~ '~ ~. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COORT Regular Session Monday, May 14, 2001 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas 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 I N D E X May 14, 2001 PAGE 2 --- Commissioners Comments 3 --- Approval Agenda 7 3 2. 1 Presentation of Workplace Safety Award V'~~ ''S'0~~ 22 2.2 Introduce new EMS Coordinator, Kyle Young ~ =e vs s, o~' 24 4 2.3 Amend Kerr County OSSF Order regarding property transfer inspections and procedures 2'I°~3 J~2.Ot`~ 26 5 2.4 Appointment of Stuart Barron as OSSF Designated_ Representative & Floodplain Administrator ~~ 61'~ 34 6 2.5 Appoint Sharon Keith to EMS Advisory Board d ~°~~ 37 2.6 Application to NRA Foundation Grant Program Z7Gl~ 39 7 2.7 Discuss Motorola's request to extend deadline fora ~~Q, RFP's for communication system to July 25, 2001 41 8 2.8 Adopt 5.0. Policy & Procedures manual ~-~1~! 47 2.9 Printing of 100 copies of 5.0. Policy/Procedures 9 manual and binders for each a~}-U3° 51 2.12 Open bids for Kerr County depository ~ ~'O~~ 59 10 2.14 PUBLIC HEARING - Abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating Treiber Trail in Japonica Hills t"'w55 oti, 62 11 2.15 Abandoning, discontinuing and vacating Treiber Trail in Japonica Hills ~~°aa 63 12 2.16 PUBLIC HEARING - Abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating Verde Mesa Drive E, in Vista Ridge`~'S"'S5'~ 65 13 2.17 Abandoning, discontinuing and vacating Verde ~ i~a j Mesa Drive E. in Vista Ridge 66 14 2.10 Contract with Animal Control for transportation and housing of estray animals ~<<' °`F 67 15 2.18 Advertisement of public hearing to eliminate a~ gj duplicate road names for county-maintained roads 74 16 2.19 Approve name changes for duplicate road names for privately-maintained roads ~ ~°~`~ 77 17 2.20 Final plat, Shonto Ranch Estates ~~e~3-1- 79 2.21 Concept plan, Hutte Acres ~~,5 wsS'•u N 80 18 2.22 Prelim. revision of plat, Lots 97, 98, 100, 101, 117B, 117C, 117D, 119C & 119D, Falling Water ~}o'H 84 19 2.23 Prelim. plat, Cypress Springs Estates, Phase II a~~0 2.24 Prelim. revision, Lots 1, 17, 18 19, 21, 22, 44,_ gv 20 & Common Area, Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I °x'98 2.13 Award/reject bids for Kerr County Depository ~ 3'103 21 2.25 Keith Longnecker's proposal for architectural 3~r3? services to finish out lower level of courthouse 106 22 2.26 Supporting House B~11 1445, authorize County ~~33 Judge to write letter to the State X25 23 2.27 Change date of first July meeting to July 6Lti ~~'3~27 2.28 Allocation of office space for systems support 24 & Information Systems Support Specialist 395`' 129 2.29 County funding of placement of 2 portable toilets 3 25 at Lake Ingram Dam from May 25 - Sept. 4, 2001 a~J145 2.30 Approval of Hermann Sons Bridge funding agreement 148 `~ i~ 7fi Cv1J~ ~4`~`o`~'_Cs vvv~vOT ~~~ i c'e rc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 On Monday, May 14, 2001, a regular meeting of tkie Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's 9 o'clock in the morning on Monday, May the 14th, Year 2001, and we will call to order this regular Kerr County Commissioners Court. Commissioner Griffin, I Lelieve you're in charge this morning. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Would you all please stand? (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) DODGE HENNEKE: Thank you. 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 in the audience who would like to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda? (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Once again, is there anyone on the Court who'd like to address -- in the audience who'd like to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda? Seeing none, we'll move to the Commissioners' comments, and start this morning with Commissioner Griffin. 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 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Judge, I'd like to introduce to the Court and to the public the newest member of the Kerr County staff, sitting in the back of the courtroom, our Information Systems Support Specialist, Shaun Branham. Shaun's hit the ground running, and I think has already spent good time out at the Sheriff's Department trying to get some thLngs squared away with their computer. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Going to spend a lot more, too. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, good to have you aboard, Shaun, and I'm sure that you'll get around to meeting all these folks at some point or other, because they'll all have computer problems. JUDGE HENNEKE: Good luck, Shaun. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have no comments today, sir. JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do. I have some congratulations in order, and one of them goes to the son of our court reporter, Kathy Banik, whose son Jeremy is a recipient of a Cailloux Foundation grant. And, where did you tell me he's going to school, Kathy, Southwest Texas? And also to Lindsey Norlander of Center Point, who's a 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recipient of a Griffin Foundation scholarship, four-year scholarships for both those young people, which is just super. The third one is to Randy Flach, gold medalist from Center Point, state champion pole vaulter, 15 feet-plus. Not bad. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I saw it. He was great. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He went over that bar, didn't he? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Way ahead of everybody. JUDGE HENNEKE: Very good, thank you. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a couple. First, I'd like to thank the Road and Bridge Department for the engineering, lack of engineering, whatever you want to call it, getting two railroad cars across the river. Commissioner Williams was down there. Actually, I missed the actual thing. It was taking so long to get the second car in place, I had to go to TexDOT to do something else, and I heard a crash and figured, "Well, either the crane's in the river or the bridge is in place," and luckily the bridge was in place. But, it was a -- I think TexDOT -- one of their employees was there, and they summed it up by saying, "There's two kinds of people in this business; h 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 people like us that engineer and engineer and engineer" -- and when we look at the price tag later on in the agenda of the cost, you can see, with engineering, about $900,000 for a new bridge it's going to cost. Or you have people like our Road and Bridge Department which go out there and get the job done. And, anyway, appreciate it. It was interesting to watch it, too. Very -- very cumbersome to move a railroad car across the river and get it maneuvered, situated and all that, so thanks to them. Congratulations to the Tivy High School softball team. They lost on the ~ second round of the playoffs, but they had a really good year, and did win the first round. And, to the boys, they are on a little bit of a roll right now. They won the second round, and they will be facing Boerne in the 2-out-of-3 series starting Thursday. They'll be played somewhere in San Antonio. So, anyone who has nothing to do on Thursday night can watch some pretty good high school baseball. I think that's it. JODGE HENNEKE: All right, very goad. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have one other. I knew there was something else; I had three things. The -- over the weekend, I was fortunate to participate in a seminar put on by NRCS and Farm Bureau and some tethers. It was really well-attended out at the Lion's Camp. It was designed for owners of -- small acreage landowners, and 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 probably about 125 people attended, about half from Y.err County. It was an all-day seminar, and it was very -- I support it. It was an outstanding seminar, a lot of really good speakers, and was a good opportunity t~ explain to people things like -- very briefly, everything from road districts to private roads and you can't put gates across public roads to wildlife management, and that kind of hit on lots of different topics, but a very good seminar. I would encourage -- hopefully they'll continue that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Excellent. A couple reminders. We do have this afternoon, starting at 2 o'clock, our sunset workshop, for those of you who are concerned or interested in that. Also remind everyone that our second meeting this month is on Tuesday, May 20th, because of the Memorial Day holiday on Monday, May 28th, and that will be an evening meeting starting at 6:30 p.m. Everybody keep that in mind as you make your preparations for the second meeting of this month. And, if there's nothing else, let's move on and pay some bills. Tommy? Does anyone have any questions or comments about the bills as presented? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple. Just for enlightenment, really. I think I know the answer to this one. On Paqe 10, it must be a bounty, 'cause why 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 else would the County pay for five sets of coyote ears? MR. TOMLINSON: That's what it is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Just doublechecking. And the other one has to do with -- on Page 22, under Indigent Health Care, 541, what would be the purpose of N.A.D.A. Appraisal Guide under Indigent Health Care? MR. TOMLINSON: That's to -- to help the -- the people that review requests for Indigent Health Care to see if they have property and the value thereof. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Makes sense to me. Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions? I have one on Page 10, for the Health Department. $78 for contract labor to Patty Tinney. I looked at the bill and I really can't tell what that's for. And, under the -- I'm not sure what we'd be paying contract labor for under the Hea]tki Department. I don't know if that's Child Service Board or what it is, but -- MR. TOMLINSON: I'd have to look. DODGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin, I kind of looked at that. Do you have any idea what that is? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I do not. That's a good question. Here's the bills right here. JUDGE HENNEKE: Here's the bill, if you want 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Il 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I'm the expert all of a sudden? JUDGE HENNEKE: I know you're the one who's -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what it looks like, Judge. JUDGE HENNEKE: You kept that board going, and we've had many discussions before about birthday monies and clothes for -- for graduations and things like that, but I don't understand the contract labor. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't, either. It says to cover backlog on completed cases. Maybe they -- their case load -- first thing that pops into my mind, their case load got so heavy they had to hire soccteone to come in and do the backlog to clean it up. We can certainly hold it and find out, if you'd like. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think I'd like to get a little clarification on that one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: All right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. I move we pay the bills. ~o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that we pay the invoices as presented and recommended by the Auditor, with the exception of 125027 in the amount of $78. 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. Budget amendments. Budget Amendment Number 1 is for Constable Precinct 2. MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request to transfer $20.14 from Postage to Miscellaneous, and it's to pay for a psychological examination for the constable. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A TCLEOSE requirement? MR. TOMLINSON: TCLEOSE requirement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that ttie Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1 for the Constable Precinct 2. Any further questions or comments? If not, all 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: A11 opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Number 2 is for the Traffic Safety Program. MR. TOMLINSUN: I have a bill from Albert Pierce. He's our director for training. And, in order to pay him, I need a transfer of $399.08 from Operating Supplies to Conferences and Dues. And I do -- I have a late bill that I need a hand check for. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question on that. The current budget was $450, grid the unexpended -- I mean, it's -- $450 has been spent already. MR. TOMLINSUN: Well, triere's -- there's two -- there's two people involved in this program. One is for Hispanic and the other one is in English, and there's two separate training issues for that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We'll get this into the next budget. It will -- we'll correct this so that we don't have to do that, I would assume. I'm just speaking rhetorically here, but -- MR. TOMLINSON: I'll remind the Court that this is -- this is an issue -- this is a budget that's self-funded. It's not a -- a tax thing. 12 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: Yeah, My comment's a technical one, that if we can put it in the budget that there will be two of these and all that, then we won't have to do a budget amendment. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then I wouldn't have a question. So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2 for the Traffic Safety Program. 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. Budget Amendment Request Number 3 is for the County Jail. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This request is from the Sheriff to transfer $11,775.82 out of the Nurse's Salary, and -- in the jail, and $2,907.15 out of the Secretary's Salary in the Sheriff's Office. $10,940 goes to the Administrative Jail Secretary line item in the jail, and $835.91 for -- excuse me -- FICA Expense, and $2,0/0.24 for I Croup Insurance, and $835.82 for Retirement for the jail associated with that salary. 13 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: And this, as I understand it, would finish up those changes that were made to get the nurse's line item right and the secretary's line item right. Is that -- this is the last one of those? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what this is. This -- we -- you know, we agreed to make the administrative secretary in the jail -- okay, we took that Trom the receptionist, and where we were going to pay for that was -- that extra amount, was when we hired the new nurse that we had, one of the two new ones, we didn't put them back at that outrageous salary that they were for a long time. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I remember that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So we transferred the funds. We just didn't clean up the transfer that last time. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move that we approve the amendment. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Number 3 for the County Jail. Any further questions or comments? Zf not, all in favor, raise your right hand. {The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) 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 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. NumbeL 4 is for the 216th District Court. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. This is a transfer from -- from Special Trials in the 198th court to the 216th court, and it's relative to the Alvarez case. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 9 for the 216th District Court. 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. Number 5 is ~ for Commissioners Court. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This request is -- is to transfer $500 from Contingency in Nondepartmental to Notices in the Commissioners Court budget. We actually have one bill for $153, and it's for an ad for the sheriff's Department. we're asking for $500 to make the balance of the year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 15 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 JODCE HENNEKE: Moved by Conmlissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 5 L~r Commissioners Court. Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just a quick comment. I think that's one of the -- that's another area where we obviously have got more expense than we've had in the budget for the last couple years. We need to look at this during the next budget cycle. Maybe we can pump that up a little bit so we don't have to keep adding money. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) DODGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.} JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Request Number 6 is for the County Auditor's department. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is a -- my request to transfer $40 from Miscellaneous and $62.50 for -- out of Employees Training to repair my computer. The last thunderstorm trashed my mother board on my computer, so that's to fix this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Does this include a 16 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 surye protector? MR. TOMLINSON: I already had one. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Went right through the surge protector. Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 3 for -- 6 for the County Auditor. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 7 is fur Lhe Court Collections Department. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This request is as a result of the same storm. For the Collections Department, I'm requesting a transfer of $515.30 from Capital Outlay in Nondepartmental into -- $997.50 into Machine Repairs, and $17.80 ~n Mainframe Maintenance for the repair of our computer in the Collections Department. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A mother board, or -- is that the mother board? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, did you say 17 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Capital Gutlay out of Nondepartmental? MR. TOMLINSON: This Capital Outlay line item is a contingency for computer-related replacements, and we didn't have any -- there was no funds left in -- in maintenance, so 1'ni trying -- that's the reason for my request. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 7 for the Court Collections Department. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Number 8 is for the 198th District Court. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is a request from District Court to transfer $2,577 from the Jurors line item in 198 -- in the 216th Jury Fund to Court Interpreters in the 198th Court Interpreters line item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 18 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE; Moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 8 for 198th District Court. 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. Budget Amendment Request Number 9 is also from the Court Collections Department. MR. TOMLINSON: This request is signed by -- and requested by Russ Duncan to transfer $286 out of his Telephone line item into Postage, and request for $214 to transfer from Telephone line item to the Books, Publications, and Dues -- no, I've got that backwards. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's backwards, Tommy. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, it is. It's -- it's $214 out of Books, Publications, and Dues into his Telephone line item, and the first one is out of Postage to Telephone. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple of comments. One, I don't know why Mr. Duncan can't use the same form that everybody else uses. I really think that we have these forms for a reason, and personally, t'd send it back, make 19 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 zs him do it on the right form. But, another question is that the comments he made really, I think, offends. He says this is due to underfunding the 2001 budget because he received no increases. Well, many departments received no increases in their budgets, and that was part of the budget plan. And, if he doesn't plan properly, you know, that's one thing, but I mean, he had a budget to work in, so I really don't like the language that he's using, as if we underfunded his budget. He had a budget to work with that he was given, and many other departments have the same situation. I'll go along with it because he's not increasing his budget, just transferring one area in his budget to another, but I don't like the fact that he's not using our form, and I don't like this verbiage he put on the bottom. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As well as, Commissioners Letz, that -- how many of these telephone calls are Kerr County business? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll go along with it 'cause it's within his total budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second your motion. Was that a motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it was not. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. I move that we approve. 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 zo COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 9 for the Court Collections Department. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) DODGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: I have one from J.P. 3 for the reimbursement of training for his -- for his clerk. It's for $244.65, reimbursement to her. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is in the budget? MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize a hand check and late bill in the amount of $299.65 payable for training for J.P. 3 clerk. 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.) 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. is that all, Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: That's all. JODGE HENNEKE: Thanks. At this time, I would entertain a motion to waive reading and approve the minutes of the April 9th, April 23rd, April 23rd, and April 27th meetings of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court waive reading and approve the minutes of the regular session on Monday, April 9th, 2001; special session on Monday, April 23rd, 2001; special session on Monday, April 23rd, 2001; and the special session on Friday, April 27th, 2UU1. 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. I'll entertain a motion to approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 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 LETZ: Third. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court accept and approve 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. Okay. We'll move on to the consideration agenda. First item is Item Number 1, which is to consider and discuss presentation of the Year 2000 Workplace Safety Award by Larry M, Boccaccio of the Texas Association of Counties. Larry? MR. BOCCACCIO: Good morning. JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning. MR. BOCCACCIO: How are y'all? JUDGE HENNEKE: Fine. MR. BOCCACCIO: This is what makes it nice to be here; I like to do these. I am with the Texas Association of Counties, and what I've brought along is a safety incentive check that the County earned last year for participating in the safety program. It's the 7-step program that the Workers Compensation Commission uses to reduce workp]ace accidents, and what this represents 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 23 almost a $13,000 savings to the County, $12,894. That represents 10 percent of the worker's comp premium from last year. JUDGE HENNEKE: Outstanding. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: All right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Our thanks go particularly to Leonard Odom and Franklin Johnston of Road and E3ridge Department, as well as Sheriff Hierholzer at the jail and the Sheriff's Department for their efforts, as well as Barbara Nemec and Glenn Holekamp in coordinating the safety programs here. MR. BOCCACCIO: And I had -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead. MR. BOCCACCIO: Had one other thing. Each year, the four safety reps from TAC are tasked with the job of giving out 10 safety awards. I have 73 counties, and this year I gave out 8 safety awards. Kerr County earned one of mine, and this was for the year 2000. So, these are two separate things, and I just want to say that you've done a great job so far and I'm going to be here to help you keep it up. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Larry. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we need a picture. Let's get Leonard and Rusty and Barbara. Y'all come up and 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 let Mr. Boccaccio give you the check. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Larry, we want to thank you for coordinating the program and working with us, and also for taking the time to come over and present the awards triis morning. MR. BOCCACCIO: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: It's always an honor to be recognized for the good work of the employees. MR. BOCCACCIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Larry. MR. BOCCACCIO: You're welcome. JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is ltem Number 2. Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'd like to introduce, once again, the City of Kerrville EMS training officer. Kyle Young is the new guy, and our interest, of course, is that is the -- that's the agency and department that takes care of our First Responder training, So, Kyle, would you come to the microphone, please, and -- and say hello to the Commissioners Court? MR. YOUNG: Good morning. How are you y'all doing? JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning. MR. YOUNG: As Commissioner Baldwin said, I`m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 zs the new EMS Coordinator for the City of Kerrville. I'll also be handling the First Responder program. I have put on my agenda for the next month or two -- we're going to start having meetings; I'm going to volunteer some of my time to train these guys. All the guys on the ambulances think that this is a very important program, and we're going to do everything that we can to keep this program going and -- and try to make it fly. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions of Mr. Young? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wanted to let you know that Kyle is going to come here on a quarterly basis and just give us an update and a report every three months to the Commissioners Court. Kyle, thank you very much. we appreciate you coming. MR. YOUNG: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a comment. I do have -- do you know Danny Morales at Comfort Volunteer Fire Department? MR. YOUNG: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might call him. They have a very good First Responder program that's run through the volunteer fire department there because of the remoteness. They do a lot of work in the eastern part of J . r 26 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the county. Very anxious to work with the -- Kerr County's First Responder program. MR. YOUNG: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you might get hold of Danny -- Chief Morales down there. MR. YOUNG: Okay, great. Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 3, consider and discuss approving amending the Kerr County O.S.S.F, order regarding property transfer inspections and procedures. Commissioner Griffin. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. As noted a little bit earlier, our -- I got word from T.N.R.C.C. that the change to the rule that we have been working on to allow for inspections at property transfer will be considered by T.N.R.C.C. as a minor revision, which is good, because it means we do not have to go back through the full T.N.R.C.C. approval cycle, which, if you'll recall, takes quite a bit of time, and then we get an effective date that falls on the date that the Executive Director of the T.N.H.C.C. signs the document, which led to a little confusion, So, this is very good in that as soon as we sign a minor revision -- minor revision to a document, as soon as the Judge signs it and it's certified by the clerk, then it's effective 27 1 G 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 immediately. Now, you'll recall from our last session that -- that -- an issue raised by Commissioner Letz, that -- that he felt, and it was the sense of the Court, that we should have the inspection procedures document in-hand and approved by this Court before we approved this rule. However, I think my proposal is -- is that we go ahead and approve the rule, but make it contingent for the Judge's signature and the Clerk's certification on the fact that we will hold that document -- we'll hold this document until such time as we have an approved inspection document in place. If -- if the Court is willing to do that, I do have one minor amendment to the wording in the document as filed and we can proceed from there, but 1'd like to get a sense that the Court would go along with that process. And if -- if so, then I'll propose the amendment and we can go from there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the status of the corollary document, Larry, the inspection document? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's in work now. Jim Brown and Stuart Barron have told me that they thought by the end of this week they should have something for us to look at. And, we may want to look at that very carefully, obviously, and make sure it conforms with what we have in the rule and that we think it -- it answers all the 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 questions that we've asked before about inspections, but -- so I don't know. I think by the next court date, I think we could approve that document, and then at that saiue time authorize the -- if it's acceptable, authorize the Judge to sign it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. I just -- I don't understand why you want to approve tY,is one, and it won't be completely approved until the Judge signs it anyway. I mean, is it a time frame issue? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So we don't have to bring -- yeah. Good question. And the answer is -- is that -- so that we don't have to bring this back as an agenda item; we've got an approved rule awaiting the completion of the inspection document so that we don't have to address this one again. That was the only reason for doing that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The inspection document will, likewise, require Court approval; is that correct? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Absolutely, yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: is this a time frame issue in terms of with O.G.R.A.? I noticed a letter or something floating around from Jim Brown indicating that they thought that there was some sense of urgency for us to move this process along. 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 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, it always has been, once we decided to go this route. But, obviously, the wheels take time to turn, and we're -- we've got a new D.R. coming on that we'll act on later today, and that's -- that, obviously, has taken some time as well. So, I'i~i hoping that this will be able -- we would be able to continue moving the process forward. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically, I mean, I don't have a problem with doing it. I guess it's -- doesn't seem to me any great need to do it, but I don't have a problem doing it if Larry would rather get this behind him. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the reason for -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You just broke the code. Yes, I think this is -- if we can get it off the table and that now we concentrate on the inspection document, I think that just keeps us from having to deal with this one at a later date. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This -- you know, I don't have a problem with that, but I think that the -- this other document, you know, we need plenty of time to go tYiLOUgh it and -- you know, as long as this is not going to be put into practice, or the Judge doesn't have authority to sign it 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 until we approve the second document, I don't have a problem with finalizing this today. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Then I would -- I would propose one amendment to Paragraph 10(b)(7)a.l. It's at the bottom of Page 4. Bottom of Page 4, the paragraph 1 which says "If the system meets the requirements..." To change that wording to read "If the system meets the requirements of Paragraph 10(b)(5) above, the applicant may continue to operate the system for as long as the requirements outlined in 10(b)(5) above are met." It's the same -- and the rest of it's the same. What that does is it removes the word "authorized" which T.N.R.C.C, had a problem with, because they said if you use the word authorized, that some people would assume from that that it's a licensed system, it's met all of the requirements. And, in this case, it's -- that's being addressed there. That's not -- so it's just that the applicants may continue to operate it as long as there's no public health hazard and no -- and all the setback separation requirements are met. That's really all it says. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good thing. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. So, I would move that amendment to that paragraph. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that Paragraph 10(b)(7)a.l, Page 4 of the April 22nd draft, be amended to delete the words "system shall be authorized" and substitute "therefore, applicant may continue." Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have a clean copy of the letter? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That you'll distribute? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Now I will make the motion that we adopt the revised rule and authorize -- and pending receipt of the approved -- court-approved inspection procedures document, authorize the Judge to sign same after that time. I didn't say that very well. JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll clean it up. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 32 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve the revised order adopting rules of Kerr County, Texas for on-site sewage facilities and authorize County Judge to sign same and the County Clerk to certify same upon adoption by the Court of the document outlining the inspection procedures. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have on that is, would it be better to have the data -- well, I guess we still can do it that way, put an effective date here somewhere so that when we do the -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. We -- when we do the second document, we'll have a date certain that we will authorize the Judge to sign. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To sign that document. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because it becomes effective immediately, and so it's certified with the clerk. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay. That way, it seems to me it would be good to have a week or some time a little bit in the future so everyone can get ready to go under the new rules. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Exactly. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further comments or questions? MR. BARRON: I had a comment, Judge, if it's 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 appropriate at this time. JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead, Mr. Barron. MR. BARRON: My name is Stuart Barron with U.G.R.A. I just have a comment about the proposed rules, that there's been a lot of questions as to the installers as to what -- what the rules mean exactly and where are they going to go with them. A lot of them have called me asking me, "What does this mean?" and portions of that. I talked to Commissioner Griffin and he's clarified them for me, but I'd just like for the Court to know that it may be somewhat hard for the -- for the general public to understand, and also the realtors and everything else, as to what the -- what the rules mean, and there's going to be a lot of questions and clarification needed as it goes on down the line. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it might be a good idea, once the companion document -- inspection document is approved, that the Court either sponsor a workshop or U.G.R.A. sponsor a workshop featuring yourself and Commissioner Griffin to answer any questions from the realtors, the installers, or the public as to any issues. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's probably good. And also, I think that the second document will also answer a lot of those questions, because I would like to see -- I hope that we get that kind of detail into 34 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that document that will answer most of the questions, anyway. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments about the motion before the Court? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item for consideration is Item Number 4, which is consider and discuss the appointment of Mr. Stuart Barron, effective May 15th, 2001, as the Kerr County O.S.S.F. Designated Representative and the Kerr County Flood Preventive Program Certified Floodplain Administrator. Does anyone have any questions or comments? We all have been introduced to Mr. Barron by this time. Now he's got all his licenses and tickets, ready to go to work. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move the agenda item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court appoint Mr. Stuart Barron, effective May 15th, Year 2001, as Kerr County O.S.S.F. Designated Representative and the Kerr County Flood Prevention Program Certified Floodplain Administrator. Any questions or comments? 35 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 COMMISSIONER BALllW1N: One question. What is the plan for the replacement for Mr. Barron? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For him? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If he moves into the new slot. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, I think it's a question -- will there be a replacement for the slot that you're in now? MR. BARRON: Not at this time. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. I think they were actually one over mandatory with -- MR. BARRON: Right now, they feel like that I may be able to handle it, but as soon as the new rules come into effect where we have to do property transfers, that there will be another inspector needed to help with the -- with the work. But, as of now, there's nobody. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have an inspector in training in the wings anywhere? MR. BARRON: No, sir. I'd like to see him, but Mr. Brown -- they reorganized U.G.R.A., and also they're concerned somewhat about where the rules are going to go at the end of the year before they hire somebody for the period of a few months, possibly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I visited with Jim -- or Jim visited with me, I should probably say, and he has 36 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 discussed -- they are reorganizing a little bit. I think they're looking at, along with the subcommittee between their board and our Court and just trying to figure out exactly what we want, you know, what we we're going to pay and the whole -- he's working through that right now. And, I think it would be -- if we need another inspector, another one will be brought on line. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one question in terms of Mr. Wiedenfeld's continued involvement, and that is on a consulting basis only? Is that -- MR. BARRON: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that is something that you would request? Or -- MR. BARRON: Yes, sir, I'll request it. If I get overloaded with some of the things that I haven't done yet, such as the Subdivision Rules and signing off on some of those, and he'll assist me with that, but I will be the one that -- that actually signs on it. It will be just him advising me as to what the rules are until I have an opportunity to catch up and get up to speed with all the rules on that particular item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? MR. BARRON: This week, Mr. Wiedenfeld will 37 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 still be over there. I'm going to another floodplain conference in Fredericksburg, so as of Monday, I'll -- he's on leave right now. We're -- or vacation, but as of Monday, then I'll be over there full-time and he'll be on -- on -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glad to hear that, 'cause one of the first calls I'm going to make to you has to do with a floodplain matter. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. I would say welcome aboard again, but I don't know. Your work's cut gut for you. MR. BARRON: Yes, sir. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 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.) DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you, Stuart. Welcome aboard. Next item is Item Number 5, consider and discuss the appointment of Sharon Keith to City/County E.M.S. Advisory Board. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. This Court annually appoints one -- or every other year, I'm sorry, appoints one member to the City/County EMS Advisory Board. And, if you looked in your backup, one -- the requirement is that the person live in the county and is knowledgeable in 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 38 health care administration. Folks, there's not that many folks out there that -- that are willing to serve, so Mrs. Keith has agreed to serve for us here. She's the Nursing Manager for Peterson Hospital emergency room. She's very knowledgeable. The administrator over at Peterson recommended her, and she is -- she's a great lady, and is just -- to be able to find this quality of a person to serve on these committees just blows me away. So, I would move for approval of Sharon Keith as the County's representative on the City/County EMS Advisory Board. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve Sharon Keith's appointment to the City/County EMS Advisory Board. 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. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I had a question. Are there other people in these positions? There's a bunch on that sheet that the City sent over. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You may want to ask her that -- Thea. Thews the one that blocked it out there. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 Yes, there are other names on there. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 'That's the City's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I was confused. I thought, boy, I hope there aren't that many vacancies on there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, it's full. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 6, consider acid discuss application to the N.R.A. Foundation Grant Program for grant to be used by the Sheriff's Department for training funds. Sheriff Hierholzer? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is a grant application that we would like to submit to N.R.A. What it will actually do is the $2,000 grant that will assist in supplementing our firearms and safety training for our officers. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved, COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve applying to the N.R.A. Foundation Grant Program for a grant to be used for training funds for Sheriff's Department. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And authorize County 40 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Judge to sign same, I assume? JUDGE HENNEKE: And authorize County Judge to sign same. Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got a question. Rusty, I kind of looked through all of this, and did -- am I seeing that it's -- the money is designated for ammunition? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It may be on this one, the way James wrote it up. We spent -- or are spending a large amount on ammunition for the training out at Thunder Ranch. It's a training deal where it can go to help pay those costs of Thunder Ranch, whether it be on the ammunition side of it or on the fee that we have to pay for the range and everything, but it's probably going to have to go on the ammunition side or costs on the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because we budgeted for some -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- on this? Okay. SHEF.IFF HIERHOLZER: Budgeted quite a bit for some. This year we're going to be cutting it real, real close on it. Zn fa~~t, I'm not quite sure that we'll have enough. Each officer, each time they go out there, averages over 300 rounds per officer that they have to fire. We're looking at redoing the range, itself, from -- the City is also looking at this, from three times a year to two times a 41 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 year. Just a little bit better, to cut down some on both agencies' expense on ammunition. That stuff's really getting expensive on everybody. So, this is more of a supplement, just to help us figure in the budget and get that worked out for each year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. {The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: A11 opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number ~, consider and discuss request from Moturola to extend the deadline for RFP's on Sheriffs communication system from May 25th, 2001, to July 25th, 2001. Sheriff Hierholzer. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Motorola, which is one of the few ones that have actually shown interest and is ~ working on their engineering part and everything to come in with a public safety communications upgrade, is requesting this. The attachments I have in the back of your backup show what they're saying in duration of nays that they need to be able to complete this, and they're wanting an extension to the end of July. I did contact George Weimer at Trott; you have a letter from them saying it can get carried away, but due to the fact that you really want it 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 done right the first time, reluctantly, George Weimer and I are both in agreement, they probably need this extension. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I just have one quick question. I noticed in the letter from Trott that it says that CommNet Erickson had asked some questions. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Were those ttie same general kinds of things that are in the Motorola list? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Same type. Each -- each company vendor has submitted questions to both me and -- and Trott and gotten answers to those questions. He was just addressing two different issues in this letter from him. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, the RFP deadline would be extended for both for this company, for Motorola, and for anybody else that wanted to bid, right? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If the Court grants this extension, what I will do is take a copy of that court order and send it to all the vendors that have received packages that are possibly bidding on this so that they all ktiuw it's extended. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We certainly want to encourage the competition. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make the motion that we grant the extension. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve extension for deadline for RFP's from May 2Sth, Year 2001, to July 25th, Year 2001. Sheriff, you and I have talked about this, and my concern is our ability to budget in this budget cycle if we push the request -- the response date back to July 25th. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is definitely one of my concerns also, because we are in the middle of the budget year. But, unfortunately, I feel like we're kind of in some ways in a Catch-22. We have to give these vendors adequate time. This is a massive system to be able to get the coverage throughout the county that we have to have. I can't push them any more. I have some just Lallpark idea of what the -- the funds may end up being. And, you know, it's not something the Court could in any way consider budgeting fully for -- for a one-time budget increase to pay for this system. Plus, once I get the figures, then we can start searching for the grants to also help supplement or help pay for this system, because it's -- unfortunately, from what T see, it's not going to be a -- an inexpensive or cheap upgrade. Our system is way, way inadequate, you know, and the deal last week with Sgt. Billeiter, if he wouldn't have been standing right next to his car at the tiiue that that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 29 25 44 happened where he actually had a car radio, we wouldn't have found him, okay? He would have had a hard time if he'd actually ended up in a shootout out there, us being able to get to him, 'cause we wouldn't have known his exact location, and he couldn't have gotten out on the radio. And, it is a very serious deal, so I have to just kind of go with it right now. We have to give these companies a chance to provide the best system we can. COMMISSIONER LET'G: In that light, I mean, would a 30-day extension -- I mean, would Motorola go with something like that? Because I see -- I think. that by July 31st, our budget is pretty much set for next year. But if we could go with, like, even July 10th, we could -- you know, or July 15th, that would give us a little bit of time to make a last-minute adjustment. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing I can say to the Court is that if it stays at July 25th, I will do my best, and I think Trott will help us, to -- as soon as they come in on July 25th, to sit down immediately and evaluate them, which is all in the procedures, and come back to the Court with a recommendation, and Trott has assured me that they will do that, because I need their expertise ocr it. But I hate to cut things short -- and I know it's kind of hard to do, especially with the budget year coming around, but I hate to cut things short and get them to take 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 shortcuts and corners, and then we end up, unfortunately, with what we all had as far as, like, renovations here. You get a lot of additions on at the end; it ends up costing us more than what we agreed to. So, I'd rather let it go through properly, as bad as I hate it, 'cause it's a risk every day that we don't have it for the officers on the street. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, with our budget cycle, if we got it the 25th, give them -- give Trott. and Rusty 10 days to review it -- I'm sure it's going to take a fair amount of time to figure out exactly what the proposals are saying -- does that give us enough time, based on the budget schedule, to -- JUDGE HENNEKE: It's going to push it, but we can get it done. There is -- there's -- after some discussions with the Sheriff, there's some concern in my mind over whether we'll be able to fund this out of budget, anyway, or go out for some long-term debt obligations. I just have to see where the numbers come in. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, either way, I mean -- well, we need to budget -- JUDGE HENNEKE: We can -- we can do it, but what it's going to mean is we're not going to have any idea what the budget's going to look like, and it's going to impact on the other departments until early in August at 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 24 25 best. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our problem is, like the Judge said, I'm afraid that with what I'm seeing, this is probably going to come into, unfortunately, having to do some long-term debt-type stuff and not impact this budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it will impact this budget, long-term debt or not. We got to pay for it, unless someone gives us -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is one of those things where you have a highly technical product and you only get one shot at making it right. I think we've got to take the risk on the budget side of getting it in. I just think it makes sense to go along with the extension, as requested. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So do I. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Otherwise, we could end up with something that still costs a lot of money and it's not what we want. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, you -- you see budgets all the time not being finalized till October 1st or October 15th or January 1st, many times. So, you know, to me, weighing that out and evaluating the two, I think we need to go with the extension and try to get the job done right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. - - -- -- 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: There's a motion before the Court. Any other questions or comments? I just want everyone to know what that's going to do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good thought. JUDGE HENNEKE: 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. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm gong to take a vacation the first week of August. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 7'm going with Jon. COMMISSIONER WZLLIAMS: Just leave your proxy behind. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 8, consider and discuss adoption of Kerr County Sheriff's Department Policy and Procedures manual. Sheriff Hierholzer is here to tell us that he's read every word, and it's -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To be perfectly honest, I have. We started on this right after I took office. The Department needed a definite upgrade on policy and procedures; we didn't really have that good of one. So, we've had long night meetings with all the administration, 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 48 patrol, everybody else. It's been a -- we've gathered policy manuals from other departments, we've gathered them from the National Rural Law Enforcement Agency and U.S. model policies. We've done a combination of Austin, D.P.S., local agencies, some of what we had before, and it's just been a very painstaking deal on my staff and myself on getting this prepared. Once we got it to this point, it has gone to the County Attorney's office. They have reviewed it and advised that they don't see any problems with it either. The Jail Commission part on all the jail policies and that is with the Jail Commission at this time. We were hoping to have their response by today verbally. Yes, it looks good, like they're going to approve everybody. I won't know that for another day or two, probably, but if there are things that need to be changed at that time, we can change them in the jail policies, but I don't see that happening. We've gone over it with them, we've worked with them on all these. I just think that the Department definitely needs a good policy. We've even included things already, such as the use of the -- use and procedures of the new video cameras that are -- got installed this last weekend in the cars. Some of the stuff you see before the Legislature on racial profilings and things such as that are also addressed in there. We've tried to address everything that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 we can possibly address so it's one consistent way of doing things within the department. There are some things in that policy manual that, if we get requests for it as far as Open Records and that, that I will have to delete from it due to security reasons, as far as the way we respond to bank alarms and things like that. But, I feel that everything that we can possibly address is in that manual. it takes a combination of the green policy manual that this Court had adopted for Kerr County and the Sheriff's Office policy manual and the Jail policy manual, and puts it all in one for the Sheriff's Department, okay? So that the green manual that the Commissioners Court had adopted a couple years ago is addressed in there. It is the same in there. We're just trying to get it where I don't have officers that have to have three or four policy manuals and everything's done correctly. And, once it's adopted and the copies are made, then we will have training sessions on it to make sure our officers understand it. MS. NEMEC: I have a question. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Even goes into detail about what kind of prisoner he will -- he can allow to do the work down underneath. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What kind of person that can go there. 50 I t 1 1 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: Looks good. Easy to work through the -- JODGE HENNEKE: Barbara, you had a question? MS. NEMEC; I have a question. So, when your employees call me and ask me if they are to go by the green policy manual or the one that you have, the one that you have is exactly -- when it refers to the issues that are in our policy manual, it's exactly that way? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This -- this manual would take care of all of it. It's all exactly that way. MS. NEMEC: So I can tell them that they're -- when it -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're the same. MS. NEMEC: Okay. 'Cause 1 get those questions all the time. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I get them, too. "Well, this manual says this. This one" -- No, I don't want that. I want it all concise and one where we can train everybody the same. MS. NEMEC: That is wonderful. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks good. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just one comment I would make. The part where you may have to redact some things -- you said when you get requests? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 51 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: There probably needs to be something on the front about the security of the document, then. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There will be. This is our one and only copy at this time, okay, and there will be -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I understand that. When we get to the next agenda item, when it is formally printed, there needs to be some control on the document, and it needs to be so marked on the front, or -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- inside pages or whatever. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we adopt the Kerr County Sheriff's Department Policy and Procedures manual as presented. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court adopt the Kerr County Sheriff's Department Policy and Procedures manual 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.) 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is to consider and discuss Kerr County paying for printing 100 copies of the Policy and Procedures manual, and binders for each. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This manual actually -- counting the index, which y'all have, you can see -- I think it alone is about 28 pages, to make it reference-friendly to where the officers can find things in there. The total of this manual is 394 pages on both sides. It's actually almost 800 pages one-sided, but we've printed it -- this copy on both sides, so it's 394 pages long. To be able -- I've got one estimate or one price, which is what I wanted to get at this time, just so that we can tell you exactly what it would cost, or real close to it. I'd like to make 100 copies of this manual. I have about 85 employees, counting secretaries, clerks, everybody else, and there are things in here that affects everybody and everybody needs to know. I'd like -- with the 100 copies that I want, 85 of them will be issued to our employees. After that, I need a few extras, just in case one got destroyed or something like that, but the County Clerk's office also would have to have one on file, I believe. The County Attorney's office needs one on file. Our insurance company needs one. I think the County Judge just motioned he'd like to have one. But, the -- the attorneys that represent the Sheriff's Department 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 L2 23 24 25 in a lot of the civil lawsuits and that, I constantly get requests from them, "What your policies on this? What's your policies on that?" to where the officers were acting in accordance with policy. I would want them to have one. So, by the time you get through with those people, you're already up over 90 copies, 95 copies, and I would like to just have a couple extras in case we do get more manpower at some time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a massive document. Any reason why they can't also be put on CD-ROM so it could be plugged into a computer? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have it on disk right now to where we can do it. The printing of that many of those documents is what my expense is. We will keep it on disk or on CD-ROM. I don't have the CD-ROM capabilities at the office; we have the disk. We will keep on it those, and any updates that have to be made will be made over those, and those sections get replaced as the years go on. But, as far as being able to just print out copies, that's -- if we do it on a regular copy machine with the funding and the way that works, I just couldn't feasibly -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I wasn't saying in lieu of. I'm saying in addition to. Can you put it on 54 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 CD-ROM for future reference? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER.: Yes. Yes, we could. DODGE HENNEKE: You might find that your attorneys would probably prefer to have ether a disk or a CD-ROM than the hard copy. I presume that that will be checked out individually to the employees, and this will be an item that will be returned in the event that their employment is -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is correct. It goes on their inventory. Any lost one or one not returned, they're going to be responsible to pay the County back for the -- for the manual. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Like any security document or document that's got secured information, those copies need to be numbered; Copy Number 10 of 100 checked out, and so on. That's what I was alluding to earlier. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You really need to have a number. All copies are numbered so that you can account for who's got copy number so-and-so. It's -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, the cost of this that we have to print with 100 sets, two-sided with the holes in them and everything, is $3,468. These 3-ring binders, just like you see that that one is in, 100 of those will cost us $462, bringing the total to $3,930. That's 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 L S $4,000 to print 100 copies of this. I do not have that amount anywhere readily available in my budget to come up with that, but this is an extremely important issue that I need to get done. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, who did you get that price from? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That price is from Braswell. They -- I just had them grab one real quick, just so that we could give y'all an idea. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might really search that around, because I know when Region J did their printing, the prices ranged from about this to about $800. With some people, it really gets drastic, and -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They gave us 20 percent off to begin with, okay? If they'd have gone by their normal fees, it would have been well over $5,000 for the total of everything, and they refigured it and refigured it, and ended up with about a 20 percent discount. You know, it's one of these, I have -- we have managed to get by for this year without having a -- an updated -- in fact, the policy manual that is -- until a few minutes ago, when y'all adopted this one, the policy manual that's in effect for the jail still refers to the jail as being up here, okay? So, it's something that -- it is an important and emergency issue that I've got to get out there. 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not questioning that. I'm just saying I suggest you go out for at least five bids, anywhere; in San Antonio, all the vendors here in the county, the OfficeMax-type people. I mean, because the price of copies of large quantities really does vary. You might also check with the prison system. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the only other thing I've got to really be careful about is, because of the security issues of some of the documents and that, I've got to be careful where we have it printed. JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a source for the funds? MR. TOMLINSON: I would say Nondepartmental. JUDGE HENNEKE: Contingency? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have any money in your budget? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. I have some where -- where, with the point we're at in the budget, there's going to be some amendments we have to make, just because of some of the things that have changed. I'm hoping at the end, y'all will get that amount returned back to you at the end of the budget year. I don't believe in spending every penny we got. But currently, no, we've looked at it, and in preparing for our budget for next year, I don't see where we can come up with that amount of money. If I take 57 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 it out of Operating Supplies, which is probably our largest line item right now, it very well may cut us short, or it will probably cut us short at the end of the year. Now, if you'd rather do that, then we'll just make amendments to straighten that out later. JUDGE HENNEKE: What about the radio project line item? Are we going to -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I haven't used any of that. What's been spent out of that is what Trott has charged the Court for doing that. But, we have -- have stayed away from that, and there is plenty of funds in that account. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd probably rather take it out of Contingency right now, because -- I mean, it doesn't make any difference long-term. We're not going to use the radio fund money probably this year. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, if -- my thinking is we may run out of Contingency before the end of the year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can transfer to Contingency from there. It's -- this kind of fits Contingency, to me. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'1L make a motion to authorize the -- the printing of 100 copies of the Policy and Procedures manual, and binders for the Sheriff's 58 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 Department, in an amount not to exceed 4,000 -- $4,000, and request the Sheriff to get at least five bids on that price before he goes with any vendor. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will attempt -- I don't know how many printing companies we have locally, and it's just manly on the background of those, if I can find five that I feel okay with the security issues, Lkien I'll be more than happy to -- I'll definitely get more than just one, but I'd hate to be tied down to have to go hunting for five that I know well enough to know security-wise. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think three would give us a pretty good -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- it's a request, not a requirement, you know. I just think that this price varies so much. And I understand the security issue, but the other side of that is, I don't think most companies that print it even know what they're printing. I mean, iL you go to any of these outfits, they don't -- they have no clue what they're doing. So, I mean, they're just going to run ~ copies. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; There are at leasC three local vendors that I can think of offhand that -- that could handle the job, probably, in a secure way, and I think if we got at least three, that we'd have a feel that we get as good a price as we can probably get. 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 59 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three's a good number. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a second'? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize paying for 100 cop Les of the Kerr County Sheriff's Department Policy and Procedures manual, and binders for each in an amount not to exceed $4,000, upon the receipt by the Sheriff of not more than -- of not less than three bids for such printing, with funds to come from the Nondepartmental Contingency line item. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only other thing I'd like to do is request a copy of that court order approving adopting the manual so I can have it attached with the manual that shows the date this manual was adopted. 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. At this time, we need to take up some things that are time-posted. Let's go to Item Number 12, which is open the bids for the Kerr County depository contract. 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 60 (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE HENNEKE: We have two bids that have been presented. The first is from Union State Bank, I believe. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, I would -- as I mentioned to you a little bit earlier, I would ]ike to recuse myself on this item, since I am a very small, but a -- but a shareholder in a local bank, and I don't know whether they even submitted a bid or not, but I don't want to be part of the deliberations on the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you're safe. JUDGE HENNEKE: Let the record reflect that Commissioner Griffin has recused himself, and we need to schedule a deliberation on the depository question, We have one bid from Union State Bank and one bid from Security State Bank, and both of which are accompanied by a cashier's check, apparently in the appropriate amount. At this time, I'd entertain a motion to accept the bids and refer them to the County Treasurer and Auditor for evaluation and recommendation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court accept tYie 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 bids from Security State Bank and Trust and Union State Bank and refer them to the County Treasurer and Auditor for recommendation to the Court. 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. Barbara, do you think you can get back to us today with a recommendation? No? Can you get back tomorrow, or do we have to bring this back at our next meeting? MR. TOMLINSON: I'm going to be out of town. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right, you're gone tomorrow and the rest of the week. Okay. We'll just put it on the agenda for the next meeting. MR. TOMLINSON: It may be fairly straightforward, so maybe -- may be easy to do, but I don't think we can do it today. JUDGE HENNEKE: If we don't hear from y'all today, we'll just put it on the agenda for the 29th. MR. TOMLINSON: There's another issue that's coming up on -- oh, well, no, it would be before that. I'm thinking about for the 6th of June. That's a different issue. I'm sure we can do it by then. I'd rather do it prior to the 29th, because if we make a change, it will be 62 1 1 i 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ZO 21 22 23 24 25 awfully difficult to change. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, if y'all -- y'all look at it and advise us it's absolutely, absolutely necessary, we can have a special meeting to do that, but only if we absolutely have to. Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Griffin, your bank didn't get it. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay, good. JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll go to Item Number 14, which is a public hearing concerning abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating Treiber Trail, an undeveloped platted road easement in Japonica Hills Subdivision. At this time, the Court will recess its meeting and open a public hearing. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:05 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there anyone from the public who'd like to address the Court on the issue of abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating Treiber Trail, an undeveloped platted road easement in Japonica Hills Subdivision? Is there anyone here who'd like to address the Court on this issue? (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Once again, is there anyone ~_~. - - 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 here who'd like to address the Court on the issue oL abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating Treiber Trail, an undeveloped platted road easement in Japonica Hills Subdivision? (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Seeing no one come forward, we'll close the public hearing and return to the Commissioners Court meeting. (The public hearing was concluded at approximately 10:06 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE HENNEKE: The next item for consideration is Item Number 15, which is consider and discuss abandoning discontinuing and vacating Treiber Trail, an undeveloped platted road easement in Japonica Hills Subdivision. Commissioner Griffin. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Phe Court will probably recall that at the last session we had, the homeowner's association of Japonica Hills, represented by Mr. Don Townsend, who presented the petitions from the -- from the landowners in the subdivision that -- to abandon, discontinue, and vacate this particular undeveloped road easement. It was never developed after the subdivision was -- was platted in 19 -- gosh, I don't have the year. I thought I did. But, at any rate, it's pretty H4 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 straightforward. They don't want the read there, and they're willing to -- to abandon it, and I would make a motion that we abandon, discontinue, and vacate Treiber Trail -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- in Japonica Hills. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, Lhat the Court abandon, discontinue, and vacate Treiber Trail, an undeveloped platted road easement in Japonica Hills Subdivision. And, I'll remind the Court that for this to be effective, it takes unanimous vote of all the Commissioners present. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item for consideration is Item Number 16, which is a public hearing for abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating Kerr County maintenance of Verde Mesa Drive E. in Vista Ridge Subdivision. At this time, the Court will recess its meeting and open a public hearing on the issue of abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating Kerr County 65 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 maintenance in Verde Mesa Drive E. in Vista Ridge Subdivision. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:08 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE HENNEKE: Is any there anyone here from the public who'd like to address the Court on the issue of abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating Verde Mesa Drive E. in Vista Ridge Estates as a County-maintained road? Once again, is there anyone here from the public who'd like to address the Court during this public hearing on the issue of abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating Kerr County maintenance of Verde Mesa Drive E. in Vista Ridge Subdivision? (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: One more time, is there anyone here who would like to address the Court on the issue of abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating Verde Mesa Drive E. in Vista Ridge Estates as a County-maintained road? (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Seeing none, we will adjourn this public hearing and return to the regular Commissioners Court meeting. (The public hearing was concluded at approximately 10:09 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.} 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: The next issue for consideration is Item Number 17, which is consider abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating Kerr County maintenance of Verde Mesa Drive E. in Vista Ridge Subdivision. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a small subdivision, Judge, in the eastern part of Precinct 2 off of Highway 173. It's a 12-acre -- 12-lot subdivision with a road, I believe, Mr. County Engineer, that was origirrally built to county standards; is that correct? MR. JOHNSTON: It is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I believe that probably this has changed hands and the new developer wants to gate it, make it a gated community. MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think there's been any houses built in this subdivision. A new developer bought the entire acreage and wants to install a gate with -- have a gated community. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating Kerr County maintenance of Verde Mesa Drive East in the Vista Ridge Subdivision to allow landowners to install a gate. COMMISSIONER SALDWIN: Second, with a question. What is the length of that road, Mr. Engineer? MR. JOHNSTON: There's a plat, 1 think, in 67 1 G 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your packet. I don't know off the top of my head what the length is, but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, it's probably no more than -- MR. JOHNSTON: Might be a mile. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to say no more than a half, three-quarters of a mile, basically going uphill to the top hill up there, kind of winds around to a cul-de-sac on top. MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, it's a dead-end road, ends in a cul-de-sac. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One way in, one way out. JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating Kerr County maintenance of Verde Mesa Drive E. in Vista Ridge Subdivision. 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 siyn. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Let's go back to Item Number ]0, which is consider and discuss approval of contract with Kerr County Animal Control Officer 68 1 2 3 4 5 E 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for transportation and housing of estray animals. Sheriff Hierholzer? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is really pretty simple. Every Sheriff's Department that handles estray animals, meaning the ones that are unclaimed, found on someone else's property, or found out on public roads that we can't find the owner, you have to haul them in. You have to have somebody haul them in. Then we have to go through the advertisement and the estray laws to be able to disperse of those animals or get them back to the appropriate owners. The Sheriff's Department currently does nut have a contract with anybody that -- to transport these animals or haul these animals in, and Marc Allen with Animal Control has been kind enough to be able to do that for us any time we need it, and I feel that we should just formally have a contract with Animal Control to -- Marc Allen to transport those animals and house them until we can gu through all the procedures to dispose of them. And, that way, Marc can bill the Sheriff's Office for those expenditures he goes through to transport them. COMMISSIONER SALDWIN: I agree. JUDGE HENNEKE: Marc, do you have any questions or comments? MR. ALLEN: No. Everything is working fine. We just want to get our contract. h9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Lucas, is Lhis what we need to do, in your opinion? MR. LUCAS: I -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mr. Lucas hasn't even observed it. It is required, and this is -- ttie contract itself is straight out of the estray book put out by the group -- the Association of Cattle Ranchers and that. It is straight out of the law book on what we have to have. It's a form contract used by every department. It's not anything -- the front page -- it's just a one-page contract, Judge. The backup to that is just what the estray laws and that are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is, this seems strange -- well, I don't think Marc Allen has the authority to sign a contract. I mean, I think the Court -- I mean, the form may be fine, but I think the Court needs to sign the contract; I don't think you have authority to sign a contract. I mean, it's just -- I mean, basically, to me, it's a directive of the County -- of the Commissiuners Court that this is how it's going to be. I don't see that you need a contract between two County agencies or departments when we're the only body that has authority to contract. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's a very good point. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a great question. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 G 23 24 25 ~o COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could we do it by court order, if we had an order that just said that we would allow billing and exchange of funds that happens between two departments based on the requirements? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do that by court order. Wouldn't have to have a -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Or agreement or something that -- it is a requirement tYiat we have an agreement or something with somebody. The former Sheriff always did it with a private citizen. I just feel it would be easier and we work a lot better together with keeping it with all of us. That way Marc's got access to the -- to the storage facilities and the holding. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I tYiink a court order's the way to go. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think a court order approving the arrangement between Animal Control and the Sheriff's Department, as evidenced by this document, would be in order. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. My only question is, are you willing to transfer that pickup that you drive over? That was the reason that truck was bought. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. That pickup has -- 71 1 t 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 unfortunately, with all the events mover the la°t year, with the -- the fires and everything else, I'm very glad I have that pickup, and I hope to have it for another 10 years. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm glad you have it, and I hope do you have it for another 10 yearn. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would make the motion that we -- that we approve an order, JUDGE HENNEKE: With the arrangement -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: With the arrangement as specified in the document as presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the arrangement between the Kerr County Animal Control Department and the Kerr County Sheriff's pepartment regarding the handling of estray animals, as represented by the estray animal contract presented to the Court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only question I have is -- and I'll refer it to the County Attorney -- whether, as posted, we can do this. I mean, it's pretty specific. It says, "consider and discuss approving" -- MR. LUCAS: This is the first I'm -- COMMISSIONER LETG: But Lhe way it's posted, it says, "Consider and discuss approving contract with Kerr County Animal Control Officer, Marc Allen, for 72 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 transportation and housing of estray animals." As I read that -- MR. LUCAS: To make it really clean and simple, I hate to say this, but you ought to bring it back. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'That's fide. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't hear what you said. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Withdraw the motion. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion withdrawn. We're going to bring this back after the County Attorney's had a chance to glance at it. We'll get the wording worked out. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's all we're -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The sense of the Court is, I think we're going to do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to do it. Just a matter of doing it correctly. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moving to Item Number 11, consider and discuss appointment of the Environmental Solid Waste Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Holekamp. MR. HOLEKAMP: What I'm doing is I`m asking Commissioners Court to allow us to hire and Environmental Solid Waste Code Enforcement Officer by the name of Eddie North -- Edward North to administer the -- administer and to handle all solid waste complaints and filing on these violators. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Z4 25 73 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: His license would be carried by Constable McClure? Is that the intent? MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there -- can you give us 30 seconds on Mr. North's background? Has he got some background in this area or -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, yes. He was an investigator for the Sheriff's Department for several years. Prior to that, he was in Bexar County as a deputy constable, and had quite a bit of experience in I guess wYiat you call litter laws and that sort of thing. So, what -- i would imagine he has 25 years experience in law enforcement, most recently in San Antonio as a constable with -- a deputy constable. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's enough. Just wanted it for the record. And, would this be effective immediately? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir, preferably. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court appoint Edward North as the Solid Waste Code Enforcement 79 1 G 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Z1 Z2 23 24 25 Officer effective immediately, with his peace officer's license to be carried by Constable McClure in Precinct 1. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question. JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions or comments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. What phone number can I or the general public find this man? MR. HOLEKAMP: 257-7393. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that your place? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One quick clarification. You have sufficient dollars in that to carry you through the remainder of the budget year? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. It is -- and y'all understand, it is a part-time position. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sixteen hours a week. MR. HOLEKAMP: Fifteen to 16 hours a week, no benefits. JODGE HENNEKE: Any other 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.) 75 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. MR. HOLEKAMP; Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. I believe the next item is Item Number 18, which is consider advertisement for notice of public hearing to eliminate duplicate names for County-maintained roads in Precincts 1 and 2, in accordance with 911 guidelines and set public hearing for same. Who's got this one? Commissioner Williams? Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve for public hearing July 7th, 2001, at 10 a.m. in the Commissioners Courtroom, Kerr County. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. The date -- DODGE HENNEKE: That's a Saturday. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just reading here. Is it really? JUDGE HENNEKE: It is, indeed. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin? Are you coming in on that Saturday, Franklin? MR. JOHNSTON: I didn't make this date. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is a Saturday. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think the 6th is the day we'll probably have our Commissioners -- that's a later agenda item, but -- 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 6th"? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you worded it that it would be for the regular July session -- is that it? -- then that wi71 cover it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And July the 6th -- Friday, July the 6th, is a regular Commissioners Court meeting? JUDGE HENNEKE: The regular meeting is Monday, July the 9th, which is the date that the South Texas Commissioners convention starts, so there's a later agenda item to move that meeting to the 6th. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If his motion just said the regular session, it's covered. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll accept the change. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Bill. JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a motion, 1 believe, by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court set a public hearing for July the 6th, Year 2001, at 10 o'clock a.m. in the Commissioners' Courtroom of the Kerr County Courthouse to consider name -- road name changes for county-maintained roads in Precinct 1 and Precinct 2 in accordance with 911 guidelines, and authorize advertisement of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a comment, 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 77 Judge. I think a lot of credit goes to Road and Bridge acid Truby for a lot of hard work done on this. She's worked very carefully with Commissioners on this. There's a lot of work involved in this, in tracking them down and finding how to make the changes and making them hopefully acceptable to those who will experience a change. So, I want to commend them for a job well-done. Appreciate it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan? COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question was -- and it's from a -- considering we're already going over with our Notice budget and the date is so far in the future, was the intent to do all four precincts at one time, or -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, to do them separately. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER them two at a time. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. WILLIAMS: Because of volume, do GRIFFIN: Yeah, that was the -- WILLIAMS: You're next. LETZ: I knew they were working on them, but okay. 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. 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. I think we can get one more in here. Item Number 19 is consider and approve name changes to eliminate duplicate names for privately maintained roads in accordance with 911 guidelines. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Set a public hearing on this? JUDGE HENNEKE: No, it's privately maintained. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So these have all been worked out to the best of our knowledge; is that correct? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that -- let me find the page -- that we consider that and that we approve the name changes to eliminate duplicate names for privately maintained roads in accordance with 911 guidelines, as presented to Court today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is Precincts 1 and 2. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 approve name changes for privately maintained Loads in accordance with 911 guidelines in Precinct 1 and Precinct 2 to eliminate duplicate names pursuant to the schedules presented for those precincts. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your rigtiL hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this time -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we do 20 real quick? Some folks in the audience on that, Judge. That's an easy one. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. We'll take up Item Number 20, consider the final plat of Shonto Ranch Estates, Precinct 2. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 't'his is in Precinct 2. It's a final -- it's a final plat approval of a 3-plat -- 3-lot subdivision -- I'll get it right iii a second -- bordering Turtle Creek on Highway -- State Highway 2771. Shonto Ranch Estates, I believe it is. Franklin? MR. JOHNSTON: I think the road has been constructed to country lane private road standards. It's been tested, it's been inspected, Recommend approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move final 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80 plat approval of Shonto Estates Ranch in Precinct 2 as presented in the plat. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the final plat of Shonto Ranch Estates in Precinct 2. 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 will be adjourned. Let's come back at 10:45. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Recessed. JUDGE HENNEKE: Recessed. Come back at 10:95. (Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 10:45 on Monday, May 14th, Year 2001. We'll reconvene the regular Commissioners Court meetinq. The next item for consideration is Item Number 21, which is the concept plan for Hutte Acres, Precinct 2, and variances for lot frontage and lot size. Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Engineer? 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JOHNSTON: This is an acreage on Deer Park Lane that has -- it's just a little bit less than 10 acres, and they want to divide it into two lots. The well lot's 4.986, and they wanted some assurance, before they go to the expense to replat, that that would qualify as a -- you know, a 5-acre lot. And the only other obstruction would be that they don't have the 200-foot frontage. The lot's kind of pie-shaped, and it could never be divided further than this. The deed restrictions are 5-acre minimum lot size ~n that area. One side there has a -- has a residence on it. This other acreage is just acreage. JUDGE HENNEKE: Time-out here. If the deed restrictions say 5-acre minimum, do they have a waiver from the homeowners' association? MR. JOHNSTON: That I don't know. JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't think we should address the issue of lot sizes from our point of view unless they have already cleared up any impediments -- MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not sure they have a homeowners' -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, you said the deed restrictions, so somebody -- unless they got that cleared up, the Court can't override that deed restriction. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. If there is one -- yeah, if there is a deed restriction, I wouldn't 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 think we do. JUDGE HENNEKE: 'Cause the homeowners' association -- they could go to the owners' association and get a waiver, but I think that needs to be done before it comes to us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- MR. JOHNSTON: This is a concept plan, anyway. They're not asking -- they just kind of want to acknowledge -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the agenda item talks about variances, but it's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: The variance we wouldn`t do until preliminary plat. That's the way we'd be handling this, is that we do it at the preliminary period. If it gets to that point, I think the Judge is certainly correct, it's got to be answered before we can do a variance. But, the -- I mean, from a "feeling of the Court" standpoint, or my personal feeling, I mean, I would grant a variance on the acreage issue on this one, if we can. JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't disagree with that. But, I don`t want to -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just -- if there's a deed restriction, we can't unilaterally undo the deed. JUDGE HENNEKE: I want to make sure we don't set up a situation where we grant a variance which is 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 contrary to what's in the deed, and then they act on what we've done and then we find ourselves in the middle of a dispute. MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, they need to have that resolved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Check this out, bring it back next time. MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't know details here, but just a suggestion. Would it -- I assume that this lot over here is served by the -- where the residence is has got a well on it? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, I think it does. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just so that there's not a problem in the future, if that were mine, I would go -- I would punch this line around a little bit and make the lot where the residence is the one that's 4.986, and make the other one 5 acres. That undeveloped lot would be 5 acres. Now you've got free rein to do whatever with that one you want to do, rather than doing it this way, where the -- whoever buys that 4.986 might have a problem if we don't grant a variance for water availability. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a good suggestion. MR. JOHNSTON: Good point. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 84 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just reverse them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the frontage on Deer Park, the total now? MR. JOHNSTON: It's not written on there, unless it's in that letter. I don't think that its 200-foot now. I think it's not even enough to meet the current requirement. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We need to know what that is before we grant a variance, when it comes back. MR. JOHNSTON: 103 feet, maybe. I'm not sure. But, I think they just kind of wanted a feeling that -- you know, even now it wouldn't meet the minimum requirements, but it's grandfathered in. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that Deer Park Lane a cul-de-sac that ends -- MR. JOHNSTON: No, it's a continuing road. JUDGE HENNEKE: Goes all the way through? MR. JOHNSTON: It goes from Highway 16 to Lower Turtle Creek Road. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bring it back. MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. I don't think the owner is here on that one. JODGE HENNEKE: Next item would be Ltem Number 22, consider the preliminary revision of plat for Lots 97, 98, 100, 101, 117B, 117C, 117D, ]19C, and 119D of 85 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 Falling Water, Precinct 3. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin, Dale, I'll let y'all explain what y'all are doing. MR. JOHNSTON: I think this is kind of -- there's two sections. You have the plat there that shows the before and after. On the -- on Page 2 on the left-hand quadrant, let's see, they're combining lots, which is a good feature. I think they're taking three lots and making two lots out of them on 117. On Lot 98, they're adding Letter A, which we -- we dealt with, I think, by a court order a while back to change the designation on that lot. This one will actually -- MR. CRENWELGE: Housecleaning. MR. JOHNSTON: Housecleaning item. Go ahead and put that on there. MR. CRENWELGE: We're not increasing the number of lots. We're just -- we have nine lots, and redoing it, making nine lots. MR. JOHNSTON: After the combination on the left-hand side, on the right-hand side they add a lot. It looks like the average lot size over there is about 2 and a half acres, little less. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only question I would have -- and I'm not sure I know the answer; I'm not sure I've looked at one like this -- is whether this would 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 require a public notification. When you combine lot sizes, you -- we are giving a variance, so you do not need to do a public notification. That's something we left out of the Subdivision Rules which will be added back in. So, the Lot 117, that would not require a notification on a stand-alone basis, but on the other one, splitting a lot probably does require public notification. So, I think that the public -- I don't have any problem with it, but it's just going to take -- you have to notify everybody. MR. JOHNSTON: I think it does. JUDGE HENNEKE: Does it require public hearing or just notification? MR. JOHNSTON: I think it's where you send out letters and have a public hearing, isn't it? MR. LUCAS: Jonathan, is this -- this is a revision, right? COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a revision. MR. LUCAS: So we do, according to 232.009. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. LUCAS: We've got to have a -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was actually reading -- I was just looking at the language. It doesn't really call it a public hearing. That's what I was -- MR. LUCAS: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says you have to 87 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 notify of the meeting when you're going to make the change. MR. LUCAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't say you have to have a 30-day MR. LUCAS: Notice statement of the time and place at to consider the application and to revision of the plat. COMMISSIONER LETZ: if -- that doesn't -- that doesn't public hearing. - notice includes a which the Court will meet hear protests to the Right. I don't know say we have to have a JUDGE HENNEKE: Not a public hearing, but we have to publish when we're going to take up the final revision. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's publish in the paper? Or do you write the -- MS. KNEESE: You have to notify the property owners, too. MR. LUCAS: You have to do both. General circulation, three times, and also notify all the -- all the owners in that area. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, State of Texas. MR. CRENWELGE: All the owners of the subdivision or within this small area? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the subdivision. MR. LUCAS: If all of the -- part of the subdivided tract has been sold to nondeveloper owners, the Court shall also give notice to each of those owners by certified or registered mail. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Everyone in the subdivision. MR. JOHNSTON: Part of the subdivision. MR. CRENWELGE: Yeah. This is not that big a deal. We're trying to do a little housecleaning. JUDGE HENNEKE: Talk to your Legislature. Okay. So, I think what we need to do, if it's the Court's pleasure, is to approve the preliminary plat, which 1 don't sense any disagreement with, but also set the time. It's going to have to be at least a month out when we can take up any final plat. Is that accurate? COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, for a time, I'd say second meeting in June. I mean, just to give everyone a little bit of time -- little bit of time, when we would do the final plat. MS. KNEESE: Have to get the names and addresses of all the property owners. JUDGE HENNEKE: And the developer would have to provide you that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we -- we approve the preliminary revision of Lots 97, 98, 100, 101, 117B, 117C, 117D, 119C and 119D, Falling Water Subdivision, and set the date for the consideration of final plat approval for our second meeting in June. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Second? Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Williams. Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: We should make sure -- Dale, will that meet your time -- is that too soon for you? MR. CRENWELGE: No, that's fine. That's fine. JUDGE HENNEKE: 10 o'clock a.m. on the second meeting in June, which is the fourth Monday. Does anyone have a calendar? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's get the date, do it right. What's the date, Thea? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second meeting in June? 25th. MS. SOVIL: 25th. JUDGE HENNEKE: 25th. 10 o'clock a.m., 25th of June, for the consideration of the final plat -- final revision of plat for the lots enumerated. Okay. Does anyone have any questions? Okay. If there are no questions 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 90 or comments, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. Next item is Item Number 23, consider the preliminary plat for Cypress Springs Estates, Phase II, and consider granting a variance for lot sizes. Commissioner Griffin. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. This is a revisit on one that we -- an item that we did a month or two ago. Commissioner Letz and I had discussed some of this. In fact, I'm going to ask Commissioner Letz if you'll restate your -- your Logic on this, and then we'll also wdiit to hear if there are any changes that you have made to this from that last proposal that we -- MR. CRENWELGE: No. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- that you had. MR. CRENWELGE: Still 120 lots on 400 acres. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the logic -- I hate to use the word "logic" whenever I go back and test my memory, but I think the thought process, anyway, was this is a subdivision that first came to the Court as a large subdivision. It was going to have, I don't know, roughly 1,000 acres, something like that, Cypress Springs. And, it was with the intention of -- the number of lots and the road 91 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Z1 22 23 24 25 sizes and all that was scaled for the -- to have basically 1-acre lots. It was wasn't going to be, but it could have been to 1-acre lots. And, the Court at the time looked at the overall plan, and, you know, certainly in -- under the discussion -- I won't say that the Court totally told the developer, but we went into the discussion; we were aware of the total concept of the subdivision. But, iL was platted in phases, with the back portion to be platted as -- platted as one large lot, and I think there's, like, a 400 acre lot, something like that. Since then, we changed our Subdivision Rules and changed the number of lots sizes substantially -- the minimum lot size substantially, and the issue was to basically -- we've changed the rules in the middle of a development. And, Larry and I met with the developer and came up with a -- you know, what was an agreement betwsen the -- I guess the developer, Frank, Larry, and myself. It's a situation where the next phase would be at an interim period where there'd be a minimum or average lot size of 3 acres, and the final phase would be an average lot size of 5 acres, which is our current rules, but basically get there in steps. And that's kind of, I think, where we are. MR. CRENWELGE: It would be 3 and a third, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three and a third. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Three and a third. At 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 92 the time that we had made that original approval, it was 2 and a half, so it was a -- this -- this second phase exceeds the old criteria, and the last phase will meet the -- actually meet the current criteria of 5 acres. JUDGE HENNEKE: Are these lots on a -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Water system. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is it a water system, riot individual wells? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. This is a central water system, so actually they could have gone to 1-acre lot sizes originally, and they weren't ever going to go t~ that density. They never intended to go to 1 acre, but they could have. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, if there's a water system, they could have, under our current rules, if this was a brand new subdivision, 80 lots. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, depending on the -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Four hundred acres divided by five. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eighty lots total. JUDGE HENNEKE: They're asking for 120 lots, which is 50 percent more than they're actually -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Averages 3.3, rather than -- 93 1 r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- than five. JUDGE HENNEKE: But the proposal is that the Phase III, they will be held to the 5-acre -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- average requirement. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think it's a situation that we really never talked about when we did the new rules, what do you with do with something like this? And, to me, it's -- you know, we're trying to move in a direction from the County standpoint, but at the same time, there's going to be several -- and this probably won't be the last; there might be some other developments that are -- you know, that were developed originally, the infrastructure, but based on one scenario, they're asking to change that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: After a quick look, I don't think there are any in Precinct 4. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Have they sent the requisite letter yet regarding their capacity to handle the additional -- MR. JOHNSTON: I haven't seen it. MR. CRENWELGE: They have enough capacity in the first well to -- well, they have to do some 94 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 improvements, water storage tank on top, but the well has enough capacity right now without drilling. JUDGE HENNEKE: Have to yet a letter from T.N.R.C.C., under our rules, saying that they have the capability to handle -- MR. JOHNSTON: Enough connections. MR. CRENWELGE: We have that already. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, I would make a motion that we approve the preliminary plat for Cypress Springs Estates, Phase II, and grant a variance for the lot sizes, as mentioned, at 3.3 average acres per ]ot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that embody the understanding for the next phase in this same motion or not? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can. I don't think it's necessary, because -- because we may have a new rule by the time Phase III comes around. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be 10 acres. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Dale will find some way to confuse the thing, I can tell you that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that ttie Court approve the preliminary plat for Cypress Springs Estates, Phase III. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Phase II. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 JUDGE HENNEKE: Phase II, and grant a variance to allow for 120 lots, at an average of 3.3 acres per lot in Phase II only. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would make a -- just a general comment, that this -- even though there's a variance on the lot size, this is the direction we're trying to go with the Subdivision Rules on having larger greenbelt areas, essentially, and more clustered development. I mean, it's not exactly, but it's a -- it works out this way, and under our -- a lot of the rules, you're getting some lot sizes that are very small, and you get some that are fairly large in areas that really -- MR. CRENWELGE: There'll be a lot of green area. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I think it's certainly going in the direction the County is trying to go, The final comment I have is that there's no issues on roads, All roads are going to be built to the specificationo -- I mean, there was some issue originally, but all of them are going to be to County standards. MR. JOHNSTON: To the local road standards. MR. CRENWELGE: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further -- MR. JOHNSTON: Are we going to allow them to 96 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 put the main road in to the local standard, and then put the side roads in to lesser standards or smaller country lane standards? That's the way the original was built. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's right, because they are private roads. I mean, this is -- this is not a county-maintained -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's all based on the number of lots utilizing the road. The more lots, the higher the standard is. MR. JOHNSTON: Couple other comments I had. The well tract is shown in this Phase Ii, but it's also part of the Phase I platted subdivision, so that would be something they have to redraw. And the two roads, Cypress Estates Parkway and Oak Hampton Trail, it just dead-ends off of the border on the left side there. And, till that Phase III is developed, does that need to have a cul-de-sac so people can actually turn around without just running into a fence or whatever? I think we've done that in the past where the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either you can do a cul-de-sac or -- MR. JOHNSTON: Do away with that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or widen it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or build the end portion. One of them, the Cypress Estates portion, it goes into 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Simmons Point. Could you dead-end it and just leave an easement through there and build it later? MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. Yeah. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Either way. MR. JOHNSTON: Either way. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's going to be an easement all the way to the property line? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there would be -- MR. JOHNSTON: Well, that particular one has a cul-de-sac. The one down below that just dead-ends. They wouldn't have to build it all the way over; they just need some way to turn around, or they`ll be stuck back there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: is there an easement all the way to the property line for possible future traffic? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's Phase III. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: lt's Phase III of it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: I hope the answer is no, but is there any way this could be construed as a revision, since this was perhaps platted as a large lot under Phase I? MR. JOHNSTON: Talking about Phase III? JUDGE HENNEKE: No, Phase II. My understanding is that when they did this first -- originally, Dale wasn't involved in it. It laid out Phase 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 I, then they had a big lot which is now being converted to Phase II, and a bigger ]ot which is now being converted to Phase III. MR. JOHNSTON: There was actually a layout at one time on Phase II, wasn't there, Lee? 't'hey had the roads and everything shown. MR. VOELKEL: Kind of a conceptual. Never had it recorded as one lot. MR. JOHNSTON: It wasn't recorded, but they actually did have something like this all drawn out originally. JUDGE HENNEKE: We're not -- what I'm trying to say is Phase II, which we're discussing now, was not platted as part of the original plat as Lot whatever. MR. CRENWELGE: Correct. MR. JOHNSTON: No, it wasn't. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As conceptually shown. MR. CRENWELGE: It was a conceptual plan. JUDGE HENNEKE: That was the answer I wanted. You're right, Dale. Any further questions or comments? If not, we do have a motion on the floor. All in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.} JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L 1 22 23 24 L S JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. nll right. Next item is Item Number 24, consider the preliminary revision of Lots 1, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 44, and common areas in Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I. Commissioner Griffin. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Franklin, I'll let you speak to this one. MR. JOHNSTON: Phase I is where their office is located, and it's kind of a funny looking lot. It's sitting there in the entrance, then has a little narrow strip going up to the fence line, and then it has another section up there to meet the 1-acre requirement. MR. CRENWELGE: Basically, what we're doing on here in Phase I, we're trying to get three access points to Phase II. Originally, it was conceived as one access point on Cypress Estates Parkway, and we're going to -- on the right side, we're going to put a road along the right side, and then on the far left side by the well tract, we're going to bring a road up through there. So, we're going to have to replat Lots 21 and 22 to bring a road up through there, and then, over on the right, where there was a common area, we're going to put a road through on this next to the common area, put two lots along there. And then down there on the bottom where 17, 18, and 19 are, has -- there's a transmission line running right through the middle of those three lots, big KPUB transmission line. What we want to do 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 L2 23 24 25 is add two more lots in there to justify the cost of moving that transmission line to the rear of the property line, kind of clean up the subdivision. Then, on Lit 49, we're going to make two lots out of 44. MR. JGHNSTON: And 46 and 47, that was an area, if I'm not mistaken, where they dug a big old pit to get the fill when they put these original roads in. Is that still there, or -- MR. CFENWELGE: Oh, no, it's been filled in. Property owner's association gave this back to the developer. MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the well tract that provides water for the other phase as well? MR. CRENWELGE: Yes, sir. MR. JOHNSTON: So, the lots in the other -- left-hand corner would have issues of frontage and size? MR. CRENWELGE: Frontage. MR. JOHNSTON: But they're -- they are more or less consistent with the other lot sizes in that area, I mean. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And they meet the -- they meet the standard that existed at the time Phase I was platted? MR. CRENWELGE: Mm-hmm. 101 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. JOHNSTON: Yes. But they're a little shy on the frontages. {Discussion off the reuurd.j JUDGE HENNEKE: The frontage is pretty tight around that curve there where 18A is -- 1B, 18A. What's the size of the frontage on 18A and B? MR. CRENWELGE: I think we're about 150, and would add in two more lots. It's going to be around 100 foot, maybe a little lower, 110 foot. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But that's not a cul-de-sac, so we don't get to the cul-de-sac limit, so what limit do we have? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 200. MR. JOHNSTON: 200. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The normal 200. MR. CRENWELGE: They"re already at 150. Those are nice, big lots. Just going to clean up the subdivision by moving the transmission line. It won't justify the cost unless I can get a couple more lots out of that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion that we approve the preliminary plat and grant the variance for those lots as listed on the item and grant a variance on the frontage for Lots 17 through 19. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 JUDGE HENNEKE: This is going to involve, again, an opportunity for people to object and public notice? I assume your motion included a setup for 10;15 on the 25th? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Exactly. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the preliminary revision of Lots 1, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 99, and the common area in Cypress Springs Estates, and grant a variance to the frontage requirements for Lots 19A, 18B, 18A, and 17B -- 17B and 17A, and set a time for final consideration of this matter with appropriate notice to be given for 10:15 a.m. on June 25th, Year 2001. Franklin, do you have any concern about the frontage on these four lots -- five lots? MR, JOHNSTON: They`re 100 feet. I think that would possibly work. They just have tv design the houses to work with that. MR, CRENWELGE: Most of houses are going to be set back near the -- near the rear of the lot. MR, JOHNSTON: They're kind ~f pie-shaped, so if the houses are in a larger area, I think they can probably work with it. JUDGE HENNEKE: The topography is not going to be a problem as far as -- 103 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. CRENWELGE: It's flat. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- distances? MR. CRENWELGE: It's all flat. Who]e area is flat as a pancake. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other 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. CRENWELGE: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE; Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, you have your money people here. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Let's go back to item -- whatever it was. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 13. JUDGE HENNEKE: Item 13, which is consider and discuss awarding or rejecting bids for Kerr County Depository. Tommy, do you have a report for us, sir? MR. TOMLINSON: We've reviewed both bids, each -- each in order, and there's no problems with the bids themselves. I'll discuss rate first. The bid for -- from Security State Sank on money market accounts, which -- which we use primarily, is -- will be 25 -- I think it's 25 -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 yeah, 25 basis points less than the one-day Treasury Bill rate. MS. NEMEC: Thirty-five. MR. TOMLINSON: I mean 35 points be]ow. The -- the bid from Union State on the same type of deposit is -- is what they call their posted rate. And, we called and asked about that, and there's -- there's no specific market rate that they -- that they benchmark that to. So, it`s -- their explanation is that -- that it's a general market rate, and they look -- they look at the market in general for -- for this area. I have -- I have an objection to that, personally. I think that's too open-ended, just because you don't -- there's -- I mean, sometimes it could be higher, sometimes it could be lower, so -- but there's no -- I like to have a more definite benchmark for -- in order to know exactly what -- where we stand on our investment. Today -- today, their rate is -- is higher, but that -- that's just my objection to that. But -- and on the rate, we also looked at -- at their surcharges, and I -- I'll just read to you what the charges are for the services that -- that we use. And, one -- on account -- account fees, which are maintenance fees, the maintenance fee for -- at Security Bank is S5, and Union State is $12. Credits, posted for Security Bank is 25 cents per credit, and for Union State it's 30 cents per i i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 105 credit. The charge for -- for checks posted -- in other words, that's our checks that are posted against our account -- is 10 cents at Security and 11 cents at r7nion State. Items deposited, which are items that are included in our deposits from whatever the deposit is, it's -- the bid for Union State Bank is 3 cents per check on -- on checks that are drawn on Onion State Bank, and 7 cents per check on any other check. At Security State Bank, the -- the bid is S cents per check deposited, regardless of whether it`s on them or not. And, general -- that's the services that -- that we use, primarily. I think the others, there's some different fees involved, but they're -- they're insignificant and immaterial, I think, as far as the bids are concerned. So, our -- our recommendation at this time is to -- is to present the -- award the bid to Security State Bank. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move the motion to award the bid to Security State Bank, per the recommendation of the Auditor and Treasurer. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that t}ie Court award the -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It wasn't me: I 1 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 106 recused myself on this. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I seconded. JUDGE HENNEKE: You're right. Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court award the Kerr County Depository contract to Security State Bank and Trust and authorize Judge to sign same. Is this for a term of two years, Tommy, or -- (Mr. Tomlinson held up four fingers.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Four years? MR. TOMLINSON: It's actually -- it's renegotiable after two, if the Court so desires. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? Again, let the record reflect tYiat Commissioner Griffin has recused himself based on his position with the local bank -- stock position. All in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Let's return to the regular order. We'll go to Item Number 25, consider and discuss proposal from Keith Longnecker for architectural services to complete the lower level of the Kerr County Courthouse. Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Mr. - -- - - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 107 Longnecker? MR. LONGNECKER: Yes. I've offered the Court two proposals here, one being for architectural services to draw plans, construction documents to complete the space -- office spaces for the Kerr County Juvenile Probation Department, and corridors leading to both the entrances at the lower level on the north and west sides of the annex building. Drawings will consist of preliminary floor plans showing sketches of office and locations and arrangements, overall lower level floor plan showing locations of Kerr County Juvenile Probation offices in relationship to the rest of the faci]ities on that floor, complete construction drawings of the Probation Department and cost estimate of construction work, including professional fees, permits, materials, and subcontractor costs. Here I have the fees listed for preliminary floor plan sketches, $4&0; all other construction documents, including any bid forms and other administrative services mentioned above, $2,520; consulting engineer's services, $3,000; total fee of 56,000. This will need a -- we'll need an agreement between myself and the County Commissioners, much the same as we had when I was doing the liaison service for the new construction and remodeling construction/renovation of both of these buildings. The other is a proposal for construction 108 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 management services. It lists all of the services that I'll be delivering. Receiving all necessary bids of subcontractors and material suppliers, coordinate community service work with the Kerr County Sheriff's Department and Kerr County Maintenance Director. I would like to hire a contracting -- hire or contract with the foreman to work full-time with the community service personnel and receive my interpretation drawings and specifications. This means I've got a person in mind for that, a Mr. Hank Lacey, who is a carpenter and a good -- did a lot of general work here with Stoddard Construction. He's very interested in having this to do and would like to join in the deal, and I can either contract with him to handle it or he can be paid directly by the County. It's something we -- that still needs to probably be worked out. Keeping accounts of all costs required to complete the work, setting up, maintaining communications by cell phone. That's the way I'm planning to do it, or by office or business phone. A construction office L don't feel will be necessary. I think Glenn Holekamp, our Maintenance Director, has agreed that I can use a portion of the Maintenance office down there if needed. And then we'll need a staging area, of course, for materials as they're delivered in. And, of course, the -- the balance of the unfinished area would serve for that. We may need a few 109 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 parking places outside. I'm not sure yet what kind of requirements there's going to be for equipment or anything, but I don't think we'll have much of that. My fee there is based on $40 an hour, or $3,920, as near as I can estimate. I have a schedule that I'd like to run down through of how I might do this. I hope to be able to finish all drawings and everything by the 11th of June, and actual construction work could begin anywhere between the 11th and the 15th, that week. In the meantime, subcontractors can he invited to quote their prices and be selected. It would i probably be just -- depending on what kind of work community service can do, I only anticipate HVAC or mechanical contract and an electrical subcontractor. Just two, t think, is all that will be needed. Some of the materials and most of the long lead items that it takes time to order and get in, which is -- such as any doors, door frames, things of that nature, perhaps some ceiling material, can be ordered probably before the drawings are actually finished. And, coordination between using community service can be started on arranging to have meetings with Glenn Holekamp and your Community Service Director, who I think is going to be on vacation the same time I am. I'm having -- going to Alaska for two -- for 12 days, actually, and will be back on the 2nd of June and be able to finish the drawings at that time. 110 1 i 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Keith, let me ask you a question. Who -- who is the Community Service Director? MR. LONGNECKER: Right now, I can't remember his name, but I was told that he's not going to be here. MR. HOLEKAMP: Phil at the - JUDGE HENNEKE: It's Dan Edwards, isn't it? MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, I think we're confused here as to what's community service and Sheriff's work program. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MR. LONGNECKER: I'm sorry, I didn't realize what -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I think that we had agreed we're actually using prisoners, which is not the same thing as Community Service Program. Okay. That cleared it up for me. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. Maybe it's a question of you, Commissioner. I thought when we got into this lower annex, that we were going to plan for its entire use, including the County Attorney's expansion. Not just. the Juvenile Probation, but anything and everything that needed to be planned into that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This only indicates to me that we're talking about Juvenile Probation, with no 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 concept as to how the remainder is going to be -- MR. LONGNECKER: Well, if we go back to my -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- finished. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, no, you're exactly right. Our budget -- this is -- the entire budget does Lhat one office. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think the question is ttie planning that's going to be done. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my question. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is the planning that's going to be done just for moving the Juvenile Probation Department, or will you plan for redoing the County Attorney's office, moving the Treasurer's office, but the funds are only available for the Juvenile Probation Office? I mean, I think that's the question. MR. LONGNECKER: The funds that you have will -- you know, 1've offered in this proposal an estimate of the costs, and 7've been given $60,000. JUDGE HENNEKE: I understand that. The question is, the preliminary drawings that you identified in your architectural services, are they going to be just to move the Juvenile Probation Department in there, or is it also going to include where the County Attorney's office would be revised once we have the funds for that, and where the Treasurer's office would be relocated once we have the 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Funds for that? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Will it plan out the whole area and then have a detailed design for the Juvenile Probation? That's the question. MR. LONGNECKER: I hadn't planned to do that at this time. I had planned only to provide what the budget will stand at this time. Now, when I draw the overall plan, as it suggests here in my proposal, I can show what will be done to the County Attorney's office, the other areas, the Treasurer, computer services office, for storage and -- and toilet rooms and everything else. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's the issue, because what we want to avoid is only addressing the Juvenile Probation Department office and then find ourselves in a situation in another budget year, whenever we have funds available, that we have somehow managed to box ourselves in with regard to, say, the Treasurer's office. So, I think what we're looking at is the need for an overall plan, which I think you`ve -- you may identify in here, Lut implement only the Juvenile Probation Department portion of that plan. MR. LONGNECKER: That's all I had planned to do in the -- JUDGE HENNEKE: But I`m looking at Number 2 under Architectural Services. It says an overall lower 113 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 level floor plan showing the location of the Kerr County Juvenile Probation Department offices and the exit corridors. Will that floor plan also show tkie proposed expansion of the County Attorney's office and the proposed location of the -- MR. LONGNECKER: No, it will show the existing conditions. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. What would it take to -- to augment that lower level floor plan to include revised -- the revisions to the Kerr County Attorney's office as well as the proposed location of the Treasurer's office? Not implementation, just where they're going to be. MR. LONGNECKER: Well, if you want - if I do complete preliminary sketches -- and how far do you want to carry it? Do you want to carry it to the acceptance of the County Attorney and the Treasurer and -- and the computer service and any other offices you may have iii mind? If you just want a conceptual idea, it won't take very much; I can show that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; That's what we need at a minimum, is we need a concept plan for the ei,tire area with the proposed areas where these various functions will go, and then a detailed plan of Juvenile Probation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. Functionality and allocation of space. 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L 1 22 23 24 25 MR. LONGNECKER: Okay, I can do that. And I would have to sit down and estimate the number of hours that it will take to do that and give you a lump sum figure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First thing we're going to do is remove the computer guru from our thinking. MR. LONGNECKER: All right. That's news to me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that's a later agenda item. Okay. We11, do we want to ask Keith to bring this back, then, with the costs for the overall conceptual plan? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I thought he just said that he would include that in. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, he said he'd have to sit down and figure out what the additional cost would be. MR. LONGNECKER: I can include it with this -- with this -- these drawings, but it's going Lo take me some extra time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two questions I have. One is the -- I guess, under the architectural services part of this, does it -- it doesn't specifically talk about A.D.A. and City permits and all that other stuff that we get burned on every time we build something around heLe. So, it's going to -- does that cover City permits? MR. LONGNECKER: Yes. 115 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: And A.D.A.? MR. LONGNECKER: Yes, mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Tkiat was the first part. The other part is the -- kind of two parts, I guess. How long would this take, the construction portion of it? MR. LONGNECKER: I have a schedule that I'm offering. I believe I already had said that June ]5th, no later -- starting no later than June the 15th, and I'd like to see it completed by July 30th. six weeks is the approximate length of construction needed. And, no later -- it's somewhere between that and the 15th of August, no later than that. JODGE HENNEKE: Of course, that will depend upon the availability of -- MR. LONGNECKER: That depends on the Sheriff's help and everyone -- and I'm -- I have no idea what kind of help, only that the -- we're going to have to do it. And, I can only estimate that, but that would be my best estimate of when we could complete the project. And, of course, as soon as it's finished, they can move in. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the other part of the -- my question, or final question, is it's hard to -- to be using jail labor; it's hard to figure out the total cost. But, on a percentage basis, it appears the fees are high. And I'm not familiar enough with building projects to know 116 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 if -- if, on a smaller project, it's going to be higher than you normally have on an architectural contract. Or is it -- if we added the labor, that we -- it would get more in line with the 5 to 7 percent, which is generally what architectural fees are? MR. LONGNECKER: You'll find that most of the other firms here in town would charge you a good 10 percent of the construction cost for this small job, and I think mine will be less than that. And, that's what -- and I think I'm more than competitive with all the other firms in town. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what -- basically, what is the -- on smaller projects, the percentage goes up to 10 percent, as opposed to 5 to 7 percent for a larger project? All right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Can you give us an estimate, Keith, of how many -- how much additional money it wuuld take to do the overall plan versus the specific Probation Department plan? MR. LONGNECKER: I can maybe stay in the ballpark with it, but essentially you need -- you're going to need close to $180,000 to $200,000 to -- JUDGE HENNEKE: No, I mean -- I'm talking about your services. How much more is it going to cost for to you do the -- 117 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. LONGNECKER: To do the overall conceptual drawings? JUDGE HENNEKE: Are we talking another 10 hours? Another -- MR. LONGNECKER: Probably. Probably another 10 to 12 hours. JUDGE HENNEKE: MR. LONGNECKER: JUDGE HENNEKE: MR. LONGNECKER: in here for the -- just the sk Probation. Looking at another 400 -- $480. -- $400 to $500. See, I have -- I have $480 etches for the -- the Juvenile JUDGE HENNEKE: So it we doubled that, do you think that would be adequate for the total cost -- I mean the total floor plan? Conceptual? MR. LONGNECKER: Yes, just for conceptual studies. JUDGE HENNEKE: MR. LONGNECKER; JUDGE HENNEKE: MR. LONGNECKER: time that it takes for meeting JUDGE HENNEKE: We're not asking you to go and out exactly how the -- Just for But not Right. Because s. I think sit down conceptual studies. for approval. that -- it's just ae understand that. with David and work 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LONGNECKER: Right. DODGE HENNEKE: -- layout would be, but to give us your best conceptual vision as to how it could work. MR. LONGNECKER: Right. DODGE HENNEKE: That will give us something to start with, and then I think what we're trying to do is meet our responsibilities, so that we don't put a plan in effect that hasn't considered the overall purpose of the floor back there. MR. LONGNECKER: I think, then, that the double of that to take that $480 to, what, 5960? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would encourage you, though, to visit with the County Attorney and the Treasurer and at least -- I mean -- MR. LONGNECKER: I won`t. Not at Lhis time, no. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, 1 mean, I see -- I don't see much point in doing drawings if we have no input at all. I don't think they need to approve it, but I think that they're -- I mean, how does Keith have any idea what the County Treasurer's going to need space-wise if he doesn't visit with the County Treasurer? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, there doesn't seem any point in doing it if we're not going to at least 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have some input from the people that are going to be occupying the space. I agree that, you know, we're talking more square footage limits and things. MR. LONGNECKER: Let me explain it a little different, Jonathan. What I will do is I will talk to Barbara and look at what her space requirements are, just as I did with Kevin Stanton on the space requirements for the Juvenile Probation. And, I -- I don't start any conceptual ideas or plans without knowing what that program is for the conceptua] study, so that would be -- that would be part of the 10 hours that we're adding onto it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay. That's -- MR. LONGNECKER: The drawing time is, you know, less than half of that time. It will be times for meetings and for covering my other hours that I use for research and what-have-you. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's all I -- MR. LONGNECKER: Is that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that covers it. MR. LONGNECKER: Mm-hmm. DODGE HENNEKE: That will put us slightly over what we've allocated for this, but we're talking about a couple hundred dollars; I think we can squeeze that out somewhere. So, if we -- what I'm hearing as a consensus is that we -- second page of the architectural proposal, the 120 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 preliminary floor plan schedules, make that $960. The change would also be reflected on the cost estimate for the construction management. Instead of $6,000, it would Le $6,480, which will take the total up to $60,138. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And under the sec vices, Z -- I guess we can have an actual agreement that he brought back to us. JUDGE HENNEKE: Right, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think it skwuld specifically mention the permitting process and A.D.A. requirements, just -- MR. LONGNECKER: Do you want -- now, in other words, before when I entered my proposal, the County did write the contract that was eventually signed. Is that the way you want to work it now, or do you want to -- a full A.I.A. contract or something of that nature? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think -- JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we can do the -- we'll get one done. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The County can do one. MR. LONGNECKER: Okay. Do you all understand my estimate that I gave you here, the breakdown, that I do have a $4,000 contingency in there? JUDGE HENNEKE: No. MR. LONGNECKER: No. I'm in hopes that if 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 121 there's anything extra left over -- and, naturally, I'm going to try to do this -- you trusted me at one time to bring in the new furniture for these buildings under $50,000. I believe we did that, so I'm going to very much try to do the same thing with this $60,000 budget on this project. JODGE HENNEKE: I know what the answer to this question is, but I'm going to ask it anyway so that it's on the record. In your estimate, the subcontractor and materials cost, that's based upon your visiting with people and also the cost of materials? MR. LONGNECKER: Well, I didn't necessarily visit with anyone. This -- I just more or less have taken the square footage cost of this project; there is 1,478 square feet of area, and looking at what is there, what we have in availability, and going into all the materials, just on my knowledge of cost factors and -- and cost of materials such as metal studs and sheetrock and ceiling materials, that kind of thing. And, really, I did not spend time going -- I expect to have to ask for some prices to do -- and get the different prices from electricians and -- and mechanical contractors. For instance, I'll be asking Hardin Heating and Air to turn in -- I'll ask if they'll give us a price on what it will take to do the duct work and the diffusers and remounting 122 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the thermostat, which -- and what little work there is to do in that area. Also, I don't think we need to ask Design Electric to come back from San Antonio. There should be enough local electricians here and contractors that could do it for -- for us, and ask them for prices. But, this is an estimate that -- that I'm -- based on my experience and knowledge of what costs are today. And strictly an estimate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only comment would be that -- that we approve his original -- the $59,658, or approve his plan, and then when -- then when he comes in and adds on hours, that we -- that we deal with the numbers at that time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Come out of Contingency, the extra $480? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just at that time. I mean, let's approve something that he's done for us, as opposed to approving moving some money there today and -- and let him spend it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 7 agree. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. We need a motion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let's see here, 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 by golly. I move that we approve Keith Longnecker's proposal for architectural services to finish out the lower level of the courthouse, and with the preliminary -- the prices would include the preliminary floor plan sketch at $480; all other construction documents, bid forms, administrative services, $2,520; consulting engineering services, $3,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then that's a total of $6,000. Construction management services, $3,920; contracted foreman $4,800; subcontractors and material costs, $40,938. The total cost of the project, $55,658. Possible contingency of $4,000, and a possible total cost of the project, $59,658. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question, first. JUDGE HENNEKE: We need to have a second before we have a question. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll make a second, but then I have a question. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve the proposal from Keith Longnecker for architectural services and the proposal for construction management services as originally submitted. Any questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not going to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2q 25 124 read my whole motion? JUDGE HENNEKE: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My first nitpicky question goes back to my thing I love to talk about on how things are posted. I don't think we can talk about the -- or vote on the proposal for construction management services. It's only posted to talk about architectural services, and the way the backup was provided, I don't think we can vote on that one. JUDGE HENNEKE: I -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right. JUDGE HENNEKE: We can't vote on that portion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the architectural services part, under the $480 for preliminary floor plan sketches, I thought that went up to $960 to cover all of them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're absolutely right about that, too, Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right, Those were my only two comments. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Ts that a friendly amendment to increase the plan to $960? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, that was a friendly amendment. 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Was that accepted by the author of the motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, in a friendly way. So far. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Then, the motion on the table, then, is to approve the proposal from Keith Longnecker for architectural services, witri the increase in the allowance for preliminary floor plan sketches from $480 to $960. Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on the next agenda, bring back the other part of the contract. DODGE 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. Thank you, Keith. MR. LONGNECKER: I can expect the contract from -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, the County will prepare a contract for you. MR. LONGNECKER: Okay, thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item Number 26, consider and discuss supporting House Bill 1445 and 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ authorize County Judge to sign a letter to that effect. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. House Bill 1445 came to my attention a couple weeks ago. As you know, the law today is, if someone's subdividing a piece of property in -- in the ET J, that person would go over to the City, go through a public hearing, pay all the fees, and then come to the County and have a public hearing and pay all the fees. This bill allows the City and County, bottom line, to get together and, through interlocal agreement, agree to one or the other government entity Lo handle the -- an issue like that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The approval too? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Approvals too. And, bottom line is, this thing has -- it has beery approved by the House of Representatives. It's gone to the committee, and -- in the Senate, and has been coming out of there with approval, no amendment, and it's going to the -- it's going to the full floor. JODGE HENNEKE: Commissioner, I don't believe it came back -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's gone to the full floor of the Senate for a vote, and -- and they dun't -- they see it going without any -- absolutely any problem. It came out of the Senate committee without any amendments, 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 127 also. So -- that was over the weekend. So, Lhe thing is already rocking and rol]ing, regardless of what we do. And I talked with our senator's staff this morning, and they -- they're going to support it. So, actually, I don't think that we need any action here. It looks like it's going to move forward without us doing anything, anyway. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's good legislation. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's going to be of benefit to our constituents, I can tell you that much. JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we just go on record as supporting the House Bill 1445? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we go on record supporting House Bill 1445. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Third. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court go on record as supporting the passage of House Bill 1445 relating to the agreement between a county and municipality to regulate a subdivision in the ETJ of a municipality. 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. 128 I 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER BALDWSN: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 27, which we actually talked about, is to consider and discuss changing the date of the first July Commissioners Court meeting from July 9th to July 6th beginning at 9 o'clock a.m. Once again, this change is to accommodate the South Texas Commissioners and Judges convention, which starts in Beaumont on July the 9th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court change the date of the first Commissioners Court meeting in the month of July from July 9th to July 6th beginning at 9 o'clock a.m. MR. TOMLINSON: I'm just -- I'll just tell you that it won't be good. So, iY -- if you could possibly call me or something next week. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the convention basically runs all that next week. MR. TOMLINSON: No, I mean, like, the middle of the week after that or something like that, so we can -- JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll work around that. r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 MR. TOMLINSON: -- pay bills. 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.) JiJDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 28, consider and discuss allocation of office space for systems support operation and for the information Systems Support Specialist. Commissioner Griffin. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. After Shaun Branham came on board, Tommy and I got together and went through all of the -- sort of the scenario for how he will provide support and what kind of office space he might need and work space, primarily, for troubleshooting equipment and so on. We also determined it would be almost cost prohibitive to consider moving the mainframe computer. He needs to be in that area, and to move the mini mainframe would be a very cost prohibitive approach, because he'd have to splice every one of those lines that terminate in that area now, which would really take a long time, cost a lot of money. So, in looking at -- at that area back there, what -- what Tommy and I have come up with and would like to propose to the Court is that the mini mainframe and that 130 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 whole area stays as it is. That area that's just outside of the mini mainframe area, we'll convert pieces of that or parts of that to an office space with a work bench for troubleshooting hardware and that sort of thing. The storage shelves that are in there will remain. We would also leave those two doors just the way they are so that license plates that have to be shipped or brought into the building three or four times a year can be still pulled through into the back of the Tax Assessor's office. I think that this is a -- that would be a very cost-effective way to -- to meet the requirement. We'll have to add a computer, which has already been -- that's in the process. That will go in that outside area. That's the woLk area that Shaun Branham will have for his primary function of building web sites and -- building a web site and that sort of thing. And the mainframe area remains unchanged, which is a big cost savings. I'd like to propose that that's how we allocate the space. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; I agree. I agree. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments? Paula? MS. RECTOR: Can I say something? I had written letters to all the Commissioners iii regards to that space back there, because it was at one time part of the Tax Office. My office is -- we're outgrowing our space as it 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2` is. I had asked for additional storage space. And I want to correct the statement that you made about the license plates being brought in two or three times a year. Because of the lack of space, we're having to order more often in smaller quantities, because I have nowhere to put them. Also, a lot of the equipment, the paper, the toner cartridges we order in mass amounts; I'm also ouL of space for storage on those. That's why I had asked for that additional space back there to use for more storage. Linda had offered part of what she was using in the old jail for some of my records storage, and that -- since there is no I climate control up there, it's damp, it's dusty, it's dirty; that's probably not feasible for me to store records. And, I would hope -- I had hoped that that space would be reallocated back to my office for storage. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me answer the question -- let me address the first part of your comment. The doors will be there. If we -- you've got to bring in license plates 10 times a year or 20 times a year, you can do that. I mean, there's no -- the idea would be that we don't restrict that passageway through there. MS. RECTOR: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; So that that -- that would solve that problem. I would hope that perhaps we would address, as part of the build-out, if we've gut to 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Zl 22 23 24 25 132 store things like license plates, that that doesn't require what I would consider sort of Class A office space. We could perhaps work out some storage in the build-out area, which could be climate-controlled, but perhaps not -- it wouldn't be fancy, but -- MS. RECTOR: You're talking about down below? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. MS. RECTOR: Okay. That would mean my clerks having to go downstairs every day to get plates. I mean, that's kind of -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, I think we would want to have an intermediate area. We'd get primary building movement up to a -- up to some storage area. I think we -- as a matter of fact, I think if we reworked that who]e back end of -- of your office, you know, it could be done much more efficiently for storage of -- of records and license plates, perhaps, or whatever. There's a lot of unused -- when I say "redo" it, because there's just some unused space that I think if we rearranged it a little bit, it will work there. I mean, I think we could rearrange that to bring you a lot more usable space than is there now. MS. RECTOR: Well, the reason why it's arranged as it is -- and you've seen back there. I have ancient storage cabinets and drawers and files that have just been things handed down to me over the years. Sut, a 133 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lot of those things, because of records retention, I have to keep on-site, and we do periodically go back and get into those. But, as far as the -- the paper goods that we're required to have and the license plates and that type of thing that come from TexDOT, those have to be where we can get to them in a moment's -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm not talking about moving anything out of there. I'm just saying to rearrange it to make it a little more efficient, is all I'i~~ talking about. I think the space there could be better used, is al] I'm saying, if it were rearranged. We'll have to get - to address that, and I have to get with -- with Glenn and see what we might be able to do. Add some additional shelving, perhaps. MS. RECTOR: Well, that would -- that would be an option. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The prob]em Cf~at we have in the information support area is that -- is that that information support function needs to be next to that mainframe. So, if we're not going to move the mainframe, then we've almost got to put it there. That's the problem -- the dilemma that we're faced with. And, it makes sense that if we need additional storage space for -- for the Tax Assessor/Collector, that maybe we need to address that in this build-out, this lower build-out, that would 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 adequately address all of that. I'm talking about for long-term storage, not for the -- not the stuff you've got to look at every day. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I mentioned to Commissioner Baldwin at the tail end of the other topic that on that -- that plan should entail some space for dry storage and bulk items and other things. You know, just a proper utilization of space, and it needs to be considered. He said it's -- some folks had already indicated how much space they needed. We're at least talking -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: YeaYi, it's coming. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But I think we can I adequately address it without trying to use that particular area where -- next to the mainframe for something that's not -- to put that support area somewhere else for the mainframe other than in the vicinity of the mainframe just doesn't make any sense. So, I'll grant there's some dilemma there, but I think it's one that we can solve. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; I do, too. I think if we work it out -- I mean, it can be worked out. I see it as a workable plan. And I agree with you, it needs to stay -- we need to stay with the computer area. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's Ltie cost of moving the mainframe? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't know. Tommy, 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would you have a guess at that? We're probably -- that's -- I'm guessing if you had -- if you had space to put it, you're probably talking $20,000 or 530,000 mirrimum, 'cause you're talking completely rewiring the whole -- and that's all the Class 5 cable and -- MR. TOMLINSON: Part of it is optical. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And sume of it's fiberoptics. You've got two hubs in there, or -- is it two? i Are there two hubs? So you'd have to rewire those hubs, which will -- wherever it goes in this building. You're talking a massive rewiring job, and I'm just guessing at the number, but it wouldn't -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: That answers the question I wanted to know. I assumed it was going to be a pretty substantial number. I just wanted to get it un the record. You did that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, it's -- and that wou]d include some considerable downtime, because you'd have to -- MR. TOMLINSON: top of that, the phone company lines. Like, for instance, we that end-points right there in to be redone to patch with the COMMISSIONER GR Well, they'd have to -- on would have to reroute some have a one-key -- one line that room. That would have Sheriff's Office. IFFIN: Uh, yeah. 136 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: So, we'd have to do the phone -- just rewiring the cabling is not the whole picture. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I agree. I mean, I don't see any other option than to locate the Systems Specialist back there. But also, I visited with Paula. I know that's she's in a real space quandary back there, so anything that we can do, even if it's -- I know it's not budgeted right now to move things around to help her space out or her storage ability. And then, if we have some things that she can put downstairs, I would certainly support that as well, because I know there's -- a lot of us are -- you know, most departments actually are in pretty good shape now, but she's one that needs - in all the remodel, didn't gain anything, and has grown. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would certainly say that we're going to take care of the storage problem. We've got enough area in this courthouse now to do that. And, I'm just saying that the -- that the information support function, just as a part of that overall consideration, this appears to be the way to go. Not to lessen anything -- any of your requirements. MS. RECTOR: I understand that. As long as my situation can be addressed and we care take care of that, wherever it's -- JODGE HENNEKE: Let me suggest that we get -- 137 1 G 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ask Mr. Holekamp to do us a plan for redesigning the remainder of the storage space to make it more efficient and to meet the needs of Paula. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you sure you don't want to hire Keith? JUDGE HENNEKE: No, I think we want to let Glenn do this one. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I would be glad to help with that, come up with a design and get with Paula to make sure that -- and see how much additional space you need, make sure that gets fed back into the -- to the allocation of Space. NUDGE HENNEKE: It's a good idea that we implement immediately, we don't wait until the next budget year, 'cause it's something you need to have -- you need to have right away. MS. RECTOR: That was the reason why I had asked fcr that additional space back, because it would have been the ideal area for my voter registration records that have to be kept indefinitely and things like that, that -- that need to be in a climate-controlled area. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can solve some of that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 13A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Z5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think S made a motion, didn't I? JUDGE HENNEKE: No. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I will make a motion that we allocate the spaces as discussed for the mainframe and the area next to that for the information support function -- operations and for the specialist. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could you include in it the revamping of the storage space for ttie Tax Collector? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure. I mean -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it gets done. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure. And, we'll look at that whole storage, both for, perhaps, redesign of the area that's available and what additional space, climate-controlled, that we need. Yeah, we can include that. MS. RECTOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court allocate office space for information systems support operations and for the Information Systems Support Specialist next to the current mainframe, and prepare a plan for redesign of the remainiiiq storage space to support the Tax Collector's office operations. Any furtkier questions or 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a related question to Commissioner Griffin, if I could, please. This morning, in your opening comments, you introduced Mr. Brannon -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Branham, B-r-a-n-h-a-m. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- as our new Information Systems Support Specialist. Are we going to bring him to Commissioners -- bring him to full Commissioners Court for approval of hiring a person? Or was that done in a previous -- it may -- back of my mind, seemed like we did something, and I cannot rememUer what that was, authorizing you to do some things. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, we created a position. Then we created the committee -- the search committee to evaluate, and we put out the notice and -- you know, through the Texas Workforce Commission and Texas Workforce Center locally. And -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems to me that it might need to come -- 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Z 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: IIe's an employee of Commissioners Court, correct? COMMISSIONER GRIFF[N: No -- well, employee of the County and reports to the County Judge. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Commissioners Court. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The County Judge actually has the hiring and firing capability, the way we structured it. We did approve that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought Commissioners Court -- JUDGE HENNEKE: No, he was specifically set up to report directly to the County Judge. That's the way it was approved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the job description, and that's -- and we did that so that it would be -- you know, every County employee has a reporting officia] that hires and fires. You know, it's obvious to say that if -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not true. Glenn doesn't. Marc A11en doesn't. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, what I mean -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: They report to Commissioners Court. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They report to 191 1 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 L L 23 24 25 Commissioners Court? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, every employee doesn't have a person. There's two right there that have -- COMMISSIONER in the reporting chain -- COMMISSIONER JUDGE HENNEK COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But there's somebody LETZ: Not those. They report to the Court. LETZ: They repoxl to the Court BALDWIN: I guess my question - GRIFFIN: Who writes their evaluation? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- is has this Court approved that slot? I guess we did approve the slot. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the budget process. JUDGE HEPSNEKE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then along comes John Doe. Does this Court approve that person Lo fill in the slot as an employee? I would think that that is a County TreasurerlPersonnel question. MR. TOMLINSON: Depends on -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're the Auditor, Tommy. MR. TOMLINSON: What -- it depends on, I 142 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 think, on who the supervisor is. If it were a slot £or my department, then I would approve it. In this case, if -- if the person reports to the Court, then the Court approves it. If he reports directly to the County Judge, then the County Judge approves it, as I see it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the way it was created. MS. NEMEC: What does the job description say? Who does he report to on the job description? Do you remember? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: County Judge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- you know, I didn't even notice that. It seems odd to me, but what's done is done. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We11, the reason that you should have -- if we don't have, we should have an individual on every job description that that person reports to, because that person then is responsible for that employee`s evaluations. We've talked about it several times, but I know we don't -- JUDGE HENNEKE: The department heads are hired by the Court. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there is no -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 143 JUDGE HENNEKE: So there's not an individual. There's an entity, which is Commissioners Court, that Leonard and -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- and Marc and Glenn report to. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 1 understand. JUDGE HENNEKE: Not a specific individual. COMMISSIONER LETZ; This is making two systems now. We have some that report -- or one that reports to the County Judge, and the rest report to the Court. So, we're treating -- we have people that are, to me, on the same type level, they're being handled two different ways. COMMISSIONER. GRIFFIN: Well, and we can fix that, but -- and we should. But, you know, the idea is -- is that the job description says that the Inforiuation Systems Support Specialist works in the Commissioners -- the department listing is Commissioners Court. The -- the person he reports to or supervisor is the County Judge. That's the way it's listed. JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's go back and look at that when we do the budget, and if we want to clean it up and change it, we can. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We do need to be 144 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consistent, and we should -- and we need to, perhaps, look at our other job descriptions to see where we've got -- we end up with a problem. I think in any personnel system, we -- you would always end up with prob]ems of employees that never are evaluated if they report Lo some department or entity. They need to report to an individual. It's just good personnel management. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wouldn't want that person to have to come in here and deal with a]1 five of us, or all five of us trotting down there. I understand that clearly. But, I also look at the reason that that person is reporting to the County Judge, is because County Judge is CEO of this Board. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way T thought of that. MS. NEMEC: I think he should report to t_he County Auditor, and that would take care of the problem here. And -- and, really, if you come to -- if you think about it, the County Auditor is the one that really knows what's going on with the computer system, anyway. He's the one that's going to be working with him closely. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the current Auditor, not necessarily any auditor. MS. NEMEC: Well, true. At that time it 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 L S could be changed, though. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And this County Auditor said he wanted out of business, and we're doing everything that we can to meet his needs. JUDGE HENNEKE: We're probably starting to skate pretty thin on the agenda item. Let's go back to the posted agenda. MS. NEMEC: Don't you want another employee, Tommy? JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item Number 29, consider and discuss funding of the placement and service of two portable toilets for public use on County property at Lake Ingram Dam from May 25th, Year 2001, until September 4th, Year 2001. COMMISSIONER BALUWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Up until '97, the County did this at Lake Ingram Dam on -- next to the dam area there. For whatever reason, it was dropped, which really creates a -- a burden during the 1~igh tourist season, because people want to qo across the street to those strip businesses in that strip center there, and - the Dam Store and others. And, those septic systems were not designed to handle that kind of ]oad, so we're creating a real threat to the river. And, the proposal is to go back to the system where, just during the period right before Memorial Day to 146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right after Labor Day, we put those two there, have them serviced. The total cost for that was 680 bucks -- $680. I'll make a motion that we do provide that, and that the funds be taken from Contingency and paid directly, since there is no line item for that. That's what Tommy tells me we need to do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court authorize placement of two portable toilets at the Lake Ingram Dam on County property from May 25th, Year 2001, until September 4, 2001, at a total cost of $680, such funds to be taken from Nondepartmental Contingency. That seems pretty low to me. I mean, that -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: well, it's -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Two port-a-pottys. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- $170 a month. JUDGE HENNEKE: For two? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: For two. And that includes the service. So, I didn't argue. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: A comment. This relates to what we're trying to get down at Flat Rock. I've been visiting with Bob Barker at Freed and Barker, and they are 147 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 working on designing a precast system t}iat will go at Flat Rock, and it would also be suitable to put both at Ingram and at Center Point, 'cause it can be outfitted with a septic tank that has to be pumped on a regular basis, not a sewer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS; That would be good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, we're working on -- I met last week. We're trying to make sure the design is functional. I think they're also looking at it as a way -- a new thing they may start creating and building. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: WYi~ are you working with? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bob Barker. They're looking at doing it in such a way the that the plumbing is cast in with it, with all the fittings in tYie wall, totally indestructible system, concrete roof we put on it and stainless steel fixtures that are all built into concrete, or pretty much attached to it. But, anyway, it would be something that could be used in all those facilities if we can come up with a design that we can afford. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only question is, did Letz really get the second on this, or is it mine? JUDGE HENNEKE: Whatever was reported. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I seconded before it was even made. 148 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L 1 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right. Fair is fair. COMMISSIONER BALDWTN: That's right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion made and seconded. 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. I think that was an aye by Commissioner Williams. Item Number 30, consider and discuss the approval of Hermann Sons Bridge Advanced Funding Agreement with TexDOT and authorize County Judge to sign same. Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This -- I alluded to this this morning. The price tag of the permanent structure jumped in the last two weeks from about $600,000 to about $900-something thousand. The -- and while we're at this point, I guess about 10 days ago l met with Bill Tucker and Mike Howard, and we walked the river to find out where the best location would be for a permanent structure, and pretty much identified what makes the most cost-effective - even though it seems pretty expensive, the cost-effective location. And, they cannot authorize -- they will not start doing the work on it until we pass this -- or, I guess, approve this agreement and authorize it. What it adds up to 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is a commitment of the County for $92,110, plus 100 percent of all right-of-way acquisition costs, and there will be right-of-ways to acquire this new locatioc~. Any location -- anywhere we move the bridge or put the bridge is going to have a right-of-way scenario to it. This is probably less than some of the other options that we looked at. But, that's where we are. Timing, it would be constructed basically 72 months from now, hopefully. That's their best guess, is 12, 14 months from now, so next budget year. Rut, we need to figure out where we're going to come up with $92,110. Plus the -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We really need to come up with 12 now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the $12,000, I think, will come out of the -- the flood money. I mean, to me, that's something -- the bridge washed out due to a flood, so we can tap that fund that we have to use fur floods right now, and then look at, during the budget process, exactly what -- where the balance of the money is going to come from. Rut, $12,000 can come out of that fund, and the majority of the money may be able to come uut of that fund. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How much is in that fund? Do we know? COMMISSIONER LETZ: A hundred and -- MR. TOMLINSON: About ]10, I think. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 150 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quite a bit. I don't know. MR. TOMLINSON: We've spent some of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to use some of it on the temporary, but a lot less on the temporary than we at one point thought. But, it still -- but, anyway, that's where we are. I'll make a motion that we approve the Advanced Funding Agreement with Texas Department of Transportation. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you want to address the issue of funds? COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the $12,000 -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Or later? We have 30 days. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just do it now. And the $12,000 fee, which is to be due within 30 days, will come from the -- what, flood -- MR. TOMLINSON: Flood Control. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Flood Control fund. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And authuLize County Judge to sign same. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve the Advanced Funding Agreement for Hermann Sons Bridge with 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Texas Department of Transportation and declare a budget emergency and to allocate $12,000 from the Flood Control line item for the initial payment of the County's portion of that project. Any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll -- my only comment would be that during my commentary, I made a comment about engineering versus just getting the job done. TexDot's engineering fee is $120,000 for this project. (Discussion off the record.) 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. I believe that's all. We are adjourned. We have a workshop posted for 2 o'clock on sunset, so we'll see everyone at 2 o'clock. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:15 p.m.) 152 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 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 21st day of May, 2001. JANNETT PIE PER, Kerr County Clerk BY : _____~~~n^~- ~Qi~cLG -___ _____ _ Kathy Bani Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter of:Dr-_-_.I rlo. ~ ~raa~ae ca._Aa:rls Whin Accc:uJhrrs On this the 14i;h day of May, ~?0FJ1, r_anu~a •to be r:~oi7~>idr=read by thfa ~.oll'rt Va'r i.OllSi C(7mm.L ti5;1. C,ile'rs>~~ p'rec:l. llr?'t5y WtI :L Ct1 $i<{:1. f1 (.:L CY 7.m5 and Accoi.mt<.:: are: 10--Cicanerr:1.30, (l'7~+. J.:ri; :1.9.--Ti.rry F cn'xl fn'r i>:if,k. 3E,; 13°-hoad R Hridgra Add']. fr:rr• k%'.;i3,(~]::39„(il].; ].~+-'I-irca 1='roter..ti.ar, fnr 9:6,c?;if].0H;1."i-fioad R Rri.dge for 9>17,7.6E1.fr7;19'-1='ub:Lic I_ib'rtary t'o•r• A.5?~3, ~?k6. 33;i3.'r.2'-F ].ood Control. for a1=7.,9':j6. G,I!~;.~"".I~IWFi?Il1. i. 6:d S•tai;e A:id Fi.n',d for ~i'E.i:L.HFI:;'r.'k•°''T'rafFic Safety Fr.~nd ~fcrr 9>%? ~. i~C,;87--J'uvcani.lc? Tntensivr_ I'-'rogranr-'Sta•be 41i.d P'r.uu'1 fr:rr• tic?`SF1.9E,;EiH-Tndi.gent Health Care for 'G:L4,'J<<+.Hc;E,i--L_al~:e :L'nl]ram Ics't-atE:<.~ I.oacl Dist•r:i.r_t; L'tond I'-'ror_eed<.; ir:rr• ~L~f~, L'10~:,. 00; 70-'f•'ermaYlellt ]. n11:Yr CYVenlell't fio•r ~1, 397. `i4; Al°-D:i.strir.?t Admi.nisi:•ration fio•r sG9G.l:1'l.; (33-State 1=ended -- 2J.6th District Attorney fi0'f` ~1,A:•,5.:7PJ;86'-State FundecJ - c?16Th District Probation fo•r $S, G]. Li. 6H; 8'%•-State Funded - Comnn.tnity Corrections fio•r ~6, 380.35 (TCJTAL_ OF AL.L FIJhIDS:B>C 62. J~J.06) lJpon motion made by Commissioner G•ri.fifi.n , seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, payment of said Accounts as •recommendrad by the Coi.inty Auditor, excluding payment of X78.00 (630-•Health Depa•rtment). fief: i.nvoi.ce N ].2507 f-'atty T:Lnney-Corrt;rar_t L.~bc,r. f]Ri)1:~h NCI. i?!(~FJ:I. Z+IJT)(:~,1_C'i' AI•IE::NI)Ig1E:a~l'i' ]:ICI f::(:)Na'i'Ai:(I._E; F'C:7. #r f:hi t17:i.ss ta,e~ ].41;h day of Ihay, i''_(i)fJa. (.(pon moti.(:rr~ nr~ 5if?(::C11'7df?CI L)y f]ommisl~>i.(:,nc-?•r L.h?{;Xq {a1E? (:Dort unanimously approved by a vote of 4_p"w {:o {rrans•fr~r A>i?(~. J.G from L.i.ne 1{:r.+m No. ].(%l--Cir"".~ -:3(i)'J F'os{;agc? {:o L_:i.n+~a :[tc~m hl(:~. :LQ)~-~.`'i;`'S%?--494) I*I:iscel.a t:hE-+ l~ii:h day o~f May C?F.IF.I].,, upc:rri nttr(:i.on madE~ by ..c-ctmdcarl b Comma<.:>~>ioru_+r Gr:i.it:in, thEr C:o~.rrt Cc:amma.s>r>:~oncar L_E~tz, ~ :+ y unanimously approved by a votca of 4-EJ-~7, to Iran:3':)':7., (ilt3 fi'rom L_i.nE_+ I•tcam No. i34°-5t3'.°i-:3:3(d Opera'ti.nll Sr.y:apa.:i.e>urtzr .and Cvoi.rnty Audi.tcrr• arcr hearrahy ar.chtao~r•:ize to wr:i.~~E_+ :399.EIt3 fo'r i:•rc~i.ni.ng sem:ia•aar E?Xpf_'1'1SE'S.. (]IyI)I=Fi NCI. ?'--lL%IL%13 I31.1I)CiE7 f-ll`1Ei:hIDMF.i:NT' Ihl 'iFiE_ CCIUN'iY Jfa:la.- FdNI) iHl-. EiFIF::F::CFF"'!:~ I)EF~'FdR'I'I'IE::NI' On laii.<.:; 'bl~ua 1.•rith ra<':ty of I"lay cZ(dC11., iapan mot:i.on m.zdr± by f]r.~nuni.<,s:ianer Crr:i.fi'i.n, sctctc:rrulr~d by (::ommiss:ioru:rr I'taLdw:in,, tFir;~ Coi.cr•l: unanimously approved by a vote of 4--PJ-O~ 'to 'lrr•ans'fe'r 8>%'.~`:')(~'7.].tS 'from I_:i.ne :Ci:em hlo.,. iPJ--;aGFJ~-].Cd.S Scac•r•et<:rry Saaary <:trua i;c:~ transfer '.61Y,'77`;,.Elr".? fram L.. i. rte ]aem hlr.~. 7.FJ--':'i:Lc.'.--:LC~6 Nurse<_; {;o be pi.i•L- :i.n thsa foa.law:i.riy L..:i.ne± I:~tem!s: I_.i.rua :Iacm hl<:~,, iH--Fi;J.c?--c?~)3 Fietiremei~t: wi.~Lh ~E3:3`i.K?9 L..:ine I1:cam Na. ].C~•-FiLF3-F3(%li' Gr•aGii:~ Tn<.r>u•ranae w:i la•i ~:r'?, FI7(%1. i'.~+., L..:i.nc•~ 1'•l:c~m hlc:>„ '1(%1~-~.`:;:LL~--c?E~7. F":L'CFl I:~xpen<.:>ca w:i.l:h T>E1:3E,.9:1. and L_inc~ I~bem hla,. ].FJ°-5].'r.?--1f~ta (atami.n:i.<.;'tra~l:i.on Lier_retary wi.ia7 'S 7.[~,534H.1]Cl i.n fi:hF_+ (~r:x.irity :fai:l rind Y'hr;•~ 5h~'±riff''s DE~partment. CiUDCiI:::'T' fal`tf.=Nl)I'YI_M'i' :[N 1lif:: £37.f5'i'I-I D7:S7RICT' C:OUF2'i' Rl~li) 'i'I~if:_ :L'JCl'TM D:CfiiT'I~i]:C:'T' C;QUf~'T' (]i~ tiu.sa 'Lhe_+ i~ii;h dc+r.~oncl Fsrl by Commi. m L_7.nra :Iaem No. ].(il~-4::3(n. 4].7 f3E~nai.a7. 'i'r:i.a7.<_> 'F.t:> L.:i.riE:~ T1:r:~m hlo„ :LCO-~4.3Ei-'~#:LI S[~et:>i.aa. 'T`ri~'1<.:> i.n the i~if.~,t;h Di.s~t;ricl: Cf7U'r'I;, dlld 't;he ].9131;h i)i<.,tri.r_t Ct:n.tr~l:,, T3UD(il=.'T' AMf-.NAM[=h11 7:N 'T'I•if::: (':f:lhll*I:I:SS:[OhIL=FiS° C:LI(.1F~'T' FdNA N(]N AIF.:T~~Far; nne::hrrral... On th:i.<_> 'thrr a~+th rlay c:+F 1`1'.i>:L O11E•?'r L.. F.?'(:Zg 'talF.? (Jourl; unani.mcrusly apwrwecT by a vote of 4-0-0, t:n trr<:ur<.:,fc+r 9>(Sf%][~., I~R1 'f`rom L..i.nc~ :f.i;crm No,. ].C~--k(T:3 :`.i%:1. Cnnt:i.ngenc:y t:cr I_.:i.nc~ :C'(;c~m No.. :Lf~-4(~7.-4:3~~ hlcr't:i.re~~> i.n f.:cmim:i.ss>:i.anE_ar 1._E;~'I::z, <.;>ecc:n'idE:>rJ lay Ccanmii.~;s;i.onc=r (:~'ri.'f fi.n.~ 't:hr., C:cac.cr't: unanimously approved lay a vote of ~i--0-~7, t:a Iran 'Fe'r. '.I;Ciri?,.`'i~C~ 'G`roin I_.:ine> :[tem Na„ 'l.(~J-.4Tci--c ].Ei f::mpl.oyF•~c+ 1''rai.ni.r7g aril to l:'ran<.:>'fer ti~i(%1,.R1(~1 frcam L_i.ne 7aem NI].. 1(!1..4':35~-4'j'J I'li.s>ael.lanr_+ac.c<.ts to L..i.ne~ :[tem No., IF:J--49F.i--4,~SE, Mac:17:i.rn~~ F:epair i.n thet Coc.u'rty f-lc.cd i tar' <.:; a'f f i. c:~~~„ (]ftDFEF't NCI. r".:? 7(7(%1'7 LiUI)(]IT AI`tf:=NDMI=N'f :f.N (](:AJhT:Ei (;Cll_L_f:-Cf']:(]hIS D~F'(-1P2TrII:~NT' f1hII) hIC]hl I)I:::I~'(aFiTML•::N'TAI_. [:hi •lari.d by (]omm:i.s>sic:mfc~rr '.6P.i7.:;.:3(%l •from L..i.nra Iaa~m No. SC~1.t+(]`J--E57(%J C; IIo :i.rrl•:n L..irx: lbram No„ ].0~-~ii3")--~i`.SC. Maca-iincr Fieprx:i.r i.n tl'ic~ C:oi.crts (,o 1.7.c>at:i.ansa Dc•~pa'rtroerrt and Non Uc•~parl-mEantal. CII'iI)I.h NCL, i''7f7E7l3 Iil.1DGE='i AMENI)MENI' IN THE: 17E37H I)IS7Fi:IC:7 CCIU(1'i - JUF~Y FUND f-1ND :CI+I 'T'H1= i?].E,T'H DI:3'T'FZ7:(,'T' (:f:)l.ll';'i ~- JUI':Y PRJhID fan 'C:hi.<.:> 'laua l.~tth day a'F Inay "r.?FJFI1.., +.rlror'r motion m<:tcle Ivry Cc:mun:i.<.:>s:ioncrr W:i.'17.:i.am<.t>9 <.ncond+;~d by C:c:rmmi.s;lsi.one'r E..c_~tz, 't;Fr e, (;our4: unanimously approved by a vote of 4-f~-0, tc:r irr Pcrr 9>2, S'7'7. (dC~l 'F'rom I_. i.rrea 7aem hlo, i. i.--k:a'S°-~+9c? J'ccrr~r!s i:o L..inr-+ Ttem Idcr. :L :I--k;E3Er-4'JEi C:ou'rL- :L'rrtErrpreter in the ].9LYbh I)islrri.r_•t: Cour'L- . Jt.rry franri E?].Gi;h I):i.rr Ci'r:i.f'P:i.n., t;Pre., f.;oi.i'r'P: unanimously approved by a vote of 4--~1-0, i:o i:'r.:u'r<.:;'ferr 'bc.'.tiG,,, (~1(>1 fi`rom I_.:i.nc~ :Iac~m 1•ICI,. :Lfl--~+c?':3--:3(~1':) f'c:a~>'t;alTs_• 'P:o L..i.ne :Iar~m hlo. 1[7--kii29-~4£?(%1 'T'e+l.elal'rorre <:uua to transfea'r ti2.7.~+.H(%1 •('rorn Line T'tem hlo. 1.FJ .•~+'r.'.':3--:3:1.:°i Eioo4c,, pula7.ic:~<:rtion<.:, 'bo I_.ine :Ltenr NG. i[ Goa.a.ect:icn'r Dc•~pa'r'P;nrFn'r't:,, (af'I~'Ii(J(JI_. Fi611~IX) (::I~II:::f:;l: fiE:: [MIr~~coru]ed by L'omm:iss:i.onEa'r C~rr:i.ff:i.n, tl'ua (]our•h unanin)nusly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, {:o I:rn:we r(;~:imh(.(r•<.m(~r)')'L- by hand r..hrm6% :i.n th(a amour{; of '.6i2kk..E,ES 'fcrr a)•rru.(a:L r.. 7.crrk. {rrrxr•:io V(aneyas, and author:ixe Co(.mty 'T`rr•.•)(.rrr>•r and Cc)(.u){:y fa(.id:i.'La'r t(:) wri.tc~ OIiDI~Fi NCI. c7t%1].7. Wfl]:VI~ fl1~ID Fal='1='IiOVI= I*I:I:I~II.I'TI"(.3 t]n 't;ll:i.:L (:711 fd4rr:i.:I. 9t;11, fiil:7e?c:iaa. Sc?=>s>i.orr Fapr:i.l. card, EiI]e?r.:ia7. SE;?s,>:ion Apri.7. i?3rrl, aanfa 5p+zci.al 3f?ssa.on faI]ri.a c-l•F:II,, Yerar cfJt]].. Ai-'I'-'RC3VA1_. (71=' M(]I+I'i1iL.Y lYl:::f'(:1F'2'T'E:3 (:h'1 'thi=_i thlea 14th day of I•I<:~y i?FlF3:Ly upol't moti.ol~ made-~ lay (.'.(:1n1111 :L'.:i <.~:I.OI'lt-.+'r W:I. .I. .L :I. et lll!:iq !SG`t_C11'1(:I E't:l L)y (.'. C)nlnl7.'.:i!:i :I. (:11'lf?'(• F.rcl7. CIW:I.1'1.1 tl'le C(n.cri; ul'lanimously approved by a vole of k--H--C~, to accept 'the fol.l.awi.ny report '(':i.7.(:rrl w:i.th 1:he L:at.aity C::Le'rk. far '('t.tt.ure at.ua:i. t: ;tannt:±t'L- F~'i epe'r .._ C:ourrby C::I-e~+'r(r. 'T''rt.tt•ri.r_1: C:7.er#:. April 'c?F]FJ1 Report Iaabe•rL- I_. T'c+nt~l'1 -- .T'.I='. ##;:3 Ap•ri:L i?HFJi. F:eport Dawl't Wri.yht •- J'.F~'. ##2 April c'.fJ(d1 F Depa•ri:nu+rrt Monthly F:e>por•t -- December c'.FJHO Jannett F'iepe•r ..- County C:1er•I•. Trupo•rt: -- Ap•ri.l 'c.?F3F11 GE.=ntzr.'al f-t.md feptari: -- Ap'ri.l. rClC11 W:L:L:L:i.am Raysda.l.E•~ -' :J. f~'. ##4 April. '_0(di. Cyelaort GIRDER NOc:7~1• C155F AMENDMENT TO F'ARRGRAp'H 1@{B3 (7) R.1 On this the 14th day of May '..001, ~.~pon motion made by Gnmmi.ssianer'~ Griffin, seconded 6y Commissioner Williams, the Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, 'to amend paragraph 10 (b) (77 a. 1, Page 4 of i;he April ..:2nd draft, that the words "system shall be a~_ithor•ized" be changed to "therefore, applicant may contin~_ie". a1:DCf, Na 7C1i.4 r~r~r-~ra~ral._ al- ossr rr-.~a:~>zrmi Fll•IF..I~IDE-D F3Y aEiDE:Fi Na ?_78)13 on thi.c~cn'tclcacl Iay L.f.7n1n1:LEi5ia.Otle'f` L..e'tXy {:he Court unanireously voted fay ~; Vote of 4--El-FI, i;ca adcala't 'LI'te 'rf_'V'l. 9i Ei'd 'rU.~. fi?'.S C1 {' lief"r t..faf,lll't':yy rE?% Cnf.rri: o'F tatty rlor..ument outai.ninl~ the i.ns,pefrti.crrt p'roc~e+dure,=_>,. URDF.:Ii NC1 L7t]].J (al"'F~'(:I7:ly'i' MIS. :i'rlJ(~1~'T' X3flf2f 't;l'le? ].4Lt1 flay o'F I'1<:ty E.'.L'1[%l:l.y f.yarrrl mt:rl;:i.orl mcuaer Iay L:f:lnlnla.'.ii'.ii 1. f:111f?'r t_E.''t: 7.q 4>f.'CYC)1lCl f?ra 17y L.On1n1 i. 535i :i OllE''r' (Al 1. .l. .l. 1. i.31115iq ~;tl@' (:ar.f'rt; unanimously approved by a vote of 4-(i3-0, 'tc:) apl:)o:i.rrL I•Pr„ :iitl.far't; Ifa'rrf:rrl,, Is'F'Fr=crt;:ivr~~ Islay 1.:`i;4;1'1,, Yr_+.a'r 'ri?Crlt<]]. ., <•:~_> Kea'r'r Cc:x.n'rhy ta. t:i.. EEi. F-. Ih;?!;:i. iln<:rLed IRe?I:mE.,i'7 mEr'Lif:7r7 m<.:>:i.tarre'r W:i.7.T.:iaro<.:>9 Seconded Ivry Ct:rmmi.st~>:i.crnt~'r (ii'r:i.'f'P:irr, 'byre Ct:nart unanimous>.ly app•roved by a vcr{:e of 4-0-0, 'la'rc:~ apl:r:l.:ic~<':rL:i.on to flue hl„ f:. fl. 1=ot.nx:la'b:i.on Grant f~"ral)'r<:un ft:rr a i~r<:u'ri; tt:r bt:~ t.t T)E;>partmcrni:y and all'(:h to s:i.yn 'bl~rt~ saroc~r. f.~X~fl_.I~II) UI::l~UI....l'I~If= f'L7fi I'tl°F"'.~ al-IP:~I;:C F"F'"S X)F:F~T'. t:t71'll*Il.lN.T. L"A'i101~1 £iYS7E:M Iln 't;l'i:i.<.:> 't;l'i~-~ :L~+'tai clay c>'f I~I<:iy i_'.(](?11., r.rl:~oii mo•F;:i.cn'i m<:tclet Fey Ccnnm:i<.:,s>:i.oric~'r L_t~'Fr<.:,,~ they Coi.r'r'L- unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the rc+yi.uast 'Prom 1•Ic:rk;oro:L<:i 't;o c:=xl:rrrua 'F;I'iea [:Ie 'i:;l'u~ 1 ~Eth d<:iy ta'P m:.iy c?G1f%)1., l.ll:x:n'I mtnt:i.tan nxuatr Iay Ca:nnm:i.<.ss:i.t:n'iE:rr l..ei:z, <.:>ect:nuJe~ta I:~y Commi =.>:i~ncrr G'ri.i'i:i.rl, thE:+ fa:u.crt unanimously approved by a vote o•P 4-0-0, i;o at:ltal:rl: i:hn I:er"r [Jol.lni;y :iher:i'F'f°~> nEapari;nuan't I''oLi.tzy arua F"roctrdurea=.> nlal'tl.l<:l:I. a~i F1'f`e'Sf.?n't;c!CI. clrnFi; Nn ~ ~caG~fa raurhaar,7:zEarlf]ri r+Y cf:whr 1-ohi 7.f~f~ cf:)r'lE::~~ CIF' KL•::FR COUN'T'Y 5HE::fi:E.F"f'" S DE:F''T'. F'C1L..7:CY i1N1) F'FiOCLi]UUh~Ei.S I'IANLIRL_ f:h'i 'Lh:i.s 'I:I'ie :L4thr d<:ty o'f hl~iy F'.f%IL17., ul:ron mot:i.t:n'r m<1clt:~ I:~y Ct:anm:Lss>i.crner 1t_+tz, strraondead by Ct:nnm:i.ss>i.oner C;'ri.f'f:i.n, ttxa Cnt.r-r4; unanimously a~p'r•oved ny ~~ vote of 4-(~•-C~1, 'Lo <:uai:Iror:i.zr;~ hayi.ny fio'r ].fdf%] aopi.e:,<.:> o'f' tl'7r+ Ke'r'r• C;ocm'l:y Sher:i.'Ffi"<.:> ~ep<:tr't;merrl'; f't:":L:i.r.:y artta F"r•oc~edt.trcrs M<:u'uaaa., and U:i.i'uaerr<.:; i`t:rr eaahi :i.n <:~r'i anuai.rnt; ruai; 'l; t:" tax<,et~:~d `f;.ri"(%1f%)Id.Id L1" t.tporr 'la'rtt~t 'rercra'i.l'rh; hey ~l;he~ :iiMc~r:L'ff t:"i' no'l: lass; tl'}an tl'rrec+ b:i.cl=_; fo'r• sur..h frri.nt:i.nq, w:i.tfi funds t;o conu+ from hfu_+ Nantac~l:~artmt:+rrl: I:~y f'Jc:~mm:is :icmer l.+r~tz., <.:,F~r..orttarrrl try Crrnuni.s~>:i.orwrr W:i.a.a.l.<:un<.:>~ 'ttut~ (:caurt unanimously ah~rovEZd by a vote. of 4°0--0, tc:r <:u:~r_cal:rt: la:i.d<.:> 'From Srx_uri.ty f3't;ate St<:n'iF:. <:u'u:l 'l`ru<.:>'l; aru:l thi:i.c:n'r 3ta't;+;> I3cu'ilc <:incl refcrr ttu_+m to thE:~ LL'r:n.n'ity l`nr<'a~>r.r'rc+r <':u'id 6aurli.tor for rer_omeru;l lay t:famm:i.sr><.:i:i.c:)rir?'r f:,'r:i.'fi':ir), se?cc)r~cled L)y Cfamm.r.s><.:>i.c)ric?'r L_e'C:z, 1:1ie Oot.cri; unanimously apNroved by ~Z vfate of 4~-0-0, to alaaruafar), di.sr_on'L:i.ru.IC, ar)ci v<:u::<'a't:e~ 'T`ra:i.larrr 'T`r<:ui.7., 'f` I'1<:ty i_'.flf%)]..~ tal:>t:nt nuyt:i.c>n m<:uiea Ley Ccnnm:i.ss<.:>:i.c:~nr:rr W:i.a.a.:i.<':un!s>~ y Cr.7mm:i.~s=.>:i.c~ru>'r Eta:Lclw:i.ri,~ 1:1-~r:~ Cc~tart unanimously approved by a vote of 4--FJ--~I~ i:o <:ila<:ursac:~n, d:iac~orrl;:i.nue~, aril vac~a~l:ca I:cer•r CourrLy I•I<':i:i.n't;~riarir..r~ c~'(` Vr~r•dr_~ I•Icas:><':t Dr:ivet f:.. in Vista h:i.clgc:> ~~uhrli.vi.s>icrn,. ornrl Nf:l ~t~~c~c>~+ 41F'I'-'07:NT 1'IR. C.-_bW(1RD NC)IiT"Fi Ra PiGL..l:I) Wf1Eill: CClI)E:: E:NF"CIFiCF.::h1@=hll' CIF"F'l:f:EFt f7r) 'tI'I:i.'.ii i,lu? :L~+lrh d<':ty o'P I'1y CIf]mm:i.<.:; s:i.orurr W:i.a.:l.i.<:un<.:;, 't:flf:, f:aurt; unanimously approved t)y a vo'tc of 4-0-p, to <'~.pl]t]i.nt I"dwarrl No'r•l;h <:iu t:hf? 4iiol:i.t1 Wa<.:>tra f:odta I.:nforcemc:m4; (a'F'f:i.rx?r il'f 'f f:?f:?'f: 7. Vf_~ :I.Illnlf:`CI :I. cl'f: C?.(y, W7.'f:l'1 I'1 :L ~i ~:)eaf:: f:? f:)'f 'f 1C'f:?'(•9 !i 1:L CC?7'1 Ci (^? 'f:C) I]f? c:.arri.r~rl 1]y f':onn~rL-ab].ea. I'1rC:a.t.f'r•cr :i.n G:'r•taciru:rL :I .. UI:UI R Nq C~ ICJL:?:J f'1.11Ct1._TC I~C.-=(1R:f.NCi Sii1T' 1='C1R J'l.Jl_.Y EiT~I-I, i'(:J(?J 1. R(:JFaI) hIAMFE: CI-If1NGE_33 :I:N F~'C'T'„ i. F1hII> F'CT.?_ (]n '(:I'r:i<, t;hcr :L~o't;li rlfty crF I`1ay (?L~(!>:i.crru_~'r W:ia.a.:i.am<;.r ssrarxrruaena by Ccrnun:i.i.crrurr F.'t<:~1rlw:i.rr.f tFu+ Cocrrt unaninu:rusl.y ah~•rov~d by a vote of 4-0-0, 'F.c:r <.:url: ai pt.tbJ.:i.r.. hu±<:i'r:i.nll 'Fo'r Jt.tl.y f't;1'ry Ya~rrr ii'(~(?J7.~ iii; :LfBc(!l(~ (l.l•L, :i.rr •(arc~ Ccnnm:i.F~ to f:`f)1'lEi 7. (:I F?'r 'r f:)<:t[:I llal)1 (? t_hangrat:; 'Fc:rr (:`(:r4Ul'I;.y 111 LL ]. 1'itil :I. n(i!CI 'rS:r idCl Si :I.n F"rtrr_:i.ru:rt 1. <:vxl G^rcroi.ru:rL F2 :i.n <'nrco'rcl<':u'rcca w:i.t;h `~'la. gt.cirler7.i.rtct=_;.~ and <:u.tt;l»c:rr:i.zr~ acavrrrtisr~rmc+n'h: o'F :i.t. ORDER NO c74~r:6 RE'P'ROVE NRMF_ CHRNGES FOR FACT. 1 RND F'CT. IN ACCORDRNCE WITH 911 GUIDELINES On this the 14th day of May 2~T~1, ~_ipon mot :ion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, road name changes for privately maintained roads in accor-dance with 911 yi_iidelines in precinct 1 and precinct c, to eliminate duplir_ate names p~ars~.~ant to the schedules presented far' those precincts. The Road Name Changes ar•e as follows: EXISTING ROAD NAME REQUESTED NRMF CHANGE G~_~ssie Way So~_ith Markgraf Ln. E HER Camp Vei^de Rd. E Kelly Caliche L_.n. E Liz Link Ln. S Indian Campo~_~t F'ass N F'ar•k Lake Down Ln. N ORDER NO ~_70r6 CONT. EXISTING RORD NRME REG?UESTED NAME CHRNGE pecan Rnnie Ln. E S Ranch Ho~_~se Ranch Ho~_~se Lp. N Ridge King Ln. S S Valle Verde Terra Grande Rd. S Verde Creek Ranch Bledsoe Ranch Rd. E Wyatt Dean Ln. E Mountain Top Mountain Top Dr•. S G?~_iail Valley Emily Ln. S North Trent Thad Ln. S South Trent Trent Rd. S None Cookies Ln. S QI'~DI-:F~ I~10 %?7fdir77 (al '1='1~[)VI_: I"T:I~I(al_ F'I...fa'T Of' tifaN'T'f) I:(dl~lt;tl I::~iT(17f:-~:~ F'C'T'~ %? t:h'i ttr:i.<.:; 'Cher :Lkt:h ~1~zy o'f I*I<.:>:i.one-rr W:i.a.a.:i~ Silo?CC11'1CIC?CI f)y (.',001171a°_iSi:LCi1}f?'f` T$t<:rt:ra<. i.n I''re+c:~i.ru:"L- r'.:?„ C7RDIf; NCI 'r.?7C~i'Ll (--ll~'1='li(:1V1= 1''I{I=:1._l'MI:Nfll~l' Itl=.V1:S7:C11~1 (71~- F'fal..l._1:NCi Wfa7'I":It f'I._f17 L_(:1'T'4ii 97,9f1., 1C~(~~ l.fdi~ 1.:1.78, 1.:L7L'y :L17D,, :L190, AhII? 1:L 9S) ~il'_='T' I-'11i31...1:C: L~1=:fali:LhlCi (]hl f:i(algl::: (:)n 'ta'i :i.'t:r, s;crr_onde~d by Ccammi.t:;=.>:i.rnrrrr Wi.a.a.:i.amIlfl~:i[- 7::1: (:ifi(lhl'i' Vfl~ii:(lhlf::l:- C)hl Ci(al•II=:/ ].'r.'?f%I I...f]'i'~.i AI•I AVLF2(1GL:. C7F' 3.,-:3 6aC:F~F.::S [:)n 't:h:i,<.a 'I;I;ta 1.~t'l:h day o'P 1'I<.:>:iorurr C)•r:i.'ff'i.ri, sr+cr:n'ttiecl by firomma.s} :r.r:;r;e'r L_F.?tr.,r 'LI'ic f;nr.irt: unanimously aplrroved ny a vote of ~i-~7--(~, thic:> hrrs~a.:i.m:i.na'rY rtw:i.s>i.cm crF pi.<:r~ i`r.;'r t:yp'rc+<.:;<.:> F.ip'r:i.rui=s I: .~ <:rh ::~n <~v~ar~~gc.> crf 3...3 ar..'rr:,<_>ionc>'r tiiri.ffi.ny=_ur~condc_ai I:ry Cc:nnm:i.ly af~17•roved by a voi:e o~ 4--(7-(8, 'LMe I:rrr..~7.iminarry re~v:i.s:i.on o'F l.o'L 'F'or 1._oL--ss 1.':)Ay 1.llC{, 1.ijA, su'ua 1.'7I3 AI~IZ) 1.'lA <:,.ncl {:c:~ =.>crl: ri..atc± na'~i.r.>c:~ 't:c:+ bEa y:i.vr~n 'For l.f~:l.`; a.. m.. t;tu= ].~i'taa clay t:rF I*I:i.cmcrr Baa.clwi.n, '~I'u:., C:ot.tr•h; approved by a vote oi' 3-Cpl-l~ry (Commissioner Griffiin recused) , 'to aw<:rrrl 'k;hta Kt-+'r•'r CcaGrrrLy T)epos:i t;o'r•y r.:on'lrr<':ir.~t; t:o SEE:~at.cri.ty :i'l:a'Lcr t3ank. <:u'tta 't'rust: Gu'ul at.tt;l'ror:i.ze> the Ca:n.n'rl';y :J't.tdclc.> I]hDFSF2 hICI 2%(83i? (11='G'R(aV1- F'kOF'fhifdl._ / 1•:1=::f.'TI-I L_OhICihIC:::f:YJc:R faP2Cl-Cf'TIEC:'T'tJ12611._ Sih:=hiV7:C;f:::F.i W:h.TFI Thl(::121:::f1CiE:: :I: hl fdl...I...C)WFdI•IC:F." F'f2t]I*I !I>•t+l:10•• H(?I 70 ~U~)E,C~•• (~I(%1. (]n thi:i<.:> thu:+ :L~+'t;I') d<:iy crt' 1'iay i'C!1(%11.~ (.tl:wn mt:)'t:i.f:n'r made I:)y C. f.Y 111 111 :L'.35i1 f'}n(i?'f` ),:id.I. CI W:I. 1'7y <_~;c:•c:. rn'ul c+d by Cc)nuir:i.<.:><.:>:i. orusrr L..fr't:x., 'Lhc~~ Co(art f.manim~(.f~s].y approved by a vfrt;e o'f ~+--CI--~I, tf:) <:il:)I:mfave thin proper<.:>a7. i`rom Keai.'l':I') L_(:)nL]1leCa'.Ic''(' 'h(:)'f` <:l'r(1h1't;f.'C`tl['r`<:l.l. '.3E!'rV:LCfi.".iiq w:i.t;hh 't;hu~ i.ncre_+4El(i1,.(d(il to 'f>S1Ei,(%L(rl(~. anti 'L-c:r h)'r:i.r)1~ 'ta'rr:> nr;~x't; pa~r'l: hau_hc on 't;hn= ruax~t; <'zclt+n (:Ic:L.. I]I:T>Ich NIJ 'r_?'7C13:i3 '.ilJl'-'G'I:1F2'T' F'(aSSf-lfif:= Of- HOUSG: ztla...l_. :L44:i; f:h'r 'ta'i :i.<.:; 'ta'u-~ 1.~it;h cl<:xy crf M<:iy ~tClfil:l., t.rpc~n mn't::icnr Ccnnm:i.<.~<.:>:ioncar I3 i.paa.:i.ty tc:~ Fl 1.1 l7f.I :L F;V I. F.i 7. t:111 :I.11 't:h F? f:_'1";f c:r'f a nun~ci. r_:i. l:r<':x:L :i. t:y. nmdr~+ I:ry Cir:i.fiF:in7 thr> t:<:~ rar:r on rcax:~r:rrd rf=aal;i.ny L-r:~ the r•f~,lu:L 'Llta~ 1.k'h;I't <1rt nt<:tclr~ Ivry I::crmm:i<.:>+~cx:n'tdr:rcl by Comma.<.:><.ai.orut~'r Cir:i.f'f:in, t;3u= Cr:x.cr•L unanimouea.y da'I:c> ofi '~Inr> f:i. r=.>'l; Crrmm:i<.:im,. (]fyDl:_I~ MCI 'r.?"1013:':; 01=h I(:1-: F.il'faCl:" f'f)I; :C IJI-ORI`1(J7:C.[)N i:iY~il1:1*IS ~it.ll'I'01'2'T' t:ll'I:::I~(a'T'I(:Il~lf:i (aI~ID INF'OFtMF17:[01~I SYS7E::1'1S ~3lJF'I'f]F2'T £3F'F."Cl]:FdL...T.SI'., Ori i:;l'i:i.=.a 'tl'tr..;> :L~+th cl<~y o'P I'1ay i?fl(ila.,~ ~.rhori mat;i.ori m I:~y (Jnnun:i.t:><.:>:i.c:rr~e:~'r Grri.f'f:iri.~ =.>:i.c:n'urr W:i.a.a.:i9 t;hie, (:ma'r't: unaninuu+sly approvecJ Ley a vote of ~+~-A-~(7g 'h;o I:~atr.e 'fo'r :i.nfinrm<3'L-it:m 1:crmul:~l:x:rrt c:rpl:~e'r <:utta icrr 't;he+ Trrformati.on ;:iy=.>tem<.:> ~itrE>4,o'r'L :iil:x±c::i.aa.i.<.:>t; ru;>x'L i:o 'Lhr+~ c:~ur'rc+rrit ma:i.n'Fr<:uiiny <:u'ua p'rel:~ar~~ a I:~:ht.crr<~rac., r'r macle~ Ivry f::c:rinm:i.<.:>~>:i.orurr f:ir:i.i''F:i.n,, s.:i.c:n'rc~'r I_.c~t;x., 'tyre, Coc.rr'L unanimous. ].y app'rovecl by a vote of 4--C~1-(~~, 'Lo <:u.c'h;tu:r'r:i.ze> plar..e+rurrrr't; of t;wc:r I:ro'r'tal:ra.c:r 'L-cr:i.a.rat;; a'b L..a4cer :I:nra'rr ~i,, it(~C%1:1.., <:rt; a 't;o#;;:tl. co 't;o I:xa 'C:a6:rrrr 'Frc:ror hlor'rclep<':i'rtaner'r'l:a.l Crrnten~er'u:ry,. fal'I'Pi[JVfal._ f:n=' razwral~lra-:c) I l.1ND:I:h1ITi Ga(iil'if:li_I"Ifi:N'T' f-C)k Nli.fil"Ifahl £iC1hl'.3 I31.:I:I)fi;Ei: W:C'T'FI 'T'XIH:1"f Ahll) I)f:::f.?L..Rf:fi: S~'Sl.lDC31C"(' I2:1"IFia:Ci[-Nf.:Y (:hi 't';17i.=.; 'l';I'~r:~ :1.~+'tli clay of 1"1<:~.y 'r.'(%lf:i.C~nra'r Lr~{:z., <.atzt:>crrua+;icl C>y Ccmun:i.<.:><.:>:i.c;rus~'r W:i.:L:L:i.<'amss,, 'LI'it> Ct:n.crh: unani.mousl.y aF+Nrrov+atJ L+y a vt.~tt~~ vfi 4--F]-°Cl, 'l';hc~ faclv<:n"ic:c~d I'urua:i.nq f-li~'rrat:~me~rrt: 'For Flca'rrn<:ui ':ic:>nrrt; of 7'ran=.>I:,crr'l:a'L-:irrr7 area 'h;t:+ :ii?y IJf)fl.. CdC~? i`'rvrn l:hu~ frloorl Ccrrrtrc>:I. :L :i.ru::+ :i. ha+m 'Pr.:rr 'P;hn :i.n:i. L:i.<':La la I:;nri;i.on o'P 't':I';ra't; I:rroje>r..'1:.,