1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, October 23, 2000 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X October 23, 2000 PAGE 2 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 3 1.1 Pay Bills 8 4 1.2 Budget Amendments 10 1.3 Late Bills 11 5 1.4 Read and Accept Monthly Reports 12 6 2.1 Introduce new EMS Coordinator to Court 13 7 2.2 Concept plan, replat of Lot 35, Northwest Hills 18 2.3 Preliminary plat, Tilbury, Precinct 4 26 8 2.4 Concept plan, replat of property on Ox Hollow 30 2.5 Signage for privately maintained roads 38 9 2.6 Advertisement for bids, 25-ton lowboy trailer 42 2.7 Kerr County Courthouse parking lot design 42 10 2.8 Construction of parking areas and resurfacing interior roadway, Courthouse Square 47 11 2.9 Purchase of heavy-duty printer for Treasurer 53 2.10 Approval of ad valorem tax refunds 55 12 2.11 Change to custodial job description 57 2.12 Set hearing for LLEBG grant 63 13 2.15 Funding methods available to finance renovation/ expansion of HCYEC master plan 65 14 2.16 Discuss Water Availability Requirements, set public hearing 95 15 2.17 Discuss Manufactured Home Rental Communities Infrastructure Standards, set public hearing 112 16 2.13 Renew/seek bids for property, casualty, liability, & health insurance 125 17 2.14 Engage Don Gray to advise on insurance matters 125 2.18 Approving form of County-sponsored contracts 140 18 2.19 Designating a day of the week for court to regularly convene 142 19 2.20 Change Order #6 143 20 --- Adjourned 144 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Monday, October 23, 2000, at 9 o'clock a.m., a special 2 session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. It's 9 o'clock on 8 Monday, October 23rd, Year 2000, and we'll call to order 9 this regular special Commissioners Court agenda. If you'll 10 stand and join me in a word of thanks and pledge of 11 allegiance, please. 12 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, any citizen 14 wishing to speak on an item not listed on the regular agenda 15 may come forward and do so. Is there anyone in the audience 16 who would like to address the Court on an item not listed on 17 the regular agenda? 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Seeing none, we'll turn to 20 the Commissioners comments. I'll lead off this morning. 21 First of all, Commissioner Baldwin and I had the pleasure 22 yesterday of delivering the Kerr County Commissioners Court 23 Leadership Awards to the Kerr County 4-H recipients, Young 24 Man and Adult Leadership. It's inspiring to go out there 25 and see those kids who spend so much time on their projects 4 1 and develop leadership and community skills, and it was a 2 wonderful evening and we got out there just before the 3 heavens opened, I think. Secondly, I want to remind 4 everyone that early voting starts today at the Municipal 5 Auditorium. You can vote Monday through Friday this week 6 and next week from 8 o'clock in the morning till 5 o'clock 7 p.m. at the Municipal Auditorium. So, Commissioner Baldwin? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I just 9 wanted to remind everyone about those Tivy Antlers. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: All right. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There was a huge -- 12 Commissioner Letz and I were in Boerne at the football game, 13 and it was a huge crowd. I would guess that Kerrville had 14 more folks there than Boerne did, just by looking at the 15 stadium, looking at the size. And, what that says -- I 16 mean, you know, we're all community-minded folks and we're 17 all -- always promoting our community, and I think there's 18 some really, really exciting things going on at Tivy High 19 School and their football program. I mean, this is really 20 exciting stuff. And, this Friday night is homecoming here 21 at Antler Stadium, and if you want to -- as politicians, if 22 you want to get involved in a crowd, buddy, there's one. 23 And you'll have to wear the blue and gold, though. But they 24 scored 60 points against a big-time opponent, and I was 25 visiting with the old coach here this morning. I've been 5 1 watching Tivy football since 1958. I was 10 years old when 2 I first started watching; still had a rodeo arena in it, but 3 I don't recall ever scoring 60 points. May have, but I just 4 don't recall it. And then I just -- a few minutes ago, just 5 got a report on -- from the weather service folks. They're 6 predicting heavy rains on your end of the county for the 7 next three or four hours, and there presently is a rise out 8 there right now, so act accordingly, I guess. And that 9 doesn't mean that you have to go home, Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might not get back. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Might not get back. 12 Anyway, I guess that's about all. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Commissioner 14 Williams? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who is this week's 16 worthy opponent, Commissioner? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- it's Comal 18 County. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Smithson Valley. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Smithson Valley. And 21 they're ranked higher than we are. It's the two undefeated 22 teams of the district at show time. So -- and it's going to 23 be really muddy. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Here? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In Kerrville, Antler 6 1 Stadium, 7:30 Friday night. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have nothing, 3 Judge, except to be grateful and give thanks for all the 4 rain. Hope it doesn't do any damage to anybody, but boy, we 5 needed every drop. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Absolutely. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kind of just -- one thing 8 that Commissioner Baldwin left out is to encourage everyone 9 that does attend the game to go to the concession stand and 10 spend lots of money so the Booster Club can raise lots of 11 money. I'd also like to congratulate Comfort; they are now, 12 I guess, 25 and 0 in the district, placed in the last three 13 years, and continue to run up scores. It's a little more 14 common for them to get up in the 60-point range. I don't 15 think it was quite 60; 50-something to 3, as I recall. 16 Anyway, another huge win for Comfort, and they're on their 17 way to another great year. 18 And, my final comment is one that just really 19 is more for the record, and I already talked to Commissioner 20 Griffin about it, is that I've received several calls 21 regarding an article in the newspaper regarding salary 22 increases at 911. And, I just wanted to let everyone put it 23 forth. I asked Commissioner Griffin to just note the 24 objections that I'm receiving from people in the community 25 about the size of the raise to the employees in 911, which I 7 1 think was quoted at 11 percent. I have not seen the budget, 2 and -- but I would say if it is -- if that is the salary 3 increase, and I think it is, I have a problem, I guess, of 4 them getting a raise which is substantially higher than the 5 County employees got. Just for what it's worth. I hope you 6 will take that forward. Okay, Commissioner Baldwin is 7 liaison, too, so both of you can take it forward. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right. I have 9 not a lot to add, except that -- that Road and Bridge are 10 probably going to have some work to do with -- with the 11 wash, since everything had -- we haven't had a wash in so 12 long. I notice that all of the Highway 39 is -- the State's 13 going to have a lot of work, too, but I'm sure many of 14 our -- we're going to start getting a lot of calls on -- on 15 covered roads with mud and -- and debris, because it's just 16 been so long since it's been washed out. That's all, Judge. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, very good. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A lot of potholes out 19 there just beginning, I've noticed. I saw one this morning, 20 '68 Volkswagen coming out of one of them. I don't know how 21 long it had been there, but -- 22 (Laughter.) 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Been there a while. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Did it have flowers on 25 it? 8 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Painted on the side? 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. At this time, do we 4 have any bills to pay, Mr. Auditor? Anyone have any 5 questions or comments regarding the bills as presented? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a 7 motion that we pay our bills. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 10 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 11 authorize payment of the bills as presented and recommended 12 by the Auditor. Any further questions or comments? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somewhat related 14 question, Judge. On the -- what did the Legislature do in 15 the last session about coming up with some financial help 16 for large criminal trials in counties? Remember, there was 17 -- I think there was a bill. Did anything happen to it? Or 18 did it -- 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: They passed that bill, and -- 20 MR. TOMLINSON: It's almost a hopeless 21 situation. They -- first of all, they don't -- they don't 22 reimburse you for court-appointed attorneys, and that's -- 23 and for most counties, that's the major part of it. I 24 submitted that application for -- from Bandera for $26,000. 25 We got $6,200, and it's -- it's a reimbursement thing. You 9 1 don't get the money. You've got -- you have to -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Spend it. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: You have to spend it, and -- 4 and submit invoices to the State to get reimbursed. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Also, to be able to qualify, 7 the County -- the County has to expend more than they 8 receive. In other words, your -- your revenues have to be 9 less than your expenditures. The only way that -- that 10 Bandera County qualified -- it was just a coincidence, that 11 they had -- they had borrowed some money to match -- to do 12 some road work, and all the money came in the prior year. 13 They spent it all last year, and so -- so that was the only 14 reason that they were able to qualify. So, it's virtually 15 impossible to get. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: The bill was really designed 17 for the small, rural county that doesn't typically have a 18 capital murder, and if it has one, that just blows their 19 whole budget. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: i.e., Bandera County. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: It was a substantial amount. 22 But, if they're going to disqualify any court-appointed 23 services, then, I mean, that's -- you know, for -- for our 24 experience, that's 80 percent of the cost. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 10 1 MR. TOMLINSON: And so, I mean, that -- that 2 more or less nullifies the bill, in my mind. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 4 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We have one 9 budget amendment regarding Jail Maintenance. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I think, originally, the 11 Maintenance Supervisor had attended -- had plans for the 12 maintenance person in the jail to be in their contract -- a 13 contract agreement. He's tried to work this out, and seems 14 to think that only way he can get somebody is to have them 15 on the payroll. So, this amendment is to set up retirement 16 in that department. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Salary's already 18 there? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's -- it's set up as 22 a contract wage, is what it -- I think was what was 23 budgeted. But, he just -- at this point, he's -- he's given 24 up trying to find someone to do it contractually. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There will have to be 11 1 another amendment, though, to move it out of the contract 2 line item into salary? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: I think there's -- there's 4 something else on the agenda today. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: I think related to this same 7 topic. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if we don't 9 approve that agenda item, though? How does it affect this 10 right here? I mean, I don't want to approve one thing and 11 not approve another. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know which agenda 13 item it is. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we do both at 15 the same time? 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we just include 17 this as part of that agenda item? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Pass on this for now. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: And take this up as part of 22 the agenda item. Are there any other budget amendments? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any late bills? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 12 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I have two from 3 Corporate Express. One is for $783.36, to be paid out of 4 the Permanent Improvement fund. It's for chairs for the 5 District Clerk and the Visiting Judge's office. The other 6 one is also for Corporate Express out of the same fund, and 7 it is also for chairs in -- in the courtroom, and it's for 8 $1,682.20. The final one is from me, and it's for 9 reimbursement for conference in the amount of $619.41. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions or comments? 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 14 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we authorize payment 15 of the late bills as presented by the Auditor. Any further 16 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 17 right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this 22 time, do I have a motion to approve and accept the monthly 23 reports? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 13 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 2 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 3 approve and accept the monthly reports. Any further 4 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 5 right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Let's turn 10 to the first item on the agenda. Commissioner Baldwin? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'd like to 12 introduce the new EMS Coordinator. He's employed by the 13 City of Kerrville Fire Department. And, of course, you know 14 that we -- we send a part of his salary over there to assist 15 the County in the First Responder program, and so I've asked 16 him to come to the Commissioners Court so I can introduce 17 you to him. And then, at a later time real soon, in the 18 next few days, he and I will sit down and work on a -- a 19 schedule for him to come into the Commissioners Court to 20 give us a -- give us reports. And, Commissioner Letz, I've 21 mentioned to him that you'd like to visit with him, and he's 22 happy to do that. But, Robert Taylor is the new EMS 23 Coordinator. Robert? 24 MR. TAYLOR: Your Honor, members of the 25 Court, I'm not new to the Kerrville Fire Department, having 14 1 been here for 17 years, but this is the first big promotion 2 that I've received. I was a driver/paramedic for a number 3 of years and decided that I wanted to move up and into the 4 world, and in a different area than shift work, so I applied 5 and received the position. And I'll try to do the best job 6 I can with it. Some of the concerns I think that the County 7 has right now that I'm looking into and trying to get a 8 handle on is we have quite a bit of equipment out in the 9 county area with county First Responders. I don't know what 10 the total sum of the value of that equipment is, but we're 11 not even sure where all this equipment is at the moment, due 12 to changeover of personnel and things of this type, so I am 13 doing a paper chase and trying to locate all this equipment, 14 recover it, inventory it, and redistribute to it current 15 certified EMT's and First Responders. 16 Another program that I want to try to -- that 17 I am going to implement is the Continuing Education program 18 for the First Responders. Several years ago, they had a 19 monthly meeting where the previous EMS Coordinator would get 20 together with them and teach classes that were concurrent 21 with what the fire department was teaching to their basic 22 medics. For some reason, this fell by the wayside. I've 23 already had several paramedics within the department offer 24 to assist in teaching these courses. We're going to try to 25 make it a monthly meeting, bring everybody's certifications 15 1 up-to-date and get their C.E. to where they're on the same 2 page that we are. We also have to get their certifications 3 -- as an EMS or paramedic, whatever level you may happen to 4 be, you're required to do a 2-year C.E. report. If you 5 don't do these reports, you stand to lose your 6 certification, and then we have equipment sitting out there 7 with nobody to use it. So, we need to get these people up 8 to speed, and that's the primary package that I'm trying to 9 work on right now, is to bring everybody up to speed, 10 reinstitute and revamp the First Responder program so that 11 the county citizens receive what they deserve in a 12 top-quality EMS system. 13 I spoke with Buster just very briefly on a 14 couple of occasions. It was his desire, as the -- and the 15 Court's desire that I make quarterly reports to you, and I 16 intend to do that. Buster and I have every intention of 17 meeting to discuss what the County's concerns are, and then 18 I heard today that Commissioner Letz would also like to meet 19 with me, so I'm more than willing at any time. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions for 21 Mr. Taylor at this time? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only -- 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just a comment. Good 24 on you. I like the paper chase and getting that stuff 25 inventoried, getting it to the right people. That's 16 1 something we need to do. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- just from the 3 standpoint if you can get with Chief Holloway and see if 4 he's available on the 30th or 31st to meet with Kendall 5 County. 6 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Regarding the same issue. 8 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- I've been trying. 10 I believe he was out of town last week; I couldn't get a 11 hold of him. Those two dates have been set aside by 12 Commissioners and EMS Coordinator from Kendall County. 13 MR. TAYLOR: All right, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one question 15 real quick. What's the status of your volunteer situation 16 out there? Is it still -- are you still in need of 17 volunteers, or are you in pretty good shape now or what? 18 MR. TAYLOR: Actually, we are -- we're going 19 to be in need of some. We do have several -- I know that 20 we've got four or five that are committed out in west Kerr 21 County. I know we have one or two that are functioning in 22 east Kerr County in the Center Point area. Beyond that, at 23 this time, I'm not really aware of any responders. I know 24 there's more people out there that are willing and capable, 25 but they -- they need to know what page they stand on. You 17 1 know, some of the people that have responded in the past 2 have either moved out of the area or lost their 3 certifications or whatever, and some of them still have 4 radios. First Responder position is we are trying to 5 regather the equipment that's already been issued from 6 people that are no longer responding, and then turn around 7 and reissue it to new -- new responders if they're willing. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 9 MR. TAYLOR: And I've had several people 10 comment that they would like to either continue or become a 11 First Responder. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Robert, regarding First 14 Responders, you might also get with whoever the First 15 Responder is in Kendall County for Comfort, because I know a 16 number of -- because the fire departments overlap in eastern 17 Kerr County. A lot of the First Responders in eastern Kerr 18 County work through the Comfort Fire Department, so you 19 might try to work with them and try to -- I think there's 20 some overlap in the far eastern part of the county, but I 21 think they probably work out of Kendall County, even though 22 they live in Kerr County. 23 MR. TAYLOR: All right. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 25 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. 18 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Appreciate it. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thanks a lot. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Next agenda item is -- oh, 4 did you have a -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A question on -- I talked 6 to Cameron a few minutes ago; he wanted to come over when we 7 talked about water availability, and I was wondering -- 8 water availability is 2.16, 2.17 -- whether we want to do it 9 in the morning or put it off till this afternoon when we're 10 doing Subdivision Rules, 'cause they're so closely tied. I 11 don't know if there's any preference. If not, I told 12 Cameron probably 10:30 we'd get to water availability. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: What's your preference? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any 15 difference to me. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we can go 17 ahead and address that and -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And then reset the -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just mentioned it to 21 him. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Feed that into our 23 workshop. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Next item is 25 Number 2, consider the concept plan for replat of Lot Number 19 1 35, Northwest Hills, and a variance from Section 7.07 of the 2 Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 3 Mr. Johnston. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: I think you have a copy of 5 that -- that plat. This lot was -- this section was divided 6 into three lots. They did a minor replat, removed the lot 7 lines and made it into one lot, and now they want to break 8 it back up into three lots, slightly different, to meet our 9 frontage rules. And they can meet the rules on 35 and 37 -- 10 or I think it's 36 and 37. 35 is 105 foot, I think, instead 11 of 120 -- 105.4 instead of 120. I know they're not -- you 12 can't issue, probably, a variance on preliminary concept, 13 but they kind of wanted to get a feel from the Court if this 14 would be considered favorably before they go to the expense 15 of doing a plat. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I'm going to comment 17 that this Court has no ability to grant a variance to their 18 subdivision regulations. It's a contractual matter among 19 the homeowners in a subdivision. If they want a variance as 20 to our 200-foot requirement, that's one issue, but we don't 21 have the legal ability to grant a variance to their 22 subdivision restrictions. That's something they'd have to 23 do in accordance with the declarations, restrictions, and 24 covenants. Travis, back me up. 25 MR. LUCAS: I believe you're right on that. 20 1 MR. JOHNSTON: So, they should do this within 2 the subdivision homeowners' -- 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, there's two issues. 4 There's, one, what our requirements are. Our requirements 5 are 200 foot. 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, it's actually 120 foot 7 on lots that are -- that are less than -- between 1 and 8 2 1/2 acres. I think anything over 2 1/2, it's 200 feet. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would it be 10 appropriate, Judge -- for what you're saying, would it be 11 appropriate for us to consider a variance to our rules with 12 the proviso that they would still have to get some sort 13 of -- something out of the homeowners' -- 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. I think that when they 15 bring it to us for the variance -- which is not before us 16 today, because all we have is a -- a concept plan. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Then I think it would be a 19 requirement that they also demonstrate that they have 20 approval from their own subdivision for a variance from 21 their own subdivision rules. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Before we even get to 23 that, Franklin, if my memory serves me -- and I've spent a 24 little bit of time out there recently -- that this is a -- 25 there is a pretty steep slope going up these particular 21 1 lots. 2 MR. JOHNSTON: I think they are. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a very steep 4 slope. And I was wondering about -- have we talked about 5 possible drainage problems out there? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, that would be part of 7 the plat process; they would have to take a look at that. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then -- 9 MR. JOHNSTON: During -- between the 10 preliminary and final plat. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the slope of 12 a road going in there, if they were going to build -- 13 MR. JOHNSTON: These roads are preexisting, 14 so I'm not sure if we could make them change the road 15 grades, but -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, on these 17 particular lots, the only building places are up at -- in 18 this area up here. They're going to have to build roads up 19 across this property. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: I think those would be in the 21 nature of driveways; not really roads, as such. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't -- okay. 23 You don't consider that as roads? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. What about 22 1 -- what about this water line going right here? Do we have 2 -- you don't have any problem with that being there and then 3 having the ability to drive over it, and -- 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Anything like water lines have 5 to be covered with an easement. They can drive over it, but 6 they couldn't build. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they have public water 8 here? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm. 10 MR. WELCH: I own the property. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Do you have any comments? 12 MR. WELCH: No. Just that -- I mean, just that 13 the way we're changing it, we're not trying to change where 14 the water lines are or anything. We're leaving it existing 15 easements or something like that. We don't want to change 16 any of that. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's the water 18 company? Harper? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Aqua Source. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aqua Source. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Septics? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: It would be septic tanks. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are the size of 24 the -- 3.43 is total acreage of all -- 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm. 23 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- three lots right now? 2 What will each lot be, approximately? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: This didn't give a breakdown. 4 Do you know what those will be? Obviously, a minimum of one 5 acre, so water -- all will be a little over one acre. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The way it's drawn, it 7 doesn't really look like there would be -- 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Doesn't indicate. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if they were to 10 reconfigure -- like I say, there's no way to reconfigure to 11 get the proper frontage. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say that again? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no way for them 14 to reconfigure the lots to get all of them on the 15 cul-de-sac. I was looking to see if they could not need a 16 variance, but they can't do that. They're already at 60 and 17 60 on the two lots. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, on the cul-de-sac, 60 19 foot meets the requirement. Just one lot that doesn't meet 20 it. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm very hesitant 23 about, at this point, talking about granting a variance. 24 Actually, I'd like to look -- 25 MR. JOHNSTON: I understand you'd actually 24 1 have to do that at the preliminary. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that, but 3 you're looking for a -- a head nod here. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, that's what they want. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm real hesitant 6 about that. I want to get with this gentleman here and talk 7 about some drainage and -- and I want to know about his 8 driveways. Are we going to consider those real driveways 9 or -- 380-foot driveways? Or are they going to be actual 10 roads? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Maybe we should meet out there 12 on the site. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be good. 14 I'd like that. 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Take a look. But, in my 16 opinion, they'd be driveways. Any time you have a -- you 17 know, from a -- from a road to a house, it's not considered 18 a county road or public road; it's a driveway. It's on 19 private property. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'd like to 21 postpone this and let's take a look at it, and then come 22 back and try again at a later time. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At the preliminary 24 plat? Or -- I don't think we'd have to come back for the 25 concept, but if those questions are answered, can they go 25 1 ahead and do that? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, they're wanting 3 -- they're wanting to know what -- what our feelings are 4 toward the -- the variance. And, personally, I'm not 5 willing to do that. 6 MR. JOHNSTON: I think they're getting their 7 feedback from what you've all said this morning. I think 8 they've got some idea what they have to meet to do what they 9 want to do. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I mean, 11 from what Larry was saying, that unless they want to come 12 back to the Court, they don't need to. They can wait until 13 the preliminary plat if they want. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine with me. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause, I mean -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any 17 problem with that. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If they can satisfy 19 you. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They may not get the 21 variance. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they do satisfy you, 24 and then -- or they can bring it back to us, 'cause the 25 Commissioner can handle the concept plan on his own. 26 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything else on that 2 item? We'll go to Item Number 3, consider the preliminary 3 plat of Tilbury, Precinct 4. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is 5 Mr. Domingues? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: High water? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: He's not here, either. This 8 subdivision consists of two lots. They both face Highway 9 39, immediately past Cedarstone Subdivision, and they both 10 have adequate frontage. They're 2 1/2-acre lots, so they 11 would have wells and septic tanks on them. Even though one 12 lot has a river running through it. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why -- why is he platting 14 this? He just wants to? I mean, he can do it without a 15 plat, couldn't he? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, no, not on less than 17 10 acres. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What was that? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not unless they're 21 10 acres. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: I guess he's breaking it off a 24 larger tract, wanting to sell those two lots. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Raises an interesting 27 1 question. On Lot Number 1, it says 2 1/2 acres, but it 2 looks like about half of that is on the river. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Half of it's on the river. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Does that still qualify as -- 5 as being eligible for a well and an OSSF? 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, if you meet 7 the -- if there is enough area outside the floodplain -- 8 we'll get in some of that discussion this afternoon, but if 9 there is enough area to put in a septic system that's out of 10 the floodplain and otherwise meets the requirements, the 11 answer is yes, I think. If there's not, then it's a great 12 2 1/2 acre site, but you couldn't build anything on it -- or 13 you couldn't have sewer. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can put a -- some 15 other kind of septic system. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Alternate system. It 17 may require an alternate system. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Likely would, by the way 19 it looks. From a well standpoint. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: He has two little shaded-in 21 areas that says two possible locations for OSSF, both of 22 flood lines -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it doesn't say 24 that. It says possible locations for two septics. 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Right, two septics. And the 28 1 flood lines, you know, the other side of that, so it's above 2 the floodplain. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: He may run some 4 calculations that the 2,500 square feet is going to be the 5 requirement. Then he's got two possible sites. 6 (Charles Domingues walked into court.) 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Just in time, Charles. 8 (Discussion off the record.) 9 MR. JOHNSTON: The question was on Lot 1, 10 like, two-thirds of the lot has a river on it. They're 11 wondering if there's enough space above the flood line here 12 to put in a well and septic and -- 13 MR. DOMINGUES: There's -- this will be 14 served by a public water system. And I've talked to Charlie 15 about it, and he said that because of the familiarity of the 16 Cedarstone that we just platted, which is just south of 17 this, he said there shouldn't be any kind of a problem with 18 putting the -- a wastewater system on that lot. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who did you talk to? 20 MR. DOMINGUES: Charlie Wiedenfeld. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, I know him. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: What's the public water 23 system out there? 24 MR. DOMINGUES: It really serves Cedarstone, 25 the River Inn, that whole area, as a public water system. 29 1 (Discussion off the record.) 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is that one of the 3 Vlasek systems? I don't think Bill's got anything out 4 there. 5 MR. DOMINGUES: I'm not sure. That's what I 6 understand. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could be. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's hard to tell 9 where this is. That's what I was going to chew on you 10 about, Mr. Domingues, is I can't tell exactly where it is. 11 In this next two, didn't we recently do one there where John 12 Jobes used to live? 13 MR. DOMINGUES: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And this is next door? 15 MR. DOMINGUES: Yeah, this is just 16 immediately north of it. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you look at the 18 inner map there where -- where the River Inn is, I think 19 that sort of locates it for you. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: On the next plat, we need to 21 put what the public water supply is and put it on there. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Just right before you get to 23 low water crossing, before River Inn. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 25 (Discussion off the record.) 30 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments? 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would make a motion 3 that we approve the preliminary plat as proposed. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 6 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 7 approve the preliminary plat of Tilbury, Precinct 4. Any 8 further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise 9 your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is 14 Item Number 4, consider the concept plan of replat of 15 property on Oak -- Ox Hollow, and a variance from Section 16 7.07 of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is this one? 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Ox Hollow Road. 19 It's -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right off of Baldwin 21 Road? 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, you can get to 23 it that way. Help me, Liz. 24 AUDIENCE: Kelly Creek Crossing. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Baldwin Road? 31 1 AUDIENCE: Baldwin Road. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll let Franklin go 4 through this, but I do want to say I am familiar with this 5 one. This is one I think that -- and it is a little unique. 6 The reason we need to consider the variance is because of 7 the frontage. I personally think it meets our requirement, 8 but, Franklin, would you discuss the issue here of the two 9 accesses? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: The issue here is, will they 11 have adequate -- you know, if the Court deems they have 12 adequate frontage, it does not require a plat. It's a flag 13 lot, as you can see the part that's -- that starts from 14 where the road -- where Ox Hollow veers off, straight down 15 the right-of-way there, 60-foot-wide strip. That black -- 16 that large area in the back is, I think, 11 acres? 17 MR. VLASEK: With the strip, yes. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, with the strip. So, 19 anything over 10 acres, if it has adequate frontage on a 20 county road, it does not need to be platted, so the question 21 is, is there adequate frontage? They actually own under the 22 road in that upper area, so they have 84 foot of frontage at 23 that point, at the flagpole. They've secured an easement at 24 a lower place down the road, 30 foot across the side of the 25 property. 32 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which would actually 2 be the driveway to the property. And I think -- let me 3 add -- 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Instead of going over a hill, 5 right. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And if you 7 look at the topo of it that's just behind that, you'll see 8 that that's a steep -- as you go away from the road, that's 9 a very steep area there. The building site -- the nominal 10 and the expected building site would be on the end where the 11 30-foot easement is. And -- and it doesn't appear to me to 12 be any likelihood that you're going to ever try to see a 13 further subdivision of that property, 'cause there are no 14 other building sites that really are without major 15 excavation and that sort of thing. So -- 16 MR. JOHNSTON: And if they did, it would have 17 to be -- 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Two accesses. That's 19 the reason I thought we ought to bring it to the Court 20 and -- and try to get a variance approved, so that -- 21 because this is a little unique. There's not just one 22 access, there's more than one. The total's about a hundred 23 and -- 24 MR. JOHNSTON: About 120 instead of 200. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: About 120 feet. And I 33 1 think it's reasonable to grant a variance for this. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that a deeded easement 3 used for the driveway? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: It will be deeded. 5 AUDIENCE: It will be. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Still a concept. 7 They've got the owner's agreement. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: And if it is, if they attempt 9 to do additional divisions on that property, then a road 10 would have to be built along the 60-foot easement, and -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: -- and access it that way. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You would have to have 14 an additional road platted in there to do that, if you were 15 to ever try to further subdivide. So, this is large 16 acreage; I think it's reasonable access, and certainly meets 17 the -- what I would consider to be the requirements for a 18 variance. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The road comes -- it 20 comes here and then goes down here? 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that the road? 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right, that's Ox 24 Hollow Road. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this is nothing here? 34 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's -- that's 2 property back there that's -- that's the flag portion back 3 into this lot. They actually have frontage here of 84 feet, 4 and then an additional 30 feet for the easement. So, like I 5 said, we don't see many like this, where you've got this -- 6 like I say, the primary access -- 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Six more feet to give it 90; 8 90 and 30 gives you 120. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can't increase that 11 30-foot easement? 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Tried several times, 13 several ways. That -- that piece of property that's in 14 between there is not usable for much of anything, but the 15 owner's just not willing to go more than 30 feet. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He knows the Subdivision 17 Rules, probably. And this -- this tract here will be how 18 many acres? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Eleven. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's 11. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This one will be -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Fourteen and a half? 23 AUDIENCE: Fourteen and a half, yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's -- it's a 25 flag lot, but it's not as bad as a lot of them. 35 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, and with the 2 easement -- that, to me, changes the complexion of the -- I 3 would hope that at some point -- I know the buyers of Lot -- 4 of the 11-acre lot would like to eventually try to buy all 5 of this property that's in between the road and the -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- existing property. 8 That's their ultimate goal, but the owner will probably have 9 -- the other owner is probably going to have to decide what 10 he wants to do with the property before that can happen. 11 So, if there's no further discussion, I'll make the motion 12 that we grant the variance, which then would not require a 13 plat, and wish the folks good luck. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: That motion was subject to 16 them attaining the deeded easement? 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Yes. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 19 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 20 approve the variance from Section 7.07 of the Kerr County 21 Subdivision Rules and Regulations, subject to receipt of -- 22 of the deeded easement from Ox Hollow onto the 11-acre 23 tract. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the question I 25 have is that I don't know if we can legally do that. That's 36 1 what I'm asking. Is there a way to put a -- I guess a 2 restriction against subdividing that lot without -- I mean, 3 once -- if that's going to be their access and we go ahead 4 and say that to grant the variance, how are we going to know 5 if they, you know, want to split something off? 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It would have to come 7 as a replat, wouldn't it? At least a minor replat. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's not platted. 9 We're not -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It would have to be if 11 it goes below 10 acres. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what we have to 14 do, so you would have to have a plat at that point. That's 15 where we'd get our shot at that. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess my other 17 question is that the -- the intersection where -- and 18 this -- maybe it just looks this way on the map, but the 19 intersection up where the -- where Ox Hollow Road -- is that 20 the name of the road? 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where it meets that 23 angle, you're having a -- seems like it's a -- a strange 24 intersection. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Actually, it's more of 37 1 a curve than is shown here on this. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't do that? 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It doesn't -- it's 4 actually a curved road. And, in fact, it appears that it 5 may go a little bit onto that 14 1/2 -- what would end up at 6 the 14 1/2-acre tract. But, I mean, it's by prescription, 7 so it's -- it's -- 8 AUDIENCE: The roadbed runs lateral to the 9 property line and it curves at that point. And my 10 contention was that it was actually a 60-foot easement, and 11 as it curves, that would be 94 feet actually in there. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To use the curvature 13 instead of a 45-degree -- the nature of the curve is that it 14 probably it has more -- that 84 feet is based on a sharp 15 45-degree turn, as shown on the sketch. In practice -- and 16 since it is prescriptive, if you really measured along 17 the -- the real curve that's there, it's more than 84 feet. 18 That would be the minimum. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Since it's prescriptive, it's 20 kind of hard to give an exact point. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion's been made and 23 seconded. Any further questions or comments? If not, all 24 in favor, raise your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 38 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Variance is 4 granted, subject to the receipt of a deeded easement. Item 5 Number 5, consider signage for public -- for privately 6 maintained roads. Franklin? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: We were asked to research the 8 color issue on private road signs. All that it says in the 9 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices -- there's a 10 paragraph that's copied in your backup that guide signs on 11 conventional roads and streets shall have white message on 12 green background. As Bill Tucker has in his letter, to 13 designate private roads, put a red tape on the top of the 14 sign. All -- 'cause we found out all the other colors, even 15 though they're not used, are reserved for future use. So -- 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What's red reserved 17 for? Do you know offhand? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Red's a cautionary thing, stop 19 sign. It means caution. That's what they're worried about 20 if they see a red sign. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Maybe we'll get a 22 chance to ask Bill Tucker about that this afternoon, 'cause 23 I sure would like to ask why is it that some regions allow 24 it and some don't. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or why that region is not 39 1 made to change it. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or why -- 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we can ask all we want 4 to, but I don't think we're going to get permission to use a 5 red sign. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think at this time what we 8 need to do is, Franklin has presented us with the approved 9 TexDOT alternative, so we probably need to authorize that 10 item before we move forward. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is going to be one 12 red stripe on top? 13 (Mr. Johnston nodded.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Seems like a green sign with 15 a 1-inch red strip on the top. 16 MR. JOHNSTON: We've done that in the past. 17 We got away from it, 'cause the red strip's a little -- it's 18 hard to tell which is which, but -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not going to be 20 a 1-inch strip, Judge. It's going to be a strip at the top 21 1 inch of the green sign. There's a difference. How thin 22 is it, Franklin? Just a little, bitty, quarter-of-an-inch 23 strip or what? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: About an inch, yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'd say we really 40 1 ought to try to cover the top 1 inch of it, if that's what 2 we can do. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so, 4 yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 'Cause it's -- you 6 know, those things are hard to see. I mean, they would be 7 hard to see if they were anything less than an inch. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're hard to see if 9 it's 1 inch, 'cause there are some out -- I know, out in 10 Hill Country Ranch Estates; there's some of the older signs 11 up there that have that red strip, and you -- I mean, you 12 can see it, you know, and it's really -- I guess it really, 13 from an identification standpoint, doesn't make that much 14 difference. It's just, you know, whether it's a -- you 15 know, it's a private road or not a private road. I mean, 16 mainly it's for the people that live there, so they don't 17 expect the County to maintain them, and for the County 18 people to understand -- a quick flag to them that it's a 19 private road. Probably more for County personnel than 20 anything else. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I would move 22 that we adopt the State's suggestion here, with a comment 23 that, once again, the State is causing one of the most 24 ridiculous conversations I've ever heard in my life. 25 (Laughter.) 41 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who are you going to 2 send a copy to? 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Send a copy to the 4 governor? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't find him. He's 6 in Florida. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 9 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 10 approve the use of the strip of red tape applied to the top 11 1 percent of the green sign -- green sign to differentiate 12 between the roads that are county-maintained and those that 13 are not. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in 14 favor, raise your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 MR. JOHNSTON: The existing signs that we 17 have, I'd like to suggest we leave those in place until such 18 time as they need to be actually replaced. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Absolutely. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Absolutely. All opposed, 21 same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, for our 911 25 liaison, those rules have to be changed now. They say red 42 1 sign, as I recall. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: The Subdivision Rules also. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also in the Subdivision 5 Rules. We can change that before we adopt those. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 6 is consider and 9 approve advertisement for bids on the 25-ton lowboy trailer 10 for Road and Bridge. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: There is one of our Capital 12 Outlay items, and we're submitting the advertisement for the 13 approval. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 17 seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the 18 advertisement for bids on the 25-ton lowboy trailer for Road 19 and Bridge Department. Any further questions or comments? 20 If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. Item 25 Number 7, consider the design for the parking lot, Kerr 43 1 County Courthouse. Y'all have a copy in the packets. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Since we met last 3 time, Judge, Franklin -- the County Engineer and County Road 4 and Bridge Administrator, Mr. Holekamp and I met, did a lot 5 of talking, a lot of walking and measuring out front. And, 6 Franklin, this is the diagram you prepared, right? 7 (Mr. Johnston nodded.) 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Explain it to the 9 Court, please. 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, this is obviously a 11 parking lot, one entrance. You have a total of 21 spaces, 12 which includes one handicapped space. One of the 13 requirements was that we not block the KPUB transformer so 14 it can be maintained, so that's why we made the angular 15 parking there on the side, to leave space for them to get to 16 it. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: And this is on the west side 18 of the courthouse, basically between the existing sidewalk 19 and the concrete retaining wall? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More spaces than we 22 thought we were going to have. We have a net of 18 or 19? 23 Which, Franklin? Allowing, what, two spaces for the 24 entrance? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, I guess we'd probably 44 1 lose two at the entrance. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- this looks tight 3 to me. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: It's very tight. The goal was 5 to maximize the space, so that's the max you can get. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem. 7 We may want to put signage up here that no trucks, because I 8 don't think a truck can get in here and turn around. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: They can't -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Considering that half of 11 the county people seem to drive trucks. Which isn't a 12 problem. I mean, you can put, "Small Car Only" or something 13 like that, because it's a -- 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I think a pickup can get 15 in most of the spaces, but it might take some maneuvering. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Small pickup. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might take 18 maneuvering to get yours in there. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can't get yours in 20 there; you need a parking lot just for yours. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The idea is, at least we 22 are allowing a lot of additional car parking. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: It has 30 foot between each 24 space. I've allowed 20 foot, and you can actually get by 25 with 18, but even with 20, it -- there's 30 foot between the 45 1 spaces. And you can go as low as 25 foot, so there's a 2 little bit of extra space in that regard to turn around. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think this looks 4 pretty good. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: The -- the understanding or 7 the concept, as I remember our previous discussions, is that 8 these lots -- this lot would be for county employees. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For public or elected 10 officials and employees if they wish to park there. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: But it's not -- we would use 12 this lot for our people and reserve the balance of the 13 parking, to the extent we can, for people who are using the 14 courthouse for official business. Is that everyone's 15 recollection? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the original 17 understanding, to create space for employees and elected 18 officials so we can get them off the perimeter, so that can 19 be available for people coming and going from the 20 courthouse. I think we should probably post that it way. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: On the other side, we'll have 22 about approximately seven parking places. 23 (Discussion off the record.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is everyone clear on that? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move we adopt the 46 1 plan as submitted by the County Engineer for the west side 2 parking. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: There's probably a couple 4 items I might mention before you approve it. The budget 5 estimates we had given, that will cover the cost of the 6 parking lot, but we didn't consider removing the trees and 7 transplanting them; that's a separate issue. And, as it 8 comes out, we would need handicapped parking and some 9 curbing. We talked about that for water control, and that 10 was not in our original estimate. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- that's the 12 next item; this is the plan. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: And there's no striping in 14 this estimate. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's do the 16 concept plan and then the next step is to do funding. We'll 17 talk about the trees, perhaps, at that time. Some of those 18 trees have to be saved and moved. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a motion. Do I have a 20 second? 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 23 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve 24 the design for the west side parking lot of the Kerr County 25 Courthouse. Any further questions or comments? If not, all 47 1 in favor, raise your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The next 6 item is to consider and discuss the construction of two 7 parking areas, one on the west side and one smaller one on 8 the east side, and resurfacing the interior roadway of the 9 courthouse square. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, this is a 11 repeat item which we had before, although Franklin is 12 suggesting some revisions to the cost -- total cost of 13 $19,208. Is that what I'm hearing? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I think those issues 15 didn't come up. We just have prices of asphalt and base 16 material in the estimate. If we have to hire a nursery to 17 move the trees and ball them and transplant them, that will 18 be an extra cost, as well as the concrete work and the 19 striping. I don't think we had striping in any of them. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What trees are out there 21 that you're thinking of moving? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure they do, 23 but I've asked around, and seems to be some thought that 24 there's a small pecan or a small fruit tree of some kind. 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Someone donated that eight or 48 1 ten years ago. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't know who did 3 or when, and the thought was if we need to save it, we'd 4 move it to another -- maybe out on the perimeter someplace, 5 some other location on the courthouse square. There's a 6 mesquite that's going to go. And the big one on the corner 7 stays, and the big pine tree also. I don't know that they 8 were given; I just know that we need to find out for sure 9 whether they were donated, if they have to be saved, or 10 whether they have to be moved. 11 MS. NEMEC: Women's Chamber donated one of 12 them, one of the smaller ones. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Who did? 14 MS. NEMEC: The Women's Chamber. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it a pecan or -- I 16 thought it was a peach tree over there. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a peach 18 tree. 19 MS. NEMEC: A small one that's out there. I 20 don't know what it is. 21 MS. SOVIL: Big pine was put in for Arbor Day 22 one year, donated. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're prepared to 24 relocate them, although there's going to be some cost 25 attached to that. If it's the big pine tree, it's really 49 1 going to cost, because that's a pretty good-sized tree. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty hard to move the 3 pine. I think the fruit tree -- I would say it's probably 4 going to die before long anyway; they're pretty short-lived. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hear you. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Perhaps it will be acceptable 7 to plant another tree in replacement of the -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rather than go to the 9 expense of moving them? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would recommend doing 11 that, that we plant a new tree rather than transplant. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Replace rather than 13 remove. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've heard it from 15 the expert. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: What about on the east side? 17 Do we have any trees? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we don't have any 19 trees, but we have a -- 20 MS. SOVIL: There is a tree. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- a dead dog. 22 MS. SOVIL: There is a tree. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's a 24 little, bitty tree, you're right. 25 MS. SOVIL: And it was donated by an 50 1 ex-Commissioner's wife. They dedicated it to her husband. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess the 3 same would apply; we could replace it with one of a like 4 size. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How big is that? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's just a small -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can transplant it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The real little ones, you 9 can. Probably the fruit tree, I just -- they're not worth 10 transplanting, really, and the pine tree's too big to 11 transplant. If it's small, if it's a pecan tree, I'd say we 12 ought to transplant a small pecan tree. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know what 14 this one is back here. Do you recall? 15 MS. SOVIL: Pecan tree. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, then we can 17 move it. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: We're only coming in 20 feet 19 off of the existing parking lot, 20 foot in. And we're -- 20 they're still going to be measured off -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Five or six feet from 22 the wall, right? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: No, it's not -- only lose 10, 24 12 foot to the wall, so I think we're safe on that. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We're safe on 51 1 the -- on the dog matter, as well? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Oh, I think so. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, wonderful. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I know everybody would 5 like to get this one off the books because we've considered 6 it several times, but it appears maybe that it would -- that 7 it might be appropriate to bring this back one more time 8 with the cost of striping, the concrete, and any landscaping 9 that needs to be done, moving of trees, planting of new ones 10 or whatever, so that we know what we're dealing with 11 cost-wise, and we just don't have a -- a handle on that 12 completely. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I would -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Maybe we could go 15 ahead and approve the cost of those things that have been 16 costed, but that has to be held in abeyance until we find 17 out what these other costs are and how we're going to pay 18 for them. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, perhaps, but 20 the funding for this is out of Special Projects, and it's 21 one of mine, Evans Road. And Leonard and I had talked about 22 this matter, so there's a -- there's some slide room between 23 $19,000 and $35,000 in there on that particular level of my 24 funding for my particular project. If there are funds left 25 over, then I want my project to begin. Or if you have some 52 1 funds left over from one of yours. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I don't have -- 3 we can't get into the Schreiner Trust, 'cause it's not in 4 the right precinct, right? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's 6 enough slide room in there, Commissioner, to do this. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to do it on 9 the basis of what's provided from my -- 10 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know what the trees 11 will cost to move, but the other items, we're not talking 12 about a huge expense. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's 15 important that we correct this problem. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're talking a minimal 17 amount of money. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move that we 19 approve the construction of the two parking areas and the 20 resurfacing of the interior roadway, and the funding will 21 come from Special Project funding particularly identified as 22 Evans Road. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The amount? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the amount in 53 1 Special Funds -- I thank you, Commissioner -- is $19,208. 2 There may be some additional for striping and some 3 additional concrete. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 5 Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 6 approve construction of two parking areas, one on the west 7 side and one on the east side of the courthouse annex, and 8 also resurfacing interior roadway of the courthouse square. 9 Cost will be approximately $19,208, with funds to come from 10 Road and Bridge Special Projects, the Evans Road project. 11 Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, 12 raise your right hands. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is 17 Number 9, consider and discuss transfer of additional funds 18 for purchase of a heavy-duty printer, Treasurer's 19 department. Ms. Nemec? 20 MS. NEMEC: Well, I think that I've -- in the 21 budget process, I explained to y'all that we have a printer 22 that really hasn't been operating properly for probably two 23 years now. We're constantly having to go to the Auditor's 24 office and print our payroll and accounts payable and our 25 reports. And then, occasionally, we'll use the -- the 54 1 printer in the Tax Office. So, in my Capital Outlay, I had 2 asked for $1,500 to be budgeted for a new printer; however, 3 the Auditor found a printer that is a heavy-duty printer 4 which will probably work a lot better, but it's $2,450. So, 5 there's an additional $950 that is needed that is not 6 budgeted for. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Where do you propose to find 8 that $950? Are you talking about conferences for the 9 Treasurer's department? Or -- 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we -- we do have 11 $25,000 in Contingency for equipment. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what? 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Equipment. 14 MS. NEMEC: Equipment. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: That would be my suggestion. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 19 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve 20 the purchase of a heavy-duty printer for the Treasurer's 21 department in the amount of $2,450, with the additional 22 $950 to come from Nondepartmental Contingency. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that Nondepartmental? 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Nondepartmental. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, it's Nondepartmental. 55 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Nondepartmental, yes. Any 2 further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise 3 your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 8 MS. NEMEC: Thank you. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can get those payroll 11 checks, then. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 10 is approve ad 13 valorem tax refunds due to value changes. Ms. Rector. 14 Paula? 15 MS. RECTOR: Well, the Property Tax Code 16 requires the approval of the governing body for any refunds 17 over $500. And, as you can see, some of these are pretty 18 substantial, and those were due to late protests that were 19 approved by the Appraisal Review Board and late filing an 20 ad. That was also approved. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Does this come from 22 '99 funds? 23 MS. RECTOR: Some of it's '98/'99, but it 24 comes out of the current year. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 56 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't think we have 3 any choice. Second. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's it come from, 5 Reserve? 6 MS. RECTOR: It comes from our current 7 collections back to the jurisdictions that -- or from the 8 jurisdictions. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 10 MS. RECTOR: To the property owners. Yeah, 11 those funds have already been expended, so we take it back 12 from those jurisdictions and give it back to the property 13 owners. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 16 Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the 17 ad valorem tax refunds as reflected in the schedule 18 submitted by the Tax Assessor/Collector. Any further 19 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 20 right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 57 1 MS. RECTOR: Thank you. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Paula. 3 (Discussion off the record.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 11 is consider 5 and discuss changing the custodial job description. Mike, 6 are you going to pinch-hit for Glenn today? 7 MR. SMART: Yes, sir. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: He's taking some sort of 9 extended vacation, isn't he? 10 MR. SMART: Yes, sir, he's trying to. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you give us 12 an update on the status of his health? 13 MR. SMART: He's -- Glenn is doing real well. 14 He's going to -- he goes to go find out this Friday if he'll 15 be able to make it back -- or when he'll be able to make it 16 back. The doctor's going to let him know this Friday. On 17 this amendment here, what he's wanting to do is, right now 18 we're -- we've got contract cleaning at the Probation 19 office. He's wanting -- he's got $16,993 budgeted for 20 custodian. He's wanting to add that contract labor to that 21 salary. We're having trouble finding a qualified person 22 that he wants for that job. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is so -- so 24 different about that -- the added responsibilities that 25 requires someone with extra experience and knowledge? 58 1 MR. SMART: Well, he's wanting someone -- 2 this third person will be -- they'll be added to the night 3 crew. He's wanting somebody that can kind of oversee the 4 two that we already have. Maria now is having to come in in 5 the evenings and do that. This person will also be cleaning 6 the Probation offices and some of the Extension office, Road 7 and Bridge office. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. There's -- the 9 way I see it, there's a little bit more than enough in the 10 old contract line item to cover making this a permanent 11 position. 12 MR. SMART: Yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So it's a swap-out? 14 MR. SMART: Right. This person will be 15 taking on the contract. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it doesn't have a -- 18 doesn't increase the budget overall. Just what you -- 19 MR. SMART: No, it's just changing it. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a little bit 21 of play in there, a couple hundred dollars of play. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: And what's the justification 23 for bringing this person in at a higher than entry-level -- 24 are they going to be supervisory? 25 MR. SMART: I'm not real sure exactly what 59 1 Glenn was planning on this. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If I might say, it 3 looks to me that what he's proposing is, it's still at the 4 entry level, but it's at a higher classification because of 5 the supervisory responsibility. So, he's going from a 9 to 6 a 12. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because it's still 9 entry level, but it's -- the job title is also changed. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's reclassifying at 12 the same time as -- 13 MR. SMART: Right now, it's entry-level 14 custodian. He's wanting to change it to a custodian/ 15 maintenance position. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So he would be 17 doing -- in addition to custodial, he might be doing some -- 18 MR. SMART: Yes, sir. We'd have a man here 19 in the evenings that could do maintenance work. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have a job description 21 for this position? 22 MR. SMART: Yes, sir, there is a job 23 description. He changed it so it would be of the existing 24 job descriptions. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. And this is -- and a 60 1 12 is what's slotted for that job description? 2 MS. NEMEC: I don't have a job description 3 for a 12, not unless he did one and he's going to, you know, 4 present it to me. 5 MR. SMART: He told me that there was a 6 position at that level already. 7 MS. NEMEC: At that level? Are we talking 8 about the Ag Barn now? The position at the Ag Barn? 9 MR. SMART: The Unit Custodian/Maintenance. 10 MS. NEMEC: Utility Custodian? 11 MR. SMART: Utility Custodian/Maintenance. 12 MS. NEMEC: There's Custodian/Maintenance at 13 the Ag Barn that are 12's. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, that's what he's 15 done; he's made this position the same as the existing one, 16 with the same job description, and done away with the 17 contract position. 18 MR. SMART: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what Barbara is 21 saying is that's in the Ag Barn, not under Maintenance. 22 We'd have to create a new position in the Maintenance 23 Department, but it would be the same -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With a similar job 25 description. 61 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Be the same job 2 description, should be. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not the same, but 4 similar, from the standpoint you have to change the 5 location. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll move the request 7 as put forth by Mr. Holekamp. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, with the -- and 9 I'll second it, with the proviso that the job description 10 has to be reaccomplished. Another copy of that is going to 11 have to be processed to cover this position as well as the 12 one at the Ag Barn. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 15 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 16 approve the -- approval of going from the contract to 17 employing a custodian under Maintenance services, and 18 establish a position of Utility Maintenance/Custodian at the 19 12-1 level, subject to receipt by Ms. Nemec of the 20 appropriate job description. The question I raise, though, 21 is if we move the Juvenile Probation Department into the 22 Annex, which is contemplated, will we still get the 23 additional $3,000 which is necessary to cover the difference 24 in the salary? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I think we're talking about 62 1 Adult Probation. 2 MR. SMART: Yes, sir, Adult Probation office. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. It says here Adult and 4 Juvenile Probation Janitorial Budget line item. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. The -- the State 6 monies cannot be used for maintenance of -- of property for 7 them to reside in, so we've always -- the County's always 8 furnished maintenance for that -- for wherever they've been. 9 So, in the past, we've used contract labor for that purpose. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you don't see that 11 there's any potential problem if we move the Juvenile 12 Probation Department here, as far as coming up short? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the money for the 14 contract is in the Adult Probation. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: That's not in Juvenile. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's County funds? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: It's County funds. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's County money, so 21 we're paying it, 'cause it's not coming from the State. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 24 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 63 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, do we have to 5 act on this budget amendment? 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Oh, yes. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At the same time? 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I'll entertain a 9 motion to approve Budget Amendment Number 1. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 13 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 14 approve Budget Amendment Number 1 for the Maintenance 15 Department. Any further questions or comments? If not, all 16 in favor, raise your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 12, Sheriff. 21 Consider and discuss setting a hearing for the LLEBG grant. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This one's pretty 23 simple. It's that $11,000-something grant that we've 24 applied for this year, same as the $15,000 one we got last 25 year. We've already had the committee hearing and we just 64 1 need to have a formality of having a public hearing. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: And when would you like to 3 have that public hearing? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Whenever is convenient 5 for the Court. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there any particular time 7 crunch? Can we hold it during our November 13th meeting? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The sooner the better, 9 because the thing is, I have some expired bulletproof vests 10 that, you know, technically their life has expired, and part 11 of these -- these funds are going to be used to replace 12 those vests, so I'd like to -- to be able to purchase those 13 as soon as possible. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our next Commissioners 15 Court meeting would be okay, which is the 13th. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is that the 13th? 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Check the time. I 18 think we have several other things set for that date. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10 o'clock, that I 20 know of. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a bid opening and we 22 have a -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No-wake zone. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10 o'clock. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No-wake zone. 65 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we just set this at 2 11:00? Should be -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 11 o'clock? 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: On the 13th? 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a motion to that 6 effect? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 10 seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court set a 11 public hearing on the LLEBG grant for Monday, November 13th, 12 Year 2000, at 11 o'clock a.m. here in the Commissioners 13 Court courtroom. Any further questions or comments? If 14 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I'd like to 20 jump to Item Number 15, if we could. Consider and discuss 21 various funding methods available to finance the renovation/ 22 expansion of the Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center master 23 plan. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In addition to 25 what -- the backup material that's in your packet, I'll hand 66 1 a letter to you from Dain Rauscher, Robert Henderson, which 2 outlines some of the options that are available to us. I've 3 asked Bob and his colleague to be with us today. What you 4 have in your packet is some of the material that we've 5 gathered and discussed -- not discussed in open court, but 6 Commissioner Letz and I have discussed, and want to bring it 7 today to you for an open discussion about the methods of 8 financing the Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center master 9 plan for renovation/expansion. Mr. Henderson's letter sort 10 of caps a lot of that, which is in your -- in your packet, 11 and it provides -- he provides the information, I guess, 12 necessary for us to -- to take a look at at least some of 13 the options. Commissioner Letz and I met with Bob here 14 recently, and this letter is the outgrowth of that meeting. 15 We asked him to summarize our discussions. Bob, why don't 16 you come forward and we'll get this discussion underway as 17 to what's available to us. 18 MR. HENDERSON: Thank you, Commissioner. 19 It's a pleasure to be in front of the Court again this 20 morning. I do have with me Tom Spurgeon of the law firm of 21 McCall, Parkhurst, and Horton, who is the County's bond 22 attorney, and Tom's been very instrumental in researching 23 the law and discussing these issues with me, and providing 24 substantial input into the final draft of the letter that 25 was submitted to the Court. The purpose of the rather 67 1 lengthy letter -- and I apologize for the length of that -- 2 was to try to touch on all the issues at hand and line up 3 what the alternatives are. I can go over the points in this 4 letter if the Commissioners Court desires, or if you've had 5 a chance to review it in detail, I can simply respond to 6 questions that you might have, whatever the Court's 7 preference. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't you just 9 summarize the various funding mechanisms, just so that the 10 public is aware of what those are, as well? 11 MR. HENDERSON: Certainly, Commissioner. 12 There are a number of ways to finance this, including lease 13 revenue bond issues, debt secured by ad valorem property 14 taxes, economic development source, corporation sales tax 15 revenue bonds, or through what is known as venue taxing 16 financing. I list those options really in terms of what the 17 legal alternatives to the County are. As a practical 18 matter, because of certain circumstances that exist here in 19 Kerr County, not necessarily all of these -- these 20 alternatives are going to be applicable. And, of course, 21 depending upon the nature of these alternatives, the 22 financial impact to the economy in terms of a revenue stream 23 that would have to be generated to support this facility 24 would be different. 25 With respect to the lease revenue bond, the 68 1 way that lease revenue bond would work in this set of 2 circumstances would be, as I believe I've discussed with the 3 Court in the past, a transaction similar to what we did at 4 Kerr County for an office building that was owned by the 5 County and housing various County departments. What we did 6 there was create a Public Facilities Development 7 Corporation, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kerr 8 County, which would issue lease revenue bonds, and these 9 bonds would be secured by a lease that would be entered into 10 between the development corporation and the County. That 11 would be a General Fund obligation of the County to annually 12 appropriate money under that lease to be paid to the 13 Facilities Development Corporation, which in turn would take 14 the money and -- and pay it to the bond holders who lent the 15 County, through the Facility Development Corporation, the 16 funds to finance that project. 17 That project financing technique would result 18 in an underlying bond credit rating of probably one-half of 19 a notch under the County's general obligation bond rating. 20 It would be creditworthy because of that, potentially 21 insurable because of that, and we'd be -- it's something 22 that we could issue in a debt market of probably something 23 in the neighborhood of 5 1/2 to 5 3/4 percent. The thing 24 the County would have to understand about that is that the 25 lease that the County would enter into with the Facilities 69 1 Development Corporation would be a long-term capital lease 2 and would show up on the County's audited financial 3 statements, as such. It's often referred to as an "off the 4 balance sheet" financing, but in fact it's going to be on 5 your balance sheet. It will show up as a long-term capital 6 lease. 7 Another mechanism would be a more direct 8 obligation of the General Fund, which would be an ad valorem 9 debt tax which is secured either by a vote of the general 10 obligation -- general population of the county, or through 11 certificates of obligation. When you issue certificates of 12 obligation, under the tax reform -- Certificates of 13 Obligation Act of '79 -- and here's where I start practicing 14 law in front of a lawyer. In order to sell certificates for 15 cash, you have to attach a revenue stream. Obviously, the 16 revenue stream that has been identified here in Kerr County 17 for the payment of these obligations would be the levy of an 18 ad valorem -- I'm sorry, of a hotel/motel tax by the County. 19 For the County to levy that tax, it would have to get 20 special legislation approved by the State Legislature. 21 Once the legislation was approved, the County could levy up 22 to 7 cents per $100 in sales. 23 The -- the information that we have been 24 provided would indicate that one cent on the County's tax -- 25 one cent of hotel/motel taxes by the County would generate 70 1 $133,000 in taxes, based on historical hotel occupancy in 2 Kerr County. If we are talking about a $7 million 3 project -- and I understand that what we've got here is a 4 project that's approximately $8 million in size; however, 5 there may be an opportunity to phase that in and reduce the 6 initial construction price to about $7 million. $7 million 7 financed over 20 years at 5 3/4 percent would run about 8 $590,000. You want to have some level of -- of margin in 9 that $590,000 for volatility in the collection of 10 hotel/motel tax receipts, so we believe that a -- a levy of 11 5 cents hotel/motel taxes would generate 660-something 12 thousand dollars, or -- yeah, $666,000. And that would 13 be -- that would be more than sufficient to meet the debt 14 service of $590,000 on -- on the certificates of obligation. 15 It's important to note that a difference here 16 between a certificate of obligation, as well as the lease 17 revenue bond option, and another option I'll discuss in a 18 moment, which is a straight hotel/motel tax revenue bond, is 19 that if we issue a hotel/motel tax revenue bond, the rating 20 agencies are going to require a coverage ratio or a coverage 21 factor above and beyond the annual debt service of the -- of 22 the bonds in order to insure that you have sufficient 23 financial flexibility to deal with volatility in the 24 collection of hotel/motel tax receipts and extraordinary 25 expenses associated with the operation of the facility. 71 1 That coverage ratio, in terms of the revenue bond ordinance, 2 would most likely be something in the neighborhood of 1.25 3 times coverage factor. 4 As a practical matter, in terms of avoiding a 5 technical default on your revenue bond issue and being able 6 to get a minimal investment rating -- bond rating from the 7 rating agencies, you would need a coverage factor for a 8 budgetary perspective about 1 1/2 times. So, in order to do 9 $590,000 times 1 1/2 times coverage ratio, you would have to 10 be able to generate something in the neighborhood of 11 $885,000 in hotel/motel tax receipts to do a straight 12 revenue bond issue. That would require, at $133,000 per 13 penny, a levy of 7 cents on your hotel/motel taxes instead 14 of just 5 cents. Now, 7 cents is allowable. You could do 15 that without a special election. You would have to do that 16 through a -- the legislation approved by the State 17 Legislature to go to 7 cents. By using certificates of 18 obligation, you can avoid that coverage factor and be able 19 to issue with only a 5 percent hotel/motel tax receipt. 20 Another option would be the Economic 21 Development Corporation sales tax revenue bonds. There's a 22 long explanation in here about that, but I will simply say 23 two things about it. Number one, what we're talking about 24 is levying up to a quarter of -- or half of one cent for 25 economic development purposes in applying the revenue stream 72 1 to revenue bonds to support debt. That's how it works. 2 Unfortunately, that's not an option for the County, because 3 we're already at 8 1/4 in sales tax. I know you have 4 something different at your store, but in Kerr County, in 5 Kerrville, we're at 8 1/4 sales tax, which means that we 6 don't have that as an option. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The city -- in the city 8 limits of Kerrville, you don't have that as an option. 9 MR. HENDERSON: We don't have that in the 10 city, right. But, what happens -- I'll let Tom address this 11 in greater detail if you desire -- is that for the County to 12 be able to do that, they would have to levy a half-cent 13 sales tax which would be applicable county-wide. And 14 because you can't apply within the city limits, then that 15 precludes you from doing that at all. 16 MR. SPURGEON: You can actually go 1/8 cent 17 increments; you wouldn't necessarily have to go a full half 18 penny. But, the way the law does read, you have to apply it 19 throughout the entire county, and the law does provide for, 20 if -- if it's going to exceed 8 1/4 percent anywhere within 21 the county limits, it automatically causes a reduction in 22 sales tax that's been approved for certain types of special 23 entities, like the city sales tax corporation over at -- in 24 Kerrville, or in the city. There may even be a legal reason 25 why you couldn't do that. They've already got debt 73 1 outstanding that is secured with that half-cent sales tax. 2 Legislation doesn't deal with -- legislation doesn't deal 3 with that issue. But I think, as a practical matter, there 4 may be a real difficulty in doing anything with sales tax. 5 MR. HENDERSON: The last one listed is a 6 venue financing under Chapter 334. That has also been 7 discussed in detail. The two primary facets in terms of -- 8 of strength of revenue streams that can be associated with 9 the venue financing would be a 2 percent hotel/motel tax, as 10 well as the opportunity to levy additional sales tax. As we 11 just discussed, you -- you are at the cap within the city of 12 Kerrville on your sales tax, so that gets eliminated as a 13 practical matter from the venue financing. Which really 14 leaves 2 percent hotel/motel taxes. That would generate, as 15 we discussed earlier, $266,000 in revenues, which is 16 $133,000 per penny. However, as a practical matter, you 17 have the ability, and you would need the ability for the 18 balance of the financing, to go get your special legislation 19 through the State allowing to you levy up to 7 cents. So, 20 to try to levy the additional 2 cents through the venue tax 21 would be potentially redundant, unless you felt like you 22 really needed to go out and do the entire $8 million project 23 immediately. Because, otherwise, you would have capacity 24 within the -- if the State legislation approved 7 cents, to 25 do what you need to do. 74 1 But, the -- and this is really my final 2 comment, which is if you go $8 million, you would need 9 3 cents worth of hotel/motel tax revenues to do that on a 4 straight revenue bond basis. That is to say, not utilizing 5 certificates of obligation. So, if you felt like you needed 6 the full $8 million and you wanted to avoid any sort of ad 7 valorem debt tax -- ad valorem tax security on the debt, 8 then we would need not only the 7 percent through the State 9 Legislature, but a separate election here in Kerr County to 10 approve a venue tax, which would allow to you levy the 11 additional 2 percent. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The additional levy 13 of 2 percent is -- that's a process very similar to what 14 Bexar County went through for the financing of its new 15 arena; is that correct? 16 MR. HENDERSON: That's correct. There was a 17 special election, and I can -- 18 MR. SPURGEON: It's identical. It is, yes, 19 sir. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- up to the 21 7-cent does not require -- it just requires legislation, 22 but -- 23 MR. HENDERSON: That's correct. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can the legislation 25 require election? Is that -- I mean, or is it -- 75 1 MR. HENDERSON: I don't believe so. 2 MR. SPURGEON: I'm not aware of any county 3 that has been subjected to that. There are only, I think, 4 17 counties that have been approved to levy a hotel/motel 5 tax; 17 or 19, something like that. I don't think any of 6 them have placed a legislation requirement to go to voters 7 for approval. 8 MR. HENDERSON: One thing, getting back to 9 the Bexar County issue, I want to note that was a 10 different -- it is the exact same Chapter 334, the venue tax 11 that Bexar County voted on. However, within that venue tax, 12 you have a menu of five items that you can levy a sales tax: 13 Hotel/motel tax, parking tax, car rental tax, and so forth, 14 and they focused on primarily the car rental taxes, as 15 opposed to the hotel/motel tax and the sales taxes. San 16 Antonio being a metropolitan area of 1.3 million, with a lot 17 of tourists, you know, increasing their car rental taxes 18 generates a ton of money for them. In Kerr County that 19 really wouldn't be the situation. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask a question 21 of Bob and Tom so that we can avoid some confusion that may 22 be -- may exist here. The hotel/motel tax, the State tax, 23 if approved -- if legislation is granted giving you that 24 authority, the State automatically gets 6 percent right off 25 the top; is that correct? 76 1 MR. SPURGEON: They're already doing that 2 now. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Six percent in 4 the city of Kerrville. 5 MR. SPURGEON: They should be. I assume 6 they're doing it in the county. 7 MR. HENDERSON: County-wide. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that's already in 9 place. 10 MR. SPURGEON: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Within the city 12 limits of city of Kerrville, there still remains one penny 13 left that could be levied under their authority. 14 MR. HENDERSON: That is correct. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause they're 16 levying 6 percent right now. 17 MR. HENDERSON: And they're allowed to go to 18 seven. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the County is not 20 levying anything in hotel/motel or bed and breakfasts or 21 whatever, county-wide. So, the only way -- I'm confused 22 about that one point. The City does have the ability to 23 levy another cent? 24 MR. SPURGEON: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has chosen up to 77 1 now not to do so, which doesn't mean it may not determine to 2 do so in the future, or they may do so and dedicate it to 3 this project, because there is great interest on -- on the 4 part of the City with respect to this particular project. 5 So, assuming they did determine to levy the extra seven, 6 that gets us -- I mean, the extra point to bring them to 7 seven, we could put on top of that how much? Four? Or -- 8 MR. HENDERSON: Well, you could -- that's a 9 legal question. 10 MR. SPURGEON: You can literally go -- I 11 mean, whatever the Legislature will allow you to do. I 12 don't believe there's any county they've allowed to go over 13 seven. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we have -- that 15 can go up to -- 16 MR. SPURGEON: You could go up to seven. 17 There are a few -- or your maximum number would be -- like, 18 it will make it your total maximum of 20 percent; 6 percent 19 from the State, 7 for the County, 7 for the City, if 20 everybody went to those maximums. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: However, I think 22 there is a magic number that our Convention and Visitors' 23 Bureau friends, who likewise support this project and 24 hoteliers, believe that, you know, you don't want to cross a 25 certain particular line. I think we heard all those 78 1 arguments trying to finance the one in San Antonio. 2 MR. SPURGEON: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a magic mark 4 not to go beyond, because it has a deleterious effect on it, 5 or whatever. So, we would maybe want not to do that. We 6 may want to keep it under that. 7 MR. SPURGEON: You'd probably hear from your 8 hotel proprietors. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sure we would, 10 right. 11 MR. HENDERSON: But your basic point, 12 Commissioner, is very well-taken. Irrespective of what 13 action the Commissioners Court takes, you will not impact 14 the City's capacity to -- to levy its 7 cents and do with it 15 as it desires. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 17 MR. HENDERSON: No impact on that. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What in the county -- 19 what, I guess, qualifies under this hotel tax? I was going 20 through the chart, and I notice it says Mo Ranch, for 21 example, is one of the larger examples out of your memo, 22 information from the Visitors' Bureau. What qualifies as a 23 motel or a -- and is subject to this tax? 24 MR. SPURGEON: I can pull the definition for 25 you, but generally, it is anyplace that charges more than $2 79 1 per night for overnight stay for a bed. Now, those aren't 2 the exact words, but literally, it goes back to -- I mean, 3 the legislation was written years and years ago; talked 4 about where they charge $2 or more for staying overnight. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about camps? What 6 about the youth camps? 7 MR. SPURGEON: Camps? 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: It does not cover the camps. 9 MR. SPURGEON: I don't think it's going to 10 cover overnight camping. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: We're not talking about 12 overnight camping. We're talking about the summer camps. 13 MR. SPURGEON: I don't believe that's 14 covered -- I'm almost sure that's not covered. That would 15 not be -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We would not want it 17 to be covered. 18 MR. SPURGEON: I can check something here, 19 but I feel confident that camps are not included as a -- as 20 a hotel. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Except if a camp, in 22 the off-season, used its facilities in -- in the fashion of 23 renting rooms on a per-room basis. 24 MR. SPURGEON: That may be right. I mean, 25 it -- I'll be honest with you, I've never really looked into 80 1 it in terms of how camps are used. That could very well be. 2 In fact, it would not surprise me. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they do, yes. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've noticed on the list 5 here Camp Waldemar shows up on the list, so camps in some -- 6 I mean, and it may be their -- it's the first quarter when 7 most of the revenue comes in, which is off-season for them, 8 so I presume they use conventions or other things during 9 that time of the year. But, I guess we need to make sure 10 that it's -- you know, the public be aware what exactly is 11 covered by the hotel/motel tax. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It says in 352.002 13 that you can levy this tax on someone who pays for the use 14 or possession -- or for right of use or possession of a room 15 that is in a hotel that costs $2 or more each day and is 16 ordinarily used for sleeping. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So you're probably, I 19 think, at this point, talking about the off-season stuff at 20 the camps. But, it obviously -- I don't think that applies 21 to the camps. 22 MR. HENDERSON: I think these facilities we 23 have in town that have these individual-room bungalows, you 24 know, are probably included in hotel/motel taxes, but where 25 they're putting folks up in barrack-type cabins, I would 81 1 suspect not. But -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Beds and breakfasts 3 are covered. 4 MR. SPURGEON: Yes, they are covered. Are 5 covered. 6 MS. NEMEC: I know we have church retreats at 7 the camps, and -- and we have to pay for them on weekends. 8 So, I don't -- you know, I don't know if that would be 9 covered. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mo Ranch is one that is a 11 very large source. An overnight -- more like a -- you know, 12 a convention-type use. Sounds like that probably is 13 covered. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: It appears to me, from the 15 information that Commissioner Letz and Williams have 16 collected, that this county-wide hotel and motel tax will 17 come very close to paying the costs of the expansion, if not 18 pay the costs of the expansion on a certificate of 19 obligation basis. That is a basis which does not require 20 one and a half debt coverage ratio. It also appears, from 21 the information that Commissioner Williams has put forward 22 in his memo, that we can cover our obligation essentially 23 with the hotel/motel tax and still not put the City of 24 Kerrville in a noncompetitive situation as far as hotel 25 prices are concerned. Wouldn't do us any good to levy a tax 82 1 which caused people not to come here, which would cause us 2 not to collect the tax. But it also seems to me that if 3 we're going to move forward with this project, and I 4 strongly support moving forward, that hotel/motel tax is the 5 best way to do it, because it's a tax that does not affect, 6 for the most part, the citizens of Kerr County. It's paid 7 by people who come to visit here. 8 I've described it in a number of talks around 9 the county as a "sin" tax, because if any member of the 10 county is paying the tax, you know, there's a reason there. 11 But it is -- it is a way to take advantage of the fact that 12 Kerr County is a popular place for tourism and visitors, for 13 them to essentially enable to us provide better facilities 14 for use here in the county. In order for us to move forward 15 with this, it will take action by the County to ask State 16 Representative Harvey Hilderbran to introduce legislation 17 which would authorize the County to levy up to a 7 percent 18 tax on hotel-motel receipts within Kerr County. Now, I want 19 to point out that the fact that we ask for 7 percent does 20 not necessarily mean we're going to levy 7 percent. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we're not going to 22 levy any. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Doesn't mean we're going to 24 levy any, that's true. We haven't made that decision to 25 move forward. But if we're going to use the hotel/motel tax 83 1 as the basis for the financing of the expansion, we need to 2 decide that soon, because Representative Hilderbran needs 3 time in order to prepare the necessary legislation and 4 introduce it on a timely basis in the Legislature. So, if 5 we're going to do that, we need to take that step. If not 6 today, certainly, I think, at the next meeting. So -- 7 Jonathan, do you want to say something? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, just looking at the 9 agenda. Still, I agree with that. I think that the -- and 10 I support going to -- passing a resolution, whatever is 11 required to get Harvey to take it to the Legislature. You 12 know, my goal is -- I think, you know, I really like the 13 idea of phased -- or at least committing these -- the 14 hotel/motel tax for a portion of the facility, and probably 15 leave the second arena for us to try to raise with private 16 funding. I think that it's a -- I mean, we have a good 17 chance of doing that. And by "private funding," I'm lumping 18 E.I.C. in this with that group, 'cause they've been somewhat 19 inclined to participate with this project, as well. And I 20 think we ought to, you know, do whatever we can do, and 21 whenever -- if we do bring it back for that hotel/motel tax, 22 to have it as low as possible. And I think we can probably 23 get it down closer to that -- around the 5-cent mark if we 24 have the backwards certificate of obligation. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you 84 1 referenced it that way, Commissioner. I think -- a couple 2 things. First of all, as you know, I'm not sure everybody 3 knows, but you and I appeared at the Economic Improvement 4 Corporation at its meeting in which it discussed its 5 priorities for the future, and while it did not commit in 6 that meeting to the prioritization of this project, it was 7 very favorably received. And, our instructions were, when 8 you guys are ready and have fashioned your own financing 9 plan, come back and see us for participation at a time and a 10 date and an amount. We need the amount and -- and when you 11 think it would be ready also. We have talked on more than 12 one occasion, Commissioner Letz and I, and referenced the 13 same topic with the Judge and supplied suggestions as to the 14 availability of grants. It seems to me that our project 15 lends itself to seeking certain types of grants for partial 16 funding of the project. Not all of it, but I think that as 17 the Commissioner talks about, maybe the second arena is 18 something that is subject to somebody's grant fancy, and -- 19 come forward, put in the right kind of application. 20 We listened to the lady the last time with 21 respect to the potential of some Texas Parks and Wildlife 22 grants. I think there are other grants out there, as well, 23 local and foundations, and those need to be explored. We 24 also -- Commissioner Letz and I talked about taking another 25 look at the master plan and -- not changing it, but perhaps 85 1 rethinking one or two aspects of it. We have -- we have 2 looked at the plan, and as it is currently on paper, it 3 lends itself heavily to equestrian events, and we thought 4 maybe we want to rethink some of that. Not eliminating 5 equestrian money by any stretch of the imagination, but 6 rethinking whether or not we really need some of those 7 ancillary things that they had proposed that could be 8 rethought or consolidated in making it a little more 9 cost-effective. 10 We talked about also the possibility of 11 whether or not we want that second arena not to be 12 climate-controlled. I think we have to rethink some of 13 these issues. Maybe we want both arenas to be 14 climate-controlled for better year-round participation. 15 I -- I believe that this is an opportunity for us to 16 proceed, and I would strongly support asking our State 17 Representative to author that legislation which would enable 18 Kerr County to participate in a hotel/motel tax. And, at 19 the same time, we need to pursue resolutions of support from 20 the City of Kerrville, from the City of Ingram, and from any 21 other taxing authorities that -- that would be beneficial to 22 Representative Hilderbran in his presentation of this 23 particular legislation on our behalf. So, I -- I really am 24 in support of moving forward with this as a first step. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know you're going to 86 1 find this hard to believe, but I have a little bit different 2 line of thinking on this -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- on this thing. 5 Everything that we've talked about and everything in -- in 6 our document here from Mr. Henderson talks about raising 7 taxes; whether it would be on the folks from Houston that 8 visit here or local folks, we're talking about tax -- 9 raising taxes. And, finally got around to talking about it 10 and mentioning possibly going after grants. That is just 11 contrary to the way that I think, and it's my opinion that 12 we need to go out and see what kind of grants that are out 13 there first, before we even start considering raising taxes. 14 This County -- this Commissioners Court spends I don't know 15 how much taxpayers' money, but we spend money to be -- to be 16 a member of the R.C.& D., which is a grant-seeking 17 organization. And, have you been to them? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I -- not formally 19 with this, but yes, I attend the meetings. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, that's 21 what that's there for, is for us to go to them to see and 22 search out and see if there are any grants out there before 23 we get into raising taxes. Now, another point is that I 24 understand that a couple of County employees have been 25 dispatched to Glen Rose, Texas, to look at their facility, 87 1 maybe for us to model after or whatever. And, I understand 2 it's a fine facility there. That much it -- and that the 3 Glen Rose folks have made the comment that it costs 4 approximately a half a million dollars annually to operate, 5 and that's -- I think that's probably salaries and all the 6 other operating expenses that go along with -- with the 7 facility. And that's something that we have not talked 8 about. And I don't know if y'all are talking about that in 9 the public as you're going around selling the project or 10 not, but I think you should. 11 I wanted to point out that the -- the 12 County's debt at this time -- the tax anticipation notes on 13 this facility right here and the jail bonds, combined, we're 14 in debt for about $8.5 million, and that annual payment is 15 $970,000 on those two. That's a lot of money. $970,000 16 there, and just -- just the operation on the facility that 17 we're talking about that -- or at least in Glen Rose, add 18 another $500,000. That comes out of the County budget, and 19 I just think that we need to talk about those things, lay 20 them all out on the table for the public to see. And when I 21 see those kinds of numbers, they become to me kind of fuzzy 22 numbers, or a risky scheme, as we're hearing on TV so much 23 recently. And I just think that we need to take a deep 24 breath and go at this thing nice and slow and easy, and 25 consider grants before we start raising taxes on people. 88 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I could, I agree with 2 the Commissioner. The problem -- and that's why I made the 3 comment that we're not raising taxes when we're going to 4 Harvey at this point. The problem that you have is a timing 5 issue that we're faced with. If we're going to build this 6 in the next four years -- starting in the next four years, 7 we've got to go to Harvey now. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We have the option. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, the option. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To build it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's why I support 12 the legislation. I agree, we need to get some grants. I 13 think we need to come up with a plan that lends itself to 14 getting grants. The problem -- I've talked to some 15 foundations informally, and one of the problems comes into, 16 everyone wants to know the funding mechanism. Well, the 17 Court doesn't have a mechanism, so I say we don't know yet. 18 I think we need to come up with a plan that addresses how to 19 get the whole thing built. And it may be phases, it may be 20 cutting part of it out. There's lots of options. But I'm 21 not comfortable going and saying anything now, because the 22 Court hasn't voted on it exactly. We've, you know, voted on 23 a concept for a facility. 24 Ideally, it would be nice if we could wait a 25 year to go to Harvey, when we had a better -- we don't have 89 1 that luxury right now, so our options are to either go to 2 Harvey, get the legislation through, hopefully, now, and 3 then within the next year or two years, decide how to do it 4 or shelve it for basically three or four years. And if 5 you're going to shelve it three or four years, there's no 6 point in going out for grants for another -- you know, right 7 now, because the grants want to be able to fund it now, at 8 least the local grants do. They don't want to be saying -- 9 some of the grants, like Peterson Foundation, will not fund 10 it for future years. So, I think -- I mean, it's kind of 11 getting to the -- we're in a chicken and egg situation. 12 We've got to get the ball going somewhere. 13 The operation is our big concern. We've got 14 to figure out a way -- you know, what the impact to the 15 annual budget's going to be on the operations. Now, it 16 should be noted that the current operations cost of the 17 facility right now is about $150,000 -- $125,000, $150,000 a 18 year that's already being spent. People tend to gloss over 19 that when they're -- you know, some of the papers -- or the 20 paper, when we're already subsidizing that facility to a 21 huge amount, and I anticipate we'll continue to subsidize it 22 to some -- if we were to build this, to some respect in the 23 future. But, you know, I don't think it will be $150,000 24 more than we're doing -- or $500,000 more than we're doing 25 right now, though it may easily be the same or slightly more 90 1 than we're doing right now. It just depends on use and 2 other things. 3 I mean, I support going to Harvey at this 4 point to get legislation to give us some options in the 5 future. Without going to Harvey, we don't have any options 6 for anything for several years. And, the -- the bottom line 7 is that facility is in bad shape, and it's -- something 8 needs to be done out there. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: May I add to that 10 thought that even if we make the decision that the master 11 plan -- we finally said, "Hey, we're not even going to do 12 any of it," the facility is in such bad need of repair that 13 having the option of even a 1-cent or a 2-cent hotel/motel 14 tax in the county for the county, just to keep the facility 15 going the way it is, may be a viable option. So, going to 16 Harvey Hilderbran at this point and trying to get the 17 legislation, at least get the feel for how long, can we do 18 it in the next session and so on, doesn't cost us anything. 19 And, I think we -- if we're going to have any options in the 20 future, just to even maintain the facility, that maybe 21 perhaps we ought to do that now with Harvey to see where and 22 when we can -- might expect actually the authority to come 23 through. Would it be in the next Legislature? We don't 24 know. It may be two Legislatures from now. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Commissioner 91 1 Letz is right. If we were to delay asking for permission -- 2 and that's what we're doing, asking for that authority to be 3 granted to Kerr County to levy a hotel/motel tax. Doesn't 4 necessarily mean we're going to do it -- we're going to do 5 the project. We might have to have some better 6 justification as to why we're going to do it, as 7 Commissioner Griffin pointed out. We might want to do it to 8 give us the ability to -- to maintain it better than we're 9 doing right now, even though we're probably spending 10 $100,000-plus over and above what the facility generates in 11 revenue each year. 12 So, in order to put together a -- a financing 13 plan, in order for us to go to a foundation, in order for us 14 to go back to Economic Improvement Corporation or any other 15 potential source, we have to have a plausible explanation as 16 to how we would fund this thing if we do it. If we said to 17 the X-Y-Z Foundation, "With your assistance of a half 18 million or a million dollars, we can bring the total amount 19 down, which means we need to levy less of a hotel/motel tax 20 because the whole scope is reduced by reason of your 21 contribution." But if we don't have in place that funding 22 mechanism up front, we have, in effect, tied our hands. We 23 don't know. That's the way I see it. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's good, again, to 25 point out that going to Representative Hilderbran for the 92 1 legislation, if he -- he's successful with it, simply gives 2 this Commissioners Court the option to levy a tax. It does 3 not levy a tax, per se. It gives us the option of something 4 that will have to come back and be voted on as part of the 5 comprehensive plan and go forward. If we're going to do 6 this, now is the time to do it, so that Harvey can have the 7 time to prepare the necessary legislation, to get with 8 counsel in Austin, have a bill drafted, and drop it in the 9 hopper at the appropriate time after the legislation meets 10 in January. If we delay much further, then we run the risk 11 of falling into the holidays, where things don't get action; 12 they don't get the attention, and once it comes into 13 January, then it becomes much more difficult to get things 14 done on a timely basis. So, now is the time for us to 15 decide whether or not we want to go to Harvey and ask him to 16 try to get us the option of levying such a tax for purpose 17 of financing all or a portion of this expansion and 18 improvement out at the Ag Barn. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I heard several of you 20 say that it's a possibility that what we need to do is go to 21 Harvey and get him to approve it, but we may not spend it. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We wouldn't levy it 23 until we had the final parameters of the project. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have never seen a 25 government entity that did not choose to spend it. 93 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: We have to take affirmative 2 vote -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand exactly 4 how it works. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- to levy the tax. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I know. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Like Commissioner Williams 8 just said, our brethren over at City of Kerrville are taxing 9 1 percent less than they could on their hotel/motel. Maybe 10 we can take a page out of their book and exercise some 11 restraint, and if it's not necessary -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just believe -- I'm 13 just a believer that -- you know, we have an eight and a 14 half million dollar debt at this moment. I'm just one of 15 these old conservative guys that feel like we need to pay 16 down some of our debt. And it's a hotel/motel tax; you are 17 taxing someone, so, you know, that's just the way I view 18 things. We've had a good discussion. I think it's good and 19 healthy to bring out all sides -- the other side of it. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other little 21 point. If we were to get that authority and chose to begin 22 building some funds for the purpose of this, by utilization 23 of that, we could, in fact, get a pot of money available and 24 ready to be used for the project when we finally get it -- 25 get it in the program, first, that we want. Secondly, by 94 1 that time, if we were to undergo this and need a timetable, 2 it would enable to us begin construction after the Hill 3 Country Junior District Livestock Show in 2002. By that 4 time, we would have had a couple more years of our debt 5 reduction on other matters, as well. Only other point I 6 have. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 8 comments? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would offer 10 a motion that the Court approve a resolution -- which we're 11 going to ask you to draft -- approve a resolution that 12 requests State Representative Harvey Hilderbran to author 13 local legislation that would enable Kerr County to levy up 14 to 7 percent on a county-wide hotel/motel tax -- up to 15 7 percent county-wide for the purpose of using it as a basis 16 of funding mechanism for the Hill Country Youth District -- 17 Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center expansion and 18 renovation. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would ask whether we 20 could do that under our agenda item. I don't think it's -- 21 a resolution is part of that. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Want to come 23 back with it? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, the second -- the 25 November 13th meeting. I think it needs to be a very 95 1 explicit -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- what we're asking for. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right, we only 6 said we were going to discuss it today. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't mention a 8 resolution. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I withdraw that. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else under this 11 agenda item? Good discussion. If not, let's take a break 12 and come back promptly at 11 o'clock, and we'll take up the 13 water availability when we come back. 14 (Discussion off the record.) 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to thank Bob 16 and Tom for coming. Appreciate it very much. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 18 (Recess taken from 10:50 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) 19 - - - - - - - - - - 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll reconvene this regular 21 special session of Kerr County Commissioners Court. Next 22 item is Item Number 16, which is consider and discuss and 23 set public hearing regarding the approved Water Availability 24 Requirements. 25 (Discussion off the record.) 96 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Well, in the 3 packet is the latest of the water availability rules we've 4 been working on for some while. I have a couple of -- 5 actually, I think I only have one -- just one typo and one 6 question on it. As we talked about last time, I think it's 7 going to be best on this to pass it as a separate order, 8 because it -- and then incorporate it into the Subdivision 9 Rules and Regulations. It is my opinion it's not really 10 part of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and we're 11 also not going under Section 232 of the Local Government 12 Code, which is Subdivision Rules and Regulations, so it 13 would make sense. 14 The only question that I want to bring up 15 that I have, after rereading it again over the weekend, is 16 on Page 2, Section 1.04, Item (4). This provision was added 17 in the Subdivision Rules. It says, "All public or community 18 water systems shall contain appropriate plumbing connections 19 to allow fire trucks to connect to the water systems to 20 withdraw water in case of an emergency." This language is 21 here because it was in the draft in the Subdivision Rules, 22 and I really -- my opinion is that this probably should come 23 out and go back to the Subdivision Rules. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not really water 97 1 availability. I got a yes from the Judge. So that, I 2 think, should be removed, and that way we'll have something 3 to go with it. The other areas that -- just to get us 4 started, there's a typo on 1.06. It says "5.03.E." It 5 should be "1.03.E." Since the last time it was before the 6 Court -- it's under Exemptions on Page 4. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the typo 8 again, Jonathan? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 4, 1.06, 10 Exemptions. It says Section 5.03.E. That should be 1.03.E. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- I just -- Thea 13 went through and renumbered it to make it start at 1, as 14 opposed to where it was in the chapter, all as 5's. Oh, 15 there's -- here's what I was going to say. The other thing 16 that -- that we changed is under individual wells, well 17 testing. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What page? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 2, 1.05. This is 20 one area that's gone back and forth several times. Last 21 version had -- basically, it's the number of wells required 22 in a subdivision. Last time it was before the Court, we 23 said it was 100 acres -- or actually 99 acres or less was 24 one well, or 100 acres or more was two. I talked to 25 Cameron; he thought I was being too generous. And, 98 1 actually, I think Cameron is -- I'll let Cameron speak for 2 himself. I think he wanted to go lower than I did, but I 3 told him -- I said, well, let's go back down to 74, and less 4 than 74 acres would require one well. Anything more than 5 75 -- 75 or more would be two wells. Cameron had a -- a 6 stricter acreage limit. I don't know if he can live with 7 this one or not. Those are the comments that I have that 8 are real -- you know, other than that it hasn't changed a 9 whole lot, other than some verbal changes, minor things. 10 And, I think we're at the point that it's -- we can go over 11 it one last time and set a public hearing and get this 12 adopted. But, I would like to turn it over to Cameron; I 13 asked him to come this morning, if he has any comments. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Cameron? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will say one other 16 thing, Cameron. So that Cameron realizes that I do read his 17 e-mails, he referred -- or sent me an e-mail last week also 18 that since Headwaters is doing a great deal under these, 19 that we should get an interlocal agreement and specifically 20 address this with Headwaters should we adopt it, and I agree 21 with that. 22 MR. CORNETT: I'd like to thank y'all for 23 this opportunity. Several of the comments I saw that I made 24 and sent out in memo format to my directors, one of them was 25 a suggestion that we lower the required acreage down to 99 1 50 acres. This was due to the fact that we're doing just a 2 single pump test on that, and the characteristics of the 3 formation and the variance changes over a small area. The 4 second comment I made was the sustainability concept. I 5 agree with it, but we have a limited knowledge or background 6 base upon which to draw pertaining to the Trinity Aquifer. 7 This can lead to problems with the aspect of getting a 8 sustainability study for the -- substantiating study for the 9 sustainability of ground water due to -- I mean, economics 10 developed -- involved with development of a subdivision, 11 since sustainability will be dependent upon any and all 12 future development surrounding that subdivision. So, any 13 time in the future, whatever we develop on that particular 14 subdivision will change. 15 One of the things we also need to keep in 16 mind are monitor wells within the area. And then, third -- 17 or my fourth comment was the opinion, certainly, that the 18 undeveloped parcels in the subdivisions created in this 19 draft will not be subdivided in the future. The cluster 20 development encouraged by this section could lead to a 21 greater development and more regionalized depletion zones 22 creating an area of the aquifer that will not recover 23 quickly. Other than that, I'd like to commend y'all on this 24 effort. I think it will be important. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you saying that you would 100 1 prefer us not to have the incentive for cluster development 2 in here? 3 MR. CORNETT: Well, no, no, no. No, the -- 4 this -- my only concern is the fact that these green areas 5 that what -- that will be left -- left open at some point in 6 the future, they will be developed, and that will go in 7 direct opposition to what we're looking at here. It will 8 affect the recharge. It will create a greater demand in 9 that area. One of the problems I also see with a cluster 10 development is, whenever you create cluster developments, 11 that spacing out your wells, you basically create a -- an 12 area for depletion or greater demand. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: But the -- the subdivision 14 will never have a greater number of lots than the number of 15 acres divided by five. 16 MR. CORNETT: Mm-hmm. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, whether the original plan 18 has a cluster or not, you're never going to end up with 19 the -- with an increase in the number of lots, unless they 20 come off of the individual wells and go to a central system. 21 MR. CORNETT: That would be my concern. 22 Because, no matter whether we do a cluster division or we do 23 it in just minimum lot sizes, people are going to use the 24 same amount of water. And, what we'll see is within a small 25 area, within that cluster, we will see depletion zones. If 101 1 we go to a centralized water system, we'll in effect be 2 creating a demand for future development, because if I were 3 a developer, I would want to tie into those lines which are 4 leading to that cluster development. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: But the cluster is only 6 available if there is a central water system. Right, 7 Jonathan? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Can't do a cluster unless you 10 have a central water system. 11 MR. CORNETT: Yes, but that was my concern. 12 Because, to me, the analogy that I always use is, if you 13 have several smaller wells, they have less of an impact, 14 they recover more quickly. When you get into your larger 15 wells, they're pulling out the same amount of water, and yet 16 they don't recover as quickly, because we are pulling it out 17 of one localized area. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Would you rather have a 19 number of straws in the pool or one straw in the pool? 20 MR. CORNETT: I'd have a number of smaller 21 straws spaced out adequately. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's from a -- a well 23 standpoint only. I mean -- 24 MR. CORNETT: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the other side of 102 1 that coin is that the more penetrations, the greater the 2 chance of contamination. 3 MR. CORNETT: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, there's a 5 little bit of a trade-off there. 6 MR. CORNETT: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's the reason 8 the City of Kerrville has some of the problems they have, is 9 because they're -- they have some real big straws right here 10 which are depleting the area right around the city. 11 MR. CORNETT: That's correct. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So there needs to be a 13 happy medium between, you know, large wells and -- and, you 14 know, number of wells. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cameron, if you will, 16 would you give me a little insight into your logic again for 17 reducing the acreage on test wells? In your memorandum that 18 you circulated, it probably was 50, wasn't it? 19 MR. CORNETT: Yes. That was the initial 20 draft that went out, the 50 acres. What you see is, you 21 see -- even within 50 acres, you see such a phenomenal 22 change over a formation. There will be areas that will be 23 low producers, there will be areas that are much more 24 productive. And, you know, I -- I'm more apt to be able to 25 live with 75 acres than I am with the 100, but the 50 acres 103 1 was what I was throwing out for consideration, again. 2 There's not that great a difference between the 50 and 75. 3 It's -- it's just that I was throwing out the 50 based on 4 the 100-acre minimum that was out there. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other, I guess, 7 question I have is kind of to Cameron, probably to the Court 8 as well. Under Section 1.03 on Page 1 -- and this is where 9 the total number of lots permitted in a subdivision shall 10 not exceed the total acreage divided by 5 acres unless 11 surface water is a planned source of water for the public or 12 community water system of the subdivision. And I point this 13 out partially because I also have -- I was at U.G.R.A. last 14 week. They asked me to come and explain what we were 15 trying -- or I was trying to do here; the Court hadn't 16 looked at it, really, yet. And, the word "a" is very 17 important here. It doesn't say how much of a -- of a 18 surface water source they have to have, and I left it vague 19 for us to discuss it today. 20 The other option will be to put a primary 21 source has to be surface water or, you know, a 22 substantial -- I mean, you know, right now, the way it's 23 worded is that the -- if they're tied into a surface water 24 source, they don't ever have to really use it. It's just 25 total, 100 percent ground water under the current -- I don't 104 1 know if we want to leave it that broad, or if we want to try 2 to put some requirement they have to use a certain amount of 3 surface water. And the other issue that goes along with 4 this, under U.G.R.A.'s conjunctive use plan up and down -- 5 you know, throughout the county, if connecting subdivisions 6 and also Aqua Source are doing the same thing, kicking their 7 systems together, it's going to be very difficult in the 8 future to determine if water is surface or ground, because 9 they're going to be both going into the same system. And, I 10 don't really know if we're at a point to write this up from 11 a -- 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Practical. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a practical 14 standpoint. How do we know where it's coming from, you 15 know, down the road? I think it's -- it is probably good 16 to, hopefully, be good stewards of our water, to use surface 17 water when it's available and use ground water when surface 18 water is not available. Maybe just leave it up to them to 19 determine where the water comes from. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the -- the point of the 21 water availability relates only to ground water. So, as far 22 as your 1.03 verbiage, you know, when you say "is a proposed 23 source," to me, that's too loose. I think it should be "the 24 principal source of water." Because, you know, water 25 availability rules are more the ground water, and you get 105 1 out from under the water availability rules only by using 2 surface water. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Unless it's -- instead 4 of "a planned source," how about "the planned source"? 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd like it to say "the 6 principal source." As opposed to "a planned," "the 7 principal source." That still gives some -- some 8 flexibility, but principal would probably be defined as more 9 than 50 percent, and that puts us in the situation where 10 we're not overlooking the requirements of protecting ground 11 water. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That sounds good. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that idea, 16 'cause that puts the onus back, then, on them. If they're 17 serious about using surface water, as opposed to ground 18 water, that makes the case stronger. I like it that way. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the acreage limit, I 20 would prefer to leave it as 74. And, one, I think it's a 21 little bit easier for the developers to handle that. And I 22 think one of the main reasons -- or there's two reasons for 23 the well testing. One is to make sure there's some water 24 there. Our standards for production are not real 25 tremendous, so if they drill a well, there's water there, 106 1 they probably are going to meet those standards. If not, 2 then there's a real reason for them to have a problem there 3 or be a red flag. But, the other reason is also for us to 4 get data. One of the biggest problems we have is the lack 5 of data, and by drilling wells we will hopefully get 6 additional data, so we'll be able to learn a lot more about 7 the Trinity and make our rules even better in the future. 8 But, I think we can achieve both of those if we have it 9 the 75-acre cutoff. Now, Cameron's twisting my arm back 10 from 100; I thought I was getting away with something. See, 11 Cameron's a negotiator; he knew it was at 100, so he went to 12 50. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Winds up 75. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Wound up at 75, which 15 made it about right. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the sustainability 17 issue, I believe the language -- I'm looking for the 18 language that I added. I thought I added it somewhere in 19 here about -- I didn't use the word "sustain," but I talked 20 about recharge. Yeah, that second paragraph under 1.02. Do 21 you have the October 17th version, Cameron? 22 MR. CORNETT: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That paragraph was the -- 24 the intent of that paragraph is to explain what we're trying 25 to do, kind of the basis for it. And, you notice that 2.8 107 1 and 200 gallons per day. I said based on State of Texas 2 population projections. That was really the ones that 3 Region J used, but I thought I just said State of Texas. I 4 thought those were something that we could tie back to if 5 someone challenged where we come up with those numbers; this 6 is a State planning number. Does that work for you, 7 Cameron? 8 MR. CORNETT: That works. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 12 comments? Mr. Siemers? 13 MR. SIEMERS: Paul Siemers from Hunt. I have 14 a couple questions. I went back to a couple comments that 15 Cameron made about the cluster homes. I'm all in favor of 16 cluster homes, but I would like to support the concept that 17 it not be one large well, but in a large -- you know, 18 several smaller wells spaced around the property. And the 19 other thing that concerned me and other people I've talked 20 to is, a cluster developer is going to have all this nice 21 green space, and as Cameron alluded to, would the plat be -- 22 the deed for the plat -- the property state that in 23 perpetuity, this property would not be subdivided and 24 developed to any -- any greater degree than the original 25 plat, which was 5 acres per. And that's the concern we 108 1 have. I've seen developers go in with a green space in 2 their original plat, go in and develop it, and two years 3 later, three years later, sometime down the road, come back 4 in for a replat to increase the population density. And I 5 think that's what we want to assure cannot happen in the 6 future. 7 The other thing I would like to mention is 8 the possibility of requiring a -- as you talked about, 9 requiring -- the possibility of requiring a monitor well on 10 the large-acre -- large-acre developments, so -- in an area 11 that wouldn't be affected by the development wells, 12 themselves. So, you get a good history of what's going on 13 in the -- in that region, 'cause especially out in the 14 western part of the county, there's very little monitoring 15 of what's going on out there, and it would be beneficial to 16 have -- require some developers to participate with a -- 17 with a monitor well that would not be contaminated by their 18 -- by their own pumping on a large development. That's it 19 for today. I think you've gone a good job, Jonathan. 20 Appreciate it. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Paul. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Paul made a little bit 23 of sense, didn't he? 24 MR. SIEMERS: Pardon? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You made a little bit 109 1 of sense. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 3 comments? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, just to answer 5 that one question both Cameron and Paul had regarding the 6 further development, I don't think there's anything you can 7 do that's going to last in perpetuity. Any Commissioners 8 Court in the future can change the Subdivision Rules and 9 Regulations. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But -- if I might 11 interrupt, but there is one important place that, if I were 12 a potential buyer into a subdivision and there are green 13 spaces in there, I want to see it in the subdivision 14 covenants and restrictions that that is green -- and, in 15 fact, I have bought homes twice in areas just like that, and 16 the homeowners insisted that it be in the covenants and deed 17 restrictions that those green areas could not be developed 18 unless the homeowners' association got together and, for 19 some reason, sold it off. But there are several ways that 20 that can be done, and I think the way I read Paragraph 1.03, 21 as you have it, makes that very, very difficult for a 22 developer to do in perpetuity, as long as this rule is the 23 same. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And, as science 25 changes in the future, we may -- I mean, these will likely 110 1 be changed in the future. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on what we learn 4 about the Trinity. It could change either way; can go up or 5 down, the requirements. So, I think we're -- you know, I 6 think we're as fair as we can be, knowing that it's also up 7 to Commissioners Court to change these rules. I mean, they 8 can change them either way. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good job. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we take any action the 11 Court may want to take today, which would possibly include 12 approval of this and setting a public hearing, let's make 13 sure we all understand the changes. 1.03, the third line 14 down, we've changed "a planned" to "the principal source of 15 water." Paragraph 4, 1.04(4) on Page 2 has been deleted. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say again? I missed 17 that one. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Paragraph 4 on Page 2, "All 19 public or community water systems..." has been deleted. And 20 then on Page 4, 1.06, "5.03.E" has been changed to "1.03.E." 21 Does anyone else have any changes they want to suggest or 22 take note of? It might be appropriate to have the public 23 hearing on this at our second November meeting. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make that motion. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Which is, I believe -- what, 111 1 November 22nd? November -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: November 27th. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm trying to -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 27th. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's a special date. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: 27th. It's an evening 7 meeting. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good time for 9 it. I'll make a motion that we approve the Kerr County 10 Water Availability Requirements as modified, and set the 11 public hearing for adoption for November 27th. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: At? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At 7:30. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: 7:30? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What time are we starting 16 at? 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: 6:30. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6:30? Let's set it at 19 7:00. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a second? 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 23 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the 24 proposed Kerr County Water Availability Requirements and set 25 a public hearing for same for Monday, November 27th, Year 112 1 2000, at 7 o'clock p.m. here in Kerr County Commissioners 2 Courtroom. Any further questions or comments? If not, all 3 in favor, raise your right hands. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Good. We're 8 on a roll here. Let's take up Item Number 17, which is to 9 consider and discuss and set a public hearing regarding the 10 approved Manufactured Home Rental Communities Infrastructure 11 Standards. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Again, this is 13 something -- I believe at the last meeting we actually 14 approved these. We can get moving on it. We approved them 15 for the main reason of getting this to the -- regarding the 16 lawsuit and trying to settle that, as well. And, in 17 addition to getting it -- moving forward on this, getting 18 them adopted, there are a couple things I would like to 19 bring forward, additional comments, corrections to the draft 20 that I've found. And, one is part of the legislation, and 21 it's something we have to do some research on. The 22 legislation does not address fees. We currently charge fees 23 for filing and doing all of these things for Subdivision 24 Rules, and there's nothing in the legislation that I read 25 that addresses if we can charge a fee to process all this 113 1 and get the mylars and set everything up that we do on 2 subdivisions. This is a question that we might refer to 3 David Motley to find out if we can charge a fee or not 4 regarding this. And, if we do, you know what that fee 5 structure will be. On Page 2 -- 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Quick question, 7 Jonathan. Would that have to be in the order? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We don't do it on -- 10 on other fees. The Clerk normally arranges -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it has to 12 be in the order, but more the Subdivision Rules, kind of 13 coming at the same time. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kind of something that 16 would be addressed, you know, soon. And then I don't think 17 that -- I don't find where we have authority to levy a fee, 18 but if we do, it would be nice to know. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you working off 20 the generation in the packet or the one that was just handed 21 out? 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The one that was just 23 handed out has corrections up on the top on Page 1. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. It's -- I was 25 going off the one in my packet, but I think the portion that 114 1 I was talking about didn't have any changes. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or, basically, the 4 language was the same. On Page 2, under Section 1.03.A.1, 5 the citations they refer to inside there is Chapter 8, and 6 needs to be changed to Chapter 1 -- or I mean to Section 1, 7 excuse me. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Section 1.04. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 1.04.E -- all of 10 those should be 1.04, then whatever the appropriate letter 11 is. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 3, the last 14 sentence on 1.03.C, the sentence reads, If the County 15 Engineer determines that the infrastructure complies with 16 the Development Plan, the Commissioners Court shall issue a 17 Certificate of Compliance not later than the fifth business 18 day after the final date of processing. That's out of the 19 law, and I don't see how you can comply with that, 'cause we 20 don't meet -- I mean, without having special meetings all 21 the time. So, my question, again, on that goes to, you 22 know, I don't know if -- when I read the legislation, it's 23 very -- it doesn't say we can delegate that authority, and I 24 just need clarification from the County Attorney as to how 25 we do those. And, again, this is a -- this paragraph is out 115 1 of the law, so we just need clarification on that. And, I 2 -- I think the way to do it is either delegate it, if we 3 can, to the County Engineer or the County Judge, because I 4 don't want to have -- we don't do these very often. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or extend the time 6 frames when we do. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: We can't extend the time 8 frame. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only other option is 10 to schedule the inspection during the time frame. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we can only schedule 12 the inspection -- we have a 2-day time limit when we can do 13 that. The turn-around is very tight. So, it's just a -- to 14 me, a question I have of the legislation. 15 The other item on Page 4, 1.04,B, Roads, I 16 thought that we should add some language. The thought was 17 throughout the road language that they're going to be 18 private roads, but we never say what they have to do if 19 it's -- if the intent was to be a county road -- or 20 county-maintained road. So, I thought we probably should 21 add a provision under -- kind of at the end of that first 22 paragraph; do a county road and then say county road is 23 defined as a road under control and maintenance of Kerr 24 County. Any county road considered -- or constructed in a 25 manufactured home rental community shall be constructed to 116 1 the standards set forth in Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 2 Regulations. Therefore, if they are building a road -- and 3 the intent is for public access. And county-maintained, 4 it's real clear they have to build it to that standard, not 5 the standard listed below. And then have another sentence 6 which says a private road is a road not under control of -- 7 control or maintenance of Kerr County, and then all the rest 8 of the -- this provision would be applicable to that road. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would you place 10 that part that you just read, Jonathan? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be right past 12 1.04, the first paragraph of 1.04.B. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And before B.1. And 15 then, as a heading under -- for all the B.1, B.2, all the 16 way down to B.4, we'd have that private road heading. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you use the 18 language that we use on those plats, the "these roads shall 19 remain private until such time..." da-dah da-dah? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have -- there is some 21 language similar to that which is under the survey section 22 which goes on the -- the survey that they present and which 23 is part of the Development Plan. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Are the private roads still 30 25 foot right-of-way width? 117 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What we have in the rules 2 is a right-of-way of 60 feet, as we passed it, and I -- and 3 I think the -- and it's paved, has to be paved and 60 foot 4 right-of-way, as we approved it and as it is still. 5 MR. MOTLEY: Sixteen foot pavement and 20 6 foot of base? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. And those are the 8 only changes that I would have to the draft that we approved 9 last time. I do know that David Motley has been in contact 10 with counsel for the other -- for the Manufactured Home 11 Community and, I don't know -- David, do you want to address 12 where you are with that? 13 MR. MOTLEY: Well, yeah. He -- Jason Panzer 14 out of Austin, Hughes and Luce, did advise me that they were 15 concerned in particular about the 60-foot right-of-way. And 16 I encouraged him to go ahead and read through the latest 17 revision, and look at the whole thing and let us know what 18 his concerns were about the entire, you know, proposed 19 regulations for these communities. I'm not sure if, to him, 20 60 feet means actually 60 feet of cleared right-of-way, 60 21 feet of base, 60 feet of paved road or whatever. They -- 22 when we met, they urged that these communities will tend to 23 be temporary uses in nature. I mean, just temporary in 24 nature as -- as far as the use, because they are -- maybe an 25 interim use, because all these homes are in there on a -- on 118 1 a lease-type basis. And, I think that's even defined; 2 they'd have to have a lease under a certain duration in 3 order not to qualify. And, so, the people present at the 4 meeting who represented the manufactured housing people were 5 saying they didn't want to particularly have an extensive 6 infrastructure going into something that they were basically 7 holding to, perhaps -- you know, with an eye toward changing 8 the use of the thing. And the -- as I said, the one thing 9 that's been communicated to -- to me was the 60-foot 10 right-of-way. And, I think there's another provision in 11 there that says cleared right-of-way or within reason, as 12 dictated by the engineer. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And that's the 14 same as our -- our Subdivision Rules have that same leeway. 15 And, you know, in practice, I think we're pretty -- 16 Franklin's pretty lenient. 17 MR. MOTLEY: I -- you know, of the original 18 items that they had raised, in letters and again in their 19 petition, it seems to me like of the, say, six items, I 20 think we've made changes on five of those to make our 21 Manufactured Home Rental Community rules match very closely 22 the general Subdivision Rules and Regs, and that's what it 23 has to be. It has to be the same as our regular Subdivision 24 Rules, with the one exception involving roads. And the 25 roads can be no more -- there can be nothing more required 119 1 than what is necessary for reasonable ingress and egress, 2 access for emergency vehicles and -- fire and emergency 3 vehicles that are reasonably necessary. And I know the 4 Court was concerned about the density of population in -- in 5 these communities, and felt like if we had a -- I don't 6 remember what standard Jason was pushing for, Jonathan, but 7 if we had, say, a -- I think it was something like 30 feet 8 with -- maybe you're allowing 7 feet on either side of the 9 road, that if people started having visitors park adjacent 10 to the road in front of their rental units, that it would be 11 an expected situation that the roads could be narrowed to 12 the point that you could not get this emergency equipment in 13 and out. And I think that was the Court's feeling on 14 requiring a 60-foot right-of-way. The clearing part of it, 15 I'm not -- I know these have already been approved, but the 16 part about them being cleared, if we're going to say 17 "reasonably cleared," I think we might want to clear that 18 definition up somewhat. But, if litigation ensues -- well, 19 I mean, if, you know, it comes to a trial, it's going to be 20 our burden to prove that it is reasonable to require a 21 60-foot cleared right-of-way, as the rules stand right now. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Doesn't the law say it 23 can't be more restrictive on these than it is on our normal 24 subdivision roads? 25 MR. MOTLEY: It does say that, but there's 120 1 also -- 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You just can't be -- 3 MR. MOTLEY: Under Senate Bill 712, Section 4 A -- no, excuse me, Section 1.C -- no, 1.D, Commissioners 5 Court may not adopt minimum infrastructure standards that 6 are more stringent than the requirements adopted by the 7 Commissioners Court for subdivisions. The Commissioners 8 Court may only adopt minimum infrastructure standards for 9 ingress and egress access by fire and emergency vehicles 10 that are reasonably necessary. So, that's sort of a 11 sub-qualifier only in that one arena. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Seems like -- 13 MR. MOTLEY: They are contending -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Seems like we have a 15 60-foot -- with all those same and good reasons, we have a 16 60-foot right-of-way requirement on a paved country lane, so 17 we are not imposing anything any more -- I don't see how 18 that can stand in the court that that's not -- we haven't 19 done exactly what the law says. 20 MR. MOTLEY: Right. Just so long as we can 21 show that that requirement is reasonable. And I think that 22 reasons have been expressed in previous sessions of court, 23 that the reason the Court wants to do it is a public safety 24 and access issue. Because if a truck or ambulance, 25 whatever, needs to get out there -- you know, I know there 121 1 are national standards and such, and I know these people 2 made reference to them in our meeting, but if somebody has 3 to get out there and you have cars parked all along the 4 front of these mobile home rental units, and it impedes the 5 trucks from getting in, then we're going to have a problem. 6 I don't know if 60 feet would be absolutely necessary, and I 7 don't know to what -- 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: We have to take a stand 9 somewhere. The Court has taken a stand on 60 feet. It's 10 the vote of this Court that that's what we thought was a 11 reasonable standard for emergency vehicles, given the way 12 these -- these subdivisions line up. And, unless someone 13 wants to revise it, the issue, I think that's where we ought 14 to stand. 15 (Discussion off the record.) 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I agree. We -- I 17 think -- certainly, at this point, I think we should go 18 ahead and, you know, approve them as modified for reasonable 19 changes we talked about, and set a public hearing for 20 November 27th. And, if they want to, they can come to the 21 public hearing and give us their opinion. 22 MR. MOTLEY: One other thing I would just 23 like to mention on that is that these roads, unless the 24 standards are adhered to precisely, are going to be private 25 roads, and so that's another consideration that they are 122 1 urging, that they're responsible for maintenance and such, 2 and they feel that they should not have to match the general 3 Subdivision Rules and Regulations on -- on the paved country 4 lane for that reason, because they are intended to be 5 maintained by the owner of that subdivision and not by the 6 County. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Different standards for 8 privately-maintained and county-maintained roads, as far as 9 construction's concerned. We don't in our subdivisions, and 10 we're not going to in the -- in this situation. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: We have that same rule in our 12 Subdivision Rules. 13 MR. MOTLEY: I hear you. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: More than 15 mobile homes, 15 they have to pave it anyway. 16 MR. MOTLEY: I'm coming here today to try to 17 communicate to you what my understanding is of the Texas 18 Manufactured Housing Association's concerns about the rules 19 as drafted, and I guess currently passed, and that's -- 20 that's it. As I understand. I've not had further 21 communication from Mr. Panzer saying he was concerned with 22 other issues, which I think we have probably resolved, but I 23 think if they really want to fight, they could probably, you 24 know, drop back and start attacking these other issues; the 25 water, electricity, and such as that. So, I think that the 123 1 rules are a pretty close match now. The offending language 2 was taken out, prefatory language, and I think that it was 3 cleared up at the end there, Jonathan, about the retroactive 4 respective effect of these rules. So, if -- if that's all 5 they're mad about, it's going to boil down to an objection 6 to determine the 60-foot right-of-way -- cleared 7 right-of-way as reasonable for this type of community. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind, 'cause I 9 think this is our practice, anyway, to say all public 10 right-of-ways shall be reasonably cleared of all 11 impediments, including -- I mean, that's what we do right 12 now. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: Private roads are less 14 restrictive; we'll work with them. But on public roads, we 15 want cleared right-of-way, we want everything taken out. On 16 private, we do work with them. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, by adding the 18 word "reasonably," I don't see how that really changes much. 19 It says selectively, it may be approved by the County 20 Engineer. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: I've got a couple of 22 suggestions, Jonathan. One, since we do have an order on 23 this in place, there should be a specific recitation in this 24 order that the previous order is superseded. And, secondly, 25 on Page 6, number -- Paragraph Number -- I guess it should 124 1 be 4, makes reference to an Appendix M. Unless you're going 2 to attach it, you might want to put, "of the Subdivision 3 Regulations." 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, I think it's -- 5 it needs to be a water availability -- 6 MR. MOTLEY: Which are y'all on? Page 6, 7 what? 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Page 6, Number 3/4. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three. It says 3, but it 10 should be 4. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Bottom paragraph. It 12 says 3, but it should be 4. 13 (Discussion off the record.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Just add "of the Subdivision 15 Regulations" after Appendix M, so it's clear where that 16 appendix is going to be found. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. With those revisions, 19 do we have a motion to approve and set a public hearing? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. And do it at 22 7:30? 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 24 seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the 25 proposed Manufactured Home Rental Communities Infrastructure 125 1 Standards order, as amended, and set a public hearing on 2 same for November 27th, Year 2000, at 7:30 p.m. here in Kerr 3 County Commissioners Court courtroom. Any further questions 4 or comments? 5 MR. MOTLEY: Could I get you to repeat the 6 exact language that -- on Page 7 that you said should follow 7 Appendix M? 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: "Of the Subdivision 9 Regulations." 10 MR. MOTLEY: Okay, thank you. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 12 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. Now 17 let's go back to Item Number 13, Tommy, consider and discuss 18 either renewing or seeking bids for property and casualty 19 insurance, liability insurance, and health insurance. And 20 actually, together with that, we'll talk about Item Number 21 14, which is consider and discuss engaging Don Gray to 22 advise the Commissioners Court on insurance matters. As 23 y'all may recall, Mr. Gray is the individual we -- we had 24 help us approximately a year ago on property and -- and 25 casualty insurance. Tommy? 126 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the only thing I 2 have -- have to add is that I -- I've had a conversation 3 with -- with Don Gray, and -- and he -- his input only was 4 that if -- if TAC were renewed under 10 percent, then his 5 advice is to renew. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's on the property, 7 casualty, and liability insurance? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: His experience so far this 9 year has been that -- that in the private sector, the trend 10 for -- for increases in premiums have been 10 percent and 11 higher, so if -- if we can -- if TAC agrees to go renew 12 under 10, then he said we're probably wasting our time by 13 trying to -- to go for bid. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: What about health insurance? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: We didn't talk about that. 16 He -- he does not get involved in health insurance, so 17 that's -- that's an entirely different subject. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, what -- last 19 year our health insurance went up. I can't remember the 20 number. How -- how much? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: The Treasurer can help with 22 that. I -- I don't remember. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was it 11? 24 MS. NEMEC: Yeah, I -- 13 percent, maybe, 25 something like that? Eighteen percent? 127 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then this year, 2 it's gone up another -- 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: We don't know yet, because it 4 doesn't renew until January 1. We've put -- 5 MR. TOMLINSON: You're just talking about 6 liability, property and casualty. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 8 MS. NEMEC: I would like to address health 9 insurance whenever it's proposed. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would too. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let's take them one at 12 a time, then. Is it the sense of the Court that we get a 13 low quote from TAC on the property and casualty and 14 liability insurance? 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: And that if it's less than a 17 10 percent increase, that that will be the preferred way of 18 going? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I would -- 20 MR. TOMLINSON: I think I can get them -- a 21 commitment from them soon. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 25 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 128 1 authorize the Auditor to seek a bid from the Texas 2 Association of Counties on renewal of the property, 3 casualty, and liability insurance, and if such -- the 4 increase on such insurance is less than 10 percent, to bring 5 it back to the Court for approval. Any further questions or 6 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Now, as to 11 health insurance. Barbara? 12 MS. NEMEC: I would just like to kind of 13 explain how our health insurance works. And I think that 14 Tommy could probably back me up on this, or make any 15 corrections that I may have wrong. There are three 16 different funding levels, I guess, if you want to call them 17 that, that we have on our health insurance. And the reason 18 I'm explaining it to you is I'm not sure that y'all know how 19 the funding levels work. We are partially self-insured, 20 which means that we have administrative costs, we have 21 reinsurance costs, and then we have the cost to pay for our 22 claims. So, the money that we send to our third-party 23 administrators are paid that way; administrative, 24 reinsurance, and to pay for our claims. 25 The reinsurance, they go and they -- our 129 1 administrators go and bid that out every year, so whatever 2 reinsurance costs that -- that they bring to us is going to 3 be the lowest one because they -- they automatically do 4 that. The amount that we pay for our claims, we're going to 5 pay for them no matter who -- what third-party administrator 6 we go with, because that is how much our claims are going to 7 cost. So, really, the only -- the only thing that we're 8 looking at that can be negotiated is our administrative 9 costs. And if -- if we feel -- and I'm not sure what the 10 figure is right off the top of my head; I didn't have time 11 to look at it, but if we feel that our administrative cost 12 is too high and we want to negotiate with our current 13 third-party administrators, it's to our best interests to do 14 that and stay where we're at, because we are partially 15 self-insured. 16 In other words, we -- we own our insurance 17 benefits. We tell them what kinds of benefits we want. We 18 tell them what percentage we want to pay in our benefits, 19 what our -- the drug card we want to pay and all that. I 20 did talk to an insurance agent a couple of days ago, and I 21 explained to him that we were probably going to have to go 22 out for bids this year, and asked him if he was interested. 23 And he said he would -- you know, he would love to have our 24 business, but that that was the worst thing that we could do 25 because we were partially self-insured. And I understand 130 1 that and I think Tommy understands that, because of the way 2 the plan works. So, I'm just trying to explain it to you, 3 and if you have any questions of me or Tommy, you can ask. 4 Also, we have an employee who is in the 5 process of -- of getting a pacemaker. That is going to 6 drive our reinsurance costs up, and which will probably also 7 cause any other administrator that's going to come in to go 8 to a reinsurance company, and they're not -- they're 9 probably not going to accept us. So, anyway, these are just 10 things for you to consider. Again, I'm not -- the 11 administrative cost is a very, very small amount of the 12 portion that we pay for our insurance, and -- and if -- if 13 our third-party administrator's telling us to fund $200 per 14 employee per month, what they're doing there is they're -- 15 that's our money. That's not going to them. That is going 16 to pay for the reinsurance. That is going to pay for our 17 claims. A small, small portion of that is paying for their 18 administrative fees. And, I -- I don't know how else to 19 explain it. Maybe Tommy can do better, or if y'all have any 20 questions, but that is the way it works. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- I mean, to 22 me, I mean, what you're saying is we have one -- we decide 23 on a third-party administrator as one, and then also, when 24 we decide on what benefit package we want the third-party 25 administrator to bid, and those are the two options we have. 131 1 We don't obviously go out and do the actual looking for the 2 reinsurance. 3 MS. NEMEC: Right, they do that for us. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do that for us. And 5 I guess how do we know -- you say they go out and they're 6 going to get the best price, but aren't they going to get 7 the price amongst the pool of companies that they work with? 8 So that if there is some potential if we used a different 9 third-party administrator, you could get different quotes 10 back? 11 MS. NEMEC: You can get different -- oh, 12 well, no. As far as the reinsurance goes, I think last 13 year -- you know, even when we don't go out for bids, last 14 year they -- they sent out, like, 18 -- to 18 different 15 reinsurance companies. I mean, they -- and the thing about 16 it is, that if you go and you try and bid this out and you 17 get different insurance agents to do that, those same 18 insurance agents, the third-party administrators are going 19 to end up sending the same proposal to the same reinsurance 20 company, and it's going to be a matter of -- they're going 21 to call me and say, "Who do you want us to give the bid to?" 22 Or they have a procedure, whoever gets it to them first, 23 they give it to them. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do you get a copy of 25 all 18 bids that come back? Or do they just tell you, this 132 1 is the best one? 2 MS. NEMEC: They usually show -- I've never 3 really gotten a copy, but they'll usually tell me, this 4 insurance -- this reinsurance came in at this price and this 5 price, and -- and this was the lowest, and -- or this one 6 didn't take -- you know, several of them didn't take us last 7 year. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's -- I'm going to 9 suggest that that's public information that we need to have. 10 So -- 11 MS. NEMEC: Absolutely. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- I'll ask you to tell the 13 third-party administrator that we need to have, if not the 14 original, copies of all the proposals that they receive 15 back. 16 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not that we disagree with 18 what they're doing, but I think that that is information 19 that we should -- we're required to have available. So -- 20 MS. NEMEC: And what usually happens when we 21 go out for bids, the third-party administrator will bid his 22 administrative fees low just to get us on board, and then 23 they'll hit us the next year. So, really, this is our plan. 24 I want you to understand that, that this is Kerr County's 25 plan. Just a small portion is going to the administrative 133 1 fees. And, you know, if -- if we want to tell them that if 2 we can -- you know, that we want to negotiate those fees 3 with them, and if they don't negotiate them, then y'all are 4 going to consider going out for bids, we can -- we can even 5 do that, but I think we owe it to ourselves to look at this 6 first, to stay with what we have and to look at that. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sorry, go ahead. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This administrative 10 cost that you keep referring to, that's for the third-party? 11 MS. NEMEC: That's for the third-party 12 administrator to -- all our claims are sent to them, and 13 they pay -- they review all the claims. They -- they see if 14 the claims are being charged the proper way, and then they 15 pay them. We -- they ask us for the funding every month. 16 We send them the money, but they do all the paperwork. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is the second 18 time that we've -- I don't remember what the other issue 19 was, but it was just recently, in the last couple months, we 20 talked about going out for bids and looking at some -- and 21 you came in and defended that, too. And I -- 22 MS. NEMEC: I've always tried to get this 23 point across, and I've just not known how to word it. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm not -- but I 25 don't know if I agree with you or not. I don't know if it's 134 1 healthy just to lock in with somebody and -- and cook there 2 in a pot. What I do know for sure is that last year, we got 3 a 3- or 4-percent salary increase, and a lot of us, 4 including this guy, took home less money. 5 MS. NEMEC: Okay. That's because -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because of the 7 insurance increases. And that makes me think that my 8 third-party administrator is not doing his job in 9 representing the -- the employees of this county. 10 MS. NEMEC: No. Actually, the reason that 11 happened was because, you know, rates -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's defending them. 13 MS. NEMEC: And, really, it didn't matter 14 what third-party administrator we were with; I'd be up here 15 saying the same thing. You know, if we didn't have the 16 service that we have with our third-party administrator -- 17 which we didn't have five years ago. I was up here saying, 18 you know, we need to go out for bids, because they were not 19 doing their job. But in this case, they -- they are. I 20 mean, they pay claims, and before we were having 21 employees -- we were an insurance -- we were taking care of 22 all insurance problems in our office, and we no longer have 23 to do that because they do take care of -- of the problems. 24 Now, you're going to have some that are going to come across 25 and -- and things like that. But, the reason that happened 135 1 is because rates did go up, and I'm sure rates are going to 2 go up again this year. They're going to go up with whoever 3 we go with. But, we chose to -- what they do is they give 4 us a suggestion on how to fund the rate increase, and it's 5 up to the Court how the Court wants to divide that increase, 6 if they want to tag it onto the dependent side or the 7 employee side. And, last year we tagged most of it to the 8 dependent side of it, and there aren't that many employees 9 that have dependent coverage, so when do you that, your 10 dependent rates are going to go up. But we don't have to; 11 we can keep that the same and tag it all to the employee 12 portion and divide it amongst 200-something employees. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The level of funding 14 that the administrator comes back and tells us is required, 15 if I'm not mistaken, is predicated on two things -- at least 16 two things. First of all is the benefit structure, right? 17 The plan, itself? 18 MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And secondary, our 20 experience of the previous year under that plan. 21 MS. NEMEC: The reinsurance. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so he tells us 23 what's going to be required to fund the level of benefits, 24 based on the experience of the previous year; is that 25 correct? 136 1 MS. NEMEC: Right. Now, if we tell him, 2 well, we just want to pay 60 percent and have the employees 3 pay 40 percent, then, of course, that funding is going to go 4 down. But, again, this is where the Court has complete 5 control of the benefits and the funding levels. And -- you 6 know, but I suggest we keep benefits the same as they are. 7 I think all the employees are happy with the benefits. I 8 think we have good benefits. Maybe one thing that we do 9 need to look at, and which has been brought up by several 10 employees, is our -- our retirement situation right now. 11 When an employee retires, they are able to keep the 12 insurance, but they have to pay for it. And, there are 13 several companies -- counties, whatever, that when an 14 employee retires, that's a benefit that they -- that they 15 keep, that the County continues to pay for their insurance 16 while -- you know, during their retirement. And -- and 17 retirement would fall under -- if you retire and you're 18 eligible for retirement benefits, not just if you quit or 19 you -- you -- you quit early. You have to actually fall 20 under the retirement benefit with TAC in order to be able to 21 get that benefit. So, that's something that the Court is 22 able to change also. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But we'd also need, 24 in order to do that, to consider it with any kind of degree 25 of certainty, would be to know what the funding level would 137 1 be required to support that based on the number of people 2 either going to retire or anticipated to retire. 3 MS. NEMEC: Right. And right now, we have 4 seven employees that are on the -- on the -- retired 5 employees that are on the insurance. And, they're -- what 6 they pay is $105 a month. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, that, in effect, 8 expands our employee pool. 9 MS. NEMEC: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're paying for the 11 one that retired and you're paying for the replacement, so 12 you're expanding the employee pool. 13 MS. NEMEC: True. That's a benefit that the 14 Court would need to see if that's what they wanted to do for 15 the retirees. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not opposed to 17 the concept. I think the Court, at some point in time, 18 needs to have some numbers on what does that do to our plan, 19 our funding level. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wouldn't that also -- by 21 doing that, you're giving -- you're expanding the pool, but 22 expanding the pool at a higher-risk category. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good point. 24 MS. NEMEC: I wouldn't say it's a higher risk 25 category, because the retirees keep their insurance anyway, 138 1 so that the risk is there. You -- the only difference is 2 that they're paying $105 per month. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Significantly less 5 than we're paying for everybody else. 6 MS. NEMEC: Right. And there -- well, and 7 the reason is, $105 -- let me clarify that. $105 is if 8 you're, I think, 65 and eligible for Medicare. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's right. 10 MS. NEMEC: If not, if you're not 65 yet, 11 which I have not seen -- there's probably one employee that 12 is not that age that retired, and that employee is paying 13 the regular 200-whatever. But, once that employee reaches 14 age 65, the insurance will go down to $105 because Medicare 15 is primary at that time. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they become 17 secondary. 18 MS. NEMEC: Right. So, there's only -- right 19 now, there's only one employee who is in that category. 20 Most of our employees can't afford to retire till age 65. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're going to get 22 copies of the bids that the third-party has gone out -- 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I'm just suggesting 24 that the Treasurer needs to have those for the records -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's open to us if 139 1 we'd like. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- as part of the public 3 information requirements. 4 MS. NEMEC: Tommy, do you have anything to 5 say on that? Am I correct on the way I presented this? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, as I remember -- I 7 don't remember what our monthly -- monthly amount is that 8 we -- that our cost is affected. How much is it per month? 9 MS. NEMEC: $236 or $238, I don't know. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I think out of that $236, 11 that administrative fee was something like $3. 12 MS. NEMEC: So that's what you're looking at. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Per month. So, I -- I mean, 14 percentage-wise, that's a very small amount. In fact, I 15 think if you calculate the total amount that -- that we pay 16 that third-party administrator for their services, it's 17 under $20,000. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: When will we get the new 19 numbers from the third-party administrator? Third-party 20 insurance expires in -- 21 MS. NEMEC: January 1st -- or December 31st. 22 I would say probably in the next couple of weeks. Next 23 couple of weeks. Gosh, I had something to say when you said 24 that, and I -- oh. The -- like, if they tell us that we 25 need to fund $250 per month per employee, again, that is a 140 1 suggestion that they're making to us. We can fund $100 if 2 we want, but -- but what they're looking at is the cost of 3 the reinsurance; their, probably, $3-a-month cost for every 4 employee, and the claims that are coming in. So, we can 5 fund $150, we can fund $250. But $150 is probably not going 6 to be sufficient in our pool, our money, to pay for our 7 claims. So, again, that's not -- when they say $250, by no 8 means is that money going to them. It's -- it's being set 9 aside in our pool to pay for our claims, which we're going 10 to have to do that anyway. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: I would suggest that we wait 12 till we get the number from the third-party administrator. 13 MS. NEMEC: Okay. I'll have them -- 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: And address this again. 15 Okay. All right. Thank you, Barbara. 16 MS. NEMEC: Thank you. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any more items before we 18 adjourn for lunch? Item Number 18, consider and discuss 19 approving the form of contracts on County-sponsored 20 contracts and authorize County Judge to sign same. The real 21 issue here is whether you want us to bring back each of 22 these County-sponsored contracts to the Court for approval, 23 or whether you want to give the County Judge the authority 24 to sign those if they haven't been changed from what we all 25 approved last year. So, what's the desire of the Court? 141 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Personally, I'd like 2 to see them. Just makes me feel like I'm a part of the 3 government and representing the people. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I tend to agree. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you going to read them? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, what I -- actually, 7 what it does is it makes me aware during the year as to who 8 we're giving the money to. And, I don't know that I need 9 the whole thing, but maybe just the front page, or even just 10 a citation -- an agenda item and cover sheet. I don't think 11 that -- I don't read them. As long as the form's the same, 12 I don't. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: You can get the whole thing. 14 If you want us to bring them back, you're going to get the 15 whole thing. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't you do an 17 agenda item like you do on a lot of things? 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: If you're going to approve 19 the contract, I'm going to give you the contract to look at. 20 Whether you look at it or not, that's up to you, but I'm 21 going to give it to you to look at so that nobody can say, 22 "Got ya" when we're doing it. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I have a preference of 25 everything or nothing, I'd take everything. 142 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. Does 2 anyone have any comments on the Soil and Water Conservation 3 District contract or the CASA contract? 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Nothing. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve 6 them, allow the County Judge to sign them. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 9 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 10 approve the contract with the Kerr County Soil and Water 11 Conservation District and the Hill Country CASA contract and 12 authorize County Judge to sign same. Any questions or 13 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is 18 Item Number 19, which is to consider and discuss Order 19 designating the day of the week on which the Court will 20 convene in a regular term. Let's keep in mind that "regular 21 term" has a special meaning within the statute. In the 22 past, we have designated the second Monday of each month as 23 the regular term. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 143 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 2 seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court set the 3 second Monday of each month as the date on which the Court 4 will convene in a regular term. Any further questions or 5 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hands. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 10 20. The change order has not been done; however, I've 11 handed out to each of you the directives which will be the 12 basis for that change order. We're still having trouble 13 with Stoddard Construction Company providing us information, 14 particularly information regarding credits back to the 15 County. Which is no surprise. I've instructed them and 16 instructed our Project Manager that they're not to do any 17 work that hasn't already been authorized until those change 18 orders come to Court, so that's the situation we find 19 ourselves in. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can't go anywhere. 21 Hang on to this information, but -- 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Hang on to the information, 23 that's correct. If there's nothing else, we'll stand in 24 recess until -- actually, we'll adjourn and reconvene at 25 1:30 for the scheduled workshops. 144 1 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:10 p.m.) 2 - - - - - - - - - - 3 4 5 6 7 STATE OF TEXAS | 8 COUNTY OF KERR | 9 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 10 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 11 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 12 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 13 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 30th day of October, 14 2000. 15 16 17 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 18 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 19 Certified Shorthand Reporter 20 21 22 23 24 25