighten the screws. And, while I don't think the County has to absorb a lot of that already in the construction cost, I'm asking that the architect doesn't have to -- have to take all of that, either. One thing I didn't hear in Commissioner Letz' comments was about the abatement situation. I'm lust curious if y'all have any problem with that portion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I feel you should be compensated for that, because that clearly, I don't think, was in the original contract. So, I mean, all I -- the only issue I have is on the A.D.A. and Historical Commission, because that is something -- granted, it might not -- in '96, when you entered the contract, you may not have been aware of the problem -- of what you were up against, but, at the same time, in '96 would be when we dealt with the restrooms across the hall. Didn't we relook at this contract at that time? MR. WALKER: I'm still under the same original contract, as amended, but it was amended back in '96. It was to add the lower level stuff. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should have brought that up at that time. MR. WALKER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have that invoice in front of me. What is it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $5,685. - - l I ~ w ix u~ 122 i^- i"'• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MS. NEMEC: $5,085, something like that. MR. WALKER: All I would ask there, if I may suggest, is that what you may wish to do, if you look at my crude little spreadsheet there, which I did get the right date on, the first column is the District Court situation; that's $1,028. The -- I would appreciate it if you would do the $1,028, the owner's rep thing, and the abatement process, and then -- I mean, we're talking about $800 there. I'll split that with you, $850 for those -- for the A.D.A. and the Texas Historical Commission, which I'll be glad to split with you, and go ahead and place that under my regular basic fee, if that would change things -- a couple things. Keep it in mind that we've already given up a good bit of that under the basic fee. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would that change the total to7 MR. WALKER: Of additional $2,515. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the additional service is $2,515? MR. WALKER: Mm-hmm, if you split A.D.A. and Texas Historical Commission with me. I have $1,062 plus -- somebody has probably got a calculator here. $1,062, $1,028, and $425. I got $2,515. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm presuming that's right. That's fine. Wore me down again. _ ~ Tr i l is 7 I I wV ix IMt 123 ~''` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Discussion off the record.} JUDGE HENNEKE: Is it the desire of the Commissioners that we take this up as a late bill? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I think it also -- on that note, I think Judge Henneke and the Court -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Given an opportunity to vote on a late bill because you didn't get it in on time, my vote is always going to be no, unless there are, existing, lust extraordinary circumstances. MR. WALKER: Why was it a late bill, Judge? JUDGE HENNEKE: Because it didn't get in in time, wasn't submitted in time to get on the regular schedule of bills. MR. WALKER: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was pulled out so we could discuss this bill. MR. WALKER: The Auditor pulled it. JUDGE HENNEKE: It was presented to us this morning as a late bill. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think that that was done by Tommy so we could discuss it. So, it would be pulled out for Court discussion, as opposed to being approved as blanket -- I believe that's correct. I'm not -- MR. WALKER: Mindy pulled it out, said she was /'~ 1 ~ I I i, 1 I I a Ykll. plYi 4 129 r r^' 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to pull it out for that purpose. JUDGE HENNEKE: We need to take it up under a different category. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I agree. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To pay $2,515? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Well, plus the basic services of $3,020. MR. WALKER: Well, you need to add $925 to that, because I'm moving that from additional to basic. I still would like -- I still would like to get paid for that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Basically, it's $425 less than what was presented. MR. WALKER: Right. And then the -- I propose that the invoice, then, be changed to 425 -- $3,925 for basic services. COMMISSIONER MR. WALKER: COMMISSIONER MR. WALKER: COMMISSIONER MR. WALKER: COMMISSIONER MR. WALKER: services, instead of $ BALDWIN: Say that real slow. $425? Plus $3,020 is $3,925. BALDWIN: Uh-huh. No? BALDWIN: Yes. Oh. LETZ: Plus? $2,515 would be the additional 2,664. r" ;; t ~~ iu ca 125 /~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which makes a grand total of? MR. WALKER: COMMISSIONER MR. WALKER: JUDGE HENNEK with you and the -- MR. WALKER: services. The same. WILLIAMS: $5,684? Yes, sir. E: I thought we just split the A.D.A. Yes, sir, but I moved it to basic JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we didn't split it; you just moved it around. MR. WALKER: We split it, half between additional services and basic services. It goes against my grand total fee. It just went from one pocket to another pocket. JUDGE HENNEKE: It went from one of your pockets to one of your pockets. It's still coming out of our pocket. With -- MR. WALKER: Well, sir, would you like me to just go back and bill you for the whole $11,200? JUDGE HENNEKE: That would probably dispose of the whole thing very quickly. The whole thing. MR. WALKER: Well, I thought the County would like the savings. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER LET2: So, you basically -- you still ,~" . ~ i ~ ;~ in ~~i 126 .^ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 want us to -- okay, I see what you're doing. That makes sense, what he's doing. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved on what? Give me a bottom line number. JUDGE HENNEKE: Bottom line number is the same. All Mr. Walker has done is moved half of the A.D.A. review and Texas Historical Commission to his basic fee. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. JUDGE HENNEKE: Or his basic fee, and the other half stays as it is. What we've done is we've increased Column 1 by $3,425 and reduced the total of Column 2 and Column 3 by 5425, but the total remains the same. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a guaranteed amount under the basic services, and this is lust part of it. Rather than coming as an additional fee, it is being applied to the basic fee. We're still paying the same amount. MS. NEMEC: So, how much is the hand check for? JUDGE HENNEKE: $5,684. MS. NEMEC: $5,689? JUDGE HENNEKE: Same amount. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same amount. MR. WALKER: Could I also, Judge -- since we haven't made all these -- we haven't made all these changes, .~-4 I i. 1 I I r :{IHin dul 127 ~~ ~"~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what we've done on the -- if you look at the ledger sheet again, please, the -- the actual -- we gave you an estimate to begin with, to make the changes to the Judges' requirements, we which we didn't know what all they were at that time. We'd given you an original estimate of anywhere from $2,500 to $4,500 -- or $3,000 to $4,500 is what we've given you. What we're -- what we were proposing to do is just take all three of those issues, District Court, A.D.A., and Texas Historical Commission, and lump them under the $4,500 maximum. So, what -- I guess, rather than me come back again and ask you this same question all over again, would you approve the $4,500 as the maximum amount, of which you've already paid me $1,878 less $925 to go ahead and implement those changes -- changes on 13 of those sheets, snd reissue them? COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- I agree with that. We're basically saying -- MR. WALKER: Go ahead and finish. JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's do this in two phases. First, let's have an Order to pay the $5,684. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz to pay the $5,684, as revised as far as categories, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. Any further discussion on that? If P""' ' I i. 1 I I II iRllin .'1 Y~ 'r 128 ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not, all in favor, please raise your right hand (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER LETZ; Now I make a motion to authorize an additional -- up to a maximum of $9,500 for Mike Walker to redraw the plans based on the change request from the District Clerk and District Judges, and A.D.A. and Historical Commission modifications. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Some of which -- a portion of which has already been paid under this bill. It's been moved by Commissioner Letz that we approve a maximum of $4,500 for changes to these plans and specifications resulting by the latest District Court revisions, a portion of which has already been paid, seconded by Commissioner Williams. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that, I would suspect -- Tommy's not here to -- we'll have to declare an emergency, go into Reserves for those funds. I don't know if we want to bring it up now or wait for -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Wait for Tommy to bring it back to us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, please riase your right ~• -- , r _ , 129 r^` r^ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. MR. WALKER: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: You're welcome. We are scheduled for Executive Session at 1:30. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. See you all then. (The open session was closed at 1:30, and an Executive Session was held from 1:31 p.m. to 2:10 p.m., the transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) JUDGE HENNEKE: The Court will now adjourn from Executive Session and return to open session. During the Executive Session, we discussed pending real estate matters with our civil attorney, as well as pending and potential litigation with both our civil attorney and Assistant County Attorney. At this time, are there any matters we need to take action on arising out of Exeutive Session? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I move that we authorize the County Judge to join with the Historical Commission in negotiating an acceptable lease with the -- with Schreiner College for the placement of the Union Church on Schreiner College campus property. r"` I L 1 I I I' tGlllx..ll Yf k 130 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the County Judge be authorized, in conjunction with the Kerr County Historical Commission to negotiate a lease with Schreiner College for the location of the Union Church on Schreiner College property. Is there any other discussion on that matter? If not, all in favor, please raise your right hand. {The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Is there any other business we need to enact in open session as a result of Executive Session? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a comment. I did not comment in Executive Session; I chose to do it in open session. I tend to agree with Mr. Prislovsky that there is a right and wrong way to do things, and I'm -- I'm of the feeling that Mr. Duncan was an agent of this County, and whether it is a written contract or just a verbal contract, I feel like that they -- they acted on the belief that he is the County's agent, and we need to honor the man's word and all those kind of things. So, I feel like that if we give -- if we offer any of the money back, we need to offer it all back, and we're talking about the neighborhood of $2,000. - - _ -~r--,~---r-----r,-- ' I f N I I A I IW~IIU: I{y11 4 131 1 2 3 9 5 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that comment. I think that the credit bureau acted in good faith, based on -- in doing work for the County, based on what it believed to be an authorized agent discussing it with them. And -- JUDGE HENNEKE: I -- I'm not so sanguine about that as you all are. r. 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sanguine? JUDGE HENNEKE: People who deal with the County must know that they must have a written contract in order to conduct business with the County if they anticipate receiving compensation for those services. The credit bureau did have a written contract which related to the providing of credit information. MR. SHAW: Are you in open session? JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. They did not have a written contract as it related to collection of delinquent fines or expenses, and I don't want there to be any perception in the public that the County is bound by the representations of an employee who can chooses to go off and negotiate deals, whether within or without of their scope of employment. Anyone wanting to do business with the County must come before this Commissioners Court and get a properly -- properly authorized and enacted contract so that we can legally and Constitutionally pay them. I don't disagree that, perhaps, the credit bureau thought it had go-ahead from i^ 7 x ire;.. us 4 132 .•-~ i"'~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 someone, but they need to come and confirm that with the appropriate officials, which is us. Anyone else? Anyone have any -- anything they wish to move at this time? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if I was to make a motion, I'd like to have the correct numbers to enter into that motion. JUDGE HENNEKE: Ms. Bailey, do you have those? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And are we -- are we reimbursing them, or -- if we -- if we gave them the money back, would it be a reimbursement or would it be payment for service? How do you word that? JUDGE HENNEKE: It would be settlement of a disputed claim. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Settlement of disputed claim. JUDGE HENNEKE: And there are two different -- at least three different amounts in question. MS. BAILEY: Three different types of amounts. JUDGE HENNEKE: Fourteen hundred and some-odd dollars that they have, which we have a claim on. MS. BAILEY: $1,483.65 which the credit bureau is holding, which represents our 35 percent of those amounts recovered. In addition to that, there is an amount which they have paid to us, representing 35 percent of an additional amount that they have recovered, which they claim ,~"` 133 r"'~ ~"'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we owe back to them. There's an additional amount, two checks, one for $80 and one for $275, which I believe is 100 percent of what they've recovered in those amounts, and I'm not clear about whether or not they're claiming a 35 percent right of retention against those amounts, which is why I can't tell you the exact dollar figure. JUDGE HENNEKE: The numbers we're doing battle with right now are 19 -- MS. BAILEY: 83.65 JUDGE HENNEKE: $1,983.65, and the $231, and any --~ and then kind of a category for future monies. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, see, I want to understand it clearly, too. The $231, we have. The $1,483, at this point, they still have? MS. BAILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we claim they owe us? MS. BAILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what is the amount, if any, the County's going to have to remit? JUDGE HENNEKE: That's up to us. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what the question is. JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Prislovsky's proposal to us was that they be allowed to retain the $1,983, They give up any claim to the $231, and I think we need to address the i I7; 4 I I l li iC614a~.llCi l 134 /'` /`- /" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 additional money which has lust flowed in, as well as any future monies. Their proposal was to let us keep the $1,483, y'all keep the $231, and we go away. MS. BAILEY: And call it even, yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I might add that we don't wish to be hit later with a claim for legal fees. JUDGE HENNEKE: For sure. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got that? Did I make that motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I still don't see how we can do it without -- without settling an exact amount. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we have exact amounts. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are y'all comfortable with being kind of generic? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are exact amounts. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, because there's not an exchange of money. JUDGE HENNEKE: We have $1,483.65, the $231, the -- and they release their claim to any additional monies they collected -- they have or may collect in the future. MS. BAILEY: With the agreement that they will then pay those amounts to us as they come in. That's what my understanding of what -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what my understanding was. Did you second my motion? ' I .. 4 I I G ilGI IIM II YF 4 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Did you make the motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure I did. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Second by Commissioner Williams that we settle the dispute with the credit bureau on the basis of permitting them to retain the $1,463 -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $1,483. JUDGE HENNEKE: $1,483.65, that they waive any and all claims to the $231 which they have asserted a claim against, and they -- they further waive any and all claims to any future monies which they may collect -- any percentage on any future monies which they may collect -- MS. BAILEY: As a result of their previous efforts. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- as a result of their previous activities. And that we make it very clear that they no longer have any authority to do collection activities on the part of Kerr County. MS. BAILEY: And is it also part of that motion that Mr. Pollard will draw up the appropriate papers to put all that down in writing and get the proposed releases? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. `T ' I i; p I I li iAUk:i Il if G 136 t" ,~^'~ r^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed? (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. I believe we have to accept information reports. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 3o moved. JUDGE HENNEKE: The last remaining item on our agenda. Would you agree with me? MS. BAILEY: May I be excused? JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, thank you. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE HENNEKE: The only remaining items are informational agenda reports from Commissioners, Road and Bridge monthly report, Maintenance monthly report. Is there a motion we approve that? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The monthly reports? I so move. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Second by Commissioner Williams that we approve the monthly reports. All in favor, raise your right hand. ~, i I C. 1 I I A iWHk II Fi 1. 137 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (The motion was JUDGE HENNEKE: (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: MR. SHAW: I ha JUDGE HENNEKE: the sure for what purpose MR. SHAW: This carried by unanimous vote.) All opposed, same sign. We stand adjourned. ve a question. Can I approach? You're not on the agenda. I'm not doesn't really need to be on the /"~ ~.., record. JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's us adjourn, and then you can come up talk to us all you want to. If there's no further business to come before this Court, we stand adjourned. I'll remind everybody we've set up a special session for 1:30 Friday afternoon to deal with the Union Church issues. Okay, thank you all. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much, Judge. Well run. (Commissioners Court was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.} Tai i is 1 I P l-141G'w'lICE l 138 `'`, ~^ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF KERR I The above and foregoing is a true and correct transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 16th day of February, 1999. JANNETT PIEPER, County Clerk BY : ~~a~r_ ~~clG Kathy Batd~ik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter