1 r- 2 ^ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .--~ 11 12 .~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Regular Session Monday, January 8, 2001 9:00 a.tn. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas ~i PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X January 8, 2001 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments ,`>> 3 1.2 Budget Amendmentso~~~~~ ¢a~ O~~ 6 1 .3 Late Bills p~(P ~~~ 9 1.5 Read and Accept Monthly Reports a G ~~~ 10 2.1 Final plat, Nickerson Farms, Section II o~ ~Q d~.3 11 2.2 Final plat, Privilege Creek Ranches a (Q ~~~ 13 2.3 Using Grand Jury list for Grievance Committee & selection of members a~~~S 20 2.4 Discussion of regulation of OSSF's in Kerr County, including statutory & regulatory responsibilities and processes 22 2.5 Authorize Constable Precinct 4 to a poi t a deputy constable effective 1-1-01 ~ ~ ~~(~ 37 2.6 Appointment of county representative to City of Kerrville Comprehensive Plan Advisory Co~~inttee p7~p O/ 40 2.7 Appointment of county representative to AACOG Economic Development and Environmental R iew Committee ~ ~ ~~ ~ 45 2.8 Designation of 2nd Commissioners Court meeting in February, May, August, & November as~) evening C ~ OJ meetings O~ ~ 47 2.9 Creation of 25-person Citizens Advi ry Committee on Redistricting O~ ~ ~O~ ~ 52 2.10 Resolution authorizing designated si natories for TCDP Contract No. 720135 a (o ~p7 ~ 62 --- Adjourned 63 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Monday, January 8, 2001, a regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's 9 o'clock on Monday, January the 8th, Year 2001. We'll call to order this regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. If y'all will please stand and join me in a word of prayer, followed by the pledge of allegiance. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, any citizen wishing to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda may come forward and do so. Is there anyone who wishes to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda? One more time, is there any citizen who wishes to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda"? If not, we'll go to the Commissioners' comments, and we'll start with Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any comments this morning. Just want to ditto the prayer this morning, that we -- that we conduct business in a -- in a fashion that's good for everybody. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Commissioner 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: New year, lots to do. Hope we get it done. DODGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That could go down -- that's quite a quote; people'll be repeating that for years. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On my tombstone. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is just an update on the Hermann Sons bridge. It's been hard to track over the holidays because of people being in and out, but I believe the money has been appropriated by the -- or from the federal government and sent to the N.R.C.S. office in Texas to replace that bridge. There are -- also, they have requested that -- or, basically, their schedule at N.R.C.S. and State level is two things; do an engineering study, and they've asked Road and Bridge to arrange for that, and they will pay for 100 percent of that cost, and basically have some divers go into the river and do some structural checking. But, they will -- and I discussed it with Leonard, and based on our previous court order authorizing him to get this moving and no expenditure of funds from the County, I didn't put it on the agenda. I don't think it needs to -- this is just an update, but it is -- but it's proceeding. It looks like the money is sent to Texas for us. 1 --~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ^ 11 12 ~-- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .---~ 21 22 23 24 25 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Great. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's some other funds available also, federal grants and things that we're looking at that may pick up all or most of our matching. I'm not real sure. We're trying to figure out exactly how they all tie together. People keep calling and offering money. We're trying to figure -- we're working through it. But, anyway, it looks positive. JUDGE HENNEKE: Good. Commissioner Griffin? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just a note that we passed the second millennium, so-called by some, that the year 2001 was the real millennium. The Y2K-plus-one was no worse than the Y2 K, which I just would like to remind everybody that we've got to be careful about believing everything we read, after the billions that were spent on the Y2K problem, which many people in the industry said never would be a big deal, anyway. So, just a reminder that not -- the experts aren't always right. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's true. And since none of us hold ourselves out as experts, we heartily agree with that. I'll just remind everyone that due to the timing of this meeting and the need for the County Treasurer's office to do the W-2's and 1099's, we will have a special meeting this Friday at 9 o'clock for the limited purpose of paying bills, and there's one other additional agenda item, which 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 1J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is to authorize the purchase of additional licenses from software for use of the different departments. So, there will be a brief meeting at 9 o'clock here in the courtroom on Friday to pay bills and also to take up the item of the license purchase. With that, let's move to the approval agenda. We have no bills to pay today, but we I think we do have a budget ameiidmeiit; is tkiat right? We have two of them? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JODGE HENNEKE: First is Budget Amendment Number 1 fur the Sheriff's Department. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. This amendment is for the renewal of the law enforcement liability coverage for the Sheriff's Office and the jail and all of the constables, and the amount is fur $47,754. I do need a hand check for that. The amendment is to -- to transfer enough funds in -- in the line item in the Sheriff's Department for the -- for this payment. We budgeted $44,340. In the process of renewing, we -- we learned that we -- we had an 88 percent loss ratio, so that prompted almost a 20 percent increase in this premium. So, what I'm -- I'm recommending that we transfer $9,515 from Nondepartmental Contingency into the Sheriff's budget for that purpose. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the 88 percent loss related to? 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: To the total premium. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, was there any certain thing that happened abnormally this past year? MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not sure all of it -- I know that there were some problems in the jail with jailhouse lawyers. That was -- with as many inmates as we have, you know, we'll continue to probably have those -- those issues. COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we calculate our charge to other entities that we house the prisoners for, is this factored in? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. Our -- our costing is -- is total cost. In other words, we're costing out the -- the -- we're amortizing the building and all the fixtures and furniture and -- in the building, as far as -- as the monthly cost for operations, and so this is fully costed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1 for the Sheriff's Department and authorize a hand check payable to First Insurance Agency. Any further questions or comments? MR. TOMLINSON: This is to Furman -- oh, I'm 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sorry. You' re right, it is First. I just knew who did the bidding for us. JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Request Number 2 is Nondepartmental. MR. TOMLINSON: This request is for license agreement with ABA Moriah Corporation, and it's for the annual maintenance on system printer for -- for the -- it's actually housed in the Tax Office. We -- the amount of that bill is a hundred -- is $1,100, and we -- there are no -- actually no funds in that Mainframe Maintenance at this time, the reason being that we paid the 5-year maintenance for the new system out of this line item, and it was -- it caused this shortfall in that line item. So, I'm recommending that we transfer $1,100 from Capital Outlay in Nondepartmental to Mainframe Maintenance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2, Nondepartmental. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 Any further questions or comments'? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Any others? MR. TOMLINSON: I have late bills. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. We have the late bills? I think eveLyone has a copy of those. MR. TOMLINSON: I think they do. JUDGE HENNEKE: Should have. MR. TOMLINSON: One is -- all these I need hand checks for, is the reason I'm presenting them. One is to Sam Thigpen for $1,800 for the interior painting of the office building at Road and Bridge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should we do all these together? JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's do them all together. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Next one is to AACOG for $2,594.04. This comes out of Nondepartmental, and it's for the 2001 AACOG dues. Next one is to Scan Optics, Inc. This is for $685. It's for maintenance to the imaging scanner in the County Clerk's office. Next one is to First Insurance Agency. It's for $356. This comes from Commissioners Court budget, and it's for bonds for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 Commissioners Baldwin and Letz. The next one is also to First Insurance Agency for $177.50, and it's for renewal of a bond for -- it's J.P. 3. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Constable. MR. TOMLINSON: Constable, you're right. Right, I had my numbers wrong. Okay. The next is to Mary Taylor, and it's -- this is for $125 for Adult Probation -- no, I'm sorry, it's from the Maintenance Department salaries. It's for the custodial services for the Probation Offices for -- from 12/16 to 12/31. I have one last item. This is to the U.S. Postal Service for $2,000 for postage for the postage meters for the County Clerk. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize hand checks as recommended by the Auditor's office. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We don't have the minutes of the last month's meeting yet to approve. We'll skip over that item. We do have some monthly reports. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 At this time, I'd entertain a motion to approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Turning to the consideration agenda, first item is Item Number 1, consider the final plat of Nickerson Farms, Section ii, Precinct 3. Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a subdivision over behind the old rodeo arena off Highway 27, and we looked at the preliminary plat a while back. It's -- it's fairly straightforward. The question has been working out a drainage easement, and it appears that's been done. Franklin? MR. JOHNSTON: That's it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. COMMISSIONER GRlr'FIN: Your recommendation is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 12 that we -- MR. JOHNSTON: Here's a copy of the Letter of Credit. I don't see Cord; he's supposed to bring the original in, but that's a faxed copy. This Amy Lane is a county-maintained road. It's been inspected, it's paved. Recommend approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me again about the lot sizes. Remind me of -- of how that works. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's under a central water system. Its basically -- it's a manufactured home community that they're putting in. Is it Aqua Source? MR. JOHNSTON: Aqua Source does the water. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This would be a mistake, I can see that right now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: From Aqua Source standpoint? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin, can you go over this, how the drainage was resolved? The problem he -- the drainage coming down along Amy Lane, where their water was going to? MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. Originally they had, I guess, a verbal agreement to have an easement across the 12.38 acres to the highway. The lady that owned that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 13 property would never give them a written easement, so he changed it along the southern part of his property, 35-foot-wide drainage easement, and then down Nicks Road to the highway. And, he improved the drainage ditch on the road, as well as putting in a ditch, according to engineering plans, which I think you have a copy in your packet of cross-sections. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I move we approve the final plat of Nickerson Farms, Section II. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the final plat of Nickerson Farms, Section II, in Precinct 3. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 2 is to consider the final plat of Privilege Creek Ranches, also in Precinct 3. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin, go over this one -- this is one we looked at a while back. I believe it changed -- MR. JOHNSTON: This one has been around, 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 several preliminaries. This is the latest version. I was down last week to look at the roads. It was unpaved country lane. The original preliminary plat, it had a similar layout, but it had Phase I and Phase II where several lots -- like, four lots were served by an additional road they were going to build. They rearranged it so all the lots had frontage on Privilege Creek Road -- Lane. Privilege Lane, I guess it's called. Only problem I can see now is they have 11 lots on an unpaved country lane, where the rules -- these would come under the '98 rules. We have a restriction to eight lots on an unpaved road. Over that, it's supposed to go to a paved road. Other than that, it's -- looks like everything is fine. I don't know if it needs to get a variance or what. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What is our current rule? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It didn't change, it's still -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Still the same? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I see Mr. Voelkel sitting there. Don, is there a reason? I mean -- MR. VOELKEL: I really don't know how that -- or why it ended up the way Frank's explaining. From my memory, McLean Bowman never intended to waive it, but then again, maybe the way we had it originally, it was under the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 guidelines, and then the way we changed it, doing away with that other road shifted -- MR. JOHNSTON: It Y'd originally at the entry, and I -- four of them were on the other road, so that would have been under the eight. MR. VOELKEL: We never realized. It wasn't anything we tried to sweep under the carpet; just happened that way. Frank and I were talking about it last week, that technically -- and I looked at the rules. The first mention of country lane says as long as it's 10 acres or larger or 15 lots or fewer, I think is the way it says in the first mention of country lane. Yeah, lots of 10 acres or more or entrances where the road serves less than 15 lots. So, we go under that specification. MR. JOHNSTON: It goes on to explain that the 15 is paved and then the eight is for unpaved. MR. VOELKEL: Unpaved, right. It's really just something that we didn't realize. I don't think he ever intended to -- and I don't think Frank admitted to -- it never was mentioned that we were going to pave it. It's just that, you know, if you read it by the -- the letter of the ordinance, it -- it doesn't meet the eight lots. We have 11. See, there was originally a lane coming off -- right off the entrance, and we had about four lots down here. And that other road just went up and served the other 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ones. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- I mean, to me, the -- putting in -- that neck comes down this bottom portion of the plat, the southeastern corner. If you extended that road up like was originally planned, just up there a ways, you would be able to accomplish that. You would basically have two roads, and three on one and -- MR. JOHNSTON: That's the way it was before. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- and I don't see -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Are you saying sort of make -- take the extension of Turkey Knob Road -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- in that neck down portion, just show that as a -- as a road, and it's only got technically three properties on it. That would take three out, and you'd be down to eight. Is that possible? MR. VOELKEL: Yeah, that would serve Lots 11, 9, and 8, if that's what you're saying. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That would -- with that proviso, I think that would do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, that -- I know we've gone back and forth. I really don't see the reason 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 for a waiver here. I don't think it -- I mean, the road's going to need to be built anyway, even though it's just going to serve that one lot. So, by making it a part of the development -- I mean, keep the cost down, anyway. I think it meets the rules. MR. JOHNSTON: So, you're saying right on our south line there, that 200-foot strip, just knock that down to 60-foot line and go back to a cul-de-sac? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At the end of that. MR. VOELKEL: Right where that ends. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. MR. JOHNSTON: Right where those three come together. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somewhere in there. You could go as far as you want, really, as long as it's a separate road and gets the access. MR. JOHNSTON: Long as it touches those. MR. VOELKEL: You could do -- one, two, three lots. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don, where do you see the cul de sac? Show me. MR. VOELKEL: Buster, what we're talking about is bringing a road right along here, and then cul-de-sac'ing it here to serve these three lots. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How is 7 served? MR. VOELKEL: It's up here. It has access on -- those eight would be on there and these three would be -- you have access off the other road. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That makes it right. I would recommend that's what we do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- MR. JOHNSTON: You can't get from 7 to 8; it's too big a valley in there to get that one, anyway. MR. VOELKEL: You want me to just go ahead and revise that and bring it back at a later date? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I don't -- to me, bring it back, and we could approve it subject to that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could we make a motion that we -- could we make a motion that, with those changes, that we would approve it and authorize County Judge to sign same, or do we -- I don't really see, unless the law requires it or our rules require it, that we would have to see the plat again, then. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. I mean, it meets all other standards or requirements. I don't have any problem with it. MR. VOELKEL: So, just as long as Frank and I get to the point where it's good and he'll sign it, then I 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 bring it and let the Judge sign to it record it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, with the -- I mean, putting in a -- a road at the bottom down that neck that we discussed. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Serve those three lots. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Serve Lots 11, 9, and 8. MR. JOHNSTON: They can bring a Letter of Credit in and do it, you know, next week, or he can wait till they build the road. Whichever way -- MR. VOELKEL: I can talk with the owner, make sure he agrees to that. Once Frank's okay with it and he'll sign it, then he can bring it to the Judge for his signature, if y'all approve that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion to approve the final plat of Privilege Creek Ranches, subject to plat being revised adding a road on the southeast corner that would serve Lots 8, 9, and 11. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize the County Judge to sign same at that point. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JDDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the final plat of Privilege Creek Ranches, subject to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 extension of Turkey Knob -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Road. DODGE HENNEKE: -- Road in the southeast corner, to serve Lots 9, 11, and 8. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. JUDGE HENNEKE: And authorize the County Judge to sign the final plat upon recommendation by the County Engineer. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. MR. VOELKEL: Thanks. JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item Number 3. Nadene, are you going to present this? MS. ALFORD: Yes, sir. JUDGE HENNEKE: Using Grand Jury list for the Grievance Committee per Section 152.014(a) of the Local Government Code, and selection of such members, if approved, as per Section 152.015 (a) of the Local Government Code. MS. ALFORD: You're to pick 15 names and then take nine -- well, we send out letters and then we take nine out of the 15 who accept. JUDGE HENNEKE: The first -- first, the Court 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 has to approve using the Grievance -- Grand Jury list for the Grievance Committee. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court use the Grand Jury list for the Grievance Committee, as per Section 152.014(a) of the Local Government Code. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hands. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: And now I get to choose the 15 lucky individuals. Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it would be more fun to just choose them off this list. I see some I'd like to tap. JUDGE HENNEKE: Butch Dixon. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, he's one of them. Great. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thomas Myers. Rosario Maria Arredondo. Diana Lynn Howard. Michael Edward Green. Velia Delacruz. David L. Domingue. Margaret A. Morries. Don Craft Kendrick. J.B. Oswalt. How many do we have, Nadene? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's 10. MS. ALFORD: Ten. JUDGE HENNEKE: Ten? Okay. Linda Somerville, that's 11. Bryan Edward Nentwich is 12. Susan Johnson, 13. Charles William Blackborn -- Blackburn, I'm sorry, 19. And the final winner is Garciela Castillo. MS. ALFORD: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those come back at a later meeting for approval? JUDGE HENNEKE: No, they -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They just choose the first nine? JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. They send out letters, and if there's nine that accept, the first nine that accept get taken. If we don't get enough takers, we come back and draw more names. Next item is Item Number 4, consider and discuss regulation of on-site sewage facilities in Kerr County, including statutory, regulatory responsibilities and processes. Commissioner Griffin. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you, Judge. This is on the agenda today primarily just to review the jurisdictional and statutory requirements for regulations of O.S.S.F. And, the reason I asked to have it on the agenda today was because there has been so much misinformation and partially correct but partially incorrect information that's 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 been disseminated through the public that I think it would be real productive for all of us to sort of set back and say, where does this authority come from? How does it get implemented? And what are the Court's responsibilities as the T.N.R.C.C. designated -- or authorized agent? The first thing you see in your package is this little flow diagram, and this is important. I wish we had an audio-visual, but I've got some other copies of it here. You might spread those around so people can see them. Chapter 366 -- which is also in your package, for members of the Court. Chapter 366 of the Texas Health and Safety Code is the statutory authority for regulation of all O.S.S.F. in the state of Texas. It is directive, and it's shown on the Court. It is directive on the T.N.R.C.C. That statute is directive on any authorized agent; in this case, Kerr County. It's also -- you can have a third arrow pointing down there that goes all the way to the citizen of -- any citizen in the state of Texas. The law exempts no one. The T.N.R.C.C. writes rules under that statute, and that is in the form of Chapter 285, which is a T.N.R.C.C. rule that's in the Texas Administrative Code. Now, there's -- it's interesting that you really have to look at both Chapter 366 and Chapter 285 to understand the entire program and how it works. 366 authorizes the T.N.R.C.C. to designate -- to designate other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 government entities like Kerr County as their authorized agent. That's done by -- if you'll look in the second -- you'll see an agent designation order in that second line. That comes about as a result of the Commissioners Court writing an on-site waste disposal order and submitting it to T.N.R.C.C. T.N.R.C.C. then puts out an order which accepts that rule as -- or that order that the Court wrote, and then designates the Court as their authorized agent. So, you have to take that proactive stance. They don't just come to the County and say, "You're the authorized agent." The County -- and we did that back in 1992. We wrote an order, we submitted it to T.N.R.C.C., they approved it. We had -- we had our rules package attached to that court order. They approved it and said, "Okay, you're the authorized agent." Now, once you are the authorized agent, you are the authorized agent. You can't give that responsibility to anyone else. The -- the statute makes no provision for that. You can have a designated representative for enforcement and administration of the program, but the Court is still responsible as the authorized agent for the T.N.R.C.C. The T.N.R.C.C. puts out what they call the "model order," and it has several issues in there. And, in fact, if you look at our pending order that's before T.N.R.C.C. now, the one that we approved on December the zs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11th, it, in essence, is the model. Now, the model contains a Section 10 for amendments, and it says in the model, "optional." The Commissioners Court does not have to put anything in the Section 10, and in fact there is instruction to go along with the model that says if you don't have a Section 10, delete it and renumber the paragraphs thereafter, which is precisely what we did with our order that we approved and submitted to T.N.R.C.C. on December the 11th. Now, no one else except this Court can make changes to that order, to include a Section 10 or to delete a Section 10. That is purely the Court's discretion and their authority, and always has been. We can change that order any time this Court is convinced that the order ought to be changed. Not any other entity. If the Court is convinced, at our discretion, we can change that order, approve it, send it to T.N.R.C.C. They will reapprove it and close this loop again. Any time that the Court dibbles with the order; that is, we sign interlocal agreements or we -- or we sign contracts, or we designate designated representatives, the law requires that we send that information to T.N.R.C.C. for their approval. As long as we do that, we've closed the loop. We've done everything that we're supposed to do. Now, I raise that because we do have a 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 slightly different jurisdictional situation in Kerr County, and that is, right now we have, in essence, three rules in effect. We've got the City of Kerrville -- which the statute allows for municipalities; we can't cover a municipality, if it's incorporated, with our county order. But, the City of Kerrville has one, the City of Ingram has an order, and Kerr County has an order. The U.G.R.A. also has on the books a rule by T.N.R.C.C. that, within certain limits, 1,500 feet of the river and its flowing tributaries -- and it lists what those tributaries are, 93 of them. If the U.G.R.A. desires to have a separate rule, they can do that. And, if they have a separate rule, it would supersede our county rule. Now, they -- I know this sounds complicated, but it's really not. We've got three rules right now. We could have a fourth rule if U.G.R.A. were to write one. Does anybody have any question on that? If U.G.R.A. were to write a rule, then there would now be four rules in the county, and our rule would apply to anything that is not incorporated or any area that's not in the U.G.R.A. jurisdiction. Is there any question about that? I -- I don't have any, but I've read this stuff up and down, and maybe other members of the Court do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Larry, I have no questions about it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 27 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's clear. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I hope I -- that's about the fourth time we've covered it in court, but -- but it seems like we can't get that straight in the dissemination of the information, for some reason. JUDGE HENNEKE: Let me -- may I ask you a question about the Section 10 issue? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Can a Commissioners Court put whatever they want in Section 10, or is there -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Subject to the approval of the T.N.R.C.C. The short answer is yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: But, it does have to get approval of the T.N.R.C.C.? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Correct. JUDGE HENNEKE: And the Court would have to justify to the T.N.R.C.C. any more stringent requirements than the model rule. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct. And you have to submit a statement in writing for any restriction -- further restriction that you put in Section 10. That justification can't be verbal; it's got to be in writing. JUDGE HENNEKE: And, would you say that the 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- it's the position of the professionals at T.N.R.C.C. that Section 10 amendments are not favored; the model rule is adequate for protection of the environment? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. And, that -- and you really couldn't expect them, I don't think, to say otherwise. They're not going to write a rule that they don't think applies statewide. Now, I would submit that here in Kerr County, we've also got a slightly -- again, a different problem, if that's the right terminology, than some other counties have. We have parts of Kerr County that are not in the Guadalupe water basin -- the watershed. So, we -- I think it's incumbent upon this Court, as the authorized agent of T.N.R.C.C., to write a rule that covers all of Kerr County. If there is a specialized jurisdiction, municipalities or otherwise, within Kerr County, that feels a separate rule is necessary, that's certainly their right to have one, and the law allows for that. But, we in Kerr County and this Commissioners Court -- let's make sure that we get this right -- that nobody miscommunicated with the T.N.R.C.C. We've had a flow of information back and forth. It's been complete. It's been crystal clear. Section 10 is at the discretion of the Commissioners Court, and you can have one or you don't have to have one, and that's the authority and the discretion of the Court. This Court, on December the 11th, made the 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 judgment, based on all the information that we had from all of the experts and -- experts that we had make input, we made a decision not to have a Section 10. That's the way the system works. And, are there any questions -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- on that issue? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know about that issue, but I have one. 366.051, in -- defined as Permits. "A person may hold a permit and an approved plan to construct, alter, repair, extend, or operate an on-site sewage disposal system." You must have a permit. Section (c) says, "A person may not begin to construct, alter, repair, or extend an on-site sewage disposal system that is owned by another person unless the owner or owner's representative shows proof of a permit and approved plan from the Commissioner or the authorized agent." Now, the question is, in the real estate transfer situation, where the -- where -- and we have had these happen many times, where the property being sold or transferred does not have a licensed system. How do you handle that? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The T.N.R.C.C. position is -- is that -- and, by the way, it's also in the -- it's in the law, and I would have to find it, but prior to 19 -- prior to -- if the system was installed prior to 19 -- I believe January 1st, 1989, it does not apply. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That -- that's the out that T.N.R.C.C. will quote to you on that question, 'cause I asked exactly the same question. I believe -- don't hold me firm on that date; I have to look back through it again, but -- but there was -- and in the rewrite of Chapter 285 that's now under way, the grandfathering is going to be strengthened, at least what -- what the proposed language in the new rule that T.N.R.C.C. has. You have to -- again, you have to read 285 as well as 366 to get that information, because 285 is where the applicability of the rule is shown, and that's the one I believe is January lst, '89, which was the first time that was regulated. So, you can pass those systems under the T.N.R.C.C. rule; you can pass ownership without a permit. And, that's the other side -- the other side of the argument is, hey, if we write a stronger rule, we could keep that from happening. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you can pass an unlicensed, malfunctioning system, is what it's saying? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, no citizen -- let me go back again. No citizen can have a malfunctioning system. It's not legal. Now, how do you enforce that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you catch it if you can't catch it in licensing? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How would you catch it if the property never changed hands? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You wouldn't. But, if it does -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, you could. I submit that you can, and that is -- is that when you notice a higher bacteria count in the river, you swim like salmon upstream until you find the source of it, up a tributary or whatever. That's a role that the water enforcement folks ought to be doing; that is, to chase down the pollution to its source. Then I'll stand -- and I think the whole Court would stand with a court order, and the Sheriff and whatever we had to do to go fix it. The -- the state rule does not envision that you wouldn't correct a nuisance, a hazard to health, but you've got to find it, and I see no reason why we have to wait until a property changes hands to track down pollution to its source. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's another possibility, and it's in 366.005. We talked about this earlier, and I'm wondering whether or not this happens in Kerr County. Where it says that a notice of utility service connection, electric utility company is obligated to give to the County a list of those connections it makes where there's a potential for implementing and enforcing rules under this chapter. I'm wondering, does that happen? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And I -- I asked that question around the courthouse, and I think we've 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 seen some reports. Judge, have you seen some reports on that? JUDGE HENNEKE: We get reports every now and then to that effect. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We don't have anybody here from U.G.R.A. I wonder if they get it, because I have never seen one, and I know that that is called for in the -- which it tells you that somebody's building something, 'cause they ask for power to be put on their property. That's the real key to that. Let me also point out one other thing on property transfer, and this can be -- this position could be changed legally, because it's a legal interpretation. In the rewrite of Chapter 285 that's under way, that's -- where it was posted in the Texas Register and so on and asked for comments, U.G.R.A. responded with a proposal that the property transfer issue be put into Chapter 285 so that, then, you would be -- everybody would be directed to do that. The answer to their input was that T.N.R.C.C. did not accept it, because they said -- and I'm -- I was looking for the -- for the write-up; I've actually got it somewhere here in all this. But, what they said was -- what T.N.R.C.C. said was -- in answering that input, was that we will not put that into the rule because we can find no 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 33 statutory authority to do that. Now, that can change if they can find statutory authority or they can get the legislation rewritten or whatever. But, anybody who wants to go around this Court to argue the rules needs to go to the Legislature or to T.N.R.C.C. to get them to change either the legislation or the rule. Then, immediately, because we have adopted the state rule, we'll be held to that standard, and that's the way the process ought to work. So, I -- I'm not trying to cut off debate on this issue. I'm just saying, with this chart, that what's got to happen is that somebody's got to go to the Legislature or to the T.N.R.C.C., and then this Court will either act to enforce the state standard, or we can go fight with T.N.R.C.C. and the Legislature ourselves if we don't agree with it. But, that's the way the system ought to work. Let me say, in passing, one other thing. If you'll read -- and, hey, 366, with 12-point font, only runs to 17 pages, and it's got some very interesting stuff in there about designated representatives have to be approved by the T.N.R.C.C. once we designate them, little tidbits like that, which are fine, and they'll run through. As long as they're qualified, they'll rubber-stamp it. But, also -- it also says, for example, that the acreage exemption -- and remember, the acreage exemption is in 366; the State Legislature put that in, not 285. But, the 10-acre 34 1 .._ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s exemption, as it is in 366, has said back as far as 1976, which is the earliest copy of this law that I've been able 10 acres with a single residence. It never exempted any commercial operation, including youth camps. They've never been exempt. And, in fact, youth camps are estimated in 285 to use -- or to have wastewater 30 gallons per camper per day. Anybody can multiply and you can see what kind of -- you can figure out what kind of standard you must meet in a youth camp or any kind of camp. But, the camps have never been exempted, because the rule has -- or the law has only said a single residence on a tract 10 acres or larger. So, I think that -- I think that the dialogue gotten me involved in reading all this stuff. Remember that we are the authorized agent, though, and that's what I -- that's the point I'm really trying to make, and that we have acted within our authority and our discretion to do what we think is right for all of Kerr County, and that that's where we ought to leave the subject for today. And, if anybody wants to come to us with new data -- and I mean all of the literature, not just one study, because there's tons of it out there. I would point out to the Court that there is, in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 soils. It's a very comprehensive program and a very comprehensive research, well-documented, peer reviewed, the whole nine yards. And, they've just put out their interim Phase I report, and that's -- I've asked for a copy of that so we can look at it, because it's real scientific data, not assertions based on a body of knowledge. It is actual scientific data where you take a sample, you take it into the lab or you test it in the field and you present all the data. And, so -- and that's the way those kind of studies need to be done, and not with a cut and paste operation, as some consultants are willing to do. 1 know that, 'cause I've seen a lot of that in aerospace. So -- COMM1SSlONER LETZ: Larry, I have -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- that's it. I've spoken my piece. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- two questions -- or one statement, one question. Is there any provision where we could have a different set of rules for different portions of the counties? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't think there's anything that precludes doing that. I suspect you'd have to be careful, because you may get into some equal protection kind of stuff if you -- if you discriminated against certain -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I'm not -- I'm just 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 curious whether you could do it. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't mean discrimination in the bad sense, necessarily, but if you have -- if you make discriminations within a rule, you might get into a little trouble there, but I don't know of anything that says you can't do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Arid the other question -- or, I guess, the statement I have is, I think it is important for everyone to remember, and we frequently forget that there are a number of rivers -- there's three river basins in Kerr County. A fair portion of the western portion of the county and northern portion are in the Colorado River basin, and then there's a portion of the southeastern section which is in the San Antonio River basin. And, I think it is -- I mean, we tend to assume that the whole county's part of the Guadalupe basin, and that's not a correct -- you know, that's not correct. And, I think we need to remember that when we're looking at authorities and who's doing what. And not just in this, but in all issues. That's it. Thank you, I appreciate it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments from the Commissioners Court? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one quick comment. It's back to Commissioner Williams' item here about the utilities compile a weekly list and hand it in to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 the County Judge, and then the -- go down a little bit further. County Judge shall forward that list to the appraisal district and each emergency communication district in the county. I would really like to -- this is -- my thinking is a little bit outside of what the topic is here this morning, but this kind of information would make the entire system -- the Appraisal District is crying for that kind of information. It would make their program run a lot smoother if they could -- you know, if -- if the entities would somehow communicate with each other. And I didn't realize this until just last week, when I was reading 366, that it requires some of it to already happen. And, I -- I really like this kind of -- this information here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Emergency -- also for emergency purposes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, emergency purposes, too. There's a lot of information, a lot of -- lot of things could happen here with this kind of stuff. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Very worthwhile. Next item is Item Number 5, consider and discuss authorizing Constable Bob Terrill to appoint a deputy constable in Precinct Number 4. Commissioner Griffin. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. This is to -- I think they're in your package. You'll see that this is a -- 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a copy of the statute out of Local Government Code -- Local Government Code? Yeah. That applies to deputy constables and, oh, it's down toward the -- I don't know exactly where it is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 2. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: On Page 2, yeah. Page 2, the Appointment of a Deputy Constable. And, you'll notice there it says that Commissioners Court shall approve and confirm the appointment of the deputy, but the first thing we have to do is authorize the constable to appoint a deputy. And, that's the purpose of this today, is to clean that up, where we do -- this is not anything that we didn't expect. It's just that this is a paperwork -- closing the loop, if you will. And, Constable Terrill is here. He has given me a letter, by the way, that -- that -- requesting that authority officially, and I would move that we authorize him to do that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court authorize Constable Bob Terrill to appoint a deputy constable in Precinct Number 4. Any questions or comments? Yes? MS. NEMEC: A question. Is this the time that you would approve the salary and the benefits that that 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 person is going to have? Or -- JUDGE HENNEKE: As per the budget. MS. NEMEC: As per the budget. So, insurance and retirement would be available to that individual? JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, if it's in the budget. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What did you have there before? MS. NEMEC: It had to be specially approved, because the insurance contract states that any employee who works over 19 and a half hours a week must be on the retirement plan, and -- but the insurance states that an employee has to work 40 hours a week. And, so, with this being a part-time/full-time, that's always been a kind of a vague area, where they're not really 40 hours, but they're on call all the time. So, the Court has to make a special -- approve this one individual to get that benefit. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It should either be part-time or should be full-time. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And I think we did away with part-time/full-time, didn't we? Or all that -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hope so. MS. NEMEC: Except that this employee that the -- the employee is in that position now, so that, you know, they're -- we're redoing this. I just want to make 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 the Court aware of that, if this is going to change, or is it going to stay the same? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, the statute requires that -- that, you know, Constable Terrill's going to have to come back and -- because that appointment is subject, you know, to the Court's approval, so we'll need to go around and do that. Why don't we address that at that time? I think that that will take care of -- we can take care of this issue today; that is, the authority to appoint, and then we can work out those issues and we can get together and see how that worked before and how we're going to work it around this time. JUDGE HENNEKE: There's a motion to authorize the appointment of the deputy. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hands. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is Item Number 6, consider and discuss appointment of County Judge to serve as Kerr County representative for the City of Kerrville Comprehensive Planning Advisory Committee. The letter and the form is in your packets. Any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, my preference 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 would be to have someone other than you serve on that committee. And, my logic is that right now you're on a water committee representing the Court, and you tend to, as your position as Judge, be with a lot of these people more than some of the other Commissioners do. I think it would -- just to get a more diverse view, I'd like to see Commissioner Baldwin do it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Does Commissioner Baldwin want to do it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do I want to do it? Is it my heart's desire? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't mind doing it either, but I just did Subdivision Rules. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd second that motion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, your name's first. And, I mean, I don't mind doing it, certainly. Nothing against you, but I just think you tend to deal with these people a lot already. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the -- the thinking when the request came to me was that I'm elected to represent the whole county, whereby the Commissioners are elected to represent a precinct. That doesn't mean that the Commissioner only represents a precinct, but they are elected to represent a precinct. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JODGE HENNEKE: I don't care. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just -- my view is just that it is better to spread out the stuff as much as possible. And that's just my view. It's up to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other point of view is, too, that I think it has something to do with where an individual who serves on the committee talking about the comprehensive plan for the City of Kerrville, what -- where that individual lives, and the Judge lives in the city of Kerrville. I think that's -- I think that's a factor to be considered. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I think the purpose -- I mean, as I see the comprehensive planning is I hope -- I mean, they're talking about the relationship between the County and the City. So, I mean, that -- I mean, to me, it doesn't make that much difference. And, by the letter from Ron Patterson, once -- you know, it can be a member of the Commissioners Court or a citizen of our preference. So, they just want someone to represent this Commissioners Court in that -- on that committee, the way I read it. And, it's just -- to me, if the Court wants the Judge to do it, that's fine, but I just -- it seems that the Judge is -- does these types of things more than the rest of the Court does, because he's County Judge. He has -- you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 know, he tends -- I mean, he's -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: He has to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And it just seems if you -- the more viewpoints we have, the better, when dealing with the City and other -- just my viewpoint. (Loud construction noise.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge Ables is mad again. JUDGE HENNEKE: I have no strong preference. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion for Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not going to get a second down here, I can tell you that. JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a motion to authorize -- appoint Commissioner Baldwin. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is one of those things that, if there is a desire on the part of any member of the Court to be -- to fulfill this function, it's an important one and a good one, and if there -- there is a desire on the part of anyone to do that function, then I think that person ought to have the opportunity to do it. I -- I'm not hearing a whole lot of enthusiasm out of the other end of the table. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm not real exited, 'cause I can tell you, part of the -- part of this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 49 program is that they're going to take a look at the -- the high water bridge that we've approved 87 times that is not on the books yet. And, I'm sure that this group is going to get together and say, "Hey, we need a high water bridge," and I just don't want to waste my time with it, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if you don't want to do it, then -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, and there should be some -- you know, I mean, just to give this -- (Loud construction noises.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's mad today, I'm telling you. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Anyway -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was that the good Lord speaking to us? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, it's Steve Ables, I'm telling you. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think a person who serves on this ought to want to do it, and feel -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And feel -- and I think that it would be appropriate, certainly, for any member of this Court to sit on it, but I think there should be some desire to do it, and I think -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you have the desire to do it, Jonathan? You said you'd be willing to do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I have the desire to do it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could send Thea over there. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would make a motion that Commissioner Letz -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that Commissioner Letz be appointed to represent the County on the City of Kerrville Comprehensive Planning Advisory Committee. And he'll keep us fully informed as to everything that goes on. COMMISSIONER LETZ: At one time, I thought I was going to go. But, anyway, that's fine. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hands. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 7, consider and discuss appointment of Kerr County representative of the AACOG Economic Development and Environmental Review Committee. I circulated to the Court 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 the request from AACOG and the list of current members. Commissioner Williams indicated that he would reluctantly agree to serve in this capacity if no one else was willing to take up the cudgel. Are there any other members of the Court who would like to contend for the position of Kerr County representative to the AACOG Economic Development and Environmental Review -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to reinforce the way I put it to the Judge. If no other member of the Court wants to do it. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Any burning desire on this one? I second Commissioner Letz' motion. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that Commissioner Williams be appointed the Kerr County representative to the AACOG Economic Development and Environmental Review Committee. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two -- I have a couple of questions when you get to that point. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I do, Judge. Thank you. Why is there a vacancy? Who has been there? JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ben Low, is he still 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 listed here? Because he was present at -- JUDGE HENNEKE: He was a representative of the City, I believe. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He was present when I made an appearance before -- the former mayor of the City of Kerrville, Ben Low, was sitting on this board when I made an appearance on behalf of the Kerrville South project that we're interested in. I don't see his name here now, so that may be the vacancy. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the Judge is right about that. I think he would serve the City of Kerrville. I just can't believe we didn't have somebody in that position, 'cause this is an important -- important committee. That's all. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item number 8 is consider and discuss designation of the second Commissioners Court meeting in February, May, August, and November as evening meetings. This would continue the pattern we've had for the past two years. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 6 p.m.? JUDGE HENNEKE: 6:30. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 6:30 -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- p.m. on -- let's see. Okay, we have the months and we have the time. Was it the second Thursday or the ninth Thursday or -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Second meeting, which would be the fourth Monday. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a motion. Now I have a second? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court designate the second Commissioners Court meeting in February, May, August, and November, which is the fourth Monday of those months, as evening meetings, to commence at 6:30 p.m. Any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. And I'll vote for the motion, but I noticed that last year we had -- out of the four meetings, we had one that was very well-attended, but then I -- I think that was because of the agenda. These are usually agenda-driven rather than time of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 day, I suspect. But, I know that we have to -- we actually incur a cost for having the nighttime meetings, and is there a way that we might be able to -- Tommy's not here, and I'm not sure who would do it. Perhaps it's more of a personnel issue and perhaps you could help us, Barbara. I would like to know sort of what it costs us to do this, and that maybe next year, that we might want to look at -- at some adjustment to this, maybe not as many meetings at night or maybe a different format or something. JUDGE HENNEKE: There shouldn't be a cost involved if the department heads, which I believe they are, are properly managing their staff. Because if -- for instance, it was Maggie for so long. It's my understanding that -- that Maggie was not receiving overtime because she was given permission to come in late that day or come in late the next day so that she did not go over the 40 hours a week. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. If we -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Or our court reporter is on salary, so Kathy's here when we need her, and even times we don't need her. So, to me, there is -- there should not be a personnel cost involved in having an evening meeting if the department heads are not -- and I'm 1,000 percent sure they are -- are adequately supervising their employees. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm just asking the 1 2 3 9 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 question. If it were to be shown that there's no or very little cost or whatever, or disruption to the normal flow of business -- because, obviously, if somebody's got to be here and they're not here in the morning, or -- this morning or tomorrow morning, then there is an opportunity for cost, at least. Is that creating any kind of problem? If it's not, then tine, we can press right on and do it once a quarter or whatever, just like we have this last year, and we'll do that next year or next couple years. And, I'm not raising it as a -- as a big bugaboo. It's just something I think we need to look at, and perhaps make some adjustments in the following year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not only the cost, but if we see -- if we see that we're the only people in this room -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- at nighttime, which is defeating the purpose. The purpose is to allow working folks to come in at their convenience to meet with the Commissioners Court, and if that's not happening, I mean, it's ridiculous for us to come up here at nighttime. But, it's been well-attended, Judge. We tried this a long time ago and we were the only ones here, and it was ridiculous. It was almost a waste of time. But, it's -- that's not the case this time. We are -- we've had pretty good attendance. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 z1 22 23 24 25 51 JUDGE HENNEKE: I take a little different view, too, because, to me, it's an opportunity. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE HENNEKE: Whether it's taken advantage of by the citizens or not, that's their responsibility. Our responsibility is to make government available to the citizens. And, fortunately, we've had good attendance, so it's been something that we've enjoyed, but it's something that I hope we continue regardless of the attendance, and if there are any costs, that the costs are well worth providing the opportunity to the citizens to participate more fully in the government. COMMi55IONER GRIFFIN: I wouldn't argue with that at all. I'd just like to get a handle for what it is so that it doesn't create any problem. If not, we're fine. JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll get with Barbara and we'll see if we can quantify any -- any costs. MS. NEMEC: I haven't seen any overtime costs as a result of the night meetings. Now, whether it's putting the burden on the departments because they're letting them take off that next day or that morning, I couldn't answer that, but there has not been any overtime costs because of it. JUDGE HENNEKE: We have -- a motion's been made and seconded. Any further questions or comments? If 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 not, all in favor, raise your right hands. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glad we have a short agenda today. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item Number 9, which is consider and discuss the creation of a 25-person Citizens Advisory Committee on Redistricting, with five members to be designated by each Commissioner and County Judge. This is my -- my idea. Whether we do it or not is obviously up to the majority. To me, redistricting is such a significant event, it happens only once every 10 years, that it is an opportunity for the Court to reach out again to the citizens and make them more involved in the -- in the operation of the County government. Twenty-five people came to mind simply so that we'd each have the opportunity to reach out and bring in five people from our -- from our constituents and our friends and neighbors. It would be strictly an advisory committee. The only authority to redistrict lies with the Court. I don't know what anyone's feelings are on this, and I'd just like to hear some feedback. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea. Five is a little bit high on numbers, to me. I'd recommend either three or four, just because it's a more manageable group, I think. But -- but I think it's a good idea to get the input. The only -- I guess the only concern I have is, I think that we need to almost, you know, internally agree or whatever that we're going to listen to this group. I mean, if they have -- if there's a strong desire for a certain neighborhood or something to be in one precinct or another -- and it's kind of a switch. I mean, we need to try to sincerely take their -- their advice under consideration, and serious consideration. Granted, you may not be able to do it, because the boundaries have to be dictated by population more than anything else. And -- JUDGE HENNEKE: I totally agree with that think that -- and I think their input would really be invaluable on the voting precincts. Not necessarily the Commissioners' precincts, because that's kind of a macral look. But, we when we get down to the voting precincts -- those. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the point I Would it be representative from each voting precinct, as opposed to I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 Commissioners' precinct? That way, we get that kind of mix that you're talking about. Or -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I would envision, anyway, a change in some of those; possibly the number, and the boundaries of them, certainly. I think that if you designate a representative from each precinct, you're kind of saying you're protecting those precincts a little bit more than -- 'cause I really think I -- you know, my first thought is based on the problems we've had in getting judges at all these different voting locations, and with the growth of absentee voting or early voting, that we probably need to reduce the number of voting precincts a little bit. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's unlikely to happen, because we have a requirement that no single voting precinct can have more than 5,000 voters in it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: And we're right at that in at least two, perhaps over. So, it would be difficult for us to reduce the number of voting precincts that we have, at least in those areas. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. It's -- the area that I'm thinking about primarily is the rural areas. JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The most rural area is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 where we have the hardest time getting -- at least in my precinct. I have two that it's very difficult to get people to man those locations. And, I look at this as a -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Might even be hard to get some committee members for this thing out of some of those, too. JUDGE HENNEKE: The problem -- another problem with that, though, is that you may end up with such a large voting precinct that it will discourage people from -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going to the poll. JUDGE HENNEKE: I understand that, historically -- I'm sure Commissioner Baldwin can support -- that we've had some complaints from people as to the distances they've had to go in order to go to a polling place. Now, early voting mitigates that some, but, again, in the rural areas, it means they have to come all the way into town to vote. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And, it's just something -- but, anyway, I think that I like just a flat number, whether it's three, four, or five. I mean, I can live with any of them. I think it's a good idea. I just -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What do you think about the size? I think it's an excellent idea. JUDGE HENNEKE: I thought about five, 'cause 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 56 that's 25 people, which is a fair -- you know, a -- it can be a cumbersome number, but I don't anticipate they'll all come every time. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. JUDGE HENNEKE: Plus, if it's five, that gives each of us the opportunity to reach out and bring in five people. Three is equally -- it's just -- three's fine. I mean, I have no -- I'm not wedded to the number. I think it's a good concept. If we want to go three as opposed to five -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couple questions. First of all, how does the committee form itself? Who chairs it? How is that decided? What materials will we have available to assist them in this topic? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the charge. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what is the charge to the committee, right, those things. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I have a number of articles on the redistricting process, so I would make those available. My understanding is that they would -- my belief is that they would have access to the proposed maps and all the demographic information. When we -- when we authorized money for redistricting, you may recall, we intentionally put more money in the budget than the contract provided for, for the purpose of reproduction and things like that. So -- 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would they be -- I mean, obviously, they can come as citizens anyway, 'cause it has to be an open meeting. But, when we meet with our contractor, will this committee be there to absorb all of that? z mean, we would want to encourage that so that they hear how the process works and -- JUDGE HENNEKE: `t'hat would be my plan. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a big part of it. JUDGE HENNEKE: That would be my plan, is that when Bob Heath comes over and meets with us, that -- you may recall, the contract calls for him to meet with us up to four times. That we would arrange those as workshops or whatever so that the Citizens Advisory Committee would be included in that. As far as their charge is concerned, their charge would be to advise the Court as to the redistricting lines and locations. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And almost any aspect of that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any aspect, yes. Knowing -- knowing fully -- fully up front that we have the ultimate decision. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. JUDGE HENNEKE: But I think, as Jonathan says, we need to elicit them, particularly on the voting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 precinct level. 1 think we're -- I anticipate redistricting is not going to be contentious, but it's going to be difficult because of the different growth rates throughout the county. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My gut feeling is that everything's going to move west, that Larry's going to lose and everyone's going to have to adjust accordingly. Larry's probably had the steepest growth in the county. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think there's some logical ways that that redistricting of the west end can fall out. I mean, I think I've already looked at some of that, and I think there's some reasonable ways that that can be done. That will not be contentious or -- but it's going to be -- it's going to have to be done. That's the thing. And, exactly where do you draw the line? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the number five. When you think about 25 people out of 40-plus thousand, that's not a large number. That's a pretty reasonable representation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do like the -- that's fine. Five is fine as a number, not much difference to me. The -- I like the form that Headwaters has used on their new appointment, is that they designated all the dates ahead of time. And, you know, it may be a little bit harder with this, because we're going to have to deal with when 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 information is available, things of that nature. But, I think, to have a clear charge, you know when you start, when you're going to end, and have as many -- and some of the dates, anyway, set up ahead of time so people can plan for it is a good way to, you know, structure it. I think it just needs to be very clearly, you know, set out as to what they're going to do and what information, you know -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did they set out a manner by which the committee organizes itself so that this doesn't run, you know, really Willy-nilly? Why don't we ask -- move the agenda forward? Will they do that? Do you know? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It appeared to me, by only the first meeting at night, that probably Jim Heintz was going to chair it, but I don't really know that. I think someone needs to be designated to do it. I think it's going to be done through workshops. It could even be the Judge. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I started to say, I think this is a case where having the Judge serve as the chairman of the Advisory Committee is very appropriate. He's going to have time to do that now that you -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's not going to be on the City Comprehensive Planning -- JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm going to need the 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 information Jonathan provides us after every meeting, and the accurate, detailed notes that he takes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: The problem with dates, Jonathan, is that it's difficult to know when the information is available. I had written -- I think I gave a copy to each of you -- to Bob Heath asking him to tell us when he anticipated coming over here the first time, which would be hopefully sometime in April. And, as soon as we know that, then we can make that available to the advisory committee as the first meeting, and then we'll try to set out the meetings after that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that can be worked on. So, I guess we need a motion just to do it, and if you want to set a deadline for us to come up with names. JUDGE HENNEKE: Exactly. And we don't have to be in a particular hurry. We can give ourselves 30 days to come up with them if we'd like, the first meeting in February. Since my appointments tend to be more county-wide, I'd like to ask that, as soon as you have your appointments firmed up, if you'd let me have them. I'm not circulating them; it's just so that I don't approach someone who Commissioner Baldwin or Commissioner Griffin has already approached. So, is that a motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, so moved. 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court appoint a 25-person -- create a 25-person Citizens Advisory Committee on Redistricting, with five members to be designated by each Commissioner and the County Judge, and members of the committee to be announced at the first Commissioners Court meeting in February. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have, I think -- just to remind you all, I think, because of the nature of this and the -- I think the whole process is under federal government. We need to be careful on gender and race, make sure we have a good balance in the county. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's a good comment. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My comment is along the same lines. I just wanted to encourage you guys, when you're selecting your people, to make sure that they agree that we can carve out part of Riverhill and put it into Precinct 1. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS I don't think that's going to happen. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wouldn't bet on it. That's a fair way to do things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What part of Cypress Springs do you want? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a stretch. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hands. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Final item on the agenda is Item Number 10, which is consider and discuss a resolution authorizing designated signatories for T.C.D.P. Contract Number 720135, which is the grant we received for mapping in Kerr County. The resolution they requested is in your packet. Any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move the resolution as presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. And that means that all three of the -- the Judge and Treasurer and the Auditor, all three sign? Is that -- JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe they're all three authorized to sign. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. But, there's not a -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Authorized. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court adopt the resolution of Kerr County authorizing designated signatories for T.C.D.P. Contract Number 720135. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hands. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, going back up to 2.9, that's going to be on our agenda first meeting in February? JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Announcing who they are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, get it to you probably -- well, as soon as we can. JUDGE HENNEKE: If there's nothing else to come before us, we stand adjourned. Thank you all. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 10:20 a.m.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 STATE OF TEXAS COONTY OF KERR ~ The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 9th day of January, 2001. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY : ~u,~,,,,,C------ Kathy Ba ik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter nRDFR Nn~ ;-~E,ev~'~ AF~pRn4)AI_. AUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE RHFRTFF~R nFPARTMFNT ^ On this the Rth r1a~~ of Tanngrv 1iT01.. noon motion made by Cnmmi.ss;nner I_atz,. secnn,'leri by enmmissioner' Raldwin, the ennr't !mani mo!tsly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, +n tT'ansfeT' ~4,51~,OIpI from I ina Item Nn.. 1.0~-4f/~~-571 c~ntinnenev in Nnn-Denartmeni;al to I ine Item No. 1.0--5F.,IT-?07 Ins~.~rance-1 iahility in the Sheriff's Department any! a~!thnr^ize a hand rhark., The Ronnty Auditor and Cnlmty Treasurer are a~..ithor'i.zed to wr•ita a hand check mada oavahle to First Ins!~r'anr_e Apencv fnr th? amo!mt of ~47,754,.00~,. QRDFR NO.. c:F,81.~P BUDGET AMENDMENT IN NIIN DFF~ARTMFNTRI_.. On this the Rt:h day of .Tannarv, ?0CA1 nnnn motion made by flnmmi ssi Doer- W 1.1 iams„ seconded by Cnmmissi.nner Griffin, the Cn~!ri- ~.manimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the transfer of 37100.,00 from Line Ttem Nn.. 10-409-~70 Cani.tal. Otttlav to L...ine Item No. 10-409-564 Mainframe Maintenance in Non Deoar^t mental ,and a~~thorize a hand check. The Co~mty R~idi.tor and Cn~.mty Treasurer are herehv a~~thorize to draw a vo~~rher^ in the amnnnt of 31,100..00 made navahle to ABA Mori.ah Cnr-poration. nRnFR Nn, ^F,el AF~PROVAI OF URRInUS L..ATF BJL.I On this the 8th ~iav of .Jan~.~arv c'001., ~!pon mntinn made by Commissioner L.et-~., seconded by Cnmmissinner^ Rr-iffin, the Cnnrt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, t,n oav the fnllnwinn late hills Sam Thiqnen in the amn~mt of $1„A00.00 from Iine Ttem No, 1.5-611-553, A. A. C. O. G. in the a.mo~~nt of $?,594.04 frnm L..ine Teem No. 10-409-315, Scan-onti.r-s Tn~ i.n +,he amn~~n+ of $685.00 frnm Line Item Nn. 10-404-456 Machine Repair in the Record Management Andnet. First Tns~.!r^ance Rnencv in the amo~mt of $356,00 from L..ine T.tem Nn., i0-40]-~~mF„ Fi.rst Tnsnrance Anenrv in the amount of $177,50 frnm line Item Nn. ].0-53~-~=06, Mar^v Tavlor in the amount of $1?5.00 frnm I._ine T+.,em Nn. 10-51.0-~5~, ;and ignited Sta+,es F'nstal Rer^vine in the amo~.rnt of _ $?,000.00 frnm L.inP Ttem Nn. 10-403-309 in the Cerlnty Clerk's hirdgei- anri author^ize the Co~_!nty Treas~rr•er and County Anditnr to issue hand checks for eanh of those hill. s. tIRDFR NO,. ?6A1? RCCFF'TRNCF OF MI~NTHL.Y RFF'ORTS fln this the gth da~~ of Tan~_iar•y., X001, came to he r-nnsiderad by the f'oi.ir^t the var•inus monthly reports of Kerr Co~.inty and pr•erinct Officials of Ker^r Co~_~.nty, Texas and having heard and considered by the Corr-+, +he Court findG that said r-ennr^ts shni.ild he accented and filed with +,he Co!inty rle+-I~ for f~.~tnre a.i~di.t. Upon motion made by Cnmm;asi.oner Cir^i.ffi.n„ seconded by Rnmmiss;nner• Wi.l.l.i.ams. thA Cn~ir+ i_manimo~_tsly accepted +he monthly reports of: Sheriff W.R. Hier^hol-er• fleremher• c'000 Kerr Cnnnty Rher•iff+s flepar+men+, .Ti_ily X000 DRTIFR Nn. 2F,R1..~, RF'PROVRL. OF FiNRI_ F'LRT OF Nrrl!F.RSON FARMS SECTION II fln this the Rth day of Tannarv c:04~1, ~_inon motion made by Comm; ssi nner I At,, sernnd?ri by Commissioner- 6ri ffi.n the Cn~mt unanimo~_isly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the final. plat of Nickerson Far-ms Section II i.n Precinct Nn, ?. nRnFR Nn ~F.ai ~• APPRnVAI._. OF FINAL PLAT -- nF PR7UTL..F6F CRFF.K RANI'HFR nn this the Rth day of January ~tT~1, ~innn motion made by ('.nmmi ASlnn eY` I Pt?,. se~Ond ed by Cnmmi.ssi.nner^ Gr•i.ff i.n, the Onnrt ,_manimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the final nl.at of Privilege Cr^eek Ranches, Precinct, #~- snhiect to the extension of T,_ir•key Knob Rnad in the sn~~theast corner to seT'Ve L..nts 9. 11. R~ R and a~~thm,i.~c~ the rn„nty ,7ndnP to si.nn the final plat iipnn recommendation by the Cn~.mty Engineer. ORDER NO. 'F.R1.ri AP'P'ROVAL OF THE GRANT) .TLIRY I. TST FOR THE GRTFVRNCF COMMTTTFF On this ?:he 8th day of ,Tannarv 'c:001.. anon motion mane by 1'ommissinner Baldwin, se~nnrleri by f'nmmi 5ci nner griffin, the Cmart 1_manimot_tsly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to 1_tse the f,rand .T~~rv I ist far the Grievance Committee„ as oer Section 15c', 014~a) of +,he L oral Gnver•nment f nr{a. The names selected are as fntlnwsa 1, Batch Dixon A;='1. TackSOn Ker^rvi 11 e, Tx 78028 °. Thomas M. Mvers X140 Bandera Hwy Ker•r•vi 1 l.e, TX 78028 .,~ Rosario Maria Rrredondn 1~~01 Nnri-h wit. Ker^r^vi.ll.e. TX 78028 4. Diana I_ van Hnwar•d 4%R Coronado K PT'Y^v i. 1. 1 e, TX 78028 ~,. Michael. Edwar^d Green 312 Pearl St, Kerrville. TX 780?R F,. Veli.a Delacrnz 1.?1 .Teffer-son St, Ker-rville. TX 78028 7., David L..,. Dominnnez F'O Rnx 1.,3F, Him+, TX 7817124 8. Mar•naret A, Mnrr•i s Comfor^t, TX 7801 9. Dan graft K,endrirk c:88 Over^l ook Kerrville, TX 7AlTr^R 10. :7.. R. Oswal.f. ]. 1.4 Royal Oaks K.errvi l le. TX 780.='B 1.1.. I lnda ,'-tmm~rvillr+ PO Box 17~: Ker^rville, TX 78028 12. Brian Edward Nentwi.ch Rt, ] Box i37-F Cnmfor^+„ TX 7801.' 1 ~, Susan Johnson ?03 Merlin Viata Kerrville, TX 78028 14. Charles William Rlackh~tr•n R0'~ R1 ~.lehell Rd. Karr^v i 1 1 e., TX 7817128 iS., Garciel.a Castillo 711 Lloner Tarr^tl.e Creek Rd Kerr^v i. 11 e, TX 780;28 ORDFR N0. ?E.,81E, AGF'R!7VRL_ RL)TNORI7TNG CONBTRRI_F F'~7FCTNt"T Nn. 4 Tn AF'pOINT A T1FPI.ITY pn thi.a the Rth day of .ian~~arv .^-.001, ~~pen motion made by f'nmmissoner griffin, seconded by I'ommissioner• Ba7.dwin,. the P:m tri- ~_inanimoi_isly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, authnrizinn Constahl.e F'recinet No. 4 to appoint a Deputy Constahl.e. (7RDFR Nn. ^F,a, 7 ApF'ROVAL.. OF RF'pOINTMFNT TO THE CITY I]F KFRRVIL..L_F COMF'RFHFN~IVF F'I_AN ADUI6nRY r~MMITTFF On this the 8th day of J.an~rarv ~1T4~1. upon motion made by Commi.ssinner Griffin„ seconded by Commissioner Raldwi.n the Cnnr•i- ~_manimously approved by s vote of 4-Q-0, the annni.ntment of Commissi.oner^ Sonatha_n L_e+,~, to ser•v? as N.arr• County renresen+,ative to the City of F:err^ville f'mm~r^Phensive Flan Advisor^v Committee. nRT]FR Nn„ '~F,a1 a RF'pROVAi OF AAF'OINTMFNT OF N.FRR COf_INTV RFF'RF~,FNTATTVF TO AACOR FCONnMTC DFVFI_DF'MFNT RND FNVTRnNMENTAI.._ REVIEW COMMTTTFF nn this the ath day of .Tan~!arv 8!T01. anon motion made by Commissioner-I_etz. sernnded by rnmmissinner rr'iffin, the Court !.manimo~asly approved by a vote of 4-~!-Q!, +,he annointment of CommiSSlOnBY' IA 1.l.l Williams as the Kerr County representativA to AACOG Fcnnomi.r_ Develnnmant and Fnvirnnmental. ReviAw r_ommittee. ORDER NO. ^681.? L1PF'ROVPI nF THE (^nMMTGRTnNFRS' nnIIRT RF'Ff TPI MFFTTNf;R On thi the 8+,h day of .January ?001. ~annn mn+.i.nn made by fnmmissionPr- lets. sernnded by Rnmmi.ssioner Williams, the f nnr•t unanimo~_~sly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to de=~~-'n-~tPP the second Cnmmi ssioner•a fnnrt meet inn fnr^ the months of Fehr^narv, May, pi.inust. and Nnvemher as evening mePtinn to henin at F,:30 F', M, RGPROVAL. Tn rRFATF R ,-:` F~FRSON cIT7ZFN AL)U7SIJRY rRMMtTTEF nN RF-ntGTRTrTTNr' On this the ath riay of .Tannary ='001., ~.inon mntinn made by Commissioner L_e+.,~, garpnded by rommissinner f;*^iffin„ the rnnr•t ~_manimo~_~sly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to rraata a ?~ nersnn citizen Advisor•v committee nn r•e-distrirtinn with ~ memherc +,n he desinnated by B?~"h Cnmmi.ssinner^ and the Co~~nty ,J~idne,. with tha names to hP annn~_mceri at the first Cnmmissianers~ Court meetinrl in Fehr~_iary c:001.. ORDER Nfl, ~'SR"1 AGGROVE THE RFSOI..IITION Rl.1THORIZING DFSIt;NRTFD SIGNATORIES - FOR THE TCDP CONTRACT Nn. 7^01?~ On this +,he 9th day of ,7annarv ?i]IOY1, anon motion made by CnmmiSSioner Wi.lli.ams, seconded 6y Cnmmissinner^ Baldwin, the f'nur^t ~_manimo~asly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the Co~,.t r^t adopt 1-he r-esoJut,ion of I!arr Coi.mty anthroizinq the desinnated si.onatorias for Tt^DG Contract NO. 7r:0~1~5.