... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 15 17 18 I9 '0 L I G2 23 24 ~~ KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Monday, July 22, 2002 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas ~~ V V 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 25 I N D E X July 22, 2002 PAGE --- Visitors' Comments 3 --- Commissioners Comments 5 1.1 Pay Bills <~~'~~ g 1 .2 Budget Amendments ~ 9Gy7'~y7US5~ g 1.3 Late Bills ~~655-Z7~5d 22 1.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports ~X~'~'~ 25 z~~~~ 2.2 Final revision of plat for Lot 11 of Hidden Hills 26 o? 7/c%/ 2.1 Final plat for Hidden Hills Two, Precinct 2 27 2.3 Discuss sale of property in Y.O. Ranchlands and Dominion Ranch 28 2.4 Request for support and funding of Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. 38 2.5 Request to the Comptroller of Public Accounts to allocate a portion of unclaimed money received ~ 7/c%,~ from electric co-ops back to Kerr County 57 2.6 Approve appointment of election judges and ;7J~E3 alternate judges for November general election 59 2.g Consider Non-Financial Cooperative Agreement ford 7GC~ Workfare, a program of the Alamo Area Development Corporation 64 ~./ Approve 2000 Tesas Community Development Program Colonia Planning Study a 7/c%5~ 72 2.8 Set public hearing for July 30, 2002, at 6 p.m. on T.C.D.P. Colonia Fund applications for continu- ation of Kerrville South Sewer Collection project and Disaster Relief programs J 71v4~, 77 2.10 County Attorney's budget workshop 97 --- Adjourned 125 --- Reporter's Certificate 126 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 1G 11 12 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 On Monday, July 22, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R. O C E E D I N G S JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's 9 o'clock in the morning on Monday, July 22nd, and we will convene this regular special session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Commissioner Griffin, I believe you have the honors this morning. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, okay. Will you please stand, join me in a moment of silent prayer, followed by the pledge of allegiance. (Silent prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, any citizen wishing to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda may do so. Is there any citizen who would like to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda'? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN JUllGE HENNEKE: Okay forward, sir. I think there is one. Mr. Flores? Come MP.. FLURES: Uo 1 come up here? JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, sir. Please give your name and your address, and tell us what's on your mind. 1 2 3 4 5 H 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Z1 ~~ ~3 24 ~5 4 MR. FLORES: My name is Richard Flores, and my address is 15 Valle Verde North. I -- the County, last year, ~~ome and dug a ditch in front of my house. It's been there for 20 years, and nothing ever happened. Now, with this rain, most of my property -- a lot of my property washed off. And I keep going to the County and road people up there, and they just tell me, "We'll go, we'll call you," and nobody's done nothing. And I just thought maybe -- I have to talk to somebody. And they dug a ditch deeper than the Mississippi, and it was there for 20 years without no ditch, and then water was running out and everything. I don't know why and whose idea it was to dig a ditch. Then they dug up a drain pipe that was there for -- cement pipe, and then it took them all day to break it up. Why'd they dig up a perfectly good drain pipe and break it up, and then they put in another one? I can't understand what was the reason for that. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. MR. FLORES: And then my property washed out. I don't know why they dug that ditch that deep. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What street do you live on? MR. FLORES: Teri Lane and Valle Verde, right on the corner, 15 Valle Verde. I've been there for 20 years. 1 L 3 4 5 F 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 ~5 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Flores, I won't guarantee you anything. I will guarantee you a phone call from the Road and Bridge Department. MR. FLORES: They've been telling me that, and nothing's ever happened. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm auaran t.Pein`r vrni that phone call. MR. FLORES: I've been over there two or three times. They just smile and say yeah, and that's it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. FLORES: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Flores. MR. FLORES: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there anyone else who would like to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda? One more time, is there anyone else who'd like to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda? Seeing none, we'll turn to the Commissioners' comments and start with Commissioner Griffin. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Nothing this morning, Judge. DODGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I want to remind everyone that this coming Saturday is our second farmer's market program on the courthouse square. Of i 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 ly 20 21 22 23 29 ~5 5 course, two weeks aqo they had the first one, and it was a roaring success, and I just want to remind everyone of that. I guess this is really information for the Judge. I met with FEMA -- along with our Road and Bridge Department, met with FEMA last week, and we turned in -- filled out and turned in our request for public assistance. So, we -- that is in the -- that's in the mill and rolling. Also met last week with AACOG on the homeland security program. It's kind ~f an interesting thing. You know, the federal moneys now are beginning to come down there on the state level, and they will -- AACOG has been chosen to be the clearinghouse of that. And the particular group that I -- that I'm associated with are the First Responder bunch, which is police and fire and that kind of thing, and it's really interesting. They -- we broke up into committees, and of course, me being a bigmouth, I'm chairman of a committee down there. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, as well, City of Kerrville Fire Department is on a committee, and City of Kerrville Police Chiet is also on a committee, so Kerrville and Kerr County's well represented down there. They are planning on doing things -- you know, a lot of training and communications and -- and if there's a disaster in San Antonio, how -- exactly what the people from Kerrville -- 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 P 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the First Responder people from Kerrville are supposed to do, their position in all of this. And it's kind of neat to see a real plan come together like that, and it's -- I think it's goinq to be a lot of fun to work on. And they're actually talking about, in Kerrville, Texas, the weapons of mass destruction. They will -- we will train our local people to handle those kinds of situations. That was a little bit scary when I -- when the reality hits. You know, qod, we're preparing right here at home for stuff like that. So, anyway, that's -- that's what's going on with that. I thought I'd report it to you guys. JUDGE HENNEKE: Appreciate it. Bi11? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only that Precinct 2 Justir_e of the Peace Dawn Wright met with an accident Nriday, I believe, coming out of Schreiner's Department Store and fell and broke her leg in a couple places; is in lntensive Care at Sid Peterson Hospital. JUDGE HENNEKE: Intensive Care? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She was. But I guess the trauma of it -- she's got a bad back as it is, and whatever, and they had to do a rod and a pin and so forth. Didn't have the right pins or rods and had to fly them in from San Antonio or drive them in from San Antonio. So, she's experiencing a good bit of pain and trauma. J[7DGE HENNEKE: Jonathan? 1 .-~ - 9 S E 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 -~ , 23 ~4 .~ 25 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I'll move to the baseball front; I think actually on two fronts this morning, but Little League, the 9- and 10-year-old All-Stars are playing tonight for the championship. If they win, they'll be going to the state tournament in Waco, which is the second time in Little League history of Kerrville that the team has advanced that far. So -- and they have a pretty good shot at making it to the state tournament; they would have to get beat twice by Uvalde to not go. So, they're in the winner's bracket. So, I wish them the best success. And, Yor those that didn't notice, the old baseball field's gone, as is the old softball field at Tivy. Demolition is moving rapidly along, and Home Depot has told the school to get everything off that property by this Friday, and bulldozers are moving in. So, that project's on the fast track from Home Depot's standpoint, and also on the fast track considering K.l.S.D. is trying to build new fields, which is guite an undertaking. That's it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I'd like to thank You'll be happy to know I haven't found it yet, but I'm not givinq up my search. I particularly want to compliment the article I read in the Kerrville Daily Times about the Road and Biidye Department. They were out on the roads 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ?3 24 ZS 9 constantly during the flood event, performed admirably, as we all expected, and I was very happy to see their accomplishments and dedication recognized by the newspapers. So, my thanks particularly to the Kerrville Daily Times for that recognition. Without any further ado, let's get down to the business at hand and pay some bills. Mr. Auditor, do we have some bills to pay? Does anyone have any questions or comments regarding the bills? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize payment of the bills as presented and recommended by the Auditor. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget amendments. Budge Amendment Number 1 is for the District Clerk's Office. MR. TOMLINSON: The District Clerk has asked -- requested a transfer of a total of $818.63, $.390 from 't'elephone line item and $428.63 from Office Supplies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1h 17 18 ly 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ser_ond. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Se~~ond. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1 for the District Clerk's Office, Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Request Number 2 is General Fund, Nondepartmental, Road and Bridge. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I'm asking for an increase in the budget in this amendment. We have -- we have a bill from Texas Association of Counties for worker's comp. It's for the final quarter of this fiscal year. Total's $55,319.75. At this point, it's difficult to find $34,172 out of the General Fund this late in the year. So -- and the same applies to Road and Bridge. I know that Road -- we all know that Road and Bridge will need every dollar they have between now and the end of the year, so my recommendation is to declare an emergency and take this fund -- take these amounts from surplus in those funds. 11 ,~-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 y 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From surplus in each of those funds? You're not talking about General Fund surplus? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, in the General Fund surplus, I'm recommending that we take the $34,172.30, and $21,142.45 from the surplus fund in Road and Bridge. JUDGE HENNEKE: How -- go ahead, Jonathan. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why is this quarter -- have all the quarters been running high, and it's just catching up to us? MR. TOMLINSON: They've all been this amount. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just that now we've run out of money? MR. TOMLINSON: We just did not budget enough for worker's comp. JUDGE HENNEKE: We tried. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there any reason to think, at this point, Tommy, that the -- that next year is going to be a lot worse than this one? Or -- I'm sort of thinking ahead to the budget process. But -- MR. '1'UMLINSON: I don't know what our experience rate is. TAC is -- TAC has told us that, from a base rate, we -- we can -- we'll probably see the same -- about half of what we saw last year, as far as base rate. But not knowing what our experience rate is, I can't give 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1G 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 11 ~, 2j 24 25 12 you a good answer, because I don't -- that's -- that's the item that really makes a difference. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And it is whatever it is. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. And the Treasurer's office knows -- I mean, they have the information as far as for next budget year as to what our -- what to expect as a result of our experience rate. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I don't think there's anything we can -- I don't think there's an alternative to what Tommy's outlining as a recommendation. Anybody -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not unless there's $55,000 somewhere. And you can't -- DODGE HENNEKE: Not this time of year. MR. TOMLINSON: There are funds in -- you know, in Road and Bridge. I mean, they have not used all their funds, but I just can't see that we -- between now and September the 1st -- 30th, that we won't use that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I would rather use it out of Road and Bridge now and declare an emergency for flood, as opposed to declaring an emergency for -- I mean, there's not any difference; it's going to be the same, but it's just a matter of what you're -- I mean, you can't -- I understand that when we do the budget, we don't know exactly 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~' 3 24 ZS what the worker's comp rates are going to be, but at the same time, if we declare an emergency, I'd rather do it for the flood, as opposed to worker's comp. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I agree with that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what the emergency funds are for. Surplus is to take ~~are of emergencies. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure that there's a question in someone's mind in this audience, what if we did not pay it at a11? Is that an option? Let me just ask that. MR. TOMLINSON: If we don't have worker's comp for our employees, I don't think that's an option. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, why don't we -- the first item, the general workmen's comp, I mean, we'd have to have two pages of budget amendment orders in order to fund $39,000 somewhere. So, my suggestion would be that we act on the first one, and then either prior to the conclusion of this meeting or at the next meeting -- or if Tommy has it now, he can identify the source for the Road and Bridge workmen's comp. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I'm sure -- I'm sure we 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I G 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 LO 21 22 23 ~4 25 14 have a -- there's funds in the Contract Fees for that amount. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather do it that way. DODGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court declare an emergency and in~~rease the budget in item -- Line Item 10-409-204, Workmen's Compensation, by the amount of $39,172.30, and further take the amount of $21,142.45 from Contract Fees in Road and Bridge Department and transfer to Item 15-511-204, which is Workmen's Compensation Insurance for Road and Bridge Department. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. DODGE HENNEKE: We had a second. Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (NO response.) J~JDGE HENNEKE: Motion r_arries. Number 3 is for the Law Library. 1 3 4 F 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 MR. TOMLINSON: This -- this request is essentially -- it's similar to the first -- to the prior amendment, in that we don't have the funds budgeted for -- for books -- for additional books for the Law Library. We have -- we have a bill for $1,101.40 that we need to take from surplus funds in the Law Library. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, Fund 18 surplus. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 3, declare an emergency, and increase the budget in Item 18-650-590 by the amount of $1,101.40, with the funds to come from the surplus reserve balance in that fund. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have a question. Tommy, I think the last time we did this I had the same question. I thought when we went to the new Law Library, we were going to use less books, or more computer -- more of a computer-based system, and we budgeted computers for that purpose. The question is, is that number less than it was two years ago as a total for the year, or are we not following our plan? MR. TOMLINSON: I can't give you a good 16 1 3 4 5 5 7 R 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 15 17 18 19 20 ZI 22 23 24 2s answer without -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you can look into it? MR. TOMLINSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, you };now, I don't see that we -- JUDGE HENNEKE: I think you missed the District Clerk's budget workshop. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did. DODGE HENNEKE: We did ask her that question, and she said it's called Books, but it's sYil1 -- a lot of it is computer scftware. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: But the question as to wher_her the balance is in line, or in the -- COMMISSIONER BALDW7N: She's still getting some of the pocket parts for these books. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I knew there was some expenditure for books there, but I think the total line item is supposed to decrease over time. DODGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget - -n 17 1 2 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 2I 22 ~_ 29 25 Amendment Request Number 4 for the 198th Gistrict Court and 215th District Court. MR. TOMLINSON: This is a broken record here, but this amendment_ is necessary because of -- of the court-appointed -- court appointments that are being made under Senate Bill 7. The request is to transfer $6,954.52 out of Special Trials in the 215th court, $5,130.15 out of the 198th court, $4,211.35 to go into Court-Appointed Attorneys line item for the 215th court, $3,270.50 into Court Transcripts in the 215th court, and 55,585.72 into Court-Appointed Attorneys for the 198th court, and $15 for -- into the Books, Publications, and Dues line item in the 198th court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRSFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 4 for the 198th and 215th District Courts. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Amendment Number 5 is for ~'ounty Court at Law. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 MA. TOMLINSON: This amendment transfers $3,252.75 from Court-Appointed Attorneys line item in County Court, and transfers that to the Court-Appointed Attorney line item in the County Court at Law. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. DODGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Lets, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 5 for the County Court at Law. Any other questions or comments? I think we're getting pretty close to having tapped that one out. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, we are. JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, could you give us, just real quick, a brief on Senate Bill 7 and what -- what has really caused this? JrJDGE HENNEKE: Very quickly, Senate Bill 7 changed the timing and the requirements for appointment of court-appointed attorneys for indigent defendants, where, depending on the nature of the offense, you have to appoint 19 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 ~2 2~ 24 25 an attorney within 24 or 48 hours after their magistration. Before that, many times the attorney was not appointed until they came up for their arraignment, which would have been several weeks later. So, it's accelerated the process of appointment of court-appointed attorneys, and also has changed the rules on interpreters. It's added a significant burden to local government without the benefit of funding. Surprise. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm shocked. JUDGE HENNEKE: In a nutshell, that's it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dces that expedite the system, though? Or do they get into the courtroom quicker? JUUGE HENNEKE: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We11, I appreciate all the help. Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Once again, the Texas Legislature have solved the problem in Harris County on the backs of the rest of Texas. Okay. Number h for Sheriff's Department. MR.. TOMLINSON: This is a request from the SYieriff to transfer $1,000 from Vehicle Equipment, $750 from Crime Prevention, and $1,521.55 from Prisoner Supplies. He wants to Lransfer $800 into Employee Medical Exams -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: $600. MR. TOMLINSON: $600, yeah. My copy is not 20 I 2 3 4 5 F 7 8 9 1G 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 ~, ~~ G3 24 25 very good. And $1,750 from Vehicle F.epairs and Maintenance, and $921.86 to Prisoner Medical. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 6 for the Sheriff's Department. Any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just for the record, that last item was $921.66. It's a little hard to read on your copy. MR. TOMLINSON: I have a faced copy, and so -- COMMISSIONER. GRIFFIN: Right. J UIJGE HENNEKE: If not, all in favor, raise your right hand (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 7 is f<~r Lhe 216th Adult Probation Department. MR. TOMLINSON: This budget amendment is to transLex enough funds for utilities for the remainder of the year for that department. We anticipate to need $3,350, and we're txauslexrinq that from the D.U.E.P. Instructor Line zl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2G 21 -, ?3 24 25 item to Utilities and Maintenance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 7 for the 216th Adult Probation Department. Any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand the utilities going up, but I don't understand that much money left over in the instructor line. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. JUDGE HENNEKE: Instructor line item is based on the demand. Correct, Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. JUDGE HENNEKE: And if there's not that much demand, then we didn't get paid that much. MR. TOMLINSON: The funds from that -- for those instructors comes from the defendant. JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. MR.. TOMLINSON: There's a $65 fee for that course, and once -- once the course is given, we -- the County gets that $65 to pay for those instructors. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 1 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 z2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Request Number 8 is for J.P. 1. MR. TOMLINSON: This request is to transfer $100 from Books and Publications to Office Supplies. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 8 for J.P. Number 1. 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. Do we have any late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I do. One is for $37 to the Kerrville Postmaster, postage for Treasurer's office. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. DODGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve a late bill and hand check in the amount of $37 payable to 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 29 25 23 Kerrville Post Office -- Postmaster for the Treasurer's office. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) DODGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. MR. TOMLINSON: I have another one for the Kerrville Postmaster for $37 for postage for Constable of Precinct 2. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. DODGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve a late bill and hand check in the amount of $37 payable to the Kerrville Postmaster for Constable, Precinct 2. Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. fThe motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next one is to Stericycle. It's for $51.08, and it's for medical waste disposal for the jail. 1 2 3 4 5 6 R 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 ly 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: That is to who? MR. TOMLINSGN: Stericycle. JUDGE HENNEKE: Stericycle, okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the late bill and hand check in the amount of $51.08 payable to Stericycle for waste disposal at the jail. Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I have three -- three more; they're all payable to the same individual. It's to Emily Elizabeth Mosty Harlan. The first one is for $2,500; it's for the initial payment for the radio tower in Center Point. I have -- the next one is for $500; it's for the months of May and June for the monthly tower rental site. That's already passed. And the other one is for $250; it's for the tower site rental for July 21st through August the 20th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly 20 21 22 23 24 25 zs COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve late bills and hand checks in the amount of $2,500, $500, and $250 payable to Emily Mosty Harlan for the ground lease on the radio tower in Center Point. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. MR. TOMLINSON: That's all. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's all? Okay. At this time, I would entertain a motion to approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. Any questions or comments'? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (NO response.) 1 3 9 5 F 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 26 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, it's been requested that we do 2.2 first, as opposed to 2.1. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's do Item Number 2 first. I've been informed that the proper sequence would be to do Item Number 2 and then Item Number 1. We'11 call up Item Number 2, consider final plat revision of plat for Lot 11 of Hidden Hills, Precinct 2. commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Johnston or Mr. Voelkel. Is Mr. Johnston here? Hidden Hills, the original Item Number 2. We'll do Item 1 ne}:t. MR. JOHNSTON: I think the proper sequence would probably be if we do Item 2 first. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what we just called. MR.. JOHNSTON: Okay. I was in the middle of something back there. Item 2 is a plat revision of Lot 11, and includes a new road. We have a Letter of Credit to guarantee the new road being 1,700 feet or so, whatever that is. I think everything's in place. Recommend approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I would move final consideration and approval for final revision of plat for Lot 11, Hidden Hills, as presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. DODGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 1 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 Williams, ser_ond by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the final revision of plat for Lot 11 of Hidden Hi11s, Precinct 2. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) DODGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Then we'll take up Item Number 1, which is consider the approval of the final plat for Hidden Hills Two in Precinct 2. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Johnston? MR. JOHNSTON: This is a tract of land acreage which is divided into four lots, and they face this new existinq road that we just approved. They'll have access to it. And I recommend approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Franklin, I don't see the "Kerr County not responsible for road maintenance" disclaimer on the -- the second plat. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, actually, on this plat there are no roads. The road's on the other plat. That does have access. COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: That's a good reason for it not to be there, but what about in the future? MR. JOHNSTON: It does have access to the road. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~l 22 23 24 25 28 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. All right. Judge, I would move the final approval for final plat of Hidden Hills Two Precinct 2, as presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin -- Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the final plat for Hidden Hi11s Two in Precinct 2 as presented. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item we'll take up is Item Number 3, consider and discuss the sale of property in Y.O. Ranchlands and Dominion Ranch. Franklin? MR. JOHNSTON: I brought this today. The owner of that property would like some clarification on the division of his property. I'd like to go over just a little background. Part of his property's located in a platted subdivision. It's, like, five lots, and he wanted to sell those in a different configuration. I think that's pretty straightforward. I think that requires a plat revision. The balance of his property is in a -- is known as Dominion Ranch. Mr. Cummings told us he bought this property in 1 ~.. 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 ~9 various tracts and then put it together into this ranch his property. Commissioner Griffin and myself met with Mr. Cummings last year, and we talked about him dividing off part of this property, and the part he was talking about actually had access to that ranch road. It's on the north side, and we assumed it was in the configuration that one of those tracts that he bought, and we felt at that time it did not require platting, mainly because it had access to a pre-existing road. And we're basing that on the County Attorney's opinion that any property over 10 acres with private road frontage, regardless of the road condition, as long as it was existing before the property was -- was purchased, could be resold with that access, but they didn't change the description of the property. I think if new roads were required, new roads were constructed, and/or the tract descriptions changed, that would trigger a plat -- platting process. Mr. Cummings, I think, is here, and he'd like to address the Court and ask some questions. DODGE HENNEEE: Before we do that, does Question. The question I 1 2 3 9 5 F 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 z2 23 24 25 30 have is, clearly, if a new road is outside of the existing subdivision, but if a new road is involved, or right-of-way or easement, whatever you want to call it, it would require platting. But if it's over 10 acres and it fronts an existing road, I don't see that the legal description of the property makes any difference. I don't see -- in other words, whether he's changing the configuration of the tracts, I don't see that that makes a difference. MR. JOHNSTON: That was an issue on another question we had here a few months ago up by Ingram Dam, whether or not it -- they could resell property, and I think the answer then was if it didn't change the configuration of the property, they could do it, and if they actually combined it or changed it, then it required plattinq. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that was less than 10 acres, wasn't it? MR. JOHNSTON: That was less. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think it was. COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, that's -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And Jonathan and I discussed this a little bit, but I think if the easement for that road was there, even if there was no road, that it is still exempt from platting, right? As long as there's access to that property. MR. JOHNSTON: Access -- that's my 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1G 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ [~ L 23 24 25 31 understanding. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Not so much a -- a road there, but there's access to it, and I think that's where the defined technical question that we're looking at here is. And -- and maybe -- MR. JOHNSTON: That's a legal question; I defer that to the County Attorney, but that was kind of my understanding of it. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Maybe this is a good time for Mr. Jackson or Mr. Cummings to address this, but if there is an easement there for those properties -- for the properties as they want to sell it off, then I think that's okay. DODGE HENNEKE: David? MR. JACKSON: Sir. My name's David Jackson. I represent Mr. Cummings and Dominion Ranch. My address is 820 Main, office; 516 Sand Bend here in Kerrville, residence. The history that Franklin has related is essentially true, and to answer the specific question that Mr. Griffin has raised, all of the tracts that they will sell will have access to the existing road and will be greater than 10 acres. Having said that, I think it would be my client's intent and preference to sell the tracts as they were originally configured when he bought them back in the 19H0's, but for a couple of three reasons, that 1 2 4 5 E 7 ft v 10 11 l~ 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 ~2 23 ?4 25 32 configuration may change. One of the reasons is, if you go back to 1980/'R1 -- there were several years involved with road. And I have a map here; I don't know how much information you want, but it's a rough sketch of where the existing road was, and you'll see some of the tracts actually don't touch that road as originally purchased. So, one of the things he's encountered after his discussions, as Franklin related, was that he may have to reconfigure those to qet them to the existing roads. The second area is that, in some instances, the tracts are going to be slightly smaller than the original sire, which relates to topography, which relates to acs=ess, and which relates to just a desire to sell a particular piece of property, but they'll all be greater than 10 a~~res. 1 think what's happened here is that there's a road there since the '80's, if not before. That road will be rapaired anal improved, of course, as all roads are, but no new roads will be constructed. In other words, there's no laying out of any roads; there's not a new road to run to any particular tracts, but what will happen is the existing tracts in the present configuration with the required access will be sold in a different size or configuration. Some of them will actually be larger, I think, probably, by the time 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~1 22 23 24 GS 33 you actually get them to the road. Mr. Cummings is here; I'm sure he can answer any questions, but I think we're all kind of in agreement, those are the facts that are before you. My reading of the law, both the state law as well as your regulation, is that the State has said and you have said that if it's greater than 1G acres and if I have access to a road, it does not require a plat. And the way you get there, it's not a subdivision. What's interesting about this is there was a subdivision of the property way back in the '80's, before a lot of regulations were in place, that actually laid out all these tracts in a subdivision as part of the of Y.O., up in that area, and in a sense, it was a subdivision then that didn't have access. But that was then, not now, and what's happening here is really an improvement. The tracts that will be sold in greater than 10 acres, the existing road will be configured so that they absolutely do have access, which actually is improving the problem. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You confused me on your last sentence. It's in a subdivision or not in a subdivision? MR. JACKSON: Not a subdivision. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. JACKSON: It was in a divided piece of property; it was divided back in the '80's. 34 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Divided by metes and bounds; going to be sold by metes and bounds. JUDGE HENNEKE: The reconfigured tracts will have direct access to the existing road? MR. JACKSON: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: No -- no landowner will have to go through another landowner's property in order to get to the road? MR. JACKSON: No, not to that road. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. MR. JACKSON: 'Cause that's all within the Dominion Ranch. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the road -- everyone has access already; there's no problem on access on that road? MR. JACKSON: No. No, because it comes off the highway. The highway road goes through. It's been there forever; it serves I don't know how many thousands of acres back there. And you get to the edge of the Dominion Ranch, if you will, then you come in, and the existing road I'm referencing is within that property. That will be in its present location from the '80's forward. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: No new roads? MR. JACKSON: And there will be no new roads, right. 35 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: I want to make sure, though, we're not setting up a situation where you have the road here and a tract here and a tract here, and the person up here goes through -- MR. JACKSON: No. No, the -- the actual legal ownership will touch the road before it's sold. And, as was explained, we kind of got halfway in this project and making these sales with the belief that what was being done was just fine, and it was after some discussions -- and so we appreciate the opportunity to come to clarify that. J~JDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think the intent is met, but I'll defer to Jonathan on this, as I told him earlier, because there is a -- perhaps some language that we need to consider adding to our Subdivision Rules that clarifies that. Because I think if we're dealing in large acreage tracts, we're not building a new road, it is not a subdivision, then I think the intent of the law and our regulations has been met to allow the kind of thinq which -- which ensures access to an existing road for all of those tracts that will be sold. I think that is an improvement, MR. JACKSON: As I appear before you, I've read the state law and what interpretations there were and how we came to have the state law read like it is, and I think your regulations are consistent with the state law. 1 2 3 9 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LS 36 So, I'm -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, the way I read the state law and our law, which is one and the same, it qualifies. I mean, if there's a question, I would defer to the -- either Attorney General or County Attorney for an opinion, but I really -- to me, it meets that. It's not a subdivision. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This doesn't really require a motion or anything? JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't think so. I think it's clear that the situation there with regard to the Y.O. Ranch itself, those lots must be replatted. MR. JACKSON: And we understand that. As a matter of fact, I think the replays already in process, may have even been filed, and so we understand that issue. No problems, no questions. And it's two separate deals. JUDGE HENNEKE: And with regard to the Dominion P.anch situation, the understanding is that, so long as the lots are greater than 10 acres and have direct, legal access to a preexisting road, then there's -- they're not subject to -- they're not a subdivision and therefore not subject to platting. MR. JACKSON: There had also been some discussion of the two being connected in some way, so I'll make that clear; they're not. That's two separate 37 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 G3 24 25 situations. The same owner owns them, as Franklin pointed out, but that's -- one's in the Y.O. Subdivision; this is not. Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my last comment is -- and I think you've said this -- that the -- it's not just the road is there. You can't change the easement or the -- however -- the legal access to that road can't change, either. MR. JACKSON: Correct. Absolutely fired, as it always has been. DODGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One final comment. I just want to say that sometimes -- sometimes we have to come back to address an issue like this, but I want to express appreciation to both you, Mr. Jackson, and to Mr. Cummings for having come to us first. MR. JACKSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And there might have been a little bit of misunderstanding on what ought to happen, but I would encourage anyone who is in this business, when you start to deal with the land, to come to the County Engineer and get the Commissioner involved that's proposed, and sort of understand where you're going, because if we answer these questions beforehand, it just makes it a lot easier. And I thank you both. 1 G 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ L ~ 23 29 25 38 MR. JACKSON: You bet. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, there might be someone in the audience that would like to speak. I understand some of the homeowners' association are here. JUDGE HENNEKE: We had one person indicate a need -- is there anyone else who'd like to address the Court on this issue? (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Apparently not, Commissioner. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, David. Let's go to Item Number 4, consider and discuss a request for support and funding on behalf of the Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution Center, Inc., and Kerr County Bar Association. Now, when did you fall and break your leg? MS. BAILEY: Last weekend -- well, not this last weekend, the one before. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She just wants us to feel sorry for her. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dispute resolution? JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that how you solved your dispute, Ilse? You got in a shin-kicking match or what? MS. BAILEY: Yeah, I was resolving a dispute. Good morning, Commissioners and Judge Henneke. I appreciate the opportunity to address you this morning. It's usually 39 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 --. 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~3 24 25 with some trepidation that people appear at this point in the year asking for funding, so this is a little bit of an unusual circumstance, and therefore I -- I felt like, even though it was late in the year, that we could come and approach you with this request. I don't want to go over too much of something you may have already been familiar with, but just to make sure that you understand where we're coming from, I want to go over the presentation that we've made in writing to you. As you all probably recall, in 1987, the Texas State Legislature recognized he advantageousness of alternative dispute resolution, including mediation and arbitration and so forth, and thereafter adopted a set of laws in recognition of the need to provide a forum for this kind of resolution outside of the courtroom setting. And they also needed to set up a method for funding these forums, so the Legislature passed a statute -- and I've attached a copy of that chapter in the Civil Practice and Remedies Code -- whereby the Legislature allowed counties to collect as a court cost in civil cases up to $10 in each filed civil case. That money was to be set aside in a dedicated fund, dedicated solely for use in mediation or alternative dispute resolution practice. In 1997, 10 years later, the Kerr County Commissioners Court, in accordance with this legislative 1 ..- 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,.~. 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 ~. ~5 40 enactment, adopted an order -- in my written filings, I have said it was a $5 fee, but actually we did adopt, as you'll see in the attached court order, the entire $10 fee, so there's an error in my materials there. So, since 1997, in every civil case filed, we have been adopt -- we have been collecting a $10 fee that goes into this fund that is dedicated solely for use in mediation practice. As of the end of June of 2002, this fund contained $70,270, and if you divide that out for 1997, I believe it comes to an average of about $19,000 a year. So, that is the money that is sitting in the county coffers waiting to be utilized for these purposes. In 1993, a group of local citizens -- and, of course, this was before the fund was being collected -- some lawyers and other nonlawyer citizens got together and tried to develop an alternative dispute resolution system, and went fairly far in that direction. They developed a corporation, they had a board of directors, and the corporation was filed with the Secretary of State's office, and it was called the Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution Center, Incorporated. And those were approved and filed with the Texas Secretary of State in October of 1993. Unfortunately, because of the fact that to start up something 1i're this is pretty intensive in terms of time and also of money, the effort somewhat died out. Not that the 41 1 2 3 4 5 ti 8 y 10 11 12 ^ li 14 15 16 17 lR 19 zo ~l ?~ '3 24 .-~ ?~ people were nc longer interested, but they simply didn't have the time or the funding to dedicate to really developing it into a going deal. For the last couple of years, the Kerr County Bar Association and various other people in the community that are concerned with this matter have tossed around the idea of getting it started up again, and then this year the Kerr County Bar Association specifically authorized the board of directors for the Bar Association -- I'm the president of that board at this point in time -- to really make an effort to go forward and start this back up again, so we've done that. And we sort of found the corporate articles with the Secretary of State's office and have contacted the former board of directors for the original corporation. I have gotten several local people who are interested in assisting, and decided to go forward. Now, the two things that you need in order to get this process moving are time -- someone's time to put into it, and money. We're very fortunate in that I was contacted early in the year by Mimi Brinker, who you may all know as Mimi McCrover; she lived in this community and was very instrumental in getting the CASA program up and going. She is a certified mediator; she has experience in grant writing, and she has expressed agreement to be the person to go ahead and pursue the process if she could be funded for 42 1 ~ 2 3 4 5 5 7 S 5 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 2U 21 22 23 24 25 that. She's not gong to do it on a volunteer basis, but she would like to be hired to do it. That, putting it together with the fact that we know there's this fund some of that funding in order to try to get the process started again -- to have a person who could get it started, and to have the money to actually pursue developing the mediations. So, at this point, the Kerr County Bar Association, on behalf of the Hill Country A.D.R. Center, Incorporated, is making request of the Commissioners Court for funding to pay -- be paid out of the fund that the Court has set aside for that. And the other thing that we're requesting is that we be permitted to utilize space in the Kerr County Courthouse. Linda Decker had suggested that there was a portion of the Kerr County Library that would be appropriate, just exactly the right size to put a desk and a person and a phone and computer. I'm not suggesting that's the only place; I'm just suggesting that that is a place that is available. And what we need is certainly not only the person and the funding to do it, but a place to operate out of. So, we'd have to either rent other facilities or to utilize a place in the courthouse that's not being utilized at this time. 43 r 1 1 2 3 4 F 8 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 One of the advantages to being at the courthouse is that many of the mediations we anticipate would be held in, say, jury rooms or meeting rooms that already exist in the courthouse, and we would do this coordination with the court coordinator so that they would not interfere with other usages that are already existing in the courthouse. I don't know -- I had actually intended to make sure that Linda Decker was here to address that, and having fallen and nearly broken my leg sort of put me a little bit behind in a lot of my planning process, so I apologize for that. But I have spoken to her about it, and she -- she recommends that. And I suspect that there may also be other areas in the courthouse available. And, in that regard, I would ask you to review the statutory information I attached after the court order, because, as you can see, it was the intent of the Legislature that a Commissioners court either run an alternative dispute resolution center or own it, or that it contract with a private nonprofit corporation to do the same. And we're proposing the second of those two alternatives; that we would -- the corporation exists. One of the things that would be the job of the general manager initially is to obtain the SOl(c)(3) nonprofit corporation status so that we would then fall under this particular provision in the statute. And then the Commissioners Court 44 1 .^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 „~ 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 ~3 ^4 J is allowed to do all necessary acts to make the alternative dispute resolution system effective, including contracting with a private, nonprofit corporation, a political subdivision, a public corporation, or a combination of these entities for the purposes of administering the system. They can make reasonable rules regarding the system, and may vest management of the system in a committee selected by the County Bar Association. So, we've tried to follow that format so that we're doing things according to the statutory framework. At any rate, so, what we're asking for is approval for funding, and I've attached a budget -- proposed budget. since we've never done this before, I can' t tell you that the budget is going to be exactly appropriate, but I thought we can't get started until we have some kind of budget. My thought is that we would ask for this amount, with the understanding that the corporation would probably be coming back -- certainly coming back in the following year for a new budget, but possibly even in the middle of the year if they came up with something necessary -- that the Court found necessary to -- or appropriate to fund; that we don't want completely locked into this. The personnel -- excuse me. The personnel expense, our thought would be that the County funds that are re~Iuested for that amount would pay the salary for the 45 1 ,.~ 2 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,,,, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 ~-- ~5 manager for the first six months, and that during that six months it would be the manager's duty to also go out and make grant applications to secure additional funding for the remainder of the year's salary. Ber_ause the problem with the fund that we have is, even though it does generate a substantial amount of money every year, it does not generate enough to make this center self-supporting, so it's going to have to be additionally outside-funded, but we won't know if we're able to do that until we get the process moving. So, that's a little bit about why the budgeY_ is -- is set up the way that it is. Let's see. At any rate, Judge, to clarify what we're asY,ing tor, once the Court were to approve the funding and to approve either the specific usage that I've recommended or to approve perhaps appointing a Commissioner to work with the Bar Association to identify a place that trie center could use, then we are of the -- the corporation would commit to, within the first year of operation, acquiring 501(c)(3) nonprofit tax-exempt status, adopting appropriate bylaws to provide for the continued operation of r_he center in conjunction with recommendations by the Commissioners Court, to elect a new board of directors that will Le responsible for and actively involved with the operation of the center and the supervision and direction of the center's budget and staff. And then, also, in 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 ~l 22 23 24 25 conjunction with the center's staff, draft and approve operational rules that will assure that the services of the center are available on an equitable basis to all citizens within our service area. And we have reviewed this with the existing but dormant board of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Center. If anyone has any questions, I'd be glad to address them. Also, Ms. Brinker is ready to answer to you what she would propose to do as the interim manager of this effort. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it legal for us to release these funds before you become a 501 -- 501(cl(3)? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What did you say? MS. BAILEY: Well, since the statute says that you can -- I'll get to it. You can contract -- you can do all necessary acts to make this system effective, including contracting with a 501(c)(3) or a politi,al subdivision or a public corporation or combination of entities. JUDGE HENNEKE: Ilse, I don't think it says contracting with a 501(ci(3). MS. BAILEY: Well, contracting with a private, nonprofit corporation. Ji1DGE HENNEKE: That's -- you're already there. 47 r^~ 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. BAILEY: Yes, we're a private nonprofit. JUDGE HENNEKE: You don't have the tax-exempt status, but you're already a private, nonprofit corporation. You don't need to take any further steps in order to qualify for the funding. MS. BAILEY: To qualify for contract, but I think that it would be appropriate to do. JUDGE HENNEKE: It would be, but let's make sure everybody understands that 501(c)(3) is not the necessary designation for a nonprofit corporation. MS. BAILEY: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's an I.R.S. status. MS. BAILEY: So, yes, it would be appropriate -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That answered my question. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We would have -- we would have to have a draft contract to approve, right? That's for sure. We would have to have a contract to approve to start the ball rolling. MS. BAILEY: Right, and it would be -- my recommendation would be that maybe one Commissioner be assigned the duty of ding that coordination between the group and the Commissioners Court, so that we don't have to make a full-blown presentation every time we have some 1 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lh 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 little aspect of it to -- to address. But, again, I certainly think that's -- the main thing is we want to get it started, and ir's always been a problem that getting it started couldn't happen, 'cause there was never anyone that had the time or the energy or the funds to go do it. So, now we're able to do that, and I feel like we can get this jump-started pretty quickly. But I would like -- and I think the statute requires oversight by the Commissioners Court if we're using your money. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's a great idea to put it in the County Law Library; that's a grossly underutilized facility. I'm all in favor of this. I'll be happy to act as liaison, if that's what the Commissioners Court wants me to do. The major problem I have is timing. I mean, you're asking for a six-month budget three-quarters of the way through budget year. MS. BAILEY: Well, my thought -- DODGE HENNEKE: That's going to throw everything off. MS. BAILEY: Well, my thought is we can make it effective October lst, because I don't think Ms. Brinker's in a position to move here immediately. But if -- but if we get it approved right now, then we have a little lead time to get it kind of figured out and the details settled before October 1. Would that be more 49 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 appropriate? JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's entirely appropriate. That way we can also get it cranked into our budget process. We'll have to set up a line -- MS. BAILEY: Then its annual budget would be the same. DODGE HENNEKE: -- won't we, Tommy, for grant? Or do we have to get -- MR. TOMLINSON: The fund already exists now. JUDGE HENNEKE: But we'll have an expenditure item, maybe under County-sponsored, like we do with CASA. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think that we ran budget out of that fund. There's a fund set up for it. And I think we just pay for -- JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll have to have an expenditure line item somewhere. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I have is -- and maybe, if I'm reading this right, I don't see how you can project using more funds than you're annually taking in from the County. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was goinq to ask the same -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So was I. MS. BAILEY: Well, as I said, I think that 50 1 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1G 2U 21 22 23 24 25 there's not any way that these funds can be used for -- used to solely support any alternative dispute resolution center. So, we've -- we have to set it up with the assumption that part of the manager's duties will be grant writing, seeking funding. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, I mean, as I look at this, I mean, assuming you're taking in $19,000 a year, and you're -- you know, are you just basically going to -- planning on depleting that fund? And then what happens? MS. BAILEY: Well, no. My thought is that, certainly, the first year will be the largest amount of expenditure of funds, because we're training mediators and we're, you know, traveling and that sort of stuff. But after that point in time, for one thing, there will be -- our plan is, anyway, that the mediations won't be free. People don't take seriously services that they get for free, especially in the legal arena. So, probably, they will -- they will certainly be low-cost, 'cause the whole point of this is to make low-cost services available to the poor, but they'll be on some kind of a sliding scale, so there will be income from the services that are provided. There will also be income from grants, one would hope, and then additionally, both District Judges have suggested that this really ought not to be a Kerr County 51 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ]9 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 center, but one thaY_ serves both of the judicial districts that the two judges -- District Judges serve. Some of those counties do not collect this fund. Some collect it and, again, have not spent it, like Kerr County has not. So, our -- the big picture, long-term goal is to incorporate services for all of those counties, and perhaps tap into funds from all of those counties. But, again, that's kind of putting the cart before the horse, because there's a lot of kind of communicating and talking back and forth until we get to that point to figure out how much money there really is and how much services we can really provide to outlying counties. I know that the Bar Association in Kendall County -- I've spoken with some of their lawyers, and they're very interested in participating. And Kendall County certainly has a big enough set of civil cases that are filed that there either is or could be a substantial income from that as well. But, you're right. I mean, at this puini_, if that budget remained the same with the income that we're making, we would just deplete the fund. So, that's iwt -- that's not what we want to do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But what -- what happens, Ms. Bailey, if we set it up for six months of the budget at $21,200, and your activities are unable to 52 1 2 3 4 5 H 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 ]8 19 20 ~I z2 23 24 ~5 generate the other 18,E that's part of your expense load? So, what happens? Do you come back to the County for more money or what? MS. BAILEY: I think at that point we'd have to -- to reassess. That would be the board's job, to assess whether the lack of funds is due to the staff's failing to make appropriate requests for grants, or whether the money's simply not out there. And if the money is not out there, then whether or not they want to come back to the County and ask for additional money, or if they want to just say it's nor going to work in the hill country. We just don't know if it's going to work until we try. I have a lot of faith in Ms. Brinker's ability to raise money, because she's proven that she has that ability, and she's also real enthusiastic about the project. So, I think that if anyone can -- can do that, I think she's the person to do it. But I'm not going to stand here and r_e11 you that it's a guaranteed deal. We might get six months down the road and go, "Now what? People aren't interested in alternative dispute resolution. It's not caorking. We're not -- we just can't project making enough money to make this thing a going concern." And then the Court may say, "Well, thank you for trying, but we're not going to add any more money to this particular project," COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ilse, the alternative 53 1 2 3 9 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 ~l 22 13 24 25 -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There is one area that you really haven't talked about, which is my favorite. When you're resolving disputes, that's taking a load off of our courts, is it not? MS. BAILEY: Yes, and that I think is one of -- one of the reasons that the Legislature has been promoting this for such a long time. For instance, I anticipate that it might reduce the amount of court-appointed court costs that you have to pay. Certainly, people are still going to be appointed an attorney in a criminal case, for instance, but -- and David Motley and I have talked somewhat about doing mediation in criminal cases. It's not a real standard practice across the state, but it's done in a few locations. And sometimes I really complicated, nasty cases that could take up a lot of attorneys` time can be mediated, and if they can, then you save all kinds of money. Similarly, you're saving all the expenses -- you know how when you have to have a jury trial, you don't think about the expenses that are involved, but you've got all the jury fees and the court time and the personnel and costs associated to the county. Certainly, litigants have their own private costs, but those costs, if you can resolve a case without a jury trial, you reduce that 54 1 .-,. 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1~S 19 20 21 22 23 ^ 24 25 cost to the county. So, I think that the idea is that, if it's run properly and efficiently, in the long run, you actually do save money to the County. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if you were in here this morning when we paid the bills and saw how much we spend on court-appointed attorneys or not. MS. BAILEY: That's why I thought of that, because I thought, well, this might be one of those things that could -- could avoid that. A lot of -- especially at the justice of the peace level, a lot of kind of neighbort-food disputes that end up being filed as criminal cases there really could, I think, be resolved prior to being filed as criminal cases, as neighborhood dispute resolution, if we can get that process going. COMMISSIONER BHLDWIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just one thing. I I would say to our court liaison, who I will address this to, really, is that perhaps an alternative to a si„-month budget would be a one-year budget at whatever that number is, so that -- I think you've got to give it a year, and it may take that one year to keep it rolling with County money while you're getting grant money and all that sort of thing. And I would -- I would say 12 months, just a standard budget input at the beginning of October lst for whatever that amount is, will be better than a six-month ~-z~- 55 1 2 J 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1~ 15 17 18 19 20 ~1 22 ?3 29 25 budget. MS. BAILEY: We11, I -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Without trying to be in a rush to spend it or whatever. MS. BAILEY: I'll tell you that Ms. Brinker and I were speaking about that very matter this morning, and she had some trepidation about the way I had set the budget up, because she said that when she was getting CASA started, that -- that one of the problems was that they started on such a short shoestring that -- that they kind of never really r_aughr up; they were always scrambling. And I think that she would support that as a -- as a proposal. I just didn't feel that, you know, I could come in and ask the County to, you know, throw that much support behind a c~nipletely untested activity, although it's something that's been done. We've had a lot of support from the Bexar County Mediation Center. They have given us all kinds of -- of assurances that once we get this started, they'll come up and help us set things up, show us how to do things. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We have also some support fw m l.he Austin mediation folks, so it -- so it's not like a whole untested deal. But that -- I think that might even be a betLeL proposal than what I've proposed. JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I think that there`s -- unless someone disagrees with me, that there is 56 1 2 3 9 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 L J evidence that the Commissioners Court supports the notion, and that I'm willing to work with the Bar Association and the Dispute Resolution Center Board of Directors to bring it back to the Commissioners Court, the full package. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of that package -- and you've kind of alluded to it -- should be a resolution from the local Bar asking us to do it. You referred to some members of the Bar of being involved, but I think if you're going to be a success, you need to get the whole -- I mean, as many as you can of the Bar behind it, because they're the ones using it. MS. BAILEY: Yes, sir. We have actually held a formal vote, but we don't have any written resolution, and I can certainly approach the Bar -- the members of the Bar at our next board meeting to get an official written resolution. I think that would be appropriate. JODGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I also think that we need to decide specifically what area of the library. You're talking about going in the door in that cubbyhole over there -- MS. BAILEY: On the left. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that we can make sure that there is computer wiring and all those things. MS. BAILEY: Right. If you authorize that as 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 zs 29 25 57 a -- as a proposal, certainly, then, I guess we can approach Mr. Holekamp and have him tell us if the facility is appropriate for that kind of hookup. Would that -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Put it on Fred; make Fred do it. MS. BAILEY: I'm crippled; I can't do it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything else? MS. BAILEY: That's it. I sure appreciate you listening to our proposal this morning. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Ilse. Okay. Moving on to Item Number 5, consider and discuss a request to the Comptroller of Public Accounts to allocate a portion of the unclaimed money received from electric co-ops back to Kerr County under Section 74.062 of the Texas Property Code, to be used to fund an appropriate program under Section 381.004 of the Local Government Code. Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: The County received a notice from the Comptroller's office that these funds were available, and we have to make application -- the Court has to make application in the month of July. So, I have -- I've dratted a letter for the Court to approve to submit to the Comptroller's office for -- for obtaining those funds. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see that letter. MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know the amount. And 58 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 29 25 I don't think we will know the amount until we receive it, because the information that I -- that we have does not indicate the total amount of dollars that are available. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't have the letter. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see the letter. MR.. TOMLINSON: I gave a copy -- I gave a draft to Thea for -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, we still don't have the letter. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I didn't bring it either, so -- JODGE HENNEKE: I don't know that we necessarily need to see the letter. The notion is to approve the request. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree. JUDGE HENNEKE: And then, just to remind everybody, we set up a Section 381.004 program -- economic development program last fall, and we contract with R:EDF to administer that program, so these funds could be used and will be used to offset that contractual cost with KEDF. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have any -- go ahead, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this can be $5,000 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 IS 16 17 18 19 ~0 Gl ~, 23 24 25 that we contribute annually, to help fund that $5,000? JUDGE HENNEKE: Exactly. We don't know how -- again, as Tommy said, we don't know how much unclaimed money there is, but whatever it is would go towards that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion that we approve the filing of the request, and get the ball rolling. COMMISSIONER BALUWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Whatever we've got coming. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve a request to the Comptroller of Public Accounts to allocate a portion of the unclaimed money received from eler_tric co-ops back to Kerr County under Section 74.602 of the Texas Property Code, to be used to fund an appropriate program under Section 381.009 of the Loral Government Code. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thanks, Tommy. Item Number 5, consider and approve appointment of election judges and alternate judges for the November 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 60 general election as per Chapter 32, Texas Election Code. Jannett? MS. PIEPER: We're going to start gearing up for our November election. On the agenda item request -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is this a different letter? MS. PIEPER: This is a different one. The Republican and Democratic party chairs have submitted their list. I just received this list from the Republican county chair that has one or two newer names on there. The Democrats will be the alternate judges. The Republican persons submitted would be the judge for the election day polling locations. JUDGE HENNEKE: Jannett, there's a blank here for 3~0. What does that mean? MS. PIEPER: That means we don't have a judge for 3?0. 'They're still in the process of trying to locate somebody for that one. JUDGE HENNEKE: What happens if we don't locate someone? MS. PIEPER: We will have to consolidate in the different precincts, get with another precinct. CUMMISSIONER LETZ: What do -- which is not a bad idea, in my opinion, considering the problem with 320. But the question I have is, how does that -- is that a 51 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~l 22 23 24 25 problem, consolidating? MS. PIEPER: No, it's not a problem. It's just more work. DODGE HENNEKE: Well, you have to go to the Justice Department to -- MS. PIEPER: We have to get preclearance from Washington. JUDGE HENNEKE: Has to be posted everywhere. MS. PIEPER: Riqht. Notice of consolidations that have to be sent out, posted by the Sheriff's Department. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason -- I mean, I would say I'm in favor of doing that, because there is not a good location in Precinct 320 to vote -- MS. PIEPER: Well, there is -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that's convenient to any of the people. MS. PIEPER: My next step is going to be coming to y'all with the questions of -- of how you want -- because November is a county election. You know, back in March, that was basically -- even though I did a lot of the work, it was basically the party chairs. But this being the November election, this is a county election; therefore, the Commissioners Court approves the polling locations, so that's going to be what I'm going to start working on next. 62 1 3 4 5 5 7 8 y 10 11 12 1~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 So, I'll be talking with y'all to find out if you want to consolidate or move any of the locations. The one we had at the old Midway Store I'm not sure is going to be available, or the one on Harper Road ar_ the K.C. Hall I'm not sure is going to be available. There's a question in Precinct 202 with the AmerLcan Legion building, that they have requested that we move the elections there. So, that's just something that we will -- we need to discuss, you know, a little bit later. The first step is to appoint our election judges and clerks, and although you may decide to consolidate, then whatever precinct we're holding the actual election in, that is the actual judge that will be the judge for that one. And we may not use each judge that is listed or each alternate that's on here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any consolidation has to be within the precinct, though, right? MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move -- JUDGE HENNEKE: It has to be within the precincts that are consolidated. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it has to be within Precinct 3 -- we're not consolidating a Precinct 3 box within -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't combine 2 and 3. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't cornbine a 2 box ,_ 53 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 G l~ 21 ~? 23 24 ;5 within a 3 precinct. MS. PIEPER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not a problem. MS. PIEPER.: Precinct 2 doesn't vote on Precinct 3 stuff. DODGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move we approve the appointment of election judges and alternate judges for the November general election, as per Chapter 32. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HESdYdEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve the election judges and alternate judges for the November general election as per Texas Election Code Chapter 3Z, as recommended by the County Clerk. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which does include both Democrat and Republican -- JUDGE HENNEKE: They're the alternates. 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. MS. PIEPER: Thank you. 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1G 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 <22 23 24 2`_ JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's do one more item before we take a break. I'm gaming to suggest we do Item Number 9, since we have some people from -- I guess from San Antonio here. Item Number 9 is consider and discuss a non-financial cooperative agreement for Workfare, a program of the Alamo Area Development Corporation proposed for Kerr County. Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, Gaylyn Dieringer of the Texas Workforce Center in Kerrville contacted me a couple weeks ago with respect to this program and asked for some consideration. I agreed to put it on the agenda, invited Gaylyn and a colleague -- Mr. Plummer, I believe it is -- to come to the Court and tell us what this program is about. She said on the phone it was free, so that's good. Let's talk. MS. DIERINGER: My name is Gaylyn Dieringer. I'm the Center Manager of the Texas Workforce Center at 819 Water Street, Suite 116. I would like to introduce Randy Plummer. He is the employer liaison, and he's going to be discussing, going over the nonfinancial agreement with y'all. Have y'al1 had a chance to look at it? Do y'all have a copy? JUllGE HENNEKE: Yes, we do. Welcome, Mr. Plummer. MR. PLOMMER: Thank you, Commissioners, 1 ,._ 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,,.~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~, , 23 24 25 65 Judge. Appreciate y'all seeing us this morning. What we have is an opportunity for the County to enter into an agreement with the Texas Workforce Center here in Kerrville and covering the county. What this opportunity is, is for a nonfinancial agreement so the County would not be responsible for any finances; we cover all of the expenses. What happens is, we have participants who are receiving food stamps in the county, and what we are looking to do is have them train somewhere here in the county for an opportunity for them to gain personal experience and gain some experience that they are otherwise not able to obtain at this time, because they may not have all of the abilities or skills to go out and find employment in our area. What we do is we take the amount of benefits that they are receivinq, we divide this amount by $5.15, and that is the amount of money that they are earning from us working for you. So, what we would be doing is, as we have participants who come in, if they are nonemployed at the time, what we do is, through this agreement, we set up with -- with the County to have these participants come in and work for you for a set period of time, for a set period of months, not to exceed three months. Some of these 1 .~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A 10 11 12 r-. 13 14 15 lh 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 E6 by the State to go out and find alternate forms of employment rn pay for this -- for the food stamp training, and that's where the County would come in. That's where this agreement would be set up. So, Kerr County would not be making any agreement to hire these people once they have gone through this training period, so please don't feel like they would be going into that. We would request, though, that the supervisor, whoever this person is working for, would be able to go over and check timesheets, make sure that they are correct, and sign off on those so that that -- that participants could return them to our office. We are looking at activities that this participant would be able to -- capable of parti~~ipating in. In other words, we do not want to put someone in positions above their abilities, but there should be many opportunities in the county for them to be able to learn. And the other thing that we would like to do is just to provide some skills and opportunities so that once they do complete this agreement, they're able to go out into our area, out in our -- on our county and provide, you know, services to an employer in the long run. That's -- that's the main purpose of this -- of this whole Workfare. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said the funds 1 2 3 9 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 67 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who picks up such things as FICA, taxes, and so forth? MR. PLUMMER: That -- that is not exactly covered under this because of the -- because of the status of receiving a benefit from the State. MS. DIERINGER: It's their welfare dollars. MR. PLUMMER: It's their welfare dollars. There is not an actual paycheck. This is the food stamps -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not subject to Social Security taxes or Medicare or Medicaid or whatever? MR. PLUMMER: Correct. So we're not actually -- they're not actually working for us. This is just in return for receiving a benefit from the government. They are working for those benefits. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What type of work did you have in mind? MS. DIERINGER: I was thinking, like, the Hill Country Ag Barn, animal shelter. MR. PLUMMER: Roads. Road and Bridge, any type of opportunities like that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's take that last one, for example. Say they're working -- well, any of them, really, working in any of those departments and they get injured. Tell us about that. MR. PLUMMEK: Right now, we are in the 68 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I7 18 I9 20 '1 ~~ ~3 24 25 process of renegotiating a contract for workmen's comp. So, we currently -- we are expecting to have an idea and know for sure by the beginning of August. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As to who accepts that liability? MR. PLOMMER: Correct. Well, and we already have a company under -- for different organizations that already have entered into Workfare; they are already r_overed. At this time, we are renegotiating for different organizations entering into new contracts. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As we speak this morning, how many eligible persons do you have that you're looking to place? MR. PL~MMER: It would be a limited number. Right now, I believe we have two potential here in Kerr County who could utilize this service, but it -- we try to keep that at a limited number. Our main goal through this whole process is to get people this experience so they ran go and find employment so they can get off of the food stamp rolls. That is the whole purpose of this. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm a big fan of welfare-to-work. I think y'all are doing the exact right thing. And 1 can see us participating in it in the departments that they mentioned; Road and Bridge, Animal Shelter, Ag Barn, those kinds of things. But if you -- if 69 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1N 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 we branch out into the individual elected official's offices, we're going to have to get a sign-off from them before we even attempt that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, as far as us -- we are concerned, those departments would work great. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, once again, what's the limited time you've assigned most people? MR. PLUMMER: It would be a maximum of three months. There would be an individual agreement, though, for each different person, because each person's benefit is different. So, we would -- we would definitely have to set that up on an individual basis, but we do have a form for that. But it is covered under this -- this agreement. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you work out -- you say you have a candidate -- or you have two candidates right now. How do you figure out -- and who -- you know, where they're going to be placed, if they're going to -- I mean, what if Road and Bridge decides these people are not going to be a help to them? MR. PLUMMER: First of all, they've worked with a case manager in our organization, and we would not reter someone who we did not feel had the abilities to fall into that type of position. So, physical -- someone who could not physically meet the requirements of Road and ~o 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 Bridge, then we would not even bother you with that -- with that person. What we would do is, we would take people who we feel are adequate -- have adequate skills for the positions available, and then we would do a referral form, let the supervisor of whoever would be over this person meet them. If we agree at that point, then we would go ahead and do the paperwork that I discussed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if the supervisor of Road and Bridge doesn't want the person -- MR.. PLUMMER: We will find a different organization. Not a problem. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments of Mr. Plummer? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess it would require a motion that we adopt the program and work out the details, right? I would move that we approve the Non-Financial Cooperative Agreement for Workfare, which is a program of the Alamo Area Development Corporation, working through the Kerrville, Texas, Workforce Center administration, as submitted. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And authorize the County Judge to sign same. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And ask the County Judge to sign same agreement -- or request. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 1 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~l JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the Non-Financial Cooperative Agreement for Workfare between the Alamo Area Development Corporation and Kerr County, and authorize County Judge to sign same. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a term in the agreement? A term? MR. PLOMMER: Such as? COMMISSIONER LETZ: As in -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How long? COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- how long? Is this going to go on forever? MR. PLUMMER: It could go on forever, or it could be ended -- JUDGE HENNEKE: It could be terminated on 30 days notice. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I'm asking is that after we've done it for a while, six months or a year, I'd like to come back to the Court, because I can see also -- I mean, if it doesn't work out from our standpoint, it's more of a burden to our people than -- than benefit to the County, in which case I'd like to, you know, cancel. But the only way we're going to know if it's working or isn't working is if we get those departments that are utilizing it to report back, and I'd recommend six months. 1 3 4 5 H 7 8 G 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 ~z COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sunset review type thing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would accept that. Six months. Subject to review at the conclusion of six months. JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we make it -- okay, that's fine. All right. Does everyone understand what we're voting on now? Okay. All in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you. MS. DIERINGER: Thank you. MR. PLUMMER: Thank you for your time. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, gentlemen. At this time, let's take a break and be back at a quarter to 11:00. (Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, let's reconvene the regular special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Next item for consideration is Item Number 7, consider and discuss approval of the 20Q2 Texas Community Development Proqram Colonia Planning Study for reference use by Kerr County, and submit the planning study to the Office 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 ly 20 21 22 z3 24 25 73 of Rural Community Affairs for its final review. Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, in accordance with the regulations as put forward for grants of this nature, we did conduct a public hearing -- the final public hearing. It had been originally scheduled for July 2nd, I guess, or whatever; was postponed until the 16th because of the flooding and raining conditions. We had the public hearing here. Commissioners Griffin and Baldwin and I were in attendance. There were probably between 15 and 20 people in attendance at the public hearing. Mr. Hartzell conducted the Q and A, basically, in which he fielded questions and comments from the citizens in attendance with reference to the revisions of the plan. And, Mr. Hartzell, if you'd step to the podium, we can maybe go through that. I have the final plan here. I think it's safe to report that the folks in attendance were satisfied that the revisions that they had suggested had been, in fact, incorporated, and the areas of concerns that were originally included were excluded. And the final plan as presented at the public hearing and here today is, in fact, one that represents all the changes that had been talked about by the Court previously. Eric, is that your understanding and are there other comments you'd like to make? MF.. HARTZELL: All right. Eric Hartzell with 1 G 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1S 19 20 21 22 23 24 LS 74 Grantworks. Yeah, as far as -- the meeting went fairly well. We had a few additional comments, and most of the changes that had been made previously were well received. All the changes, I guess, were well received, and we had no additional calls for changes to the plan, as it was provided. And so -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what remains for the Court to do today is to approve the plan. It is for the County's reference use, if it -- just to refer to it for future planning purposes, and to submit it to the Texas Community Development Program for its review and final approval, or whatever it is they do. Is that correct? MR. HARTZELL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question, before you get too far in there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Eric, I have some constituents that are in the audience today that are fairly new to the process, and wanted you to assure them that the Upper Turtle Creek area has been deleted from the final plan. MR. HARTZELL: Yes, Upper Turtle Creek was deleted, I believe, following the public hearing that we had in -- in June. And it's removed. And those draft versions 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 75 are not going to be provided to the State or to the County or anyone. They're on our computer; that's it. And they will -- the final plan does not include ripper Turtle Creek. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are two volumes here which will have all the maps and all the comments of the -- of the plan itself and all the various maps and studies that have been done. There is a C.D. that accompanies these two volumes. These will be on file with the County Clerk. Anybody that wishes to avail themselves of them for whatever purposes is welcome to do so. And -- where is the County Clerk? Madam clerk? This is yours. COMMISSIONER LETZ: A question I have is, what is the process with the State? I mean, does the State just read it and do something, or do they read it, ar_cept comments from the public? MR. HARTZELL: The State's process is a desk review. They sort of performed a preliminary one at the Court's request a couple months ago, just to make sure that the contractual obligations of the County's contract with the State were met, and that basically is that certain elements were included in the plan. There's no review for the specifir_ re~~ommendations, the specific areas named or anything like that at the State level. They just want to make sure that we covered the bases. And, at that point, 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I/ 18 ly 20 ~l ,~ 23 24 25 76 that's a review of less than a week; it will be finished in less than a week. One -- the reviewer will take a look at it and will send a letter back to the County saying it looks good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then what happens? MR. HARTZELL: Then the project's closed out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are there any of the others who want to comment, Judge, before I make a motion? I don't know. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else who'd like to make a comment on this? (No response.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would then move approval of the 2000 Texas Community Development Program Colonia Plan Study for reference use by Kerr County, and to the submittal of the planning study to the Office of Rural and Community Affairs for its final review. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the 2000 Texas Community Development Program Colonia Plan Study for reference use by Kerr County, and authorize submittal of the planning study to the Office of Rural Community Affairs for its final review. Any questions or comments"? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 2S ~~ (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 8, consider and discuss public hearing for July 30th, Year 2002, at E o'clock p.m., regarding Kerr County participation in the 003/2009 Texas Community Development Program and Colonia Fund application for continuation of Kerrville South Sewer Collection Project and Disaster Relief and Home Disaster Assistance programs, with Grantworks to advertise and conduct a public hearing. Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Once again, Judqe, this is our effort to get in line Tor additional funding for the Kerrville South and wastewater collection project. When we adopted it originally, we had indicated our desire for the project to move as quickly as possible, knowing that the first grant totaling three-quarters of a million dollars would not get the job completed, and that we would get in line and see if we could get some additional funds for that project to keep moving. So, that's one of the two items under this agenda. The second is that in the backup material that you have, Grantworks has provided us with some information which T.C.D.P. has programmed for public assistance, local match of the 25 percent that Kerr County might have to come up with -- will have to come up with as a 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 R 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1! 18 ly 20 21 L2 23 24 25 78 part of our rehabilitation of our roads and bridges and so forth. And I invited Eric to be part of today's meeting to discuss what this is and how we might avail ourselves of those funds, and I invite you to come tell us about that, Eric. MR. HARTZELL: Okay. I have a handout here that kind of goes over disaster relief funds. I have some extra copies as well, if anyone in the audience would like to look at one. I don't have too many extra copies. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we go back to Item Number 1, too? I have a question -- MR. HARTZELL: Sure, definitely. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- about that, please. Originally, we'd gotten around three-quarters of a million dollars to do -- to start the project in Kerrville South -- the sewer project in Kerrville South. Remind me and tell the audience how far that three-quarters of a million will go, and how much will it take, do you think, that we're goinq to apply for to total turnkey completion of the project? MR. HARTZELL: All right. The area -- that target area that's being looked at right now is the area along Ranchero Road from Highway 16 to the creek, to Camp Meeting Creek on the south side, primarily. In addition, there are some apartment complexes and mobile homes on the 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly 20 21 22 23 24 25 79 north side of the road, but not in a continuous stretch. They kind of -- there's several segments of or areas of those. Those are -- those are the target areas for the sewer system; that's where the majority of the failing septics were identified, and where the lower income residents reside. Right now, the three-quarters of a million that's available will be used to, number one, upgrade -- upsize a line in the city of Kerrville system to allow for adequate sewer flow from the area. Number two, to lay collection lines to about 120 households in that target area remaining to be served, including the area of Loyal Valley, which is -- George Muck? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: George Muck, Loyal Valley. MR. HARTZELL: Exactly. There are still about 220, 240 households that need to be connected, so we're looking at probably another $750,000 to $1 million worth of construction to finish those areas. That has not been applied for at this point. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much will we apply for this round? MR. HARTZELL: Let's see. This round is a September due date for the Texas Community Development Program's Community Development Funds. It's a smaller 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 q 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ,, ~~ 24 ~5 eo grant, a quarter of a million. Immediately following that, a month later, there will be a deadline for the Colonia Fund, which will be half a million. So, up to three-quarters of a million by the end of the year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which you think would be sufficient to get this project -- MR. HARTZELL: It will be sufficient to get the majority -- the vast majority. There may be one more small grant to wrap it up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the public hearing that we're talking about will be to cover both aspects? Both the -- MR. HARTZELL: That's right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- sewer project and the disaster relief? MR. HARTZELL: Right. The Community Development Program requires one public hearing for all of its programs, and this lasts for si;: months. So, we can cover everything in one public hearing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what about this? MR. HARTZELL: Okay. The handout that I've provided to you summarizes the disaster relief fund. As we -- as was discussed earlier, it's used to provide the 25 percent local -- or a portion of the 25 percent local matching funds for the FEMA assistance that you receive for 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2J 81 public assistance. That's infrastructure and facilities. It can't be used for debris removal, for example, which you'll be getting some assistance with as well, but this is only for infrastructure; for hard, fixed assets up to $350,000. Depending on how much damage you have in the county, you probably could use more than that, I would guess, for your 25 percent. That's the maximum that they've imposed. The funds are available now. It usually takes 30 to 45 days after applications are made to receive your award. And as the County moves forward with its improvements and its renovations and its repairs, the funds would be drawn down as -- as funds -- as the funds are expended from the County, you're reimbursed from the State. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is -- Eric, do you know if the City of Kerrville is pursuing these two grants? MR. HARTZELL: Yeah, I believe I read in the paper that the Assistant City Manager was looking into assistance, and he mentioned -- they mentioned the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, which is the agency that used to run this program. I'm assuming that they're talking about this program. I don't know that for sure. We've contacted the City, but not had any contact back. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How -- on these two grants, how does Grantworks get paid? 82 s- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 G 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 ly 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HARTZELL: We get paid from the grant funds, and typically our fee is about $20,000 to $25,000 for the administration. What's involved in administration is keeping a cost accounting of all the ins and outs and the cash flows for the project. Also, we provide -- we do all the paperwork on the County's end. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eric, is the 350 a -- a block grant of 350, or is -- is the County eligible for funds up to 350, depending on the amount of damage the County had to expend? Explain that, please. MP.. HARTZELL: Okay. If your 25 percent matching requirement is $350,000 or more, you will apply and be awarded $350,000, in all likelihood. If your 25 percent is below $350,000, you will be eligible for that amount, up to -- you know, let's say that your total damage is a million; 25 percent would be a quarter of a million. That's how much you'll be eligible for. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if our damage was 51.4 million, the 350 would be our piece, and we'll be eligible for that? MR. HARTZELL: That's right. If your damage is $20 million, the most you can get from this grant is still $350,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Generally, what are the qualifications for a county to be eligible? 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 83 MR. HARTZELL: For the program, only that you are what is called a "nonentitlement county," and that's counties of under 200,000 population. So, for instance, Bexar County will not be eligible to receive this program. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Over 200,000. MR. HARTZELL: Over 200,000, yeah. Bexar County gets these block grant funds directly from H.U.D., and so the State doesn't spend its block grant funds, which are reserved for the smaller communities, in those larger counties. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a -- is the -- I guess, the grant maximum per entity? Per -- MR. HARTZELL: Per entity, yeah. The County can -- the County and the City can each receive $350,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But not for the same thing? MR. HARTZELL: Not for the same -- well, if you have a joint -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Same flood. MR. HARTZELL: Same flood. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not damage to the same -- MR. HARTZELL: Right. If you had a jointly-owned facility, then you could do it that way. You could use the funds for that same facility, for your portion 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 ~3 29 25 84 of that. But, otherwise, yeah, you're talking -- City's going to be looking at the city infrastructure and County's going to be looking at county infrastructure. The 1998 floods were the most recent use of these funds in this area. That would have been Medina, Bandera, and Kendall all received $350,000 grants for assistance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They did? MR. HARTZELL: To recover from those floods, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The public hearing, is it for both programs? MR. HARTZELL: Yeah, the public hearing would cover everything under the Texas Community Development Program, which is disaster relief, colonia, and community development, so the water and sewer grants that are being used for Kerrville South and the disaster relief grant would all be covered under one public hearing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about the disaster assistance? MR. HARTZELL: Okay. This is a separate program. It's the Texas Home Program, and this is for housing assistance, and it is about a -- up to half a million dollars. This differs a little bit, because a -- 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 f 9 10 11 12 ,... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,~-~ 25 whereas the infrastructure grants are only awarded to cities whose homes were destroyed or severely damaged. Typically, they're targeted at elderly, low-income, and disabled homeowners, but not exclusively. The program will provide a grant to that homeowner to rebuild their house if they don't have adequate insurance. And that's something that is available to the County, but the County would have to make the decision to apply for that. The City, I believe, is looking at the Home program. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Application deadline MR. HARTZELL: There is no specific deadline They're accepted on a rolling basis; That's true of the Community Development Program, I'm sorry. The disaster relief grant, the Home program will set -- they will set a deadline for that program, but it will be several months from now. That has not -- they have not even thought about deadlines at this point in the housing program. But the disaster relief funds, where the infrastructure -- the '5 percent match, that is an as-needed basis, so you need to -- we would want to apply as soon as possible to beat the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ZO ~l ~Z ~3 24 25 86 rush, I guess. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The request that r_ame from FEMA last week is to identify what the location -- which I don't think we did, because we figured that FEMA had that information better than we did. It's -- are we aware -- or are you aware -- and I'm really speaking to Buster or the Judge -- aware of any homes in the county that would qualify for this? JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams identified a bunch of homes in his precinct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, there are homes on Verde Creek that would qualify for this. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do mobile homes qualify? MR. HARTZELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We were talking about qualifying -- just help me out here a little bit, Eric. Are we talking about substantial damage? Just rising water within, or infrastructure under a house damaged or what? Give me a little sense of that. MR. HARTZELL: Typically, we're talking about -- well, the reason -- you'll see about halfway down this section, the typical grant range is $ 5,000 to $45,000. The damage to the home may be significantly less than that, but ber_ause these are federal funds, we have to raise the house to above floodplain level, 100-year floodplain level, s~ 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 l~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly ~0 21 2 G 23 24 25 which can add some expense. Plus we also would be required r_o bring the house up to federal housing standards, which are, like -- have you heard of -- I don't know if you're familiar with Section 8 Federal Housing Guidelines? Okay. For instance, you know, you need to have -- all the windows need to have glass in them and those kind of things. They're kind of basic housing quality standards. And, in order to do that, there's some -- usually some additional expenses related to raising those standards beyond the actual flood damage repairs. So, we're talking about anyone who has, you know, I would guess $5,000 to $10,000 of damage and up, is what we'd be looking at. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can I assume, if a homeowner filed with FEMA and was given -- I understand they do this; an inspector can come out and write a check on the site. If they received FEMA funds, they would be ineligible to take this; would that be a fair assumption? MR. HARTZELL: If they received FEMA funds, they may be ineligible if the funds were sufficient to -- to rehabilitate the house. If the funds were insufficient, say -- there's a cap on the FEMA award. If the funds were insufficient, then -- let's say there's a total loss. $15,000, 1 believe, is the cap from FEMA, and you wouldn't necessarily be able to rebuild your house for the cap. COMMISSIUNER W1LLiAMS: Let's flip the coin. 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 Let's assume that a homeowner did not file for FEMA funds -- and I happen to have one who, for whatever reasons, has determined not to call the FEMA number -- but sustained some significant damage. Would they be eligible? MR. HARTZELL: They would be eligible under the state guidelines for the assistance. The Court can set stricter guidelines if you chose. One thing about this particular program -- and, again, you're not obligated to apply for any of these grants, but if you did, the Home program, they've -- they've made it fairly flexible by what they call local guidelines. And the guidelines allow you to set thresholds and standards for the type of assistance and the type of households that are going to be assisted. That can be more stringent or as stringent as you want to make them, but there are minimum state standards that would have to be followed. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are there any other requirements of the County with respect to the Texas Home Program? I mean, County funds are not involved? MR. HARTZELL: That's correct, there's no matching funds. There's -- and there are no local funds required. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, again, Grantworks would administer the distribution of these funds? MR. HARTZELL: That's right. 89 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~, 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. The application would come through the County, and -- MR. HARTZELL: That's right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- be forwarded to Grantworks for -- MR. HARTZELL: That's right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for administration purposes? MR. HARTZELL: Yeah, we handle -- we would handle the application process. It would be taken -- it would be taken at the courthouse, probably, and maybe several locations around the county, depending on where the damage was most prevalent. And the Court's action would involve approving the guidelines -- the standards guidelines, and then, once all the applications are taken in and scored according to those guidelines, the Court approves a final list. That's it. They don't actually pick -- hand-pick the people who will receive benefit. We've done this type of program in -- we're doing it right now in Medina County with the disaster relief that they had from some tornadoes and flooding earlier in this year. We have done this in about 140 cities and counties in Texas. We do about EO percent of the work in the state. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't use the County's system to pass the money through it in any way? 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22