<'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 78 19 20 Z1 22 23 24 ZS KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Monday, October 23, 2000 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas i PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 9 2 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 I N D E X October 23, 2000 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments ` 3 1.1 Pay Bills o2 0~~~~~~ 8 1.2 Budget Amendments X66 y6 0 10 1.3 Late Bills 11 1 . 4 Read and Accept Monthly Reports o'T(o!v 97 12 2.1 Introduce new EMS Coordinator to Court 2.2 Concept plan, replat oT Lot 35, Northwest Hills 2.3 Preliminary plat, Tilbury, Precinct 4 2.9 Concept plan, replat of property on Ox Hollow 2.5 Signage for privately maintained roads 2.6 Advertisement for bids, 25-ton lowboy trailer 2.7 Kerr County Courthouse parking lot design 2.8 Construction of parking areas and resurfacing interior roadway, Courthouse Square 2.9 Purchase of heavy-duty printer for Treasurer 2.10 Approval of ad valorem tax refunds 2.11 Change to custodial job description 2.12 Set hearing for LLEBG grant 2.15 Funding methods available to finance renovation/ expansion of HCYEC master plan 2.16 Discuss Water Availability Requirements, set public hearing 2.17 Discuss Manufactured Home Rental Communities Infrastructure Standards, set public hearing 2.13 Renew/seek bids for property, casualty, liability, & health insurance 2.14 Engage Don Gray to advise on insurance matters 2.18 Approving form of County-sponsored contracts 2.19 Designating a day of the week for court to regularly convene 2.20 Change Order #6 --- Adjourned 13 /A~/°"'~" 18 /~'6i~J 26 a6G~ 30 ezG6Y9 38 e267oo 42 x.6701 9 2 aT.6 7 L7~ 47 d67a3 53 d.67O~ ss ac7oS 57 x6706 63 ,~.~ 08 6 5 /~Jx-¢- 9s X709 112 °~~~ 12 5 °?67~~ 12 5 D. Sass 140~7/~ 142 a6~/3 14 3 ~~Ta'-~. 14 4 -"' 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 3 ~ On Monday, October 23, 2000, at 9 o'clock a.m., a special session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. IL's 9 o'clock on Monday, October 23rd, Year 2000, and we'll call to order this regular special Commissioners Court agenda. If you'll stand and join me in a word of thanks and pledge of allegiance, please. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE HENNEKE: At Lhis time, any citizen wishing to speak on an item not listed on the regular agenda may come forward and do so. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda? (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Seeing none, we'll turn to the Commissioners comments. I'll lead off this morning. First of all, Commissioner Baldwin and I had the pleasure yesterday of delivering the Kerr County Commissioners Court Leadership Awards to the Kerr County 4-H recipients, bung Man and Adult Leadership. It's inspiring to go out there and see those kids who spend so much time on their projects 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 and develop leadership and community skills, and it was a wonderful evening and we got out there just before the heavens opened, I think. Secondly, I want to remind everyone that early voting starts today at the Municipal Auditorium. You can vote Monday through Friday this week and ne:ct week from 8 o'clock in the morning till 5 o'clock p.m. at the Municipal Auditorium, So, Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I just wanted to remind everyone about those Tivy Antlers. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: All right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 't'here was a huge -- Commissioner Letz and I were in Boerne at the football game, and it was a huge crowd. I would guess that Kerrville had more folks there than Boerne did, just by looking at the stadium, looking at the size. And, what that says -- I mean, you know, we're all community-minded folks and we're all -- always promoting our community, and I think there's some really, really exciting things going on at Tivy High School and their football program. I mean, this is really exciting stuff. And, this Friday night is homecoming here at Antler Stadium, and if you want to -- as politicians, if you want to get involved in a crowd, buddy, there's one. And you'll have to wear the blue and gold, though. But they scored 60 points against a big-time opponent, and I was visiting with the old coach here this morning. I've been 5 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 watching Tivy- football since 1958. I was 10 years old when I first started watching; still had a rodeo arena in it, but I don't recall ever scoring 60 points. May have, but I just don't recall it. And then I just -- a few minutes ago, just got a report on -- from the weather service folks. They're predicting heavy rains on your end of the county for the next three or four hours, and there presently is a rise out there right now, so act accordingly, I guess. And that doesn't mean that you have to go home, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might not get back. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Might not get back. iAnyway, I guess that's about all. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Commissioner 'Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who is this week's worthy opponent, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- it's Comal County, JUDGE HENNEKE: Smithson Valley. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Smithson Valley. And they're ranked higher than we are. It's the two undefeated teams of the district at show time. So -- and it's going to be really muddy. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Here? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In Kerrville, Antler 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 h Stadium, 7:30 Friday night. COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: I have nothing, Judqe, except to be grateful and give thanks for all tkie rain. Hope it doesn't do any damage to anybody, but boy, we needed every drop. JUDGE HENNEKE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kind of just -- one thing that Commissioner Baldwin left out is to encourage everyone that does attend the game to go to the concession stand and spend lots of money so the Booster Club can raise lots of money. I'd also like to congratulate Comfort; they axe now, I guess, 25 and 0 in the district, placed in the last three years, and continue to run up scores. It's a little more common for them to get up in the 60-point range. I don't think it was quite 60; 50-something to 3, as I recall. Anyway, another huge win for Comfort, and they're on their way to another great year. And, my final comment is one that just really is more for the record, and I already talked to Commissioner Griffin about it, is that I've received several calls regarding an article in the newspaper regarding salary increases at 911. And, I just wanted to let everyone put it forth. I asked Commissioner Griffin to just note the objections that I'm receiving from people in the community about the size of the raise to the employees in 911, which I 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L1 22 23 24 25 think was qucted at I1 percent. I have not seen the budget, and -- but I would say if it is -- if that is the salary .increase, and I think it is, I have a problem, I guess, of them getting a raise which is substantially higher than the .County employees got. Just for what it's worth. I hype you wil] take that forward. Okay, Commissioner Baldwin is (liaison, too, so both of you can take it forward. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right. I have not a Lot to add, except that -- that Road and Bridge are probably going to have some work to do with -- with the wash, since everything had -- we haven't had a wash in so long. I notice that all of the Highway 39 is -- the State's going to have a lot of work, too, but I'm sure many of our -- we're going to start getting a lot of calls on -- on covered roads with mud and -- and debris, because iL's just been so long since it's been washed out. That's all, Judge. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, very good. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; A lot of potholes out there just beginning, I've noticed. I saw one this morning, 'F8 Volkswagen coming out of one of them. I don't know how long it had been there, but -- (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Been there a while. COMMISSIONEP, GRIFFIN; Did it have flowers on it? a 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Painted on the side? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. At this time, do we have any bills to pay, Mr. Auditor? Anyone have any questions or comments regarding the bills as presented? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a motion that we pay our bills. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner (Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize payment of the bills as presented and recommended by the Auditor. Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER, LETZ: Somewhat related question, Judge. On the -- what did the Legislature do in the last session about coming up with some financial help for large criminal trials in counties? Remember, there was -- I think there was a bill. Did anything happen to it? Or did it -- JUDGE HENNEKE: They passed that bill, and -- MR. TOMLINSON: It's almost a hopeless situation. They -- first of all, they don't -- Lhey don't reimburse you for court-appointed attorneys, and that's -- and for most counties, that's the major part of il. 1 submitted that application for -- from Bandera for $26,000. We got $6,200, and it's -- it's a reimbursement thing. You 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 9 don't get the money. You've got -- you have to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Spend it. MR. TOMLINSON: You have to spend it, and -- and submit invoices to the State to get reimbursed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see. I MR. TOMLINSON: Also, to be able to qualify, the County -- the County has to expend more than they receive. In other words, your -- your revenues have to be less than your expenditures. The only way that -- that Bandera County qualified -- it was just a coincidence, that they had -- they had borrowed some money to matoki -- to do some road work, and all the money came in the prior year. They spent it all last year, and so -- so that was the only reason that they were able to qualify. So, it's virtually impossible to get. DODGE HENNEKE: The bill was really designed for the small, rural county that doesn't typically have a capital murder, and if it has one, that just blows their whole budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: i.e., Bandera County. MR. TOMLINSON: It was a substantial aiuount. But, if they're going to disqualify any court-appointed services, then, I mean, that's -- you know, for -- for our experience, that's 80 percent of the cost. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 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 10 MR. TOMLINSON: And so, 1 mean, that -- Lhat more or less nullifies the bill, in my mind. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We have one budget amendment regarding Jail Maintenance. MR. TOMLINSON: I think, originally, the Maintenance Supervisor had attended -- had plans Lor the maintenance person in the jail to be in their contract -- a ,contract agreement. He's tried to work this out, acid seems 'to think that only way he can get somebody is to have them on the payroll. So, this amendment is to set up retirement lain that department. ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Salary's already there? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's -- it's set up as a contract wage, is what it -- I think was what was budgeted. But, he just -- at this point, he's -- he's yiven up trying to find someone to do it contractually. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There will have to be 11 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 another amendment, though, to move it out of the contract line item into salary? MR. TOMLINSON: I think there's -- there's something else on the agenda today. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh. MR. TOMLINSON: I think related to this same topic. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if we don't approve that agenda item, though? How does it affect this right here? I mean, I don't want to approve one thing and not approve another. MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know which agenda litem it is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we do both at the same time? JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we just include this as part of that agenda item? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. JUDGE HENNEKE: Pass on this for now. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: And take this up as part of the agenda item. Are there any other budget amendments? MR. TOMLINSON: No. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I have two from Corporate Express. One is for $783.36, to be paid out of the Permanent Improvement fund. It's for chairs for the District Clerk and the Visiting Judge's office. The other one is also for Corporate Express out of the same fund, and it is also for chairs in -- in the courtroom, and it's for $1,682.20. The final one is from me, and it's for reimbursement for conference in the amount of $619.41. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions or comments? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we authorize payment of the late bills as presented by the Auditor. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this time, do I have a motion to approve and accept the monthly reports? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve and accept the monthly reports. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Let's turn Ito the first item on the agenda. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIuNEF, BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'd like to .introduce the new EMS Coordinator. He's employed by the .City of Kerrville Fire Department. And, of course, you know that we -- we send a part of his salary over there to assist the County in the First Responder program, and so I've asked him to come to the Commissioners Court so I can introduce you to him. And then, at a later time real soon, in the next few days, he and I will sit down and work on a -- a schedule for him to come into the Commissioners Court to give us a -- give us reports. And, Commissioner Letz, I've mentioned to him that you'd like to visit with him, and he's happy to do that. But, Robert Taylor is the new EMS Coordinator. Robert? MR. TAYLOR: Your Honor, members of the Court, I'm not new to the Kerrville Fire Department, having 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 14 been here for 17 years, but this is the first biy promotion that I've received. I was a driver/paramedic for a number of years and decided that I wanted to move up and inter the world, and in a different area than shift work, so I applied and received the position. And I'll try to do the Lest job I can with it. Some of the concerns I think that the County has right now that I'm looking into and trying ~u get a handle on is we have quite a bit of equipment out in the county area with county First Responders. I don't know what the total sum of the value of that equipment is, but we're 'not even sure where all this equipment is a~ the moment, due to changeover of personnel and things of this type, so I am (doing a paper chase and trying to locate all this equipment, (recover it, inventory it, and redistribute to it current (certified EMT's and First Responders. Another program that I want to try to -- that I am going to implement is the Continuing Education program for the First Responders. Several years ago, they had a monthly meeting where the previous EMS CoordinaLur would get together with them and teach classes that were concurrent with what the fire department was teaching to their basic medics. For some reason, this fell by the wayside. I've to assist in teaching these courses. We're going to try to make it a monthly meeting, bring everybody`s cerCifications 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 15 up-to-date and get their C.E. to where they're on the same page that we are. We also have to get their certifications -- as an EMS or paramedic, whatever level you may happen to be, you're required to do a 2-year C.E, report. If you don't do these reports, you stand to lose your certification, and then we have equipment sitting out there with nobody to use it. So, we need to get these people up to speed, and that's the primary package that I'm trying to work on right now, is to bring everybody up to speed, reinstitute and revamp the First Responder program so that the county citizens receive what they deserve in a (top-quality EMS system. I spoke with Buster just very briefly on a (couple of occasions. It was his desire, as the -- and the Court's desire that I make quarterly reports to you, and I liintend to do that. Buster and I have every intention of meeting to discuss what the County's concerns are, and Ltieu I heard today that Commissioner Letz would also like to meet with me, so I'm more than willing at any time. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions for Mr. Taylor at this time? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just a comment. Good on you. I like the paper chase and getting that stuff inventoried, getting it to the right people. That's 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lE something we need to do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- just from the standpoint if you can get with Chief Holloway and see if he's available on the 30th or 31st to meet with Kendall County. MR. TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Regarding the same issue. MR. TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- I've been trying. I believe he was out of town last week; I r_ouldn't get a hold of him. Those two dates have been set aside by Commissioners and EMS Coordinator from Kendall County. MR. TAYLOR: All right, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAM5: Just one question real quick. What's the status of your volunteer situatiuci out there? Is it still -- are you still in need of volunteers, or are you in pretty good shape now or what? MR. TAYLOR: Actually, we are -- we're going to be in need of some. We do have several -- I know that we've got four or five that are committed out in west Kerr County. I know we have one or two that are functioning in east Kerr County in the Center Point area. Beyond that, at this time, I'm not really aware of any responders. I know there's more people out there that are willing and capable, but they -- they need to know what page they stand on. You 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 17 know, some of the people that have responded in the past have either moved out of the area or lost their certifications or whatever, and some of them still have radios. First Responder position is we are trying to regather the equipment that`s already been issued from (people that are no longer responding, and then turn around land reissue it to new -- new responders if they're willing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. MR. TAYLOR: And I've had several people comment that they would like to either continue or become a First Responder. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Robert, regarding First Responders, you might also get with whoever the First Responder is in Kendall County for Comfort, because I know a number of -- because the fire departments overlap in eastern Kerr County. A lot of the First Responders in eastern Kerr County work through the Comfort Fire Department, so you might try to work with them and try to -- I think there's some overlap in the far eastern part of the county, but I think they probably work out of Kendall County, even though they live in Kerr County. MR. TAYLOR: All right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. 18 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DODGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thanks a lot. DODGE HENNEKE: Next agenda item is -- oh, did you have a -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: A question on -- I talked to Cameron a few minutes ago; he wanted to come over when we talked about water availability, and I was wondering -- water availability is 2.16, 2.17 -- whether we want to do it in the morning or put it off till this afternoon when we're doing Subdivision Rules, 'cause they're so closely tied. I don't know if there's any preference. If not, I told Cameron probably 10:30 we'd get to water availability. JUDGE HENNEKE: What's your preference? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any difference to me. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we can go ahead and address that and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And then reset the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just mentioned it to him. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Feed that into our .workshop. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Next item is Number 2, consider the concept plan for replat of Lot Number 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 19 35, Northwest Hills, and a variance from Section 7.07 of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Mr. Johnston. MR. JOHNSTON: I think you have a copy of that -- that plat. This lot was -- this section was divided into three lots. They did a minor replat, removed the lot lines and made it into one lot, and now they want to break it back up into three lots, slightly different, to meet our frontage rules. And they can meet the rules on 35 acid 37 -- or I think it's 36 and 37. 35 is 105 foot, I think, instead 'of 120 -- 105.4 instead of 120. 1 know they're noC -- you Ican't issue, probably, a variance on preliminary concept, Ilbut they kind of wanted to get a feel from the Court if this would he considered favorably before they go to the expense of doing a plat. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I'm going to comment ithat this Court has no ability to grant a variance to their subdivision regulations. It's a contractual matter among the homeowners in a subdivision. If they want a variance as Ito our 200-foot requirement, that's one issue, but we don't have the legal ability to grant a variance to their subdivision restrictions. That's something they'd have to do in accordance with the declarations, restrictions, and covenants. Travis, back me up. MR. LUCAS: I believe you're right on that. 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 zo MR. JOHNSTON: So, they should do this within the subdivision homeowners' -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, there's two issues. There's, one, what our requirements are. Our requirements are 200 foot. MR. JOHNSTON: We11, it's actually 120 foot on lots that are -- that are less than -- between 1 and 2 1/2 acres. I think anything over 2 1/2, it's 200 feet. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would it be appropriate, Judge -- for what you're saying, would it be appropriate for us to consider a variance to our rules with the proviso that they would still have to get some sort of -- something out of the homeowners' -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. I think that when they bring it to us for the variance -- which is not before us today, because all we have is a -- a concept plan. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm, JUDGE HENNEKE: Then I think it would be a requirement that they also demonstrate that they have approval from their own subdivision for a variance from their own subdivision rules. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Before we even get to that, Franklin, if my memory serves me -- and I've spent a little bit of time out there recently -- that this is a -- there is a pretty steep slope going up these particular 21 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 lots. MR. JOHNSTON: I think they are. i COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a very steep slope. And I was wondering about -- have we talked about possible drainage problems out there? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, that would be part of the plat process; they would have to take a look at that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then -- MR. JOHNSTON: During -- between the preliminary and final plat. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the slope of a road going in there, if they were going to build -- MR. JOHNSTON: These roads are preexisting, so I'm not sure if we could make them change the road grades, but -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Well, on these particular lots, the only building places axe up at - in this area up here. They're going to have to build roads up across this property. MR. JOHNSTON: I think those would be in the nature of driveways; not really roads, as such. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't -- okay. You don't consider that as roads"? MR. JOHNSTON: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. What about 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 -- what about this water line going right here? Do we have -- you don't have any problem with that being there and then having the ability to drive over it, and -- MR. JOHNSTON: Anything like water lines have to be covered with an easement. They can drive over it, but they couldn't build. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they Have public water I here? MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm. MR. WELCH: I own the property. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you have any comments? MR. WELCH: No. Just that -- I mean, just that the way we're changing it, we're not trying t~ change where the water lines are or anything. We're leaving it existing easements or something like that. We don't want to change any of that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's Lhe water company? Harper? MR. JOHNSTON: Aqua Source. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aqua Source. JUDGE HENNEKE: Septics~ MR. JOHNSTON: It would be septic tanks. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are the size of the -- 3.43 is total acreage of all -- MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm. 23 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 LETZ: -- three lots Light now? (What will each lot be, approximately? MR. JOHNSTON: This didn't give a breakdown. Do you know what those will be? Obviously, a minimum of one acre, so water -- all will be a little over one acre. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The way it's drawn, it doesn't really look like there would be -- MR. JOHNSTON: Doesn't indicate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if they were to reconfigure -- like I say, there's no way to reconfigure to get the proper frontage. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say that again? COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no way for them to reconfigure the lots to get all of them on the cul-de-sac. I was looking to see if they could not need a variance, but they can't do that. They're already at 60 and 60 on the two lots. MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, on the cul-de-sac, 60 foot meets the requirement. Just one lot that doesn't meet it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm very hesitant about, at this point, talking about granting a variance. Actually, I'd like to look -- MR. JOHNSTON: I understand you'd actually 24 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 have to do that at the preliminary. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that, but you're looking for a -- a head nod here. MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, that's what they want. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm real hesitant about that. I want to get with this gentleman here and talk about some drainage and -- and I want to know about his driveways. Are we going to consider those real driveways for -- 380-foot driveways? Or are they going to be actual i roads? MR. JOHNSTON: Maybe we should meet out there Ion the site. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be good. ~I'd like that. MR. JOHNSTON: Take a look. But, in my opinion, they'd be driveways. Any time you have a -- you know, from a -- from a road to a house, it's not considered a county road or public road; it's a driveway. It's on private property. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'd like to postpone this and let's take a look at it, and then come back and try again at a later time. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At the preliminary plat? Or -- I don't think we'd have to come back for the concept, but if those questions are answered, can they go 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 24 25 ahead and do that? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, they're wanting -- they're wanting to know what -- what our feelings are toward the -- the variance. And, personally, I'm not willing to do that. MR. JOHNSTON: I think they're getting their feedback from what you've all said this morning, I think they've got some idea what they have to meet to do what they (want to do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I mean, from what Larry was saying, that unless tYiey want to come back to the Court, they don't need to. They can wait until the preliminary plat if they want. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine with me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause, I mean -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any problem with that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If they can satisfy I you, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; They may not get the (variance. COMMISSIONER. GRIFFIN: That's right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they d~ satisfy you, and then -- or they can bring it back to us, 'cause the Commissioner can handle the concept plan on kris own. 26 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 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything else on that item? We'll qo to Item Number 3, consider the preliminary plat of Tilbury, Precinct 4. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is Mr. Domingues? COMMISSIONER LETZ: High water? MR. JOHNSTON: He's not here, either. This subdivision consists of two lots. They both face Highway 39, immediately past Cedarstone Subdivision, and they both have adequate frontage. They're 2 1/2-acre lots, so they would have wells and septic tanks on them. Evers though one lot has a river running through it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why -- why i5 he platting this? He just wants to? I mean, he can do it without a plat, couldn't he? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, no, not on less than I10 acres. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What was tkrat? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not unless they're I10 acres. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. MR. JOHNSTON: I guess he's breaking it off a larger tract, wanting to sell those two lots. JUDGE HENNEKE: Raises an interesting z7 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 question. Gn Lot Number 1, it says 2 1/2 acres, but iL looks like about half of that is on the river. MR. JOHNSTON: Half of it's on the river. JUDGE HENNEKE: Does that still qualify as -- as being eligible for a well and an OSSF? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, if you meet the -- if there is enough area outside the fLoodplain -- we'll qet in some of that discussion this afternoon, but if there is enough area to put in a septic system that's out of the floodplain and otherwise meets the requirements, the answer is yes, I think. If there's not, then it's a great 2 1/2 acre site, but you couldn't build anything on it -- or you couldn't have sewer. ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can put a -- some Mother kind of septic system. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Alternate system. It may require an alternate system. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Likely would, by the way it looks. From a well standpoint. MR. JOHNSTON: He has two little shaded-in areas that says two possible locations for OSSF, both of flood lines -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it doesn't say that. It says possible locations for two septics. MR. JOHNSTON: Right, two septics. And the 28 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 flood lines, you know, the other side of that, so it's above the floodplain. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: He may run some 'calculations that the 2,500 square feet is going to be the (requirement. Then he's got two possible sites. I (Charles Domingues walked into court.) MR. JOHNSTON: Just in time, Charles. (Discussion off the record.) MR. JOHNSTON: The question was on Lot 1, like, two-thirds of the lot has a river on it. They're wondering if there's enough space above the flood line here to put in a well and septic and -- MR. DOMINGOES: There's -- this will be served by a public water system. And 7've talked to Charlie about it, and he said that because of the familiarity of the Cedarstone that we just platted, which is just south of this, he said there shouldn't be any kind of a problem wiLli putting the -- a wastewater system on that lot. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who did you talk to? MR. DOMINGUES: Charlie Wiedenfeld. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, I know him. DODGE HENNEKE: What's the public water system out there? MR. DOMINGUES: It really serves Cedarstone, the River Inn, that whole area, as a public water system. 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 29 (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is that one of the Vlasek systems? I don't think Bill's got anything out there. MR. DOMINGUES: I'm not sure. That's what I understand. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could be. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's hard to tell where this is. That's what I was going to chew oci yuu about, Mr. Domingues, is I can't tell exactly where it is. IIn this next two, didn't we recently do one there where John Jobes used to live? MR. DOMINGUES: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; And this is next door? MR. DOMINGUES: Yeah, this is just immediately north of it. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; If you look at the inner map there where -- where the River Inn is, I think that sort of locates it for you. MR. JOHNSTON: On the next plat, we need to put what the public water supply is and put it on there. JUDGE HENNEKE: Just right before you get to tow water crossing, before River Inn. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. (Discussion off the record.) 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions ox conuuents? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would make a motion that we approve the preliminary plat as proposed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve the preliminary plat of Tilbury, Precinct 4. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is Item Number 4, consider the concept plan of replat of property on Oak -- Ox Hollow, and a variance from Section 7.07 of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is this one? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Ox Hollow Road. It's -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right off of Baldwin Road? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, you can get to it that way. Help me, Liz. AUDIENCE: Kelly Creek Crossing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Baldwin Road? 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 31 AUDIENCE: Baldwin Road. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; i'11 let Franklin go through this, but I do want to say I am familiar with this one. This is one I think that -- and it is a little unique. The reason we need to consider the variance is because of the frontage. I personally think it meets our requirement, but, Franklin, would you discuss the issue here of the two accesses? MR. JOHNSTON: The issue here is, will they have adequate -- you know, if the Court deems they have adequate frontage, it does not require a plat. It's a flag lot, as you can see the part that's -- that starts from where the road -- where Ox Hollow veers off, straight down the right-of-way there, 60-foot-wide strip. That black -- that large area in the back is, I think, 11 acres? MR. VLASEK: With the strip, yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, with the strip. So, anything over 10 acres, if it has adequate frontage on a county road, it does not need to be platted, so the question is, is there adequate frontage'? They actually own under the road in that upper area, so they have 89 foot of frontage at that point, at the flagpole. They've secured an easement at a lower place down the road, 30 foot across the side of the property. 32 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 GRIFFIN: Which would acLUally be the driveway to the property. And I think -- let me ,add -- MR. JOHNSTON: Instead of going over a hill, right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And if you look at the topo of it that's just behind that, you'll see that that's a steep -- as you go away from the road, that's a very steep area there. The building site -- tkie nominal and the expected building site would be on the end where the 30-foot easement is. And -- and it doesn't appear to me to be any likelihood that you're going to ever try to see a further subdivision of that property, 'cause there are no other building sites that really are without major excavation and that sort of thing. So -- MR. JOHNSTON: And if they did, it would have to be -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Two accesses. That's the reason I thought we ought to bring it to the Court and -- and try to get a variance approved, so that -- because this is a little unique. There's not just one access, there's more than one. The total's about a hundred and -- MR. JOHNSTON: About 120 instead of 200. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: About 120 feet. And I 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 33 think it's reasonable to grant a variance for this. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that a deeded easement used for the driveway? MR. JOHNSTON: It will be deeded. AUDIENCE: It will be. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Still a concept. They've got the owner's agreement. MR. JOHNSTON: And if it is, if they attempt to do additional divisions on that property, then a road would have to be built along the 60-foot easement, and -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: -- and access it that way. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; You would have to have an additional road platted in there to do that, if you were to ever try to further subdivide. So, this is large acreage; I think it's reasonable access, and certainly meets the -- what I would consider to be the requirements for a variance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The road comes -- it comes here and then goes down here? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that the road? COMMISSIONER GF,IFFIN: Right, that's Ox Hollow Road. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this is nothing here? 34 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's -- that's property back there that's -- that's the flag portion back into this lot. They actually have frontage here of 84 feet, and then an additional 30 feet for the easement. So, like I said, we don't see many like this, where you've got this -- (like I say, the primary access -- MR. JOHNSTON: Six more feet to give it 90; 90 and 30 gives you 120. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can't increase that 30-foot easement? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; Tried several times, several ways. That -- that piece of property that's in between there is not usable for much of anything, but the owner's just not willing to go more than 30 feet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He knows the Subdivision Rules, probably. And this -- this tract here will be how many acres? MR. JOHNSTON: Eleven. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's 11. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This one will be -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Fourteen and a half? AUDIENCE: Fourteen and a half, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's -- it's a flag lot, but it's not as bad as a lot of them. 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 35 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, and with the easement -- that, to me, changes the complexion of the -- I would hope that at some point -- I know the buyers of Lot -- of the 11-acre lot would like to eventually try to buy all of this property that's in between the road and the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; -- existing property. That's their ultimate goal, but the owner will probably have -- the other owner is probably going to have to decide what he wants to do with the property before that can happen. So, if there's no further discussion, I'll make the motion that we grant the variance, which then would not require a plat, and wish the folks good luck. COMMISSIONER WILLTAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: That motion was subject to them attaining the deeded easement? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve the variance from Section 7,07 of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations, subject to receipt of -- of the deeded easement from Ox Hollow onto the 11-acre tract. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the question I have is that I don't know if we can legally do that. That'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 36 what I'm asking. Is there a way to put a -- I guess a restriction against subdividing that lot without -- I mean, once -- if that's going to be their access and we yo ahead and say that to grant the variance, how are we going to know if they, you know, want to split something off? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It would have to come as a replat, wouldn't it? At least a minor replat. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's not platted. We're not -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It would have to be if it goes below 10 acres. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That`s true. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; That's what we have to do, so you would have to have a plat at that point. That's where we'd get our shot at that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess my other question is that the -- the intersection where -- acid this -- maybe it just looks this way on the map, but the intersection up where the -- where Ox Hollow Road -- is that the name of the road? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where it meets that angle, you're having a -- seems like it's a -- a strazige intersection. COMMISSIONER GF,IFFIN: Actually, it's more of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 24 25 37 a curve than is shown here on this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't do that? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; St doesn't -- it's actually a curved road. And, in fact, it appears that it may go a little bit onto that 14 1/2 -- what would end up at the 14 1/2-acre tract. But, I mean, it's by prescription, so it's -- it's -- AUDIENCE: The roadbed runs lateral to the property line and it curves at that point. And my contention was that it was actually a 60-foot easement, and as it curves, that would be 94 feet actually in there. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To use the curvature instead of a 45-degree -- the nature of the curve is that it probably it has more -- that 84 feet is based on a sharp 45-degree turn, as shown on the sketch, In practice -- and since it is prescriptive, if you really measured along the -- the real curve that's there, it's more than 84 feet. That would be the minimum. MR. JOHNSTON: Since it's prescriptive, it's kind of hard to give an exact point. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion's been made and seconded. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 38 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: All opposed, same sign. (No response.} JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Variance is granted, subject to the receipt of a deeded easement. Item Number 5, consider signage for public -- £or privately maintained roads. Franklin? MR. JOHNS'1'UN: We were asked to research the color issue on private road signs. A11 that it says in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices -- there's a paragraph that's copied in your backup that guide signs on conventional roads and streets shall have white message on green background. As Bill Tucker has in his letter, to designate private roads, put a red tape on the top of the sign. All -- 'cause we found out all the other colors, even though they're not used, are reserved fur future use. So -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; What's red reserved for? Do you know offhand? MR. JOHNSTON: Red's a cautionary thing, stop sign. It means caution. That's what they're worried about if they see a red sign. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; Maybe we'll get a chance to ask Bi11 Tucker about that this afternoon, 'cause I sure would like to ask why is it that some regions allow fit and some don't. I COMMISSIONER LETZ; Or why that region is not 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 made to change it. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; Or why -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we can ask all we want to, but I don't think we're going to get permission to use a red sign. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; That's true. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think at this time what we need to do is, Franklin has presented us with the approved TexDOT alternative, so we probably need to authorize that item before we move forward. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is going to be one red stripe on top? (Mr. Johnston nodded.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Seems like a green sign with a 1-inch red strip on the top. MR. JOHNSTON: We've done that in the past. We got away from it, 'cause the red strip's a little -- it's hard to tell which is which, but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not yuing to be a 1-inch strip, Judge. It's going to be a strip at the top 1 inch of the green sign. There's a difference. How thin ~s it, Franklin? Just a little, bitty, quarter-of-an-inch strip or what? MR. JOHNSTON: About an inch, yeah. COMMISSIONER GRIFE'1N: I'd say we really 90 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 ought to try to cover the top 1 inch of it, if that's what we can do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1 would think so, yeah. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 'Cause it's -- you know, those things are hard to see. I mean, they would be hard to see if they were anything less than an inch. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're hard to see if it's 1 inch, 'cause there are some out -- 1 know, out in Hi11 Country Ranch Estates; there's some of the older signs up there that have that red strip, and you -- I mean, you can see it, you know, and it's really -- I guess it really, from an identification standpoint, doesn't make that much difference. It's just, you know, whether it's a -- you know, it's a private road or not a private road. I mean, mainly it's for the people that live there, so they don't expect the County to maintain them, and for the County people to understand -- a quick flag to them that it's a private road. Probably more for County personnel than anything else. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I would move that we adopt the State's suggestion here, with a comment that, once again, the State is causing one of the most ridiculous conversations I've ever heard in my life. (Laughter.) 41 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 WILLIAMS: Who are you going to send a copy to? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Send a copy to the governor? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't find him. He's din Florida. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Let', that the Court approve the use of the strip of red tape applied to the top 1 percent of the green sign -- green sign to differentiate between the roads that are county-maintained and those that are not. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) MR. JOHNSTON: The existing signs that we .have, I'd like to suggest we leave those in place until such time as they need to be actually replaced. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Absolutely. JUDGE HENNEKE: Absolutely. All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, for our 911 liaison, those rules have to be changed now. They say red 42 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sign, as I recall. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: The Subdivision Rules also. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also in the Subdivision Rules. We can change that before we adopt those. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 6 is consider and approve advertisement for bids on the 25-ton lowboy trailer for Road and Bridge. MR. JOHNSTON: There is one of our Capital Outlay items, and we're submitting the advertisement for the approval. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the advertisement for bids on the 25-ton lowboy trailer for Road and Bridge Department. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. Item Number 7, consider the design for the parking lot, Kerr 43 1 I~ 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 County Courthouse. Y'all have a copy in the packets. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Since we met last time, Judge, Franklin -- the County Engineer and County Road and Bridge Administrator, Mr. Holekamp and I met, did a lot oL talking, a lot of walking and measuring out front. And, Franklin, this is the diagram you prepared, right? (Mr. Johnston nodded.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Explain it to the Court, please. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, this is obviously a parking lot, one entrance. You have a total of 21 spaces, which includes one handicapped space. One of the requirements was that we not block the KPUB transformer so it can be maintained, so that's why we made the angular parking there on the side, to leave space for them to get to it. JOUGE HENNEKE: And this is on the west side of the courthouse, basically between the existing sidewalk and the concrete retaining wall? MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More spaces than we thought we were going to have. We have a net of 18 or 19? Which, rranklin? Allowing, what, two spaces for the entrance? MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, I guess we'd probably 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2q 25 lose two aL the entrance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- this looks tight to me. MR. JOHNSTON: It's very tight. The goal was to maximize the space, so that's the max you can get. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem. We may want to put signage up here that no trucks, because I don't think a truck can get in here and turn around. MR. JUHNSTON: They can't -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Considering that half of t}ie county people seem to drive trucks. Which isn't a problem. I mean, you can put, "Small Car Only" or something like that, because it's a -- MR. JOHNSTON: We11, I think a pickup can get iii most of the spaces, but it might take some maneuvering. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Small pickup. COMM155IONER WILLIAMS: Might take maneuvering to get yours in there. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can't get yours in there; you need a parking lot just for yours. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The idea is, at least we are allowing a lot of additional car parking. MR. JOHNSTON: Tt has 30 foot between each space. I've allowed 20 foot, and you can actually get by with 18, but even with 20, it -- there's 30 foot between the 95 1 2 3 4 J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 <9 25 spaces. And you can go as low as 25 foot, so there's a (little bit of extra space in that regard to turn around. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think this looks (pretty good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. JUDGE HENNEKE: The -- the understanding or the concept, as I remember our previous discussions, is that these lots -- this lot would be for county employees. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For public or elected officials and employees if they wish to park there. DODGE HENNEKE: But it's not -- we would use this lot for our people and reserve the balance of the parking, to the extent we can, for people who are using the courthouse for official business. Is that everyone's recollection? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the original understanding, to create space for employees and elected officials so we can get them off the perimeter, so that can be available for people coming and going from the courthouse. I think we should probably post that it way. DODGE HENNEKE: On the other side, we'll have about approximately seven parking places. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Is everyone clear on that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move we adopt the 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 Z3 24 25 plan as submitted by the County Engineer for the west side parking. MR. JOHN5TON: There's probably a couple items I might mention before you approve it. The budget estimates we had given, that will cover the cost of the parking lot, but we didn't consider removing the trees and transplantinq them; that's a separate issue. And, as it comes out, we would need handicapped parking and some curbing. We talked about that for water control, and that was not in our original estimate. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'That's -- that's the next item; this is the plan. MR. JOHNSTON: Hnd there's no striping in (this estimate. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's do the ,concept plan and then the next step is to do funding. We'll talk about the trees, perhaps, at that time. Some of those trees have to be saved and moved. JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the design for the west side parking lot of the Kerr County Courthouse. Any further questions or comments? If not, all 47 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 L 23 24 25 in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The next item is to consider and discuss the construction of two parking areas, one on the west side and one smaller one on the east side, and resurfacing the interior roadway of the courthouse square. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, this is a repeat item which we had before, although Franklin is suggesting some revisions to the cost -- total cost of $19,208. is that what I'm hearing? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, S think those issues didn`t come up. We just have prices of asphalt and base material in the estimate. If we have to hire a nursery to move the trees and ball them and transplant them, that will be an extra cost, as well as the concrete work and the striping. I don't think we had striping in any of them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What trees are out there that you're thinking of moving? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure they do, but I've asked around, and seems to be some thought that there's a small pecan or a small fruit tree of some kind. MR. JOHNSTON: Someone donated that eight or 48 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Iten years ago. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't know who did or when, and the thought was it we need to save it, we'd move it to another -- maybe out on the perimeter someplace, some other location on the courthouse square. There's a mesquite that's going to go. And the big one on the corner stays, and the big pine tree also. 1 don't know that they were given; I just know that we need to find out for sure whether they were donated, if they have to be saved, or whether they have to be moved. MS. NEMEC: Women's Chamber donated one of them, one of the smaller ones. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Who did? MS. NEMEC: The Women's Chamber. COMMISSIONER LE'1'Z: Is it a pecan or -- I thought it was a peach tree over there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a peach I tree. MS. NEMEC: A small one that's out there. I don't know what it is. MS. SOVIL: Big pine was put in for Arbor Day one year, donated. COMMISSIUNER WILLIAMS: We're prepared to relocate them, although there's going to be some cost attached to that. If it's the big pine tree, it's really 49 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 going Lo cost, because that's a pretty good-sized tree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty hard to move the pine. I think the fruit tree -- I would say it's probably going to die before long anyway; they're pretty short-lived. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hear you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Perhaps it will be acceptable to plant another tree in replacement of the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rather than qo to the expense of moving them? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would recommend doing that, that we plant a new tree rather than transplant. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Replace rather than remove. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've heard it from the expeLt. DODGE HENNEKE: What about on the east side? Do we have any trees? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we don't have any Lsees, but we have a -- MS. SOVIL: There is a tree. COMMISSIONEK WILLIAMS: -- a dead dog. MS. SOVIL: There is a tree. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's a little, bitty tree, you're right. MS. SUV1L: And it was donated by an 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 24 25 ex-Commissioner's wife. 't'hey dedicated it to her husband. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess the same would apply; we could replace it with one of a like size. COMM155IONER GRIFFIN: How big is that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's just a small -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You Can transplant it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The real little ones, you can. Probably the fruit tree, I just -- they're not worth transplanting, really, and the pine tree's too big to transplant. If it's small, it it's a pecan tree, I'd say we ought to transplant a small pecan tree. COMM1551ONER WILLIAMS: I don't know what this one is back here. Do you recall? MS. SUV1L: Pecan tree. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, then we can move it. MR. JOHNSTON: We're only coming in 20 feet off of the existing parking lot, 20 foot in. And we're -- they're still going to be measured off -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Five or six feet from the wall, right? MR. JOHNSTON: No, it's not -- only lose 10, 12 foot to the wall, so I think we're safe on that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We're safe on 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ]9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the -- on the dog matter, as well? MR. JOHNSTON: Oh, I think so. COMMISSIUNER WILLIAMS: Okay, wonderful. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I know everybody would like to get this one off the books because we've considered it several times, but it appears maybe that it would -- that it might be appropriate to bring this back one more time with the cost of striping, the concrete, and any landscaping that needs to be done, moving of trees, planting of new ones or whatever, so that we know what we're dealing with cost-wise, and we just don't have a -- a handle on that completely. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I would -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Maybe we could go ahead and approve the cost of those things that have been costed, but that has to be held in abeyance until we find out what these other costs are and how we're going to pay for them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, perhaps, but the funding for this is out of Special Projects, and it's one of mine, Evans Road. And Leonard and I had talked about this matter, so there's a -- there's some slide room between $19,000 and $35,000 in there on that particular level of my funding for my particular project. If there are funds left over, then I want my project to begin. Or if you have some 52 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 funds left over from one oY yours. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I don't have -- we can't get into the Schreiner Trust, 'cause it's not in the right precinct, right? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's enough slide room in there, Commissioner, to do this. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to do it on the basis of what's provided from my -- MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know what the trees will cost r_o move, but the other items, we're not talking about a huge expense. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's important that we correct this problem. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're talking a minimal amount of money. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move that we approve the construction of the two parking areas and the resurfacing of the interior roadway, and the funding will come from Special Project funding particularly identified as Evans Road. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The amount? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the amount in 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Special Funds -- I thank you, Commissioner -- is $19,208. There may be some additional for striping and some additional concrete. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court !approve construction of two parking areas, one on the west side and one on the east side of the courthouse annex, and also resurfacing interior roadway of the courthouse square. Cost will be approximately $19,208, with funds to come from Road and Bridge Special Projects, the Evans Road project. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hands. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is Number 9, consider and discuss transfer of additional funds for purchase of a heavy-duty printer, Treasurer's department. Ms. Nemec? MS. NEMEC: Well, i think that I've -- in the budget process, I explained to y'all that we have a printer that really hasn't been operating properly for probably two years now. We're constantly having to go to the Auditor's office and print our payroll and accounts payable and our reports. And then, occasionally, we'll use the -- the 54 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 zs printer in the 'l'ax Oftice. So, in my Capital Outlay, S had asked for $1,500 to be budgeted for a new printer; however, the Auditor found a printer that is a heavy-duty printer which will probably work a lot better, but it's $2,450. So, there's an additional $950 that is needed that is not budgeted for. JUDGE HENNEKE: Where do you propose to find that $950? Are you talking about conferences for the Treasurer's department? Or -- MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we -- we do have $25,000 in Contingency for equipment. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Equipment. MS. NEMEC: Equipment. MR. TOMLINSON: That would be my suggestion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the purchase of a heavy-duty printer for the Treasurer's department in the amount of $2,450, with the additional $950 to come from Nondepartmental Contingency. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that Nondepartmental? JUDGE HENNEKE: Nondepartmental. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, it's Nondepartmental. 55 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: Nondepartmental, yes. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. MS. NEMEC: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can get those payroll ,checks, then. JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 10 is approve ad (valorem tax refunds due to value changes. Ms. Rector. Paula? M5. RECTOR: Well, the Property Tax Code requires the approval of the governing body for any refunds over $500. And, as you can see, some of these are pretty substantial, and those were due to late protests that were approved by the Appraisal Review Board and late filing an ad. That was also approved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Does this come from I'99 funds? MS. RECTOR: Some of it's '98/'99, but it comes out of the current year. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 56 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 moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't think we have any choice. Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's it come from, Reserve? MS. RECTOR: It comes from our current collections back to the jurisdictions that -- or from the jurisdictions. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. RECTOR: To the property owners. Yeah, those funds have already been expended, so we take it back from those jurisdictions and give it back to the property owners. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the ad valorem tax refunds as reflected in the schedule submitted by the Tax Assessor/Collector. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M5. RECTOR: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Paula. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 11 is consider and discuss changing the custodial job description. Mike, are you going to pinch-hit for Glenn today? MR. SMART: Yes, sir. JUDGE HENNEKE: He's taking some sort of extended vacation, isn't he? MR. SMART: Yes, sir, he's trying to. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you give us an update on the status of his health? MR. SMART: He's -- Glenn is doing real well. He's going to -- he goes to go find out this Friday if he'll be able to make it back -- or when he'll be able to make it back. The doctor's going to let him know this Friday. On this amendment here, what he's wanting to do is, right now we're -- we've got contract cleaning at the Probation office. He's wanting -- he's got $16,993 budgeted for custodian. He's wanting to add that contract labor to that salary. We're having trouble finding a qualified person that he wants for that job. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is so -- so different about that -- the added responsibilities that requires someone with extra experience and knowledge? 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 L Y 25 MR. SMART: Well, he's wanting someone -- this third person will be -- they'll be added to the night crew. He's wanting somebody that can kind of oversee the two that we already have. Maria now is having to come in in the evenings and do that. This person will also be cleaning the Probation offices and some of the Extension office, Road and Bridge office. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. There's -- the way I see it, there's a little bit more than enough in the old contract line item to cover making this a permanent position. MR. SMART: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So it's a swap-out? MR. SMART: Right. This person will be taking ~n the contract. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it doesn't have a -- doesn't increase the budget overall. Just what you -- MR. SMART: No, it's just changing it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a little bit of play in there, a couple hundred dollars of play. JUDGE HENNEKE: And what's the justification for bringing this person in at a higher than entry-level -- are they going to be supervisory? MR. SMART: I'm not real sure exactly what 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 22 23 24 25 Glenn was planning on this. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If I might say, it (looks to me that what he's proposing is, it's still at the entry level, but it's at a higher classification because of the supervisory responsibility. So, he's going from a 9 to a 12. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because it's still entry level, but it's -- the job title is also changed. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's reclassifying at the same time as -- MR. SMART: Right now, it's entry-level custodian. He's wanting to change it to a custodian) maintenance position. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So he would be doing -- in addition to custodial, he might be doing some -- MR. SMART: Yes, sir. We'd have a man here in the evenings that could do maintenance work. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have a job description for this position? MR. SMART: Yes, sir, there is a job description. He changed it so it would be of the existing job descriptions. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. And this is -- and a 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ]2 13 14 15 16 i7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 is what's slotted for that job description? MS. NEMEC: I don't have a job description for a 12, not unless he did one and he's going to, you know, present it to me. MR. SMART: He told me that there was a position at that level already. MS. NEMEC: At that level? Are we talking about the Ag Barn now? The position at the Ag Barn? MR. SMART: The Unit Custodian/Maintenance. MS. NEMEC: Utility Custodian? MF,. SMART: Utility CustodianjMaintenance. MS. NEMEC: There's Custodian/Maintenance at the Ag Barn that are 12's. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, that's what he's done; he's made this position the same as the existing one, with the same job description, and done away with the contract position. MR. SMART: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what Barbara is saying is that's in the Ag Barn, not under Maintenance. We'd have to create a new position in the Maintenance Department, but it would be the same -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With a similar job description. 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Be the same job description, should be. COMMISSIUNER LETZ: Not the same, but similar, from the standpoint you have to change the location. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll move the request as put forth by Mr. Holekamp. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, with the -- and I'll second it, with the proviso that the job description has to be reaccomplished. Another copy of that is going to have to be processed to cover this position as well as the one at the Ag Barn. COMMISSlUNER WILLIAMS: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the -- approval of going from the contract to employing a custodian under Maintenance services, and establish a position of Utility Maintenance/Custodian at the 1Z-1 level, subject to receipt by Ms. Nemec of the appropriate job description. The question I raise, though, is if we move the Juvenile Probation Department into the Annex, which is contemplated, will we still get the additional 53,000 which is necessary to cover the difference in the salary? MR. TOMLINSON: I think we're talking about 62 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 Adult Probation. MR. SMART: Yes, sir, Adult Probation office. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. It says here Adult and Juvenile Probation Janitorial Budget line item. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. The -- the State monies cannot be used for maintenance of -- of property for them to reside in, so we've always -- the County's always furnished maintenance for that -- for wherever they've been. So, in the past, we've used contract labor for that purpose. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you don't see that there's any potential problem if we move the Juvenile Probation Department here, as far as coming up short? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the money for the contract is in the Adult Probation. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. MR. TOMLINSON: That's not in Juvenile. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's County funds? MR. TOMLINSON: It's County funds. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's County money, so we're paying it, 'cause it's not coming from the State. MR. TOMLINSON: No. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 L 1 22 23 29 25 63 JUDGE HENNEKE: A11 opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, do we have to act on this budget amendment? JUDGE HENNEKE: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At the same time? JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve Budget Amendment Number 1. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Number 1 for the Ma ance Department. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 12, Sheriff. Consider and discuss setting a hearing for the LLEBG grant. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This one's pretty simple. It's that $11,000-something grant that we've applied for this year, same as the $15,000 one we got last year. We've already had the committee hearing and we just 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 69 need to have a formality of having a public hearing. JUDGE HENNEKE: And when would you like to have that public hearing? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Whenever is convenient for the Court. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there any particular time crunch? Can we hold it during our November 13th meeting? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The sooner the better, because the thing is, I have some expired bulletproof vests that, you know, technically their life has expired, and part of these -- these funds are going to be used to replace those vests, so I'd like to -- to be able to purchase those as soon as possible. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our next Commissioners Court meeting would be okay, which is the 13th. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is that the 13th? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Check the time. I think we have several other things set for that date. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10 o'clock, that I know of. JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a bid opening and we have a -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No-wake zone. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10 o'clock. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No-wake zone. 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 65 JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we just set this at 11:00? Should be -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 11 o'clock? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: On the 13th? JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court set a public hearing on the LLEBG grant for Monday, November 13th, Year 2000, at 11 o'clock a.m. here in the Commissioners Court courtroom. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I'd like to jump to Item Number 15, if we could. Consider and discuss various funding methods available to finance the renovation/ expansion of the Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center master plan. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In addition to what -- the backup material that's in your packet, I'll hand 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 66 a letter to you from Dain Rauscher, Robert Henderson, which outlines some of the options that are available to us. I've asked Bob and his colleague to be with us today. What you have in your packet is some of the material that we've gathered and discussed -- not discussed in open court, but Commissioner Letz and I have discussed, and want to bring it today to you for an open discussion about the methods of financing the Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center master plan for renovation/expansion. Mr. Henderson's letter sort of caps a lot of that, which is in your -- in your packet, and it provides -- he provides the information, I guess, necessary for us to -- to take a look at at least some of the options. Commissioner Letz and I met with Bob here recently, and this letter is the outgrowth of that meeting. We asked him to summarize our discussions. Bob, why don't you come forward and we'll get this discussion underway as to what's available to us. MR. HENDERSON: Thank you, Commissioner. It's a pleasure to be in front of the Court again this morning. I do have with me Tom Spurgeon of the law firm of McCall, Parkhurst, and Horton, who is the County's bond attorney, and Tom's been very instrumental in researching the law and discussing these issues with me, and providing substantial input into the final draft of the letter that was submitted to the Court. The purpose of the rather 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 67 lengthy letter -- and I apologize for the length of that -- was to try to touch on all the issues at hand and line up what the alternatives are. I can go over the points in this letter if the Commissioners Court desires, or if you've had a chance to review it in detail, I can simply respond to questions that you might have, whatever the Court's preference. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't you just summarize the various funding mechanisms, just so that the public is aware of what those are, as well? MR. HENDERSON: Certainly, Commissioner. There are a number of ways to finance this, including lease revenue bond issues, debt secured by ad valorem property taxes, economic development source, corporation sales tax revenue bonds, or through what is known as venue taxing financing. I list those options really in terms of what the legal alternatives to the County are. As a practical matter, because of certain circumstances that exist here in Kerr County, not necessarily all of these -- these alternatives are going to be applicable. And, of course, depending upon the nature of these alternatives, the financial impact to the economy in terms of a revenue stream that would have to be generated to support this facility would be different. With respect to the lease revenue bond, the 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 i 9 10 11 ~ 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 way that lease revenue bond would work in this set of circumstances would be, as I believe I've discussed with the Court in the past, a transaction similar to what we did at Kerr County for an office building that was owned by the County and housing various County departments. What we did there was create a Public Facilities Development Corporation, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kerr County, which would issue lease revenue bonds, and these bonds would be secured by a lease that would be entered into between the development corporation and the County. That would be a General Fund obligation of the County to annually appropriate money under that lease to be paid to the Facilities Development Corporation, which in turn would take the money and -- and pay it to the bond holders who lent the County, through the Facility Development Corporation, the funds to finance that project. 't'hat project financing technique would result in an underlying bond credit rating of probably one-half of a notch under the County's general obligation bond rating. It would be creditworthy because of that, potentially insurable because of that, and we'd be -- it's something that we could issue in a debt market of probably something in the neighborhood of b 1/2 to 5 3/9 percent. The thing the County would have to understand about that is that the lease that the County would enter into with the Facilities 69 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 Development Corporation would be a long-term capital lease and would show up on the County's audited financial statements, as such. It's often referred to as an "off the balance sheet" financing, but in fact it's going to be on your balance sheet. It will show up as a long-term capital lease. Another mechanism would be a more direct obligation of the General Fund, which would be an ad valorem debt tax which is secured either by a vote of the general obligation -- general population of the county, or through certificates of obligation. When you issue certificates of obligation, under the tax reform -- Certificates of Obligation Act of '79 -- and here's where I start practicing law in front of a lawyer. In order to sell certificates for cash, you have to attach a revenue stream. Obviously, the revenue stream that has been identified here in Kerr County for the payment of these obligations would be the levy of an ad valorem -- I'm sorry, of a hotel/motel tax by the County. For the County to levy that tax, it would have to get special legislation approved by the State Legislature. Once the legislation was approved, the County could levy up to 7 cents per $100 in sales. The -- the information that we have been provided would indicate that one cent on the County's tax -- one cent of hotel/motel taxes by the County would generate 70 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 $133,000 in taxes, based on historical hotel occupancy in Kerr County. If we are talking about a $7 million project -- and I understand that what we've got here is a project that's approximately $8 million in size; however, there may be an opportunity to phase that in and reduce the initial construction price to about $7 million. $7 million financed over 20 years at S 3/4 percent would run about $590,000. You want to have some level of -- of margin in that $590,000 for volatility in the collection of hotel/motel tax receipts, so we believe that a -- a levy of 5 cents hotel/motel taxes would generate 660-something thousand dollars, or -- yeah, $666,000. And that would be -- that would be more than sufficient to meet the debt service of $590,000 on -- on the certificates of obligation. It's important to note that a difference here between a certificate of obligation, as well as the lease revenue bond option, and another option I'll discuss in a moment, which is a straight hotel/motel tax revenue bond, is 'that if we issue a hotel/motel tax revenue bond, the rating agencies are going to require a coverage ratio or a coverage factor above and beyond the annual debt service of the -- of the bonds in order to insure that you have sufficient financial flexibility to deal with volatility in the collection of hotel/motel tax receipts and extraordinary expenses associated with the operation of the facility. 71 1 ~- 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 „_ l3 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~1 22 23 _ 24 zs That coverage ratio, in terms of the revenue bond ordinance, would most likely be something in the neighborhood of 1.25 (times coverage factor. As a practical matter, in terms of avoiding a technical default on your revenue bond issue and being able to get a minimal investment rating -- bond rating from the rating agencies, you would need a coverage factor for a budgetary perspective about 1 1/2 times. So, in order to do $590,000 times 1 1/2 times coverage ratio, you would have to be able to generate something in the neighborhood of $885,000 in hotel/motel tax receipts to do a straight revenue bond issue. That would require, at $133,000 per penny, a levy of 7 cents on your hotel/motel taxes instead of just 5 cents. Now, 7 cents is allowable. You could do that without a special election. You would have to do that through a -- the legislation approved by the State Legislature to go to 7 cents. By using certificates of obligation, you can avoid that coverage factor and be able to issue with only a 5 percent hotel/motel tax receipt. Another option would be the Economic long explanation in here about that, but I will simply say two things about it. Number one, what we're talking about is levying up to a quarter of -- or half of one cent for economic development purposes in applying the revenue stream 1 r. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .~. 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 72 to revenue bonds to support debt. That's hcw it works. iUnfortunately, that's not an option for the County, because (we're already at 8 1/4 in sales tax. I know you have something different at your store, but in Kerr County, in Kerrville, we`re at 8 ll4 sales tax, which means that we (limits of Kerrville, you don't have that as an option. MR. HENDERSON: We don't have that in the city, right. But, what happens -- I'll let Tom address this in greater detail i f you desire -- is that for the County to be able to do that, they would have to levy a half-cent sales tax which would be applicable county-wide. And because you can't apply within the city limits, then that precludes you from doing that at all. MR. SPURGEON: You can actually go 1/8 cent increments; you wouldn't necessarily have to go a full half (penny. But, the way the law does read, you have to apply it throughout the entire county, and the law does provide for, if -- if it's going to exceed 8 1/4 percent anywhere within the county limits, it automatically causes a reduction in sales tax that's been approved for certain types of special entities, like the city sales tax corporation over at -- in Kerrville, or in the city. There may even be a legal reason why you couldn't do that. They've already got debt 73 1 ^. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 outstanding that is secured with that half-cent sales tax. Legislation doesn' t deal with -- legislation doesn't deal with that issue. But i think, as a practical matter, there may be a real difficulty in doing anything with sales tax. MR. HENDERSON: The last one listed is a venue financing under Chapter 334. That has also been discussed in detail. 'Phe two primary facets in terms of -- of strength of revenue streams that can be associated with the venue financing would be a 2 percent hotel/motel tax, as well as the opportunity to levy additional sales tax. As we just discussed, you -- you are at the cap within the city of Kerrville on your sales tax, so that gets eliminated as a practical matter from the venue financing. Which really leaves 2 percent hotel/motel taxes. That would generate, as iwe discussed earlier, $266,000 in revenues, which is $133,000 per penny. However, as a practical matter, you (have the ability, and you would need the ability for the balance of the financing, to go get your special legislation through the State allowing to you levy up to 7 cents. So, to try to levy the additional 2 cents through the venue tax would be potentially redundant, unless you felt like you really needed to go out and do the entire $8 million project immediately. Because, otherwise, you would have capacity within the -- if the State legislation approved 7 cents, to Ido what you need to do. 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But, the -- and this is really my final comment, which is if you go $8 million, you would need 9 cents worth of hotel/motel tax revenues to do that on a straight revenue bond basis. That is to say, not utilizing (certificates of obligation. So, if you felt like you needed the full $8 million and you wanted to avoid any sort of ad valorem debt tax -- ad valorem tax security on the debt, then we would need not only the 7 percent through the State Legislature, but a separate election here in Kerr County to approve a venue tax, which would allow to you levy the additional 2 percent. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The additional levy of 2 percent is -- that's a process very similar to what Bexar County went through for the financing of its new arena; is that correct"? MR. HENDERSON: That's correct. There was a special election, and I can -- MR. SPORGEON: It's identical. It is, yes, ~ sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- up to the 7-cent does not require -- it dust requires legislation, but -- MR. HENDERSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can the legislation require election? Is that -- I mean, or is it -- ~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 MR. HENDERSON: I don't believe so. MR. SPURGEON: I'm not aware of any county tkiaL has been subjected to that. There are only, I think, 17 counties that have been approved to levy a hotel motel tax; 17 or 19, something like that. I don't think any of them have placed a legislation requirement to go to voters for approval. MR. HENDERSON: One thing, getting back to the Bexar County issue, I want to note that was a different -- it is the exact same Chapter 334, the venue tax that Bexar County voted on. However, within that venue tax, you have a menu of five items that you can levy a sales tax: Hotel/motel tax, parking tax, car rental tax, and so forth, land they focused on primarily the car rental taxes, as opposed to the hotel/motel tax and the sales taxes. San Antonio being a metropolitan area of 1.3 million, with a lot of tourists, you know, increasing their car rental taxes generates a ton o£ money for them. In Kerr County that really wouldn't be the situation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask a question of Bob and Tom so that we can avoid some confusion that may be -- may exist here. The hotel/motel tax, the State tax, if approved -- if legislation is granted giving you that authority, the State automatically gets 6 percent right off the top; is that correct? 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SPURGEON: They're already doing that now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Six percent in the city of Kerrville. MR. SPURGEON: They should be. I assume they're doing it in the county. MR. HENDERSON: County-wide. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that's already in ~ place. MR. SPURGEON: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Within the city limits of city of Kerrville, there still remains one penny left that could be levied under their authority. MR. HENDERSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause they're levying 6 percent right now. MR. HENDERSON: And they're allowed to go to iseven. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the County is not levying anything in hotel/motel or bed and breakfasts or whatever, county-wide. So, the only way -- I'm confused about that one point. The City does have the ability to levy another cent? MR. SPURGEON: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has chosen up to 77 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ L L 23 24 25 now not to do so, which doesn't mean it may not determine to do so in the future, or they may do so and dedicate it to this project, because there is great interest on -- on the part of the City with respect to this particular project. So, assuming they did determine to levy the extra seven, that gets us -- I mean, the extra point to bring them to seven, we could put on top of that how much? Four? Or -- MR. HENDERSON: Well, you could -- that's a legal question. MR. SPURGEON: You can literally go -- I mean, whatever the Legislature will allow you to do. I don't believe there's any county they've allowed to go over seven. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we have -- that can go up to -- MR. SPURGEON: You could go up to seven. There are a few -- or your maximum number would be -- like, it will make it your total maximum of 20 percent; 6 percent from the State, 7 Tor the County, 7 for the City, if everybody went to those maximums. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: However, I think there is a magic number that our Convention and Visitors' Bureau friends, who likewise support this project and hoteliers, believe that, you know, you don't want to cross a certain particular line. I think we heard all those 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L1 22 23 24 2S arguments trying to finance the one in San Antonio. MR. SPURGEON: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a magic mark not to go beyond, because it has a deleterious effect on it, or whatever. So, we would maybe want not to do that. We may want to keep it under that. MR. SPURGEON: You'd probably hear from your hotel proprietors. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sure we would, ~ right. MR. HENDERSON: But your basic point, Commissioner, is very well-taken. Irrespective of what action the Commissioners Court takes, you will not impact the City's capacity to -- to levy its 7 cents and do with it as it desires. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. MR. HENDERSON: No impact on that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What in the county -- what, I guess, qualifies under this hotel tax? I was going through the chart, and I notice it says Mo Ranch, for example, is one of the larger examples out of your memo, information from the Visitors' Bureau. What qualifies as a motel or a -- and is subject to this tax? MR. SPURGEON: I can pull the definition for you, but generally, it is anyplace that charges more than $2 ~y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ]2 13 19 15 16 17 Ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 zs per night for overnight stay for a bed. Now, those aren't the exact words, but literally, it goes back to -- I mean, the legislation was written years and years ago; talked about where they charge $2 or more for staying overnight. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about camps? What about the youth camps? MR. SPURGEON: Camps? JUDGE HENNEKE: It does not cover the camps. MR. SPURGEON: I don't think it's going to cover overnight camping. JUDGE HENNEKE: We're not talking about overnight camping. We're talking about the summer camps. MR. SPURGEON: I don't believe that's covered -- I'm almost sure that's not covered. That would not be -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We would not want it Ito be covered. MR. SPURGEON: I can check something here, but I feel confident that camps are not included as a -- as a hotel. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Except if a camp, in the off-season, used its facilities in -- in the fashion of renting rooms on a per-room basis. MR. SPURGEON: That may be right. I mean, it -- I'll be honest with you, I've never really looked into 80 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L1 22 23 24 25 it in terms of how camps are used. That could very well be. In fact, it would not surprise me. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Arid they do, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've noticed on the list here Camp WaldemaL shows up on the list, so camps in some -- I mean, and it may be their -- it's the first quarter when most of the revenue comes in, which is off-season for them, so I presume they use conventions or other things during that time of Lhe year. But, I guess we need to make sure that it's -- you know, the public be aware what exactly is covered by the hotel/motel tax. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It says in 352.002 that you can levy this tax on someone who pays for the use or possession -- or for right of use or possession of a room that is iii a hotel that costs $2 or more each day and is ordinarily used for sleeping. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So you're probably, I think, at this point, talking about the off-season stuff at the camps. But, it obviously -- I don't think that applies to the camps. MR. HENDERSON: I think these facilities we have in town that have these individual-room bungalows, you know, are probably included in hotel/motel taxes, but where they're putting folks up in barrack-type cabins, I would _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ _i 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 suspect not. But -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS; Beds and breakfasts dare covered. MR. SPURGEON: Yes, they are covered. Are covered. MS. NEMEC: I know we have church retreats at the camps, and -- and we have to pay for them ui, weekends. So, I don't -- you know, I don't know if that would be covered. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mo Ranch is one that is a very large source. An overnight -- more like a -- you know, a convention-type use. Sounds like that probably is covered. JUDGE HENNEKE: It appears to me, from the information that Commissioner Letz and Williams have collected, that this county-wide hotel and motel tax will come very close to paying the costs of the expansion, if not pay the costs of the expansion on a certificate of obligation basis. That is a basis which does not require one and a half debt coverage ratio. It also appears, from the information that Commissioner Williams has put forward in his memo, that we can cover our obligation essentially Ilwith the hotel/motel tax and still not put the City of Kerrville in a noncompetitive situation as far as hotel prices are concerned. Wouldn't do us any good to levy a tax 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 82 which caused people not to come here, which would cause us not to collect the tax. But it also seems to me that if we're going to move forward with this project, and I strongly support moving forward, that hotel/motel tax is the best way to do it, because it's a tax that does not affect, for the most part, the citizens of Kerr County. It's paid by people who come to visit here. I've described it in a number of talks around the county as a "sin" tax, because if any member of the county is paying the tax, you know, there's a reason there. But it is -- it is a way to take advantage of tYie fact that Kerr County is a popular place for tourism and visitors, for .them to essentially enable to us provide better facilities 'for use here in the county. 7n order for us to move forward (with this, it will take action by the County to ask State jRepresentative Harvey Hilderbran to introduce legislation (which would authorize the County to levy up to a 7 percent (tax on hotel-motel receipts within Kerr County. Now, I want to point out that the fact that we ask for 7 percent dues not necessarily mean we're going to levy 7 percent. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we're not goiny to levy any. JUDGE HENNEKE: Doesn't mean we're going to levy any, that's true. We haven't made that decision to move forward. But if we're going to use the hotel/motel tax 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L 1 22 23 24 25 as the basis for the financing of the expansion, we need to decide that soon, because Representative Hilderbran needs time in order to prepare the necessary legislation and introduce it on a timely basis in the Legislature. So, if we're going to do that, we need to take that step. 1f not (today, certainly, I think, at the next meeting. So -- Jonathan, do you want to say something? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, just looking at the agenda. Still, I agree with that. I think that the -- and I support going to -- passing a resolution, whatever is required to get Harvey to take it to the Legislature. You know, my goal is -- I think, you know, I really like the idea of phased -- or at least committing these -- the hotel/motel tax for a portion of the facility, and probably leave the second arena for us to try to raise with private funding. I think that it's a -- I mean, we have a good chance of doing that. And by "private funding," I'm lumping E.I.C. in this with that group, 'cause they've been somewhat inclined to participate with this project, as well. And I think we ought to, you know, do whatever we can do, and whenever -- if we do bring it back for that hotel/motel tax, to have it as low as possible. And I think we can probably get it down closer to that -- around the 5-cent mark if we have the backwards certificate of obligation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you 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 84 referenced it that way, Commissioner. I think -- a couple things. First of all, as you know, I'm not sure everybody knows, but you and I appeared at the Economic Improvement Corporation at its meeting in which it discussed its priorities for the future, and while it did not commit in that meeting to the prioritization of this project, it was very favorably received. And, our instructions were, when you guys are ready and have fashioned your own financing plan, come back and see us for participation at a time and a date and an amount. We need the amount and -- and when you think it would be ready also. We have talked on more than one occasion, Commissioner Letz and I, and referenced the same topic with the Judge and supplied suggestions as to the availability of grants. It seems to me that our project lends itself to seeking certain types of grants for partial funding of the project. Not all of it, but I think that as the Commissioner talks about, maybe the second arena is something that is subject to somebody's grant fancy, and -- come forward, put in the right kind of application. We listened to the lady the last time with respect to the potential of some Texas Parks and Wildlife grants. I think there are other grants out there, as well, local and foundations, and those need to be explored. we also -- Commissioner Letz and I talked about taking another look at the master plan and -- not changing it, but perhaps 85 1 ,_ 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 •-- 25 rethinking one or two aspects of it. We have -- we have looked at the plan, and as it is currently on paper, it (lends itself heavily to equestrian events, and we thought maybe we want to rethink some of that. Not eliminating equestrian money by any stretch of the imagination, but rethinking whether or not we really need some of those ancillary things that they had proposed that could be rethought or consolidated in making it a little more cost-effective. We talked about also the possibility of climate-controlled. I think we have to rethink some of I -- I believe that this is an opportunity for us to proceed, and I would strongly support asking our State Representative to author that legislation which would enable Kerr County to participate in a hotel/motel tax. And, at the same time, we need to pursue resolutions of support from the City of Kerrville, from the City of Ingram, and from any other taxing authorities that -- that would be beneficial to Representative Hilderbran in his presentation of this particular legislation on our behalf. So, I -- I really am in support of moving forward with this as a first step. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know you're going to 86 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 find this hard to believe, but I have a little bit different line of thinking on this -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- on this thing. Everything that we've talked about and everything in -- in our document here from Mr. Henderson talks about raising taxes; whether it would be on the folks from Houston that visit here or local folks, we're talking about tax -- raising taxes. And, finally got around to talking about it .and mentioning possibly going after grants. That is just contrary to the way that I think, and it's my opinion that we need to go out and see what kind of grants that are out there first, before we even start considering raising taxes. This County -- this Commissioners Court spends I don't know how much taxpayers' money, but we spend money to be -- to be a member of the R.C.& D., which is a grant-seeking organization. And, have you been to them? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I -- not formally with this, but yes, I attend the meetings. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, that's what that's there for, is for us to go to them to see and search out and see if there are any grants out there before we get into raising taxes. Now, another point is that I understand that a couple of County employees have been dispatched to Glen Rose, Texas, to look at their facility, 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 87 maybe for us to model after or whatever. And, I understand it's a fine facility there. That much it -- and that the Glen Rose folks have made the comment that it costs approximately a half a million dollars annually to operate, and that's -- I think that`s probably salaries and all the other operating expenses that go along with -- with the facility. And that's something that we have not talked about. And I don't know if y'all are talking about that in the public as you're going around selling the project or not, but I think you should. I wanted to point ouL that the -- the County's debt at this time -- the tax anticipation notes on this facility right here and the jail bonds, combined, we're in debt for about $8.5 million, and that annual payment is $970,000 on those two. That's a lot of money. $y70,000 there, and just -- just the operation on the facility that we're talking about that -- or at least in Glen xose, add another $500,000. That comes out of the County budget, and I just think that we need to talk about those things, lay them all out on the table for the public to see. And when I see those kinds of numbers, they become to me kind of fuzzy numbers, or a risky scheme, as we're hearing on TV so much recently. And I just think that we need to take a deep breath and go at this thing nice and slow and easy, and consider grants before we start raising taxes on people. 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 88 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I could, I ayree with the Commissioner. The problem -- and that's why I made the comment that we're not raising taxes when we're going Lu Harvey at this point. The problem that you have is a timing issue that we're faced with. If we're going to build this in the next four years -- starting in the next four years, we've got to go to Harvey now. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; We have the option. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, the option. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To build it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's why I support the legislation. I agree, we need to get some grants. I think we need to come up with a plan that lends itself to getting grants. The problem -- 7've talked to some foundations informally, and one of the problems comes into, everyone wants to know the funding mechanism. Well, the Court doesn't have a mechanism, so I say we don't know yet. I think we need to come up with a plan that addresses how to get the whole thing built. And it may be phases, it may be cutting part of it out. There's lots of options. But I'm not comfortable going and saying anything now, because the Court hasn't voted on it exactly. We've, you know, voted on a concept for a facility. ~ Ideally, it would be nice if we could wait a (year to go to Harvey, when we had a better -- we don't have 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 89 that luxury right now, so our options are to either go to Harvey, get the legislation through, hopefully, now, and then within the next year or two years, decide how to do it or shelve it for basically three or four years. And if you're going to shelve it three or four years, there's no point in going out for grants for another -- you know, right now, because the grants want to be able to fund it now, at ]east the Iocal grants do. They don't want to be saying -- some of the grants, like Peterson Foundation, will not fund it for future years. So, I think -- I mean, it's kind of getting to the -- we're in a chicken and egg situatioci. We've got to get the ball going somewhere. The operation is our big concern. We've got to figure out a way -- you know, what the impact to the annual budget's going to be on the operations. Now, iL should be noted that the current operations cost of the facility right now is about $150,000 -- $125,000, $150,000 a year that's already being spent. People tend to gloss over that when they're -- you know, some of the papers -- or Che paper, when we're already subsidizing that facility to a huge amount, and I anticipate we'll continue to subsidize it to some -- if we were to build this, to some respect in the future. But, you know, I don't think it will be $150,000 more than we're doing -- or $500,000 more than we're doing right now, though it may easi]y be the same or slightly uiure 90 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 than we're doing right now other things. It just depends on use and I mean, I support going to Harvey at this (point to get legislation to give us some options in the future, Without going to Harvey, we don't have any options for anything for several years. And, the -- the bottom line is that facility is in bad shape, and it's -- something needs to be done out there. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: May I add to that thought that even if we make the decision that the master plan -- we finally said, "Hey, we're not even going to do any of it," the facility is in such bad need of repair that having the option of even a 1-cent or a 2-cent hotel/motel tax in the county for the county, just to keep the facility going the way it is, may be a viable option. So, going to Harvey Hilderbran at this point and trying to get the legislation, at least get the feel for how long, can we do it in the next session and so on, doesn't cost us anything. And, I think we -- if we're going to have any options in the future, just to even maintain the facility, that maybe perhaps we ought to do that now with Harvey to see where and when we can -- might expect actually the authority to come through. Would it be in the next Legislature? We don't know, It may be two Legislatures from now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Commissioner 91 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 Letz is right. If we were to delay asking for permission -- and that's what we're doing, asking for that authority to be granted to Kerr County to levy a hotel/motel tax. Doesn't necessarily mean we're going to do it -- we're going to do (the project. We might have to have some better (justification as to why we're going to do it, as (Commissioner Griffin pointed out. We might want to do it to ,give us the ability to -- to maintain it better than we're doing rigkit now, even though we're probably spending $100,000-plus over and above what the facility generates in revenue each year. So, in order to put together a -- a financing plan, iii order for us to go to a foundation, in order for us to go back to Economic Improvement Corporation or any other potential source, we have to have a plausible explanation as to how we would fund this thing if we do it. If we said to the X-Y-Z Foundation, "With your assistance of a half million or a million dollars, we can bring the total amount down, which means we need to levy less of a hotel/motel tax because the whole scope is reduced by reason of your contribution." Sut if we don't have in place that funding mechanism up front, we have, in effect, tied our hands. We don't know. That's the way I see it. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's good, again, to point out that going to Representative Hilderbran for the 92 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 legislation, if he -- he's successful with it, simply gives this Commissioners Court the option to levy a tax. It does not levy a tax, per se. It gives us the option of something that wi]1 have to come back and be voted on as part of the comprehensive plan and go forward. If we're going to do this, now is the time to do it, so that Harvey can have the time to prepare the necessary legislation, to get with counsel in Austin, have a bill drafted, and drop it in the hopper at the appropriate time after the legislation meets in January. If we delay much further, then we run the risk of falling into the holidays, where things don't get action; they don't get the attention, and once it comes into January, then it becomes much more difficult to get things done on a timely basis. So, now is the time for us to decide whether or not we want to go to Harvey and ask him to try to get us the option of levying such a tax for purpose of financing all or a portion of this expansion and improvement out at the Ag Barn. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I heard several of you say that it's a possibility that what we need to do is go to Harvey and get him to approve it, but we may not spend it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We wouldn't levy it until we had the final parameters of the project. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have never seen a (government entity that did not choose to spend it. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 I 22 23 24 2~ 93 JUDGE HENNEKE: We have to take affirmative vote -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand exactly how it works. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- to levy the tax. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I know. JUDGE HENNEKE: Like Commissioner Williams (just said, our brethren over at City of Kerrville are taxing l percent less than they could on their hotel/motel. Maybe we can take a page out of their book and exercise some restraint, and if it's not necessary -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just believe -- I'm just a believer that -- you know, we have an eight and a half million dollar debt at this moment. I'm just one of these old conservative guys that feel like we need to pay down some of our debt. And it's a hotel/motel tax; you are taxing someone, so, you know, that's just the way I view things. We've had a good discussion. I think it's good and healthy to bring out all sides -- the other side of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other little point. If we were to get that authority and chose to begin building some funds for the purpose of this, by utilization uL that, we could, in fact, get a pot of money available and ready to be used for the project when we finally get it -- yet it in the program, first, that we want. Secondly, by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 c1 22 23 29 25 94 that time, if we were to undergo this and need a timetable, it would enable to us begin construction after the Hill Country Junior District Livestock Show in 2002. By that time, we would have had a couple more years of our debt ireductiou on other matters, as well. Only other point I have . JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or (comments? COMMISSIONEx WILLIAMS: Judge, I would offer a motion that the Court approve a resolution -- which we're going to ask you to draft -- approve a resolution that requests State Representative Harvey Hilderbran to author local legislation that would enable Kerr County to levy up to 7 percent on a county-wide hotellmotel tax -- up to ~ peiceut county-wide for the purpose of using it as a basis of funding mechanism for the Hill Country Youth District -- Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center expansion and renovation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would ask whether we could do that under our agenda item. I don't think it's -- a resolution is part of that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Want to come (back with itl COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, the second -- the November 13th meeting. I think it needs to be a very 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 explicit -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- what we're asking for. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right, we only said we were going to discuss it today. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't mention a resolution. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I withdraw that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else under this agenda item? Good discussion. If not, let's take a break and come back promptly at 11 o'clock, and we'll take up the water availability when we come back. (Discussion off the record.) i COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to thank Bob land Tom for coming. Appreciate it very much. JUUGE HENNEKE: Yes. (Recess taken from 10:50 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll reconvene this regular special session of Kerr County Commissioners Court. Next item is Item Number 16, which is consider and discuss and set public hearing regarding the approved Water Availability Requirements. (Discussion off the record.) 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 96 JUllGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Well, in the packet is the latest of the water availability rules we've been working on for some while. I have a couple of -- actually, I think I only have one -- just one typo and one question on it. As we talked about last time, I think it's gaming to be best on this to pass it as a separate order, because it -- and then incorporate it into the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. It is my opinion it's not really part of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and we're also rrot going under Section 232 of the Local Government Code, which is Subdivision Rules and Regulations, so it would make sense. The only question that I want to bring up t1~aL I have, after rereading it again over the weekend, is on Page 2, Section 1.09, Item (9) This provision was added in the Subdivision Rules. It says, "A11 public or community (water systems shall contain appropriate plumbing connections Ito allow fire trucks to connect to the water systems to withdraw water in case of an emergency." This language is here because it was in the draft in the Subdivision Rules, and I really -- my opinion is that this probably should come out and go back to the Subdivision Rules. JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not really water 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 availability. I got a yes from the Judge. So that, I ,think, should be removed, and that way we'll have something Ito go witki it. The other areas that -- just to get us (started, there's a typo on 1.06. It says "5.03.E." It should be "1.03.E." Since the last time it was before the Court -- it's under Exemptions on Page 4. COMMISSIUNER WILLIAMS: What was the typo again, Jonathan? COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Paqe 9, 1.06, Exemptions. It says Section 5.03.E. That should be 1.03.E. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- I just -- Thea went througt_1 and renumbered it to make it start at 1, as opposed to where it was in the chapter, all as 5's. Oh, there's -- here's what I was going to say. The other thing that -- that we changed is under individual wells, well testing. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What page? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 2, 1.05. This is one area that's gone back and forth several times. Last version had -- basically, it's the number of wells required in a subdivision. Last time it was before the Court, we said it was 100 acres -- or actually 99 acres or less was one well, or 100 acres or more was two. I talked to Cameron; he thought I was being too generous. And, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I L I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 29 25 98 actually, I think Cameron is -- I'll let Cameron speak for himself. I think he wanted to go lower than I did, but I told him -- I said, well, let's go back down to 79, and less (than 79 acres would require one well. Anything more than 75 -- 75 or more would be two wells. Cameron had a -- a stricter acreage limit. I don't know if he can live with this uiie or not. Those are the comments that I have that are real -- you know, other than that it hasn't changed a whole lot, other than some verbal changes, minor things. And, I think we're at the point that it's -- we can go over it one last time and set a public hearing and get this adopted. But, I would like to turn it over to Cameron; I asked him to come this morning, if he has any comments. JUDGE HENNEKE: Cameron? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will say one other thing, Cameron. So that Cameron realizes that I do read his e-mails, he referred -- or sent me an e-mail last week also that since Headwaters is doing a great deal under these, that we should get an interlocal agreement and specifically address this with Headwaters should we adopt it, and I agree with that. MR. CORNETT: I'd like to thank y'all for this opportunity. Several of the comments I saw that I made and sent out in memo format to my directors, one of them was a suggestion that we lower the required acreage down to 99 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 50 acres. This was due to the fact that we're doing just a single pump test on that, and the characteristics of the formation and the variance changes over a small area. The second comment I made was the sustainability concept. I agree with it, but we have a limited knowledge or background base upon which to draw pertaining to the Trinity Aquifer. This can lead to problems with the aspect of getting a sustainability study for the -- substantiating study for the sustainability of ground water due to -- I mean, economics developed -- involved with development of a subdivision, since sustainability will be dependent upon any and all future development surrounding that subdivision. So, any (time in the future, whatever we develop on that particular subdivision will change. One of the things we also need to keep in mind are monitor wells within the area. And then, third -- or my fourth comment was the opinion, certainly, that the undeveloped parcels in the subdivisions created in this draTt will not be subdivided in the future. The cluster development encouraged by this section could lead to a greater development and more regionalized depletion zones creating an area of the aquifer that will not recover quickly. Other than that, I'd like to commend y'all on this effort. I think it will be important. JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you saying that you would 100 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 prefer us not to have the incentive for cluster development in here? MR. CORNETT: Well, no, no, no. No, the -- (this -- my only concern is the fact that these green areas that what -- that will be left -- left open at some point in the future, they will be developed, and that will go in direct opposition to what we're looking at here. It will affect the recharge. It will create a greater demand in that area. One of the problems I also see with a cluster development is, whenever you create cluster developments, that spacing out your wells, you basically create a -- an area for depletion or greater demand. JUDGE HENNEKE: But the -- the subdivision will never have a greater number of lots than the number of acres divided by five. MR. CORNETT: Mm-hmm. JUUGE HENNEKE: So, whether the original plan has a cluster or not, you're never going to end up with the -- with an increase in the number of lots, unless they come off of the individual wells and go to a central system, MK. CORNETT: That would be my concern. Because, no matter whether we do a cluster division or we do it in just minimum lot sizes, people are going to use the same amount of water. And, what we'll see is within a small area, within that cluster, we will see depletion zones. If 10] 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 go to a centralized water system, we'll in effect be creating a demand Eor future development, because if I were a developer, I would want to tie into those lines which are leading to that cluster development. JUDGE HENNEKE: But the cluster is only available if there is a central water system. Right, Jonathan? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Can't do a cluster unless you have a central water system. MR. CORNETT: Yes, but that was my concern. Because, to me, the analogy that I always use is, if you have several smaller wells, they have less of an impact, (they recover more quickly. When you get into your larger iwells, they're pulling out the same amount of water, and yet (they don't recover as quickly, because we are pulling it out of one localized area. JUDGE HENNEKE: Would you rather have a number of straws in the pool or one straw in the pool'? MR. CORNETT: I'd have a number of smaller straws spaced out adequately. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's from a -- a well standpoint only. I mean -- MR. CORNETT: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the other side of  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 102 that coin is that the more penetrations, the greater the chance of contamination. MR. CORNETT: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, there's a little bit of a trade-off there. MR. CORNETT: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's the reason the City of Kerrville has some of the problems they have, is because they're -- they have some real big straws right here which are depleting the area right around the city. MR. CORNETT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So there needs to be a happy medium between, you know, large wells and -- and, you know, number of wells, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cameron, if you will would you give me a little insight into your logic again for reducing the acreage on test wells? In your memorandum that you circulated, it probably was 50, wasn't it? MR. CORNETT: Yes. That was the initial draft that went out, the 50 acres. What you see is, you see -- even within 50 acres, you see such a phenomenal change over a formation. There will be areas that will be low producers, there will be areas that are much more productive. And, you know, I -- I'm more apt to be able to live with 75 acres than I am with the 100, but the 50 acres 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L1 L 2 23 24 25 was what I was throwing out for consideration, again. There's not that great a difference between the 50 and 75. It's -- it's just that I was throwing out the 50 based on the 100-acre minimum that was out there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other, I guess, question I have is kind of to Cameron, probably to the Court as well. Under Section 1.03 on Page 1 -- and this is where the total number of lots permitted in a subdivision shall not exceed the total acreage divided by 5 acres unless surface water is a planned source of water for the public or community water system of the subdivision. And I point this out partially because I also have -- I was at U.G.R.A. last week. They asked me to come and explain what we were trying -- or I was trying to do here; the Court hadn`t looked at it, really, yet. And, the word "a" is very important here. It doesn't say how much of a -- of a (surface water source they have to have, and I left it vague (for us to discuss it today. The other option will be to put a primary source has to be surface water or, you know, a lisubstantial -- I mean, you know, right now, the way it's ,worded is that the -- if they're tied into a surface water 'source, they don't ever have to really use it. It's just total, 100 percent ground water under the current -- I don'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 25 104 know if we want to leave it that broad, or if we want to try to put some requirement they have to use a certain amount of surface water. And the other issue that goes aiony witki this, under U.G.R.A.'s conjunctive use plan up and down -- you know, throughout the county, if connecting subdivisions and also Aqua Source are doing the same thing, kicking their systems together, it's going to be very difficult in the future to determine if water is surface or ground, because they're going to be both going into the same system. And, I don't really know if we're at a point to write this up from a -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Practical, COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a practical standpoint. How do we know where it's coming from, you know, down the road? I think it's -- it is probably good to, hopefully, be good stewards of our water, to use surface water when it's available and use ground water when surface water is not available. Maybe just leave it up to them to determine where the water comes from. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the -- the point of the water availability relates only to ground water, So, as far as your 1.03 verbiage, you know, when you say "is a proposed source," to me, that's too loose. I think it should be "the principal source of water." Because, you know, water availability rules are more the ground water, and you yet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 105 out from under the water availability rules only by using surface water. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Unless it's -- instead of "a planned source," how about "the planned source"? JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd like it to say "the principal source." As opposed to "a planned," "the principal source." That still gives some -- some flexibility, but principal would probably be defined as more than 50 percent, and that puts us in the situation where we're not overlooking the requirements of protecting ground water. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That sounds good. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that idea, 'cause that puts the onus back, then, on them. If they're serious about using surface water, as opposed to ground water, that makes the case stronger. I like it that way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the acreage limit, I would prefer to leave it as 74. And, one, I think it's a little bit easier for the developers to handle that. And I think one of the main reasons -- or there's two reasons for the well testing. One is to make sure there's some water there. Our standards for production are not real tremendous, so if they drill a well, there's water there, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 106 they probably are going to meet those standards. If not, then there's a real reason for them to have a problem there or be a red flag. But, the other reason is also for us to get data. One of the biggest problems we have is the lack of data, and by drilling wells we will hopefully get additional data, so we'll be able to learn a lot more about the Trinity and make our rules even better in the future. But, I think we can achieve both of those if we have it the 75-acre cutoff. Now, Cameron's twisting my arm back from 100; I thought I was getting away with something. See, Cameron's a negotiator; he knew it was at 100, so he went to 50. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: winds up 75. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Wound up at 75, which made it about right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the sustainability issue, I believe the language -- I'm looking for the language that I added. I thought I added it somewhere in here about -- I didn't use the word "sustain," but I talked about recharge. Yeah, that second paragraph under 1.02. Do you have the October 17th version, Cameron: MR. CORNETT: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That paragraph was Lhe -- the intent of that paragraph is to explain what we're trying to do, kind of the basis for it. And, you notice that 2.8  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 107 and 200 gallons per day. I said based on State of Texas population projections. That was really the ones that Region J used, but I thought I just said State of Texas. I thought those were something that we could tie back to if someone challenged where we come up with those numbers; this is a State planning number. Does that work for you, Cameron? MR. CORNETT: That works. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? Mr. Siemers? MR. SIEMERS: Paul Siemers from Hunt. I have a couple questions. I went back to a couple comments that Cameron made about the cluster homes. I'm all in favor of cluster homes, but I would like to support the concept that it not be one large well, but in a large -- you know, several smaller wells spaced around the property. And the other thing that concerned me and other peop]e I've talked to is, a cluster developer is going to have all this nice green space, and as Cameron alluded to, would the plat be -- the deed for the plat -- the property state that in perpetuity, this property would not be subdivided and developed to any -- any greater degree than the original plat, which was 5 acres per. And that's the concern we 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108 have. I've seen developers go in with a green space in their original plat, go in and develop it, and two years later, three years later, sometime down the road, come back in for a replat to increase the population density. And I think that's what we want to assure cannot happen in the future. The other thing I would like to mention is the possibility of requiring a -- as you talked about, requiring -- the possibility of requiring a monitor well oii the large-acre -- large-acre developments, so -- in an area that wouldn't be affected by the development wells, themselves. So, you get a good history of what's going on in the -- in that region, 'cause especially out in the western part of the county, there's very little monitoring of what's going on out there, and it would be beneficial to have -- require some developers to participate with a -- with a monitor well that would not be contaminated by their -- by their own pumping on a large development. That's it for today. I think you've gone a good job, Jonathan. Appreciate it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Paul. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Paul made a little bit of sense, didn't he? MR. SIEMERS: Pardon? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You made a little bit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 109 of sense. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, just to answer that one question both Cameron and Paul had regarding the further development, I don't think there's anything you can do that's going to last in perpetuity. Any CommissioueLs Court in the future can change the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But -- if I might interrupt, but there is one important place that, if I were a potential buyer into a subdivision and there are green spaces in there, I want to see it in the subdivision covenants and restrictions that that is green -- and, in fact, I have bought homes twice in areas just like Lhat, and the homeowners insisted that it be in the covenants and deed restrictions that those green areas could not be developed unless the homeowners` association got together and, for some reason, sold it off. But there are several ways that that can be done, and I think the way 1 read Paragraph 1.03, as you have it, makes that very, very difficult for a developer to do in perpetuity, as long as this rule is the same. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And, as science changes in the future, we may -- I mean, these will likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 110 be changed in the future. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure. I i COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on what we learn about the Trinity. It could change either way; can go up or down, the requirements. So, I think we're -- you know, I think we're as fair as we can be, knowing that it's also up to Commissioners Court to change these rules. I mean, they can change them either way. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good job. JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we take any action the Court may want to take today, which would possibly include approval of this and setting a public hearing, let's make sure we all understand the changes. 1.03, the third line down, we've changed "a planned" to "the principal source of water." Paragraph 4, 1.04(4) on Page 2 has been deleted. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say again? I missed that one. JUDGE HENNEKE: Paragraph 4 on Page 2, "All public or community water systems..." has been deleted. And then on Page 4, 1.06, "5.03.E" has been changed to "1.03.E." Does anyone else have any changes they want to suggest or take note of? It might be appropriate to have the public hearing on this at our second November meeting. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make that motion. JUDGE HENNEKE: Which is, I believe -- what, 111 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 November 22nd? November -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: November 27th. JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm trying to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 27th. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: lt's a special date. JUDGE HENNEKE: 27th. It's an evening meeting. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good time for it. I'll make a motion that we approve the Kerr County Water Availability Requirements as modified, and set the public hearing for adoption for November 27th. JUDGE HENNEKE: At? COMMISSIONER LETZ: At 7:30. JUDGE HENNEKE: 7:30? COMMISSIONER LETZ: What time are we starting ~ at? JUDGE HENNEKE: 6:30. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6:30? Let's set it at 7:00. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the proposed Kerr County Water Availability Requirements and set a public hearing for same for Monday, November 27th, Year  1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 112 X2000, at 7 o'clock p.m. here in Kerr County Commissioners (Courtroom. Any further questions or comments? If not, all Ilin favor, raise your right hands. {The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Good. We're on a roll here. Let's take up Item Number 17, which is to consider and discuss and set a public hearing regarding the approved Manufactured Home Rental Communities Infrastructure Standards. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Again, this is something -- I believe at the last meeting we actually approved these. We can get moving on it. We approved them for the main reason of getting this to the -- regarding the lawsuit and trying to settle that, as well. And, in addition to getting it -- moving forward on this, getting them adopted, there are a couple things I would like to bring forward, additional comments, corrections to the draft that I've found, And, one is part of the legislation, and it's something we have to do some research on. The legislation does not address fees. We currently charge fees for filing and doing all of these things for Subdivisiun Rules, and there's nothing in the legislation that I read that addresses if we can charge a fee to process all this 113 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and get the mylars and set everything up that we do on subdivisions. This is a question that we might refer to David Motley to find out if we can charge a fee or not regarding this. And, if we do, you know what that fee structure will be. On Page 2 -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Quick question, Jonathan. Would that have to be in the order? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We don't do it on -- on other fees. The Clerk normally arranges -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it has to be in the order, but more the Subdivision Rules, kind of coming at the same time. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kind of something that jwould be addressed, you know, soon. And then I don't think that -- I don't find where we have authority to levy a fee, but if we do, it would be nice to know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you working off the generation in the packet or the one that was just handed out? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The one that was just handed out has corrections up on the top on Page 1. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. It's -- I was going off the one in my packet, but I think the portion that 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 V 21 22 23 24 25 114 I was talking about didn't have any changes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or, basically, the language was the same. On Page 2, under Section 1.03.A.1, the citations they refer to inside there 3s Chapter 8, and needs to be changed to Chapter 1 -- or I mean to Section 1, excuse me. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Section 1.04. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 1.04.E -- all of those should be 1.04, then whatever the appropriate letter is. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 3, the last sentence on 1.03.C, the sentence reads, If the County Engineer determines that the infrastructure complies with the Development Plan, the Commissioners Court shall issue a Certificate of Compliance not later than the fifth business day after the final date of processing. That's out of the law, and I don't see how you can comply with that, 'cause we don't meet -- I mean, without having special meetings all the time. So, my question, again, on that goes to, you know, I don't know if -- when I read the legislation, it's very -- it doesn't say we can delegate that authority, and i just need clarification from the County Attorney as to how we do those. And, again, this is a -- this paragraph is out 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 115 of the law, so we just need clarification on that. And, I -- I think the way to do it is either delegate it, if we can, to the County Engineer or the County Judge, because I don't want to have -- we don't do these very often. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or extend the time frames when we do. JUDGE HENNEKE: We can't extend ttie time frame. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only other option is to schedule the inspection during the time frame. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we can only schedule the inspection -- we have a 2-day time limit when we can do that. The turn-around is very tight. 50, it's just a -- to me, a question I have of the legislation. The other item on Page 4, 1.04, B, Roads, I thought that we should add some language. The thought was throughout the road language that they're going to be private roads, but we never say what they have to do if it's -- if the intent was to be a county road -- or county-maintained road. So, I thought we probably should add a provisLon under -- kind of at the end of that first paragraph; do a county road and then say county road is defined as a road under control and maintenance of Kerr County. Any county road considered -- or constructed in a manufactured home rental community shall be constructed Lo 116 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 the standards set forth in Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Therefore, if they are building a road -- and the intent is for public access. And county-maintained, it's real clear they have to build it to that standard, not the standard listed below. And then have another sentence which says a private road is a road not under control of -- control or maintenance of Kerr County, and then all the rest of the -- this provision would be applicable to that road. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would you place that part that you just read, Jonathan? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be right past 1.04, the first paragraph of 1.04.B. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And before B.l. And .then, as a heading under -- for all the B.1, B.2, all the Tway down to B.4, we'd have that private road heading. ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you use the language that we use on those plats, the "these roads shall remain private until such time..." da-dah da-dah'? COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have -- there is some language similar to that which is under the survey section which goes on the -- the survey that they present and which is part of the Development Plan. MR. JOHNSTON: Are the private roads still 30 foot right-of-way width? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 117 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What we have in the rules is a right-of-way of 60 feet, as we passed it, and I -- and I think the -- and it's paved, has to be paved acid 60 foot right-of-way, as we approved it and as it is still. MR. MOTLEY: Sixteen foot pavement and 20 foot of base? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, And those are the only changes that I would have to the draft that we approved last time. I do know that David Motley Yeas been in contact with counsel for the other -- for the Manufactured Home Community and, I don't know -- David, do you want to address where you are with that? MR. MOTLEY: Well, yeah, He -- Jason Panzer out of Austin, Hughes and Luce, did advise me that they were concerned in particular about the 60-foot right-of-way. And I encouraged him to go ahead and read through the latest revision, and look at the whole thing and let us know what his concerns were about the entire, you know, proposed regulations for these communities. I'm not sure if, to him, 60 feet means actually 60 feet of cleared right-of-way, 60 feet of base, 60 feet of paved road or whatever. They -- when we met, they urged that these communities will tend to be temporary uses in nature. 1 mean, just temporary in nature as -- as far as the use, because they are -- maybe an interim use, because all these homes are in there on a -- on 1 !~ L 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ' 12 .-. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 „^ 24 25 118 a lease-type basis. And, I think that's even defined; they'd have to have a lease under a certain duration in order not to qualify. And, so, the people present at the meeting who represented the manufactured housing people were saying they didn't want to particularly have an extensive infrastructure going into something that they were basically holding to, perhaps -- you know, with an eye toward changing the use of the thing. And the -- as I said, the one thing that's been communicated to -- to me was the 60-foot right-of-way. And, I think there's another provision in there that says cleared right-of-way or within reason, as dictated by the engineer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Hnd that's the same as our -- our Subdivision Rules have that same leeway. And, you know, in practice, I think we're pretty -- Franklin's pretty lenient. MR. MOTLEY: I -- you know, of the original items that they had raised, in letters and again in their petition, it seems to me like of the, say, six items, I think we've made changes on five of those to make our Manufactured Home Rental Community rules match very closely the general Subdivision Rules and Regs, and that's what it has to be. It has to be the same as our regular Subdivision Rules, with the one exception involving roads. And the roads can be no more -- there can be nothing more required 119 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 than what is necessary for reasonable ingress and egress, access for emergency vehicles and -- fire and emergency vehicles that are reasonably necessary. And I know the Court was concerned about the density of population in -- in these communities, and felt like if we had a -- I don't remember what standard Jason was pushing for, Jonathan, but if we had, say, a -- I think it was something like 30 feet with -- maybe you're allowing 7 feet on either side of the road, that if people started having visitors park adjacent to the road in front of their rental units, that it would be an expected situation that the roads could be narrowed to the point that you could not get this emergency equipment in and out. And I think that was the Court's feeling on (requiring a 60-foot right-of-way. The clearing part of it, I'm not -- I know these have already been approved, but Lhe part about them being cleared, if we're going to say "reasonably cleared," I think we might want to clear that definition up somewhat. But, if litigation ensues -- well, I mean, if, you know, it comes to a trial, it's going to be our burden to prove that it is reasonable to require a 60-foot cleared right-of-way, as the rules stand right now. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Doesn't the law say it can't be more restrictive on these than it is on our normal subdivision roads? MR. MOTLEY: It does say that, but there's 120 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 also -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You just can't be -- MR. MOTLEY: Under Senate Bill 712, Section A -- no, excuse me, Section 1.C -- no, l.D, Commissioners Court may not adopt minimum infrastructure standards that are more stringent than the requirements adopted by the Commissioners Court for subdivisions. The Commissioners Court may only adopt minimum infrastructure standards for ingress and egress access by fire and emergency vehicles that are reasonably necessary. So, that's sort of a sub-qualifier only in that one arena. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Seems like -- MR. MOTLEY: They are contending -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Seems like we have a 60-foot -- with all those same and good reasons, we have a 60-foot right-of-way requirement on a paved country lane, so we are not imposing anything any more -- I don't see how that can stand in the court that that's not -- we haven't done exactly what the law says. MR. MOTLEY: Right. Just so long as we can (show that that requirement is reasonable. And I think that (reasons have been expressed in previous sessions of court, .that the reason the Court wants to do it is a public safety and access issue. Because if a truck or ambulance, whatever, needs to get out there -- you know, 1 know there 121 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 are national standards and such, and I know these people made reference to them in our meeting, but if somebody has to get out there and you have cars parked all along the front of these mobile home rental units, and it impedes the tzucks from getting in, then we're going to have a problem. I don't know if 60 feet would be absolutely necessary, and I don't know to what -- JUDGE HENNEKE: We have to take a stand somewhere. The Court has taken a stand on 60 feet. It's the vote of this Court that that's what we thought was a reasonable standard for emergency vehicles, given the way these -- these subdivisions line up. And, unless someone wants to revise it, the issue, I think that's where we ought to stand. )Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I agree. We -- I think -- certainly, at this point, I think we should go ahead and, you know, approve them as modified for reasonable changes we talked about, and set a public hearing for November 27th. And, if they want to, they can come to the public hearing and give us their opinion. MR. MOTLEY: One other thing I would just like to mention on that is that these roads, unless the standards are adhered to precisely, are going to be private roads, and so that's another consideration that they are 122 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 urging, tkiat they're responsible for maintenance and such, and they feel that they should not have to match the general Subdivision Rules and Regulations on -- on the paved country lane for that reason, because they are intended to be (maintained by the owner of that subdivision and not by the County. JUDGE HENNEKE: Different standards for privately-maintained and county-maintained roads, as far as construction's concerned. We don't in our subdivisions, and we're not going to in the -- in this situation. MR. JOHNSTQN: We have that same rule in our Subdivision Rules. MR. MOTLEY: I hear you. MR. JOHNSTON: More than 15 mobile homes, they have to pave it anyway. MR. MOTLEY: I'm coming here today to try to communicate to you what my understanding is of the Texas Manufactured Housing Association's concerns about the rules as drafted, and I guess currently passed, and that's -- that's it. As I understand. I've not had further communication from Mr. Panzer saying he was concerned with other issues, which I think we have probably resolved, but I think if they really want to fight, they could probably, you know, drop back and start attacking these other issues; the water, electricity, and such as that. So, I think that the 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 rules aLe a pretty close match now. The offending language was taken out, prefatory language, and I think that it was cleared up at the end there, Jonathan, about the retroactive respective effect of these rules. So, if -- if that's all they're mad about, it's going to boil down to an objection to determine the 60-foot right-of-way -- cleared right-of-way as reasonable for this type of community. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind, 'cause I think this is our practice, anyway, to say all public right-of-ways shall be reasonably cleared of all impediments, including -- I mean, that's what we do right now. MR. JUHNSTON: Private roads are less restrictive; we'll work with them. But on public roads, we want cleared right-of-way, we want everything taken out. On private, we do work with them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, by adding the word "reasonably," I don't see how that really changes much. It says selectively, it may be approved by the County Engineer. JUDGE HENNEKE: I've got a couple of suggestions, Jonathan. One, since we do have an order on this in place, there should be a specific recitation in this order that the previous order is superseded. And, secondly, on Page 6, number -- Paragraph Number -- I guess it should 124 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 be 4, makes reference to an Appendix M. Unless you're going to attach it, you might want to put, "of the Subdivision (Regulations." COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, I think it's -- it needs to be a water availability -- MR. MOTLEY: Which are y'all on? Paqe 6, I what? JUDGE HENNEKE: Page 6, Number 3/4. CUMMISSIONER LETZ: Three. It says 3, but it (should be 4. CUMMISSIONER, GRIFFIN: Bottom paragraph. It says 3, but it should be 4. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Just add "of the Subdivision Regulations" after Appendix M, so it's clear where that appendix is going to be found. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. With those revisions, do we have a motion to approve and set a public hearing? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. And do it at 17:30? JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the proposed Manufactured Home Rental Communities Infrastructure 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 L 1 22 23 24 25 Standards order, as amended, and set a public hearing on same for November 27th, Year 2000, at 7:30 p.m. here in Kerr County Commissioners Court courtroom. Any further questions for comments? MR. MOTLEY: Could I get you to repeat the exact language that -- on Page 7 that you said should follow Appendix M? JUDGE HENNEKE: "Of the Subdivision Regulations." MR. MOTLEY: Okay, thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. Now let's go back to Item Number 13, Tommy, consider and discuss either renewing or seeking bids for property and casualty insurance, liability insurance, and health insurance. And actually, together with that, we'll talk about Item Number 14, which is consider and discuss engaging Don Gray to advise the Commissioners Court on insurance matters. As y'all may recall, Mr. Gray is the individual we -- we had help us approximately a year ago on property and -- and casualty insurance. Tommy? 126 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 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the only thing I have -- have to add is that I -- I've had a conversation with -- wiLYr Don Gray, and -- and he -- his input only was that if -- if TAC were renewed under 10 percent, then his advice is to renew. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's on the property, casualty, acrd liability insurance? MR. TOMLINSON: His experience so far this year has been Lhat -- that in the private sector, the trend for -- for increases in premiums have been 10 percent and higher, so if -- if we can -- if TAC agrees to go renew under 10, then he said we're probably wasting our time by trying to -- to go for bid. JUDGE HENNEKE: What about health insurance? MR. TOMLINSON: We didn't talk about that. He -- he does not get involved in health insurance, so that's -- that's an entirely different subject. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, what -- last year our health insurance went up. I can't remember the number. How -- how much? MR. TOMLINSUN: 'Phe Treasurer can help with that. I -- I don't remember. COMMISSIUNER BALDWIN: Was it 11? MS. NEMEC: Yeah, I -- 13 percent, maybe, something like thatl Eighteen percent? 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then this year, it's gone up another -- JUDGE HENNEKE: We don't know yet, because it doesn't renew until January 1. We've put -- MR. TOMLINSON: You're just talking about liability, property and casualty. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MS. NEMEC: I would like to address health insurance whenever it's proposed. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would too. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let's take them one at a time, then. Is it the sense of the Court that we get a low quote from TAC vu Lhe property and casualty and liability insurance? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: And that if it's less than a 10 percent increase, that that will be the preferred way of going? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I would -- MR. TOMLINSON: I think I can get them -- a commitment from them soon. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JODGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 128 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 authorize the Auditor to seek a bid from the Texas Association of Counties on renewal of the property, casualty, and liability insurance, and if such -- the increase on such insurance is less than 10 percent, to bring it back to the Court for approval. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Now, as to health insurance. Barbara? MS. NEMEC: I would just like to kind of explain how our health insurance works. And I think that Tommy could probably back me up on this, or make any corrections that I may have wrong. There are three different funding levels, I guess, if you want to call them that, that we have on our health insurance. And the reason I'm explaining it to you is I'm not sure that y'all know how the funding levels work. We are partially self-insured, which means that we have administrative costs, we have reinsurance costs, and then we have the cost to pay for our claims. So, the money that we send to our third-party administrators are paid that way; administrative, reinsurance, and to pay for our claims. The reinsurance, they go and they -- our 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 administrators go and bid that out every year, so whatever reinsurance costs that -- that they bring to us is going to be the lowest one because they -- they automatically do that. The amount that we pay for our claims, we're going to pay for them no matter who -- what third-party administrator we go with, because that is how much our claims are going to cost. So, really, the only -- the only thing that we're looking at that can be negotiated is our administrative costs. And if -- if we feel -- and I'm not sure what the figure is right off the top of my head; I didn't have time to look at it, but if we feel that our administrative cost is too high and we want to negotiate with our current third-party administrators, it's to our best interests to do that and stay where we're at, because we are partially self-insured. In other words, we -- we own our insurance benefits. We tell them what kinds of benefits we want. We tell them what percentage we want to pay in our benefits, what our -- the drug card we want to pay and all that. I did talk to an insurance agent a couple of days ago, and I explained to him that we were probably going to have to go out for bids this year, and asked him if he was interested. And he said he would -- you know, he would love to have our business, but that that was the worst thing that we could do because we were partially self-insured. And I understand 130 1 2 3 9 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that and 1 think Tommy understands that, because of the way the plan works. So, I'm just trying to explain it to you, and it you have any questions of me or Tommy, you can ask. Also, we have an employee who is in the process of -- of getting a pacemaker. That is going to drive our reinsurance costs up, and which will probably also cause any other administrator that's going to come in to go to a reinsurance company, and they're not -- they're probably not going to accept us. So, anyway, these are just things for you to consider. Again, I'm not -- the administrative cost is a very, very small amount of the portion that we pay for our insurance, and -- and if -- if sour third-party administrator's telling us to fund $200 per employee per month, what they're doing there is they're -- that's our money. That's not going to them. That is going to pay for the reinsurance. That is going to pay for our claims. A small, small portion of that is paying for their administrative fees. And, I -- I don't know how else to explain it. Maybe Tommy can do better, or if y'all have any questions, but that is the way it works. COMMISSIONER LE'1'Z: I guess my -- I mean, to me, I mean, what you're saying is we have one -- we decide ~on a third-party administrator as one, and then also, when Iwe decide on what benefit package we want the third-party administrator to bid, and those are the two options we have. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 131 We don't obviously go out and do the actual looking for the reinsurance. MS. NEMEC: Right, they do that for us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do that for us. And I guess how do we know -- you say they go out and they're going to get the best price, but aren't they going to get the price amongst the pool of companies that they work with? So that if there is some potential if we used a different third-party administrator, you could get different quotes back? MS. NEMEC: You can get different -- oh, well, no. As far as the reinsurance goes, I think last year -- you know, even when we don't go out for bids, last year they -- they sent out, like, 18 -- to 18 different reinsurance companies. I mean, they -- and the thing about it is, that if you go and you try and bid this out and you get different insurance agents to do that, those same insurance agents, the third-party administrators are going to end up sending the same proposal to the same reinsurance company, and it's going to be a matter of -- they're going to call me and say, "Who do you want us to give the bid to?" Or they have a procedure, whoever gets it to them first, they give it to them. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do you get a copy of all 18 bids that come back? Or do they just tell you, this 132 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 is the best one? MS. NEMEC: They usually show - - I've never really gotten a co py, but they'll usually tell me, this insura nce - - this reinsur ance came in at this price and this price, and -- and this wa s the lowest, and -- or this one didn't take -- you know, several of them didn' t take us last year. JODGE HENNEKE: That's -- I'm going to suggest that that's public information that we need to have. So -- MS. NEMEC: Absolutely. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- I'll ask you to tell the third-party administrator that we need to have, if not the original, copies of all the proposals that they receive back. MS. NEMEC: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: Not that we disagree with what they're doing, but I think that that is information that we should -- we're required to have available. So -- MS. NEMEC: And what usually happens when we go out for bids, the third-party administrator will bid his administrative fees low just to get us on board, and then they'll hit us the next year. So, really, this is our plan. I want you to understand that, that this is Kerr County's plan. Just a small portion is going to the administrative 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 S fees. And, you know, if -- if we want to tell them that if we can -- you know, that we want to negotiate those fees with them, and if they don't negotiate them, then y'all are going to consider going out for bids, we can -- we can even do that, but I think we owe it to ourselves to look at this first, to stay with what we have and to look at that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Sorry, go ahead. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This administrative cost that you keep referring to, that's for the third-party? MS. NEMEC: That's for the third-party administrator to -- all our claims are sent to them, and they pay -- they review all the claims. They -- they see if the claims are being charged the proper way, and then they pay them. We -- they ask us for the funding every month. We send them the money, but they do all the paperwork. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is the second time that we've -- I don't remember what the other issue was, but it was just recently, in the last couple months, we talked about going out for bids and looking at some -- and you came in and defended that, too. And I -- MS. NEMEC: I've always tried to get this point across, and I've just not known how to word it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm not -- but I don't know if I agree with you or not. I don't know if it's 134 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 healthy just to lock in with somebody and -- and cook there in a pot. What I do know for sure is that last year, we got a 3- or 4-percent salary increase, and a lot oY us, including this guy, took home less money. MS. NEMEC: Okay. That's because -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because of the insurance increases. And that makes me think that my third-party administrator is not doing his job in representing the -- the employees of this county. MS. NEMEC: No. Actually, the reason that happened was because, you know, rates -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's defending them. MS. NEMEC: And, really, it didn't matter what third-party administrator we were with; I'd be up here saying the same thing. You know, if we didn't have the service that we have with our third-party administrator -- which we didn't have five years ago. I was up here saying, you know, we need to go out for bids, because they were not doing their job. But in this case, they -- they are. I mean, they pay claims, and before we were having employees -- we were an insurance -- we were taking care of all insurance problems in our office, and we no longer have to do that because they do take care of -- of the problems. Now, you're going to have some that are going to come across and -- and things like that. But, the reason that happened 135 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 because rates did go up, and I'm sure rates are going to go up again this year. They're going to go up with whoever we go with. But, we chose to -- what they do is they give us a suggestion on how to fund the rate increase, and it's up to the Court how the Court wants to divide that increase, if they want to tag it onto the dependent side or the employee side. And, last year we tagged most of it to ttie dependent side of it, and there aren't that many employees that have dependent coverage, so when do you that, your dependent rates are going to go up. But we don't have to; we can keep that the same and tag it all to the employee portion and divide it amongst 200-something employees. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The level of funding that the administrator comes back and tells us is required, if I'm not mistaken, is predicated on two things -- at least two things. First of all is the benefit structure, right? The plan, itself? MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And secondary, our experience of the previous year under that plan. MS. NEMEC: The reinsurance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so he tells us what's going to be required to fund the level of benefits, based on the experience of the previous year; is that correct? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 _ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~- 25 136 MS. NEMEC: Right. Now, if we tell him, well, we just want to pay 60 percent and have the employees pay 40 percent, then, of course, that funding is going to go down. But, again, this is where the Court has complete contro] of the benefits and the funding levels. And -- you know, but I suggest we keep benefits the same as they are. I think all the employees are happy with the benefits. I think we have good benefits. Maybe one thing that we do need to look at, and which has been brought up by several employees, is our -- our retirement situation right now. When an employee retires, they are able to keep the insurance, but they have to pay for it. And, there are (several companies -- counties, whatever, that when an 'employee retires, that's a benefit that they -- that they keep, that the County continues to pay for their insurance iwhile -- you know, during their retirement. And -- and retirement would fall under -- if you retire and you're eligible for retirement benefits, not just if you quit or you -- you -- you quit early. You have to actually fall under the retirement benefit with TAC in order to be able to get that benefit. So, that's something that the Court is able to change also. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But we'd also need, in order to do that, to consider it with any kind of degree of certainty, would be to know what the funding level would 137 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 be required to support that based on the number of people either going to retire or anticipated to retire. MS. NEMEC: Right. And right now, we have seven employees that are on the -- on the -- retired employees that are on the insurance. And, they're -- what they pay is $105 a month, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, that, in effect, expands our employee pool. MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're paying for the one that retired and you're paying for the replacement, so you're expanding the employee pool. MS. NEMEC: True. That's a benefit that tYie (Court would need to see if that's what they wanted to do for the retirees, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not opposed to the concept. I think the Court, at some point in time, needs to have some numbers on what does that do to our plan, our funding ]evel. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wouldn't that also -- by doing that, you're giving -- you're expanding the pool, but expanding the pool at a higher-risk category. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good point. MS. NEMEC: I wouldn't say it's a higher risk category, because the retirees keep their insurance anyway, 138 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 so that the risk is there. You -- the only difference is that they're paying $105 per month. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Significantly less than we're paying for everybody else. MS. NEMEC: Right. And there -- well, and the reason is, $105 -- let me clarify that. $105 is if you're, I think, 65 and eligible for Medicare. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's right. MS. NEMEC: If not, if you're not 65 yet, which I have not seen -- there's probably one empluyee that is not that age that retired, and that employee is paying the regular 200-whatever. But, once that employee reaches age 65, the insurance will go down to $105 because Medicare is primary at that time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they become secondary. MS. NEMEC: Right. So, there's only -- right now, there's only one employee who is in that category. Most of our employees can't afford to retire till age 65. COMMISSIONER BALUWIN: So, we're going to get copies of the bids that the third-party has gone out -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I'm just suggesting that the Treasurer needs to have those for the records -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's open to us if 139 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 Iwe'd like. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- as part of the public information requirements. MS. NEMEC: Tommy, do you have anything to say on that? Am I correct on the way I presented this? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, as I remember -- I don't remember what our monthly -- monthly amount is that we -- that our cost is affected. How much is it per month? MS. NEMEC: $236 or $238, I don't know. MR. TOMLINSON: I think out of that $236, that administrative fee was something like $3. MS. NEMEC: So that's what you`re looking at. MR. TOMLINSON: Per month. So, I -- I mean, percentage-wise, that's a very small amount. In fact, I think if you calculate the total amount that -- that we pay that third-party administrator for their services, it's under $20,000. JUDGE HENNEKE: When will we get the new numbers from the third-party administrator? Third-party insurance expires in -- MS. NEMEC: January 1st -- or December 31st. I would say probably in the next couple of weeks. Next couple of weeks. Gosh, I had something to say when yuu said that, and I -- oh. The -- like, if they tell us that we need to fund $250 per month per employee, again, that is a 140 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 suggestion that they're making to us. We can fund $100 if we want, but -- but what they're looking at is the cost of the reinsurance; their, probably, $3-a-month cost for every employee, and the claims that are coming in. So, we can fund $150, we can fund $250. But $150 is probably not going to be sufficient in our pool, our money, to pay for our claims. So, again, that's not -- when they say $250, by no means is that money going to them. It's -- it's being set aside in our pool to pay for our claims, which we're going to have to do that anyway. JUDGE HENNEKE: I would suggest that we wait till we get the number from the third-party administrator. MS. NEMEC: Okay. I'll have them -- JUDGE HENNEKE: And address this again. Okay. All right. Thank you, Barbara. MS. NEMEC: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any more items before we adjourn for lunch? Item Number 18, consider and discuss approving the form of contracts on County-sponsored contracts and authorize County Judge to sign same. The real issue here is whether you want us to bring back each of these County-sponsored contracts to the Court for approval, or whether you want to give the County Judge the authority to sign those if they haven't been changed from what we all approved last year. So, what's the desire of the Court? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 191 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Personally, I'd like to see them. Just makes me feel like I'm a part of the government and representing the people. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I tend to agree. JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you going to read them? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, what I -- actually, what it does is it makes me aware during the year as to who we're giving the money to. And, I don't know that I need the whole thing, but maybe just the front page, or even just a citation -- an agenda item and cover sheet. I don't think that -- I don't read them. As long as the form's the same, I don't. JUDGE HENNEKE: You can get the whole thing. If you want us to bring them back, you're going to get the whole thing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't you do an agenda item like you do on a lot of things? JUDGE HENNEKE: If you're going to approve the contract, I'm going to give you the contract to look at. Whether you look at it or not, that's up to you, but I'm going to give it to you to look at so that nobody can say, "Got ya" when we're doing it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I have a preference of everything or nothing, I'd take everything. 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~l 22 23 24 25 JUllGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. Does anyone have any comments on the Soil and Water Conservation District contract or the CASA contract? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Nothing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve them, allow the County Judge to sign them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve the contract with the Kerr County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Hill Country CASA contract and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is Item Number 19, which is to consider and discuss Order designating the day of the week on which the Court will convene in a regular term. Let's keep in mind that "regular term" has a special meaning within the statute. In the past, we have designated the second Monday of each month as the regular term. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 7Q 21 22 23 24 25 143 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court set the second Monday of each month as the date on which the Court will convene in a regular term. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hands. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUllGK HKNNKKK: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUllGE HENNEKK: Motion carries. Item Number 20. The change order has not been done; however, I've handed out to each of you the directives which will be the basis for that change order. We're still having trouble with Stoddard Construction Company providing us information, particularly information regarding credits back to the County. Which is no surprise. I've instructed them and instructed our Project Manager that they're not to do any work that hasn't already been authorized until those change orders come to Court, so that's the situation we find ourselves in. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can't go anywhere. Hang on to this information, but -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Hang on to the information, that's correct. If there's nothing else, we'll stand in recess until -- actually, we'll adjourn and reconvene at 1:30 for the scheduled workshops. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:10 p.m.) STATE OF TEXAS I 'COUNTY OF KERR The above and foregoing is a true and complete 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 30th day of October, 12000. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk B Y : ___ / 1[t~ __ ______ _______ Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter ORDER NU. ~6G'?5 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS On Chic the '3rd day of Oc'tuber cOrZ~ir~, came to be cunaidered by L-tre Co~ar't the varimas claims and acco~_rnts ayainsi: {;err County and the vario~_rs Commissiur.er•s' pr•ecim_ts, P!!-, .. r: h1 saira Claims and Accounts are 1m-6enera7. F~..uid for- ~14b,~_55.,7; 11-J~_r~•y F~_rnd 'For ~GG4.C,6; 1C-Ro:ad 8 Pridye Add'1 Registration Fee for• ~.=E1C.19; 14-Fire Protection F~_uid for 4G,C5G.0iZ~; 15--Road R L3ridye F~_rnil for 4U[_,733.1c; 19--F'~_rblic Library Fund for• ~~9,~46.~4; c::;--J~.rverrile State Aid Fi.and for• ~14c.50; 24-Traffic Safety F~.rnd for b555.Dk; c7-Juvenile Intensive F'rugram-State Aid Funr_i fur 515,, c0. G7; 50-Indigent I-health Care F~_md for 5467.5!; 7~--Permanent Improvement F~..md fir 5~,7'r3.P5; ^ 83-State Funded-c16th District Attorney F~_tnci for- 51,600.86; Ei6--State F~_rnded--'S1Eth District Probation F~_md for ~4,C1C.G`3; arui 87-State F~arrded--Comm~_inity Corrections F~_rnd fur 51i.,'~iL~.59; (TO'TAI_ ALL FUNDS'-`62C4, 574. 68) Upon motion made by Comm:issioner• Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Coi_rrt unanimortsly approved 6y a vote of 4-0-Qt, pioner~• Let::, the Court unanimously, by a vote of 4-0-0, authorized the Co~_aity R~.xditor- to seek a bid from the Texas Rssociatiori of Coy.{ntie<.s on reneaaal of the F'r•nperty, Casualty, and Liability Ins~_u ante, and if any increase on such ins~_irance is less than 1~ peg°cent, briny back to the Court for approval. ORDER N0. :6?1 APPROVE FORM COUNTY SPONSORED COPdTRACTS iK.ERR COUNTY SOIL R WRTER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RND CASA CONTRRCTS7 Dit this the c:3rd day of October ~:D00, ~_tpan motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Let's, the Co~_trt r_tnanimously, by a vote of 4-Qr-0, approved ±;hte contr:~ct with the Kerr Co~_mty Soil and Water Conservation District and the Hi11 Country CASK Contract Band authnri~ed Co~_tnty J~_tdye to sign same. ORDER NO. c5?1 ORDER DESIGNflTIN6 DflY OF WEEF: L'OURT WILL CONVENE IN REC,ULflR TERM tTEXflS LOCRL 60VERPJMEtdT CODE SECTION 01.0~E;(fl) ) On {: hi:i~ tyre :,rd dtty of Octr,ber C~~O~ ~.rpon motion made by Cummi=_sioner Lets} seconded by Commisianer Williams9 the Co~ar•t i_rnanimoi.rsly~ by a vote of 4-0-0, appr^oved an order- desiynca.ting the second Monday of each month a; Chia Reg~_rL~r Term.