^„ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Monday, January 27, 2003 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas `~ ail, m V ti ~,. PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 DAVE NICHULSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 z 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-. 25 I N D E X January 27, 2003 PAGE --- Visitors' Input 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 5 --- Approval agenda 6 2. 1 Resolution by Kerr County Commissioners Court N~" ~1 ,z ~r 1` in support of two Bills to be presented to Texas State Legislature regarding Headwaters & U.G.R.A. 20 2.2 Request by Friends of the Union Church to approve grant request to be submitted to L.C.R.A. ~'~J~I'+7 22 2.3 Reduce county registration fees to $1 during annual rabies drive, February 1-15, 2003 :f•]~j-I!~ 31 2.4 Approve contract reviewed by County Attorney for reconstruction of Sheppard Rees Road ~7~iy`t 33 Alternate plat approval for revision of plat for~y~SC Lots 43 & 44A, Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I 36 2.6 Alternate plat approval for revision of plat for Tracts 13A, 13B, 14A & 14B of Y.O. Ranchlandsf~7~5/ 38 2.7 Ratification of signatures by county officials on,~~~,~~ conformed copy of Riverhill Country Club easement 41 2.8 Discuss having February 24th Commissioners Court meeting at Union Church ~~ `~"~~E'C 45 53, 131 2.10 Consider, discuss, & take appropriate action on hc' c',` /v .` revisions to Interlocal Agreement between Kerr County & U.G.R.A. for Kerrville South Wastewater Project covering current/pending/future projects 59, 76 C'~3 2.11 Status of temporary bridge for Hermann Sons Road'~~69 2.12 Consider, discuss, take appropriate action to .,~io-'~~ suspend Section 10 of O.S.S.F. Rules through ~~~ July 31, 2003 101 5.3 First Responder program report by Kyle Young 137 Kerr County RC&D status report by Bertha Venegas 143 Collections Department report by Brad Alford 196 --- Adjourned 153 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Monday, January 27, 2003, 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 TINLEY: Okay. I'll call the meeting to order, special Commissioners Court meeting for Monday, January the 27th at 9 a.m. local time. It is that time, and I will first ask for any visitor who's present here this morning who has anything to speak about that is not on the agenda. Items which are on the agenda -- if you have items that are on the agenda that you want to be heard on, why, I would ask that -- we'll get to those in just a moment, but first I'd like to call on Commissioners k3ill Williams, Commissioner Precinct 2, to lead us in our opening prayer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought you were going to let me off the hook, Judge. Please rise and join me in a moment of prayer and the pledge of allegiance to the flag. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Those of you that do have items that are on the agenda that you want to be heard on, I would ask that you fill out a -- a speaking participation form; they're at the back. I'd urge you Lo do 1-'~-n3 4 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 so, so that we can be sure and recognize you when we get to that item. Now, with respect to items which are not on the agenda, if there's anybody here present that has anything they want to say, I'd ask for you to please come forward. Mr. Walter Harris? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The honorable Colonel Walter Harris. MR. HARRIS: Morning, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir. MR. HARRIS: Right now, today, you people gave me the honor of being put on this 911 Board. I'm not sure what kind of an honor that is, but we have just hired a new director of the 911 District. I brought him over here today, Mr. Bill Armrine -- Amerine. I got it right. MR. AMERINE: There you go. MR. HARRIS: And he's on duty. Today is his first day. Don't ask him any questions; we're not going to answer any questions. We're going to get out of here and go to work. Thank you very much, sir. DODGE TINLEY: Luckily for you, Colonel Harris, we can't engage in any discourse, so we're precluded from doing that anyway. Welcome aboard, Bill. MR. AMERINE: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you coming by. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill assured me that ,_;~_ ,, 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 he will get a haircut before he gets too much longer. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he certainly needs it. Is there anybody else that has anything that they'd like to offer? Any ideas or comments on matters that are not on the agenda? There being no one else to speak on matters not on the agenda, we'll move forward with Commissioners' Comments. We'll start with Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go Tampa Bay. That's it, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: That's it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any comments this morning. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have any comments. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Football game between the west coast and Florida, who cares -- who really cares about that thing? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, r'lorida. I wanted to remind Commissioners Court and all the public that we have a public hearing tomorrow morning at 11 a.m. in this courtroom with the old T.N.R.C.C. T.C.E.Q. will be here to talk about the O.S.S.F. -- state O.S.S. F. rules and regulations. That's 11 o'clock, and we want to invite -- I have invited U.G.R.A. to come, and 1 think the format is ,;_~~ 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 24 25 going to be to where they will address the Commissioners Court and we'll just have a nice little country-boy visit with them about some of the rules and regulations, and then if it's -- if it's necessary, then I think that we will probably, later on, sit down and visit with other agencies in the county if -- if necessary, if we see that we need to. That's all. JUDGE TINLEY: As Commissioner Baldwin said, this is -- I believe it's actually termed a workshop, isn't it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, it is a workshop. JUDGE TINLEY: Any of you folks that have an interest in the O.S.S.F. issues, we'd invite you to be here. If you know anybody else that -- that has an interest in that, why, urge them to come and -- and be with us then, and we welcome that. I don't have anything specific other than that, so let's get on down to regular business. First item up for consideration is payment of the bills. Mr. Auditor. Mr. Tomlinson. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Good morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir. MR. TOMLINSON: We do have bills. I think you have a list of those. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As a matter of fact, 1-~~-i3 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for a two-week period, it's $397,000. Which is every two weeks. That's the way life is, and I move we pay that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we pay the bills as presented by the Auditor. Is there any discussion? Being no discussion, all those in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item on the agenda are budget amendments. We have Budget Amendment Number 1 from the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Tomlinson. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. This -- this amendment is a request from the Sheriff to transfer $209.17 from his Operating Equipment line item to Capital Outlay. It's to pay a $10,722.56 payment for Ford Motor Credit, and this is the first -- first payment on a 2003 Ford Expedition. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: For the purchase of -- of vehicles in the budget. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The payment on -- payment on all cars, or just one? MR. TOMLINSON: Just that one, the one i- ~-u; 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 vehicle. We've already made the payments on the others. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made by Commissioner Letz that we approve Budget Amendment Number 1. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. Any discussion? Being no discussion, all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Number 2. MR. TOMLINSON: This request is from Judge Brown in the County Court at Law to transfer $200 from Court-Appointed Attorney line item for special court reporter in his -- in his budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that Budget Amendment Request Number 2 be approved. Any discussion? Being none, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) i-~~-n~ 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Request Number 3 from the County Treasurer. MR. TOMLINSON: This request is from the Treasurer's office to transfer $219.98 from Nondepartmental Contingency to Operating Equipment for the replacement of a monitor for a computer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Is there any questions or discussion? I have a question. We're moving out of general non -- our general contingency fund over into the County Treasurer's office? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The County Treasurer did not indicate there were any other line items within the Treasurer's office that could be utilized to absorb that? MR. TOMLINSON: In the budgetary process in the past, we -- the Court has -- has put enough funds -- or part of the contingency is Tor the purpose of replacing computer equipment that we don't -- that we don't budget in the normal course of the budget for individual offices, so i_~~ ~~~ 10 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 1S 16 17 18 1N ~0 21 22 23 29 25 that's -- that's a standard move. I mean, as far as the replacement or emergency replacement of computer parts. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you saying this is more in the nature of a capital outlay? MR. TOMLINSON: It's not a capital outlay. It's -- it's -- because its under $1,000, but it's for -- it's for that purpose, is to -- to replace equipment for our computer system. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion's been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Being no discussion -- no further discussion, all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. We'll go to Budget Amendment Request Number 4. MR. TOMLINSON: With this, I also have late bills that I need hand checks for. This amendment is for -- for the payment of renewal for our auto property coverage, our auto liability coverage, and our general property coverage for county-wide. This covers the following departments: Nondepartmental, Courthouse and Related Buildings, County Jail, Sheriff's Department, Juvenile Probation, Rabies and Animal Control, the Youth Exhibition - -~ u3 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 Center, and Road and Bridge. My -- the first part of this is to transfer $1,908 from Autopsy and Inquest line item to Property Insurance in Nondepartmental. Transferring $311 from Major Repairs in the Courthouse Maintenance budget, into the Insurance line item. The next part is to transfer $535 from Jailer Salaries to Insurance for the building and the jail. The next -- next we have -- we're asking for a $6,352 transfer from Deputy Salaries to Vehicle Insurance for the Sheriff's Office. For Juvenile Probation, we're asking for a transfer of $37 from Miscellaneous to Vehicle Insurance. Next we have a transfer of $188 from Vehicle Gas, Oil, and Maintenance from -- from Animal Control, or -- to Insurance in that department. Next we're transferring $390 from Major Repairs to Insurance at the Ag Barn. And last, we Have a transfer of $2,573 from Workers Comp -- excuse me -- to Vehicle Insurance for the Road and Bridge. The total of -- of these payments is $93,037 for property coverage and $26,956 for physical damage coverage for our -- our vehicles, and the last one is $16,077 for our liability coverage for our vehicles. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This all relates to the -- the new insurance we got? MR. TOMLINSON: This is renewal, effective January 1st. JUDGE TINLEY: What are those first two _ 03 12 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 24 25 numbers again? 43 what? MR. TOMLINSON: $43,037. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that was for what? MR. TOMLINSON: It's for property coverage. JUDGE TINLEY: Property damage? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Casualty, okay. And what was the second number? MR. TOMLINSON: It's $26,956. It's for automotive physical damage. JU UGE TINLEY: Physical damage? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. And the last is for $16,077. JUDGE TINLEY; $16,077? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's liability? MR. TOMLINSON: That's for liability. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: We had enough budgeted in the line items for our general liability renewal and our public officials renewal, so there's no need -- was no need for a budget amendment for that, but they are being paid at this time. COMMISSIONER. NICHOLSON: The total budget of the insurance items that we're transferring to appear to be i-zi-oa 13 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 1 "I 18 ly 20 21 22 23 24 25 about $70,000, the total amount that we're transferring to it. MR. TOMLINSON: It's $12,000 -- yeah, $12,294. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just a few months into the fiscal year. That seems like a large change. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, at budget time, it's difficult to know four months or three months before the renewal date what -- you know, what our cost is going to be. So, we're estimating, you know, at budget time what the increases would be, and so the way -- the way we budget it is to just anticipate a percentage increase and apply that to our historical numbers, come up with a budget. Various -- part of the increase in department coverage is due to -- to the increases in value. I mean, we have -- we have a million dollars in equipment, new; that's for the Sheriff's radio system. So -- so, that all -- that million dollars is subject to -- to coverage, and so that -- that is part oT the increase for property coverage. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, as a matter of course at budget time, do you take the -- just for being able to predict the future, do you take the increase, like this one, the percentage of this one that we know we're adjusting for, will that be the basis of what you'll predict for the next budget year'? i-_~-,;~ 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 L L 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. We -- we do a percentage based on what we've actually paid, and we try to get our underwriter to give us some -- some indication of -- you know, of what their increases will be, you know, overall. But that's somewhat difficult to do. And a lot of times, they don't know either. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just one comment. Can we blame this on the lawyers? MR. TOMLINSON: Try. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I think it's the lawyers' fault that this is goinq up; it's not ours. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the -- of Budget Amendment 4. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize hand checks. That's it, authorize hand checks. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you asking for hand checks? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And to whom? MR. TOMLINSON: To Texas Association of Counties. JUDGE TINLEY three amounts indicated? Okay. And in each of the i - - ~ ~~ 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 zl 22 z3 24 25 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: And any amounts not covered in this budget amendment are included within bills previously authorized to be paid? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: I did -- I did visit with -- this is a -- a positive note. The representative from Texas Association of Counties was here last week, and we are -- we are receiving a 20 percent discount on our worker's comp for this next renewal, and it's because of our -- our experience. We've had a good experience. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would seem, however, what TAC giveth, TAC taketh away. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, that we approve Budget Amendment Request Number 4, and authorize hand checks to Texas Association of Counties in the amounts of $43,037 for property coverage, $26,956 for automobile physical damage coverage, and $16,077 for liability coverage on vehicles. Any further discussion or comments or questions? Being none, all in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 1-~"-n ; 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: A11 opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Request Number 5. MR. TOMLINSON: This is for the County Attorney. And it also involves insurance, but it's liability insurance for -- for the County Attorney. He's asking to transfer $502 from Attorney's Fees, $968 to go to insurance -- Liability Insurance line item, and $34 for Software Maintenance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 5. Any discussion or questions? Being none, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Do we have a Budget Amendment Request Number 6? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. This is a request to -- E actually, to transfer cash from the General Fund to the Lake S Ingram Estates Road District fund for $3,600. There's a -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 1E 1i if l~ 2( L 2: 2. 2 1-_ ~, ~ 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly 20 21 22 23 29 L S a bond -- not a bond -- I guess it's a bond payment due, and we have not collected a sufficient amount of tax dollars through the road district to make that payment. So, I'm -- my request is to transfer the $3,800 to -- from -- in cash from the General Fund to the Lake Ingram Estates Road District, and also, at the same time, I'm asking for -- for transfer back to the General Fund when those taxes are collected. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, it's taxes that just are not collected now, but will be collected? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We hope. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We hope. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, does this require -- you know, are we talking about declaring an emergency? MR. TOMLINSON: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not going into the -- MR. TOMLINSON: No, we're not. COMMISSIONER BALUWIN: Where does it actually -- what line -- oh, I see the line items. Forgive me, I see it. MR. TOMLINSON: This is a -- this fund, this is an interest and sinking fund, and I just don't want to i _,-5~ 18 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 see that be overdrawn. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we approve Budget Amendment Number 6. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I second that motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Baldwin, respectively, that Budget Amendment Request Number 6 be approved. Is there any further discussion or questions? Being none, all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. IThe motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. I believe that gets us down to late bills, doesn't it'? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have any. JUDGE 'TINLEY: No late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, okay. There is one. JUUGE `TINLEY: We do have a late bill. MR. TOMLINSON: I overlooked it. Actually, it was for the first budget amendment, for payment to Ford Motor Credit. I didn't include that, so I'm -- I overlooked that one, but I do need a hand check for that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. i-~~-;< 19 1 2 3 9 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 1~ I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: What's the amount? MR. TOMLINSON: It's for $10,722.56. JUDGE TINLEY: $10,722.55? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Did you make that motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill did. DODGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Williams and Letz, respectively, that the Court approve a -- a late bill or a late payment and hand check to Ford Motor Credit for the sum of $10,722.56. Any further discussion? A11 in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) DODGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Okay. Do we have any monthly reports that need attention? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept and approve the reports. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As presented. COMMISSIONER LETZ: As presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and i-_~ ~~ zo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, that we approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. Is there any discussion or questions? Being none, all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. It appears that we are now to the consideration agenda. Ae we all on the same page here? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. At least I'm on the right page. First item on the consideration agenda is consider and discuss a resolution by Kerr County Commissioners Court in support of two bills to be presented at Texas Srate Legislature regarding Headwaters and U.G.R.A. And I think Commissioner Baldwin has a report. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I have a couple of comments, and possibly you might have some comment or two after I get through. But all I wanted to say was that the -- this was planned to happen, but the way the machine up in Austin works, a Representative -- in this case, Representative Hilderbran -- takes a thought and an idea to a body of -- I think attorneys, probably, that are known as the Legislative Council, and they turn that 1 2 ~ - ; 21 1 2 3 4 J 6 7 8 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 paperwork in and they simply go through and make sure it's not a duplicate bill and the verbiage is -- you know, put it irr a bill-type form and just kind of clean it up and get it back to him. That has not happened. They have had it for ample time, p]enty of time to get it back over here, but it has not come out of Legislative Council back to him in order for him Lo get it to us. I went ahead and put it on the agenda last week, just in case some miracle happened and it qot down kreie, but it didn't show. And I -- I've asked -- I've told Representative Hilderbran last week that we would really need a copy of that bill for us to read. I mean, that they shouldn't expect us to vote on something that -- that we haven't Lead and that we don't understand, and our attorneys haven't looked over and blessed, et cetera. And he understands tkiat clearly. So, it was just -- I may have jumped the gun here a little bit of putting it on the agenda, but I don't Lhink I did. But, anyway, it's the lawyer's fault. Ycu knew I'd get to that eventually. That's all I wanted Lo say. DODGE TINLEY: I knew you'd come down to that last conclusion, of course, Commissioners Baldwin. I talked with Representative Hilderbran this morning -- earlier this morning, and he indicated that as soon as the matter came out of Legislative Council, that he would forward it over here for us £or consideration. So, we're awaiting that, and _ ~s 2~ 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ ~ L 23 29 25 at this point, there's nothing to present for the Court's consideration. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody else have any other comments, thoughts, ideas with regard to that particular item? If not, we'll move -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't know -- JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I suppose we don't know enough about that process to be able to reschedule that item? We can't determine -- we can't know that we're going to have it here for the next meeting? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. We will await his phone call. JUDGE TINLEY: By the same token, I'm not sure that we don't know that this will be available, and certainly, any member of this Court has the right to place this same or similar item on the agenda for next time. We may be in the same situation that we are now, or we may have something. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll probably go that route. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that particular item? Let's go to Item 2.2, consideration and discuss a request by Friends of the Union Church for -_--~~~ 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approval of a grant request to be submitted to the L.C.R.A, Lower Colorado River Authority, and authorize the County Judge to sign the same. I'm not sure who caused that to be placed on the agenda. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it was -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dr. Rector. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Dr. Rector. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And General Schellhase. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. Ms. Dyke, you're here on Dr. Rector's behalf? MS. DYKE: Yes, Dr. Rector called this morning and said that he's not going to be able to be here, and he requested that I represent him this morning. Okay. You're probably all familiar with the fact that the Kerr County Historical Commission has been in the process of restoring the old Union Church building, which is located on the Schreiner campus. In fact, we've even had a dedication service that was held on Christmas Eve, and we've turned the keys over to the County, and you are -- the County is the actual owner of the building. This request this morning is for -- it's from the Friends, which has been the fundraising arm for Kerr County Historical Commission to raise the moneys for this restoration, and we are at this time submitting a proposal to the Lower Colorado xiver Authority _ -.r, 24 1 .-. 2 3 4 5 F 7 8 y 10 11 12 13 .... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 29 ..~ <~ for our final funds to complete the project. We have a list of projects that total $21,13, and this -- I've been in contact with Lori Vitek at the Lower Colorado River legal owner of the property, needs to submit the grant application. So, that's what we're here for this morning, is to request that you approve application of this grant proposal for these funds. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sue, this will be the amount necessary, in the opinion of the Friends of the Union Church, to finish the project? MS. DYKE: I've just -- I've been in contact with Ann t~ethel, and she and I spent quite a bit of time last night on the telephone finishing up the final numbers on this, and then she called Julius, and we're -- this -- I have a list here of things that are on there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the grant request is going to be for -- do you know the exact amount yet? Ms. DYKE: Well, it's going to be for a range -- we don't have the actual number right now, but it's going to be between $15,900 and $1,000. So, that's what we're requesting that their approval be for, in that range. And what we come up with is $21,17 i. But the Friends have on-hand cash that will -- for the required 20 percent match of Lhat, so the actual grant will be less $4,235, this i-. - ~~ ~5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 amount. So, the Friends will supply that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know which L.C.R.A. grant program this is coming out of? MS. DYKE: The Community Partnership grant. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Community Partnership. JUDGE TINLEY: Seems to be a shame to hear this project's been ongoing for a number of years, and here you're about to the end, and now, belatedly, grant funds become available. It would have been great if those had been available earlier. MS. DYKE: Well, we've tried -- in fact, this is probably the third round that we've -- where we've submitted funds to L.C.R.A. before, but they have somewhat of an unwritten policy that they will fund projects at the end, and that's why this is -- this particular proposal's going in at this time, because we consider this to be the final amount needed to finish the project. JUDGE TINLEY: Then, you have made application previously for -- MS. DYKE: Yes, we have, and they've been declined. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But your other grant funds were approvedt MS. DYKE: We've had other grant -- well, the total project has been over $200,000, so -- and all -- and, _-~--o-. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 Z1 22 Z3 24 25 really, Kerr County citizens should be very pleased with what's happened on this, because that's all local funds. And -- JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're -- MS. DYKE: Except for just the -- some recent grant funds that we got out of Dallas, and -- but that's been done by fundraising projects and mailouts. And you've probably seen that also; an insert in your -- your telephone bill, and then all kinds of plates -- historical plates, calendar -- historical calendar. So, it's been a three-year effort, and they're really -- the Friends should be commended for persevering on this and seeing that happens. JUDGE TINLEY: You're more confident of the approval of this particular requesY_ because of the policy of -- of -- MS. DYKE: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: -- the funding at_ the tail end of a project? MS. DYKE: I do feel more confident about this one, I certainly do. DODGE TINLEY: Well I certainly hope -- MS. DYKE: I do too. JDDGE TINLEY: -- that confidence is justified. MS. DYKE: Well, I hope so. And you just ` - ~ - i 3 27 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l /g~ L 'J 27 22 23 24 25 never know about grant proposals. That's just the way it goes. CUMMISSIUNER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move that Kerr County approve the application to Friends of the Union Church for a grant from the Lower Colorado River Authority for the purpose of finishing the Union Church building. JUDGE TINLEY: And authorize the signature of the County Judge? COMMISSIONEF. WILLIAMS: And authorize County Judge to sign same, yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. MS. DYKE: Right. I do need to add one other thing; that we had hoped to get this approved earlier, but nocv we're really close to the deadline. The deadline is -- the proposal needs to be in Austin by 5 o'clock on Friday -- this Friday afternoon, so we're going to need to have this done -- are you going to be available this week to sign? JUDGE TINLEY: Far as I know, I'm going to be here all week, ma'am. MS. D'iKE: okay. We'll bring the proposal by, then, and have you sign the final draft on that. JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need to specify in the motion the amount of $21,000 or some lesser amount, possibly? I -- I'm not certain that -- 1-_ i 3 zs 1 2 3 9 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to specify an amount? You are? MS. DYKE: Oh, yes. The proposal will have a definite amount. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the number? MS. DYKE: And I gave you a range here of $15,900 to $17,000, just so that we have a little leeway here when we're doing our actual draft here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What number should I include in the motion? JUDGE TINLEY: What's the highest amount that you -- MS. DYKE: $17,000 is the highest amount. JUDGE TINLEY: Seventeen? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Up to $17,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, wait, I have a question. Sue, the grant amount will be for $21,173, and then 20 percent grant is included in that? Or 20 percent match, so the total -- MS. DYKE: The grant amount will be for the 21, and then the -- yeah -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's try it again. MS. DYKE: $21,173, and then we have a 20 percent match. %-u3 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L l 22 Z3 24 25 COMMISSTONER WILLIAMS: In the amount of $21,173. MS. DYKE: But we're not requesting that amount. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. DODGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. DYKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And your motion -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Includes that number. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- includes that number? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And a range of other numbers. JUDGE TINLEY: Not to exceed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the motion -- one tkiing I want to make clear is that the motion -- or that the Friends of the Historical Commission are putting up the 20 percent match required under the grant. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. Let the record reflect that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that. DODGE '1'iNLEY: Okay. Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Williams and Let" respectively, that the Curt approve Kerr County applying for a -- a grant to the Lower Colorado River Authority for completion of the Onion Church project in an amount not to exceed $21,173, 1-._-n; 1 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L 1 22 23 24 25 30 with the stipulation that any matching grant portion, believed to be 20 percent, be provided by the Friends of Union Church, and the County Judge be authorized to sign said application. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Any discussion or questions? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just discussion. I'm glad -- this is a worthwhile community project, and I'm glad that we're going to be able to get this money, perhaps. I am surprised, however, that a river authority and a public utility has these kinds of funds to distribute for this grant money. Doesn't seem like it's in the best interest of the ratepayers to be in the business of making grants for public projects, but I'll vote for it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're required by law to make the grants. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. JUUGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not surprised. JUDGE TINLEY: Being no further discussion, all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) -~~-. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~2 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Okay. Next item of business, consider and discuss reducing county registration fees to $1 during the annual rabies drive from February 1st through February 15th of this year. We've got Mr. Allen with us from the Animal Control. MR. ALLEN: This is our annual drive. It will start this Saturday. Saturday, we'll have four different veterinarians in different parts of the county: Ingram Fire Department, Center Point Fire Department, Turtle Creek Fire -- that's Community Center, Cypress Creek, and then the 't'urtle Creek Fire Department. And Lhat will be for the people in the outlying areas to get the reduced rate. But the rest of the time, it will be in the veterinarian's office for two weeks, from the lst, the Saturday, for two weeks, to Saturday. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second, but I have a comment after. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's beers made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, that the Court approve reducing the county registration fee to $1 during the annual rabies drive February 1st to February 15th of this year. Any questions, comments, or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I have a comment. 1-?7-03 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This is a great program. I'd like to commend Marc and his staff, and also the local veterinarians that participate in the really, you know, usual which we get a great participate out of this. Marc, I know -- I have another question. I know the Texas Department of Health, I guess, or Department of Agriculture drops those rabies vaccines. If a -- if an animal -- a local animal picks one of those up and gets it, is there any harm in doing that? MR. ALLEN: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know they're dropping them over the city of Kerrville. MR. ALLEN: It's just like getting another rabies vaccination; there's no harm done to the animal. You can get two to three a year for an animal. In fact, if an animal is exposed to a rabies suspect, we require them to get two booster shots -- rabies shots. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- part of that is because my dog happened to retrieve one for me on the Little League field the other day; brought it up to me, so I just -- MR. ALLEN: Even -- well, if he ate it, he'd be vaccinated. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause they have been doing it very close to the city this year. MR. ALLEN: And it's working. Appears to be 1__ _ ~3 33 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1G 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 working. COMMISSTONER LETZ: Good. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? Being none, all in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. COMMISSIONEF. LETZ: Thank you, Marc. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Marc. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Marc. Next item of business is the consideration and discussion approving the contract, which contract had been reviewed by the County Attorney for the reconstruction of Sheppard Rees Road, and authorize County Judge to sign that contract. Is that yours, Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure, that will be fine. Mr. Johnston? MR. JOHNS'1'ON: We submitted this to the County Attorney to review for form and content, and I'm not aware whether he's notified us that he had reviewed it. I don't think so. JUDGE TINLEY: He has not reviewed the -z~ u~ 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contract? MR. JOHNSTON: We haven't been notified that he has. We're waiting to -- for that, and then we'll have the contractor sign it and then bring it in. But we thought we'd go ahead and get it approved so the Judge can sign it when it is complete. MR. ODOM: We put this on hoping that we'd get it last week, Judge, and we've sent this several weeks ago to review this, and we have not heard. So I don't know whether you should sign this now or not. But the question -- whar we really need is authorization, when it is approved by the County Attorney for you to sign it. And -- and I don't know where it's at, sir. It's out of our hands. JUDGE TINLEY: From the standpoint of the factual consideration and the content of the contract, it meets with the approval of your office? MR. ODOM: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you asking the Court, then, to -- subject to the County Attorney's approval, that this Court authorize approval of that contract and authorize the County Judge to sign same? MR. ODOM: That's correct, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Ukay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And I agree, and that's Line. I'll be happy to make that motion after I i-=~ n3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ 35 make -- ask this question. We are -- we agreed to hire Mr. Keller's company to do the project. They are out there with all their machinery working, and we're not under any kind -- we don't have a contract. And am I the only one here that that makes a little bit uncomfortable? Or -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It makes me uncomfortable. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shouldn't we get the contract signed and get going here pretty quick? Isn't that -- wouldn't that be kind of an important thing to do? JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds to me like an appropriate thing to proceed forthwith about. If that's what you're indicating, and I thinx that's it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. Do I hear a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that, upon the blessing of the County Attorney's office, that then the County Judge has the authority to sign the contract between Kerr County and Keller Construction -- Keller Construction. MR. JOHNSTON: Allen Keller Construction. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Allen Keller Construction. JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it. i ~~_~~; 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1~ 13 14 l5 16 17 18 ly 20 21 22 23 29 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Williams, respectively, that upon the -- that the -- that the Court approve the contract for the reconstruction of -- of Sheppard Rees Road project and authorize the County Judge to sign the same upon the approval of the County Attorney's office of that contract. Any further discussion? Being no further discussion, all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate it. Okay. Next item is to consider an alternate plat approval Tor a revision of a plat of Lots 43 and 44A of Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I. What precinct is that in? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four. CUMM1551UNEH NICHULSUN: Mr. Voelkel and Mr. Johnston. JUDGE TINLEY: You defer to the County Engineer? All right, sir. MR. JUHNSTUN: This is an existing subdivision, and it's what's known as combining existing lots, making one larger lot, and that is a significant i-_,-uz 37 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 factor in our Subdivision Rules, whereas it doesn't require notification by mail, but it requires a public hearing. So, we're here today to set a public hearing and to approve the plat under that alternate process. And everything else looks fine. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is simply turning two small lots into a bigger lot, and that's a good thing to be doing, so I -- I move that we set the public hearing. JUDGE TINLEY: What's the -- what's the particular notice requirement? Is that 30 days? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thirty days. MR. JOHNSTON: So probably the first meeting in March. JUDGE TINLEY: What's the date, Ms. Sovil? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second February is the 24th, so -- MS. SOVIL: First meeting in March is the 11th. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, okay. (Discussion off the record.) MS. SOVIL: The last meeting in February is the 25th, so you wouldn't have the 30 days. JUDGE TINLEY: Sure wouldn't, would we? So we're going for March the -- what was that date again? 1 ~ 7 i. 3 38 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 y 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 24 MS. SOVIL: 11. JUDGE TINLEY: March 11. MS. SOVIL: No, 10th, I'm sorry. DODGE TINLEY: 10th? At 10 a.m.? Mr. Nicholson, is your motion that we set a public hearing on this plat approval for March 10th of this year at 10 a.m.? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that with respect to the alternate plat approval for a revision of plat for Lots 93 and 44A of Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I, that the Court set a public hearing on same for March the 10th this year at 10 a.m. Any further discussion? All in favor, indicate by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. {NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item, consideration of the alternate plat approval for revision of plat for Tracts 13A, 13B, 14 A, and 14B of the Y.O. Ranchlands. ~ - i q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 MR. JOHNSTON: You notice, this is a very similar situation where they're combining two lots into -- well, actually four lots into two lots, but in each case, two into one. And these are significant acreage, so the lots as combined would be 90 to 124 acres. Large lots. This is a similar process; no mail notification, but there be a public hearing, set a date. JUDGE TINLEY: Same notice requirement, 30 days? (Mr. Johnston nodded.) COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move that we set a public hearing on this for March 10th at 10 a.m. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:15. JUDGE TINLEY: 10:15? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Letz, respectively, that the Court set a public hearing for March 10th of this year at 10:15 a.m. to consider alternate plat approval for a revision of plat for Tracts 13A, 13B, 19A, and 19B of the Y.O. Ranchlands. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question for the -- Lee, you probably may be better. Is there any plan to _ U 3 40 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 modify that road easement that comes down through the middle? Is it going to remain there or is it going to be -- MR. VOELKEL: There is a plan with the owner of the property. Bobby Etchison is the owner of the property. He would approach the Y.O. Ranchland homeowners' association; they actually own the road. When those -- those are private roads, and they were given to the property owners' association for maintenance and whatnot. I think his approach is that he will go to them to see about deeding back the road to him. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just seems to me that if he's planning to do that, it would make sense to modify the plat at the same time. MR. VOELKEL: Prior to coming back to the public hearing? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that way it would actually be part of the public hearing. Modify the plat when you change that road as well, and that way, the -- you only have to go through one public hearing -- one process. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. MR. VOELKEL: Still have frontage on both sides. I think it would be advisable to do that; it's just a matter of whether or not they were willing to do that. I think the homeowners' association -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if the -- if the i-zr-n~ 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1S 19 20 L I 22 23 29 25 timing works out, if he's not in a rush, there'd probably be only one trip to the court, one public hearing, as opposed to two. MR. VOELKEL: I appreciate that suggestion. I'll see how they stand on that. If we can get it done, we'll go ahead and do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or comments? There being none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) DODGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) DODGE TINLEY; Motion carries. Next item before the Court is consider and discuss ratification of signatures by county officials on a conformed copy of the Riverhill Country Club easement. Mr. Bonner, This matter was placed on the agenda at the request of the County Attorney. Mr. Bonner? MR. BONNER: Your Honor, this is in regards to an easement agreement that was executed or agreed to last year, and apparently between -- it was between Riverhill Country Club and the City of Kerrville and the County. And there were three copies -- and I don't know the details, 'cause 1 wasn't involved in the drafting of the agreement, i _ -n~ 92 1 ... 2 3 9 5 6 7 g 9 10 11 ~ 12 .--. 13 , 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but there were three copies -- three originals that were supposed to be executed, two of which didn't make it to Riverhill Country Club. So, we got a letter from David Jackson requesting that the County approve -- sign off on the contract again. Well, Mr. Motley -- they were requesting that the previous County Judge, Judge Henneke, who signed the original, was here when the agreement was made, sign off on it, and Mr. Motley didn't feel like that was -- would be appropriate since he didn't -- wasn't the County Judge any more. But he did feel like that if he wanted to sign it, then -- as well as you could sign it, and then the Commissioners Court can just ratify your -- your signature on it, then that would be appropriate. And I guess he's -- I guess that would satisfy their request to have a couple more originals executed. JUDGE TINLEY: Am I to understand -- this is an agreement that's already been approved by the Court; it was approved last year? MR. BONNER: Already been approved. JUDGE TINLEY: And for some unexplained reason, we can't find where the original executed documents ended up, so we need new original documents. And, out of -- out of an abundance of caution, you're asking the Court to reapprove that agreement, confirm it, and -- in addition to the existing signature, because there's been a change 1_"_^; 1 2 3 4 5 F 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 required, and actually approve the signature of the new County Judge? MR. BONNER: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that, Your Honor, but I would also -- if we're so scrupulous in cleaning this up, let's change the dates in two other places on the signature sheet as well. Where it says '02, make it say '03. With that caveat, I would move for approval. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Williams and Nicholson, respectively, that the Court reapprove the -- the easement agreement by and between Riverhill Country Club, Inc., the City of Kerrville, and Kerr County, as evidenced by the agreement attached with the item, and that in connection therewith, that the dates be properly specified therein and reflect the current year, and authorize, in addition to the prior signatories, the signatory of the current County Judge to sign. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes? COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no original -- none of the originals are around? Or -- MR. BONNER: Apparently there was three 1-~i- ~ 44 1 L 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 19 20 21 22 ~3 24 25 originals. I don't know why they would have three originals; I wasn't involved when it -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One remained here, two were sent to them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One was lost. I guess my -- but, really, my question is, who is going to resign if the new one -- the unexecuted original? Well, I guess it -- I don't understand why anybody would want the former Judge to sign the -- MR. BONNER: I don't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That doesn't make sense. I think it's a bad precedent. I think -- you know, to me you're going back then and saying, well, if we had a document done in the early '80's, we need to get Judge Stacy to sign it. It doesn't make sense to me. MR. BONNER: I don't think it -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He'd be happy to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just using him as an example 'cause I see him in the courtroom. But, I mean, I have no problem with approving the agreement, but Judge Tinley should sign it, and that's it for the County. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No question of that. We are really missing an opportunity to throw rocks at the attorneys here, but I'm not going to do it. COMMISSIONER W1LLlAMS: Go ahead. 1 ~~ 03 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 y 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm way too nice. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll give you a set of rocks. MR. BONNER: I don't know why Mr. Jackson requested that. I don't think it hurts anything, but I think the key would be Judge Tinley sign off on it, with your approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it should be only Judge Tinley for the County. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, this particular agreement, I can tell you, Commissioner Letz, has been signed off by the previous judge, and the only remaining space for signature is for myself. So, for whatever that's worth, that's where we are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE '1'1NLEY: Motion carries. Okay. Next item of business, consider and discuss having the February 29, 2003, Commissioners Court meeting at the Union 1 .. -n~ 46 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 zl ~~ L~ 23 24 25 Church. This matter was placed on the agenda at the request of the Precinct 1 Commissioner. I believe it was under consideration at the last meeting, but it was deferred to the County Attorney's office for what the legal aspects were. Is that not correct? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct. And, as you know, the -- were you through? DODGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As you know, the County Attorney responded back to us very, very fast, and I appreciate that very much. You want to comment? MR. BONNER: I would like to comment on it, because I reviewed it again this morning, and I think -- unfortunately, I think that the -- my conclusions regarding the special meeting -- well, let me just back up and say that the request was you wanted to meet -- have a meeting at the Union Church. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. MR. BONNER: And I understand that to be inside the municipal city limits of Kerrville. Is that right? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. MR. BONNER: And -- well, the question was, can we have a meeting over there? And I think, after reading the statute, I think that -- I think my conclusion _~~ c~ 47 1 ,.-. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~,, 13 14 I5 ]6 1/ 18 19 20 L1 22 23 24 .--, 25 was that you cannot have a regular meeting over there. And, after reviewing it again, I thought that -- after I read the statute, I thought that you could -- if it was outside the county -- or the municipal city limits, that you could have that -- have a special meeting over there, and that's what I concluded in my memo to you. But, after reviewing it again this morning, I think that - - I think, unfortunately, that the only way you could have even a special meeting at a location other than the courthouse is if it's outside the municipal city limits, you therefore, if the -- if the of Kerrville, I don't think meeting out there. There's won't go into that, because COMMISSIONER ;now, unfortunately. So, Union Church is inside the city you can have even a special some statutory exceptions, but 1 I don't think they apply here. BALDWIN: Well, I'm not going tc fight with you or fuss with you. I disagree with you, but it's not worth a tussle. But I would ask you, as long as you're here with us, to keep an eye on us, 'cause we do that occasionally. MR. BONNER: Right. Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, that's fine. MR. BONNER: Well, the only thing I can say is that's just my -- that's my -- that's the way I read it. Because it specifically says a special term may be held at a meeting place located in the county and outside the county _-_~-03 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~, , 23 24 25 seat if -- and it has some certain things that you have to do. And - - but -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that -- MR. BONNER: But that doesn't -- I don't interpret that to mean inside the city limits. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You argue with him. I'm not going to. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That means, then, that it is illegal, by your interpretation, for us to convene this court in conjunction with the City Council in a meeting in City Council chambers; is that correct? MR. BONNER: Meeting with another political subdivision is -- is a different matter. That would -- you could do that, subject to some other requirements. But that's with an additional -- that's a meeting with a political subdivision, okay, which is not what I understood you were trying to do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right. MR. BONNER: Okay. And I could -- I'm going to talk to Mr. Motley about it and see if he interprets it that way. And, in addition, if you still want to do it, I can request an Attorney General opinion on it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin? 1 _' r ; 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 2S COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah? COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we have our short meeting at -- short U.G.R.A. meeting, how about having it at Union Church? What do we do with another entity? MR. BONNER: Another entity -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say we do a joint meeting with U.G.R.A. or City of Kerrville or Headwaters or anybody else. Where does that meeting -- can it be anywhere in the county? MR. BONNER: Well, if it's another political subdivision, and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does it have to be at their -- I mean, is there a requirement as to where they have to do it? MR. BONNER: Well, it's -- it states that it must be a regular meeting -- it has to be a regular meeting place of that political subdivision in the county. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does this cover workshops, in your opinion? MR. BONNER: I hadn't considered that, but I don't -- I think we're just talking about regular terms and special meetings. CUMMISSIUNER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but we have special meetings, and then we have other special meetings. We have . ~-,,3 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 y 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 a regular special meeting; then we have other special meetings. I'm just really trying to clarify it. Because, for example, when we meet with U.G.R.A., we don't meet in their normal meeting room. We meet in either the classroom or the auditorium, from the size standpoint. And, I mean -- so I think it's something that we -- you know, I don't want to beat this to death, but if the law is this specific, I think we need to get guidance as to exactly how we meet with other organizations and where we can meet. MR. BONNER: Well, without knowing -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean, otherwise, if you took action, it could be deemed to be, you know, voidable, I guess, if you don't do it in the right place. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was under the impression that the law was amended at the last session of the Legislature to enable Commissioners Court to do what we're asking to do. Is that your -- is that your understandings I guess it's not your understanding. MR. BONNER: No. This is the current statute that I was reading from, and that's just -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So I was misadvised? COMMISSIONER BALllW1N: Look, all I was trying to do was have a little fun. I thought it would be -- it would be fun, turn a little attention to the church and 1-:~-r3 51 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L1 22 23 24 25 maybe get that thing finished, now that we own it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Workshop. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to have a workshop down there, and y'a11 are not invited. Nanny nanny boo boo. So, that's all. That's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Letz' point is well made. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, absolutely. DODGE TINLEY: We certainly don't want to be conducting our meetings at a place where -- where our actions might be questioned or even deemed to be voidable. The general rule, I think, is, under the law, that the public has a right to expect that when its governing body meets, it's going to be here in the courthouse, whether it be here or upstairs. 1 don't think the particular location within the building is -- is that -- that big of an issue. Just like the mention that was made by Commissioner Letz, if we meet with another political subdivision, maybe we don't meet in the board room at O.G.R.A., but we meet in the classroom. I think that's their meeting place, in that building, just like our meeting place is this building, not necessarily here. We've gone upstairs before, and probably will have t~ in Lhe future. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to clarify that point, though, because, I mean, 1 don't know if i-z~-r~, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 this is the meeting place or if it's the courthouse square. I mean, or if it's -- I mean, I think we need to -- if the law is as specific as it appears, I think we need to know exactly where we can meet. And I -- I mean, this is the Commissioners Court courtroom. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the general rule states the county seat at the courthouse. COMMISSIONER LETZ: At the courthouse. JUDGE TINLEY: It doesn't further define it. Then, when it talks about meeting with other political subdivisions, the regular meeting place of another political subdivision. If the Court is meeting with the governing body of that political subdivision, and the regular meeting place of that political subdivision is within the county, there's probably more of a question about whether or not you can use the classroom at U.G.R.A. rather than the board room, possibly, but I think the law's pretty clear about anywhere in the courthouse is our regular meeting place. But, any further discussion on this item? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. JUDGE TINLEY: You don't want to get any more lawyers involved? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMM15SlONER BALDWIN: Not yet. i 2~-G3 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Okay. No action on that item. Apparently, we'll move on to next item, which is discuss -- consider and discuss and take any appropriate action on Change Order Number 2, requested and approved by the County Engineer for the Kerrville South Wastewater Project. Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. This should be really simple. It's a change order recommended and approved by the engineer overseeing the construction of the Kerrville South Wastewater Project. It is for an adjustment to the riser, or riser section over the manhole, and it's for a whopping $105. And I move for approval, and authorize County Judge to sign same. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- where's the money come from? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Comes out of the grant funds for that project. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second -- I'll second that motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin, respectively, that the Court approve the Change Order Number 2, requested and approved by the County Engineer for the Kerrville South Wastewater Project. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correction. Not the ~~ a~, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 County Engineer, the consulting engineer. JUDGE TINLEY: Consulting engineer, excuse me. Strike that. The consulting engineer. The change order being in the sum of $105, and authorize the County Judge to sign approving the same. Is there any further discussion on that item? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not going to vote on this item. I want you to know why. 'Cause I'm not sure we have a valid contract with Tetra Tech, so I'm going to decline to vote on it. JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. Any elaboration on those comments? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've asked for -- to see a contract with Tetra Tech, and I'm told that we don't have one, and Tetra Tech is the -- is the successor company to Groves Engineering, and the contract with Groves Engineering has expired, so I think it's questionable about whether or not we have a -- a valid contract with Tetra Tech. JUDGE TINLEY: Or Groves Engineering. COMM15510NER NICHOLSON: Or Groves Engineering. JUDGE '1'1NLEY: Okay. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. If that's the case, we need to back up and take care of business. . - '_ ~ - U S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 Who -- yeah, I agree with you 100 percent. I mean, I don't know who's responsible or what. You know, get us a contract and let's approve it or disapprove it. I don't know how those -- I don't think I've been appointed to watch over contracts over sewer systems this week. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I haven't either, Commissioner Baldwin, but I did ask for the contract -- any contracts we had with Groves Engineering or Tetra Tech, and I found one contract, an undated contracted that expired December 31, 2002. And it also does not provide for a successor to the contract. It provides that any successor company or assignments of the contract would have to require the written approval of the County. So, as far as I can tell, we do not have currently a contract with Groves Engineering or Tetra Tech. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The contract which is in the file, is that for the project or for a specified period of time? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It was a contract to expire for services. CUMM155IONER WILLIAMS: For services to the project? CUMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To expire on December 31. There may well be another contract, but I can't find it if there is. 1 _,-,; 1 1 G 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 ly 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, everything that's in contract form is in the file, and the file is now in the possession of the Administrative Assistant to the Court, all of which -- all the files were brought up to date by Tetra Tech -- or by Grantworks. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I was going to ask you. Hasn't he been the one that sees that these kinds of things are done? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Groves Associates was the original engineering firm, and Groves Associates has been acquired by Tetra Tech, Inc. And part of what we're -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fixing to do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, has to do with amending the interlocal agreement to change such things as Groves to Tetra Tech, et cetera. I don't know anything about that. I know what contract we approved to begin with was for the project. That's what we have. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, part -- in that contract, Part 4, Item 5, Assignability, says that the contract may not be assigned or transfer any interest in it without the prior written consent of the County. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney, where are we? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know, but we i_,~-o3 57 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 <5 have a Commissioner on the other end of the table that is a working commissioner. Good. Good job, Commissioner. Appreciate that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney, where are we? JUDGE TINLEY: Have y'all been consulted about -- has the County Attorney's office, to your knowledge, Mr. Bonner, been consulted about the consulting engineering contract with regard to any of these projects over on Kerrville South? MR. BONNER: Your Honor, I'm going to have to -- I think David's got some information on that, but I really don't have any details on it. JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection was I believe last meeting -- I stand to be corrected if I'm in error -- was that Mr. Motley, at least in connection with some of the existing matters with that sewer project over there, indicated that he didn't have adequate information, and that he was trying to find the base agreements, or some of them at least. Am I in error about that, Commissioner? Do you recall? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't know what David Motley said, but it appears to me that this is related to the next agenda item, which is doing -- which is upgrading the contract with Tetra Tech. I mean, and -- i-~~-~~~ 58 1 2 3 9 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~3 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's the heart of the next issue. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it very well could be, 'cause the next issue has been under discussion for six weeks now, and it's likely that, you know, when Jim Brown was here, the reason -- I mean, he was trying to get this done before the end of the year, so the contract -- I mean, because of delays, it just hasn't happened. That just seems like a logical sequence to me, not knowing much more than what Mr. Nicholson said, but I think that we clearly need to get Item 10 taken care of before we can act on the contract. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine, take care of 10. JUDGE TINLEY: If I'm not mistaken, we have a motion on the floor. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to withdraw my second. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, motion and second have been withdrawn on Item 2.10. And is there any further action or -- or comments or suggestions to be made with regard to that particular item, 2.10? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not at this time. JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no indication of such, we'll go to Item 2.11 -- or, excuse me 2. -- 1-~~ u'. 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HAMILTON: I believe that was 2.9. JUDGE TINLEY: Correct. I stand corrected. No further action at this time on Item 2.9, on the change order, but we'll now move forward to Item 2.10, to consider and discuss and take any appropriate action on revisions to the interlocal agreement between Kerr County and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority for the Kerrville South Wastewater Project, to cover current, pending, and future projects. Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Since the County At*_orney is the one who seemed to have the problems with the interlocal agreement, which is the agreement -- changes to the interlocal agreement which is in effect for this particular problem, I'll defer to the County Attorney for an explanation of why he has a problem with it. MR. BONNER: Again, I don't know -- I don't have any details on that. That's something that David -- I know he was working on it this weekend, and I don't know what his -- where he stands on it. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley's in court this morning, 1 believe. MR. BONNE R.: He's at the State Hospital, some hearings out there. And I think he had the intention of being back here, and 1 just -- I can't comment on it, 'cause I don't know where he stands on it. 1__ _r , 1 Iw- L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^,, 1 3 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Eo COMMISSIONER wILLIAMS: Your Honor, this is the third time this item's been on this agenda. It was a simple interlocal agreement that was drafted up between Kerr bring it up to date, to probably accommodate some of the problems that Commissioner 4 has identified. Last time we listened to the County Attorney, he had no particular reason, but some concerns, first of all, expressing that he didn't think the County had the authority to do what it did. Which is news to this Court, because that was never expressed before, but that we didn't have that authority, and we acted under the guise that we did have the authority. His office did, in fact, review that interlocal agreement, and here's a whole passel of correspondence back and forth that indicates that Travis Lucas, on behalf of the County Attorney, reviewed it and approved it. Now we're here today and we're listening to nothing. This is the third time we've had the item on the agenda. If there's some sort of reason why this project is supposed to have an "X" put on it and not go forward, somebody better stick his hand up and tell us why. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would like to hear 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 names like Tetra Tech for Groves, and -- and other names like the -- the O.R.C.A. instead of T.D.H.C.A. It appears to be an extension of a contract to cover unnamed future activities. It appears to me that it delegates the County's responsibility for, quote, treated water, wastewater, or other infrastructures to U.G.R.A., and that's open-ended. It also appears to -- that the contract grants either Tetra Tech or the -- the Groves Engineering certain authorities and responsibilities that we haven't contracted for. For example, one part of it says that if U.G.R.A. and the County and the consulting engineer can't agree on a bid, I believe it is, then the majority rules, and I don't think we should -- I don't think it's wise to be giving the County's authority away in such an open-ended manner. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe the Court was advised last time that that particular amendment would be er.cluded and would be corrected or taken out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know -- are you finished? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my problem is, you know, the -- the lack of action by the County Attorney has wasted this Court's time, bottom line. I mean, it has been down -- you know, and the -- I know this started before you and the Judge were on the court, but you're very much i _ u3 62 1 ~- 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,._.. 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,^., 2 9 25 aware that it was on our first agenda, supposed to be cleared up, and now it's on our second agenda and still lingering. And, you know, I share Commissioner Nicholson's concerns with the -- with the revisions, but we can't even get to the point of talking about the revisions, 'cause the County Attorney can't give us an opinion. And I think -- and this is going on while we have a contractor out there who's trying to fulfill what he thinks is under the contract. I think he is trying to fulfill the contract, and we're getting to a point of not being able to act on a change order because our legal -- we can't get a legal opinion. And it just -- it is a frustration to me when we can't -- when our, I guess, work efforts are delayed for that reason. I feel like it's wasting our time. JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of this interlocal agreement that -- that we're looking at now, and tkiese changes from Groves to Tetra Tech and Texas Community Development to O.R.C.A., that -- that what we're talking about is a -- I believe the term "template" or "format" was utilised, and that there is no intention to apply this -- tt-iis particular agreement to any existing project, since we've already got, presumably at least, contracts in place as to existing projects, specifically as to those projects. Is that correct? COMMISSlUNER WILLIAMS: That's correct. The i ,~ .,_ 63 1 .-- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .-. 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Zl ~~ 23 24 25 other -- the intergovernmental agreement that we're seeking to make some amendments to is in place to cover this project right now, as well as a construction contract and a contractor on the ground doing the work. In place, signed off, approved by this Court. DODGE TINLEY: But the proposal -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: An engineering firm that was contracted to oversee the project is doing his job. DODGE TINLEY: But the proposed agreement before the Court for consideration and approval today is not with regard to any specific projec*_, but to be considered as a template or a format for possible future projects, if they should arise. Is that my understanding? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct, Judge. And -- and for applications that are pending for funding right now for continuation of the project, and other projects that might come before this Court, which this Court would have to approve before they could go any further. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I disagree with what was said just now and what you agreed to. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. Let's find out -- maybe I didn't hear it right. Let's find out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, and the only reason is because there was a -- at the last meeting in December, this was brought to the Court to try to -- because of the i _ -t.; 64 1 .--. 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1G 13 14 1 J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 current contract and making the changes in it. So I think, while -- and it was felt that while the agreement that we're make the change in the current agreement, because things -- two things have changed. Well, three things, I guess, 'cause the date needs to be extended, and then two of the entities in the contract have changed names. So, I mean, I think -- and that was -- and I'm going back to -- I believe Jim Brown was in the court in December, and the reason for him bringing it in before he left in -- you know, 'cause his -- before he left U.G.R.A. was to clean up the -- you know, that old -- the existing contract, to get those names corrected for -- one was a purchase and one was just a name change. So, 1 mean, I think they're very much related. I think the idea was to try to get a template. Maybe it was -- maybe we should separate the two. Let's just get the old contract corrected and then worry about any other contracts iri the future. But they're both -- I mean, I think there is 24 •-- 25 there e i-_~- , SUDGE TINLEY: It would seem to me that if clearly a -- and has been, an urgency with this, because I remember a conversation I had with you before our first meeting that we were going to get this back from the County Attorney by our first meeting. 65 1 ,r-~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 f.._ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 „~ 2 9 25 extensions that need to be made to existing contracts for existing projects, that we ought to be talking about those specific contracts with reference to those specific projects, and the specific changes, modifications, extensions or whatever that might be appropriate. My understanding of this particular item is that we are trying to format a template or a master form or a go-by for future, unnamed as yet, unidentified, or unknown projects, but that the -- the presentation was that we approve this format so that we, quote, don't have to reinvent the wheel each time there is a new project. Is that understanding that I have incorrect? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's part of it, but I think we also have a current one that we're trying to get through, which is the one that Commissioner Nicholson brought up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if we're unable continue this going forward, or other grants that we may see fit to apply for, then let's deal with this one and keep it moving. Where's the County Attorney? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if -- my suggestion is that -- let's look at the agenda. 'Phe agenda item is pretty specific, take appropriate action on revisions to interlocal agreement. That implies we have a current agreement. i-_~-os 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 lU 20 21 22 ~_~, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1N 20 L I 22 23 29 25 ~~ pending, and future projects. We had discussed this item prior to the recess a bit, and the recess was taken in hopes that Mr. Motley, who was committed in court elsewhere, could get those commitments taken care of and get back here, and it appears that he's now here. So, I assume at this point, we'll defer to the County Attorney. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will be fine, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Mr. Motley? MR. MOTLEY: What is it exactly that you want? You want just an overall kind of review of this agreement? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- MR. MOTLEY: Is that what y'all are saying? Turn it over to me? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think for this time and two prior times, we have been trying to get approval of amendments to an interlocal agreement between Kerr County and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, which was originally submitted to your department for approval and ratified by this Court in October of 2001, and containing the changes that were suggested by the then County Judge, the U.G.R.A., and your department, and we have an agreement in effect right here and right now. Proposed has been some changes to that, which the changes, by definition of the -~~ 03 7s 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2b author, would have changed the interlocal into a specific contract, the specific sewer projer_t into one that would enable a continuing relationship between the Court, County, and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority for any future grants, those in the conduit and any that we might apply for, some of which we have applied for and are pending, for the continuation of this particular project. My memory tells me that you raised an objection to the contract and suggested that you didn't think the County had the initial authority to enter into such an agreement to begin with. And I recall asking you, if that were the case, why you didn't tell us that back in 2001 before we executed the agreement. And that's about where we're hung up. MR. MOTLEY: Well, I didn't look at it in 2001; that's one reason. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We11, a member of your staff did. MR. MOTLEY: I understand that, and I didn't look at it and Travis did. Part of reason we're staffed the way we are is so different people can do different things. So Travis looked at it, and if Travis has made an error or something regarding some opinion of the legality of the overall agreement, I don't think that I would be bound to just march on down the hallway and, you know, perpetuate the same error. I'm not saying that he necessarily did, but I'm i-~~-ns 79 1 I'~ L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 ,,,, 13 ~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 ..-~ 25 saying that I have a question overall about the County's ability to enter into such an agreement, and it's based on it. Now, there's nothing clear-cut one way or the other on the law but I can -- I'll be happy to read it to you if you'd like me to. There's nothing really clear-cut about it, but it -- basically, the reason I say there's a problem is because it says in the statutes that the municipality has the authority to enter into these sort of agreements. And, under the authority of law, State vs. Canales, and the way the county government is set up, counties don't have the authority to do things unless there's specific authority provided for them by constitution or statute. I found no such statute and I found no such constitutional provision. So, I'm telling you I have not found that. I'm not saying it's not there. I've been looking, and I've not found it. I suggest that maybe the way to take care of that would be to ask Yor an Attorney General's opinion on that limited issue. Assuming that the overall arrangement is legal, we've had some problems, I think, in the retaining of specific consultants. It sounds like -- I don't know if this is what the intent is, but certainly the contract reads that we have specific named consultants in the contract, in _ _ - 0 3 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 29 25 the interlocal agreement, who are already selected. The bidding rules would require, I believe -- not for an engineer, but for -- I'm not exactly sure what Grantworks -- what type of consultant they are. I don't know if it's overall management or actually the obtaining of grant moneys; I'm not sure what they are. They're referred to in the agreement as established program and staff to administer the contract, so they're contract administrators? So they're administration consultants? Is that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They are a firm which the Court has retained, by resolution, to apply for grants, and upon the County being awarded the grants, then they administer the funds, oversee the administrative end of the funds, make certain that the project moves forward, and take care oT all the paperwork for the County. MR. MOTLEY: Okay. And, so, is it fair to consider them as administrative consultants? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so. Mx. MO'T'LEY: Okay. Again, under the bidding rules -- and I'm not sure that administrative consultant is one of those that's excepted from the RFP process. I'm not sure that they are, you know. There are exceptions for architects, for engineers, for attorneys, for different professions that do not have to go through Request For Proposals. I'm not sure that the administrative consultant i-~~- 81 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'/ 18 ly 20 21 22 23 29 25 fits that criteria. In any event, the Office of Rural Community Affairs has a publication that talks about management administration of these grants. It says absolutely, black and white, that such consultants -- they must go through the procurement process to determine who the consultants are. So, I'm saying the contract probably -- or the agreement probably ought to have the names of specific consultants removed, and probably some sort of a generic term put in to refer to an engineering consultant or administrative consultant put in the deal. But to place the names of two specific -- or however many specific consultants in the contract and the agreement at this time, I think, would run afoul of the bidding administration rules set out by O.R.C.A., if it specifically requires that they go out for something akin to an RFP. It says may not be done any other way. If I can get you a proper quote, professional service contractors must be selected in open competition, while a competitive process must be used. Contractor localities must not select professional service contractors based solely on low bid. It would violate the State of Texas Professional Services Procurement Act. Contractors shall -- contractor localities shall select and award such contracts and engage such services based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of professional 1-_~-n3 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ ._, 13 19 15 16 11 18 ly 20 ~l 22 23 .-. 2 4 ~5 services to be performed at a fair and reasonable price. Then it goes through the deal about writing up the RFP and doing all that. So, I'm saying I think that the agreement here -- and, again, I may differ with Travis on this, okay? And if I do, you know, I'm going to give you my opinion today and tell you what it is today, and say that maybe Travis and I disagree, but I don't believe -- and it may be factually that those entities were selected at about the same time that that previous interlocal agreement was entered into. See, I don't know that factually or historically; I can't tell you that. But I think if we refer to these people as an engineering firm or an administrative services firm, something like that, that that part of the contract will be right. But, again, I'm saying -- this all assumes that the actual entry into that type of agreement with the County and water authority is legal to begin with, because everything I'm reading says that the legality involved is with the municipality. And when they leave the County out like that and specifically say the municipality can do it, that gives me, you know, a pause to want to go further in it. And everywhere I've looY.ed, I have not found anything in particular that said that counties could do this, so I just -- I want you to know that. And 1 looked and have not -- it's a little bit hard _ ,-nj 83 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to kind of prove a negative, but I have not found anything that said that counties could not, or that they could. So that was why I was suggesting it might be a better idea to go ahead with the -- with the A.G. opinion request. COMMISSIONER LETZ: David? MR. MOTLEY: Yeah? COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, there's two things. One, you're addressing the general form -- Mtt. MOTLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- agreement, which I appreciate what you're saying, and I agree with everything I've heard you say so far. Hopefully, we have the authority to enter into this. That creates another whole set of problems if we don't have the authority, even though we did rely on -- Lhere's clearly no intent, because we relied on the County Attorney's office for our opinion to enter into it origi~ially. But the other part of the question is, there is an existing agreement out there and work going on, and that needs Lo be addressed as to -- you know, I guess, how do we -- I'm just asking you the question. How do we amend the current contcact in terms of names of entities, one being O.R.C.A. and the other one being the consulting engineering firiu, which has changed their name due to a purchase; it's gone from Groves and Associates to Tetra Tech. To me, that's more of a pressing issue because -- i _- ~~~ 84 1 .~-., 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 y 10 11 12 ~ ~ 13 ~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2° MF.. MOTLEY: On the existing contract, you're talking about? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The existing contract. We do need to get that contract in shape. MR. MOTLEY: I think it's kind of understood that in any given contract, if an entity has entered into a contract, it covers, you know, their assigns or their successors in business. And I think it may even be stated in certain contracts I've been reviewing for this. But if -- if Groves Engineering has been renamed Tetra Tech, trien they -- they would, I think, succeed to the rights and the duties Tetra Tech holds under the contract without having to go back and actually change the body of that contract. Same as far as any other consultant. I mean, that contract was valid at the time it was written; it was accurate at the time it was written. I don't think we are beholden to go back and correct the day-to-day changes that may occur in such an agreement. As far as doing the corrections on the document that Commissioner Williams is talking about, sort of a template document, frankly -- I mean, I -- this is not a legal consideration, but I don't see the benefit, because we're going to have something that's going to be fairly generic. It seems to me it's just going to say the -- you know, the engineering company and the consulting company, and we'll do these acts, et cetera. y-?~-„s 85 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 I'm not sure what the benefit is, but it may speed things up a little bit down the line, and I guess if that's, you know, what -- you know, that's the goal, I suppose that's fine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- and I tend to somewhat agree with you, possibly, that -- you know, I don't see -- I'm more concerned about the legality of even entering into the contract and the current contract than I am future contracts. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me make a comment. I don't disagree with what David just said with respect to continuing and moving forward on the things that apply to this particular project. I'll refer to Page 2 of the existing intergovernmental agreement, talking about, "Therefore, the parties agree as follows." The term of the agreement commences on the date it was signed, indicated below, and to remain in full force and effect for a term commensurate with the term of the T.C.D.P. contract between the County and T.D.H.C.A., including any contract end-date extensions. Further, it talks about Groves Engineering shall be the consulting engineer for the County. They will work in conjunction and cooperation with the river authority in the oversight of the construction aspects of the project. we're in the project. MR. MOTLEY: That was last year's version? Is that what you're reading from? 1 %7 s 86 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm reading from one of the signed and in effect -- MR. MOTLEY: I just wanted to be sure which one you're reading from. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And also, in terms of awarding bids and so forth, so as to make certain that nobody misunderstands that the County caused the reinsertion of its bid-awarding authority, that particular paragraph was stricken from the agreement -- struck from the agreement. So -- MR. MOTLEY: That should be, and I think everybody was in agreement with that. As a matter of fact, I kind of think that was probably kind of a leftover error that was inserted, and I don't think anybody was trying to change the bidding packets by doing that. I think that's been corrected. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but, I mean -- MR. MOTLEY: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To keep you from doing unnecessary work, I mean, what's the Court feel about working on this template? Do we need to waste much time on this template contract right now? I mean, my opinion is we need to do a new contract every time we do a deal. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. i-- -~i a~ 1 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 is 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And bring it back to the Court for that time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine, so long as we clearly understand the agreement under consideration is for the project that's under construction. Anything attendant to that should be taken care of by the Court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. MOTLEY: Something else I was also going to share with you. I kind of lost track of it. I think that the goal of -- you know, that is being advanced through the contract or interlocal agreement, I think it's a good idea for local entities to work together in this way to obtain funding from the State or from the U.S. through the states to work on a problem. And I think that's -- the idea of it seems to me to be fine. The only thing about this, as it's currently written, that makes me a bit nervous is to select specific entities beforehand. But I think that -- I think that can be cleaned up fairly easily. But, again, I do apologize for not having any specific information, because, as I said, everything I'm seeing so far, it just leaves the County out of the can-do-it category, as far as what I'm saying, and it seems to me that it's something where, obviously, they have to be able to do this. But I've not come across it. I've been going through the pages and pages of grant materials, as far as administration, 1-~7-G3 88 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 L4 25 obtaining the grants, and trying to find out ~f there's an exception there that would supersede the general statutes' neglect to include the County as one of the entities who could enter into this sort of an agreement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't put my finger on the specific Government Code reference, but I do recall reading in a publication prepared by TAC of what the counties can and cannot do and where the statutory authority lies. MR. MOTLEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That the Legislature has given counties the authority to enter into agreements or pursue wastewater and wastewater projects. MR. MOTLEY: Well, I -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That we have that express authority to do that. Mx. MOTLEY: I feel like that this is -- is essential, given the way that governments have to operate. I'm just saying the places that I went initially to look for it, I've not found it there. And I agree with what you're saying, and I'm sure -- and I have that book. I know the book you're talking about; it's from the Community Affairs Department, I believe, and that might be a good place for me to go next. But, as I said, I've been looking at administrative codes, the 'Texas Register, and reading all i-z~-u3 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~3 24 2J the rules and regulations, everything I could find on this. And, really, toward the end of looking at the idea of -- of naming consultants, I was looking at the end of the query more than I was the general, "can you do it," but can you have consultants named preliminarily. And -- and, without going through RFP, that's where most of my research has been going. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me address that. When the Court -- when the Court heard the presentation from Grantworks -- and that seems to be a problematic piece for you right now. We heard their presentation of what they would do, their services. Their services included identifying grants, pursuing grants with the authority of the Court given them to do that, and administrating the grants, and the contract is signed by the County. Right -- that took place right in this room, in a resolution to that effect. MR. MOTLEY: One thing that would help me -- and I will tell that you that Ms. Sovil got a lot of agreements for me to review. I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why i can't find certain completed documents that they're -- contracts. All you have is a proposed contract for professional management, engineering, and architectural services. I got a copy from Mr. Mosty of last year's iulerlocal agreement. It seems to me that any important --(1 ~ 1 `~ 1 .-~ 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~., 25 90 documents involving the County as a party should be on file in the Clerk's office, in a place where I could use it, any of us could use it, get a copy of it. Anybody in the public who wanted to look at it could look at it. I've had a hard time finding documents and referenr_e materials that I think are critical to this -- to this exercise of trying to parse it all out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with you, Mr. Motley, but there's two files -- I believe those files right there -- for the entire project. You're welcomE to take them down there and look through them, see exactly what's in it. It's right here in front of the Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: If I might address that point, there's, oh, I don't know, probably 30 files there totally that are up here on the -- on the desk. You know, Mr. Williams -- Commissioner Williams delivered those to Ms. Sovil, as he referenced, I believe this past Wednesday, if I'm not mistaken. MR. MOTLEY: He's been favoring me with some documents from there, and I -- I mean, he's been giving what he could all along. So, I mean, I -- I'm not saying anybody is hiding anything or anything like that. I'm just saying I would like it to be very readily available. And Commissioner Williams has sent me, I think, documents on two or three occasions during the past week that have helped me i _,-nj 91 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in -- in this -- in this research. But, I'll tell you, it's hard to prove a negative. And it's -- and, so, how do I prove the County can't do something or the -- you know, if I -- it'd be easy if I could find something that said the County could. So far, I haven't found it, but I'm going to take your hint on that; I know the book you're talking about. I'll go look at that and see. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I appreciate that. MR. MOTLEY: I would like to do that, see if we can find something specifically that overrides, and then I think we're okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the meantime, does the County have the authority to approve a change order on this project? That is -- that has been submitted by the consulting engineer and approved by the consulting engineer. MR. MOTLEY: This one? The one we're talking about, 2001? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Yeah. Under the current interlocal agreement that's in effect, do we have the authority to approve a change order? JUDGE TINLEY: Here's the change order, if you need to see it. MR. MOTLEY: I actually haven't read the previous agreement with that -- with that change in mind. JUDGE TINLEY: The submitting party, as I see z-~~-os 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it, is Tetra Tech. MR. MOTLEY: And it spells out in here for something -- somewhere about what this additional $66,000 is for? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's $105. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $105. MR. MOTLEY: Is that what this is? Net change by previous -- oh, those are previous change orders, excuse me. 105 bucks? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $105, yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll pay it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a biggie. MR. MOTLEY: We11, I'll tell you what. I really, honestly, in doing the project I've been working on, I haven't been looking at either of these agreements with- an eye toward change orders. So, if you want me to, I'll be happy to sit down and look at this agreement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not looking to put more road blocks in the way. They -- we got enough. MR. MOTLEY: If it's something y'all need to do, I'll be happy to look at this real quick, see if I can find something that addresses change orders. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please do. MR. MOTLEY: If you'd like me to while I'm here in court. 1 ~ ~ -i~3 93 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please do. MR. MOTLEY: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Have you got any further comments on this 2.10, this interlocal -- the revisions to the interlocal agreement between Kerr County and U.G.R.A. concerning Kerrville South Wastewater Project, as it concerns covering current, pending, and future projects? MR. MOTLEY: The current project, as I understand, and I believe -- correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner. Are there not two projects that are currently underway, under the auspices of this -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, two phases of the same project. Two different funds funding these two phases. MR. MOTLEY: Exactly. Those are both underway and sort of being handled by the contract I'm holding in my hands that Mr. Mosty gave me, correct? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I would add that a third grant is in the pipeline awaiting funding, a funding date we believe will be funded for a third phase. Same project, third phase. MR. MOTLEY: I understand there's probably yet a third grant or another grant to fund that; is that correct? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And one more we've 1-_,-u~ 94 .--, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 applied for, even a fourth grant. Same project, phase four. MR. MOTLEY: And I think that that's fine. I'll have to -- let me just say that this is not as basic a research project as I anticipated it was. It's really been quite involved. And, plus, I've had numerous other duties this last week. I had to finish up some things that have been on the front burner for a long time, so it's really hard to kind of -- even though you did write me a letter previous to the meeting on the 13th and say that it was something that needed to be done, and we reset it for today, so we've had two shots at this, but it's just going to take me a little more time, is all I can say. I have been in contact with Mr. Mosty, and 1'll be more than happy to work with him on this, as I would on any kind of agreement. He's easy to work with. And so I'll be happy to -- I don't think the changes that I'm talking about -- again, assuming the whole process is fine, which I'm going to assume the City wants to find that. But the changes contemplated are nothing that are extensive, anyway, and I think they would give you the result that you're seeking, which would be a template type of an agreement, and it would help things speed along. I don't feel like I answered all of Commissioner Letz' questions. I feel like I left you kind of hanging there. I don't want to do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, you've done -- t-~~-os 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly 20 21 22 23 24 25 you've, you know, been very clear on your answers, and I appreciate them. I'm just -- my -- I'm going back to the agenda item, and I would -- my preference would be -- and this is one Commissioner -- is to forget the funding in the future; let's just get the current one amended. And, in the process of doing that, if it helps you to research the template one -- I mean, 'cause we're going to have to address that down the road. But I'm trying to keep from having to -- MR. MOTLEY: Can I ask a question? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. MR. MOTLEY: Is there anything necessary to amend, except possibly reflecting the name changes of the organizations and state agencies and then these work order -- change orders? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's all. MR. MOTLEY: I think it should survive that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there's a date issue regarding the Tetra Tech contract, I guess. MR. MOTLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know that there is. In the interlocal agreement, it provides for the consulting engineer to work on the project. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but the agreement the engineering company has -- and I haven't looked at that 1--'~-03 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agreement, you know. MR. MOTLEY: I think I have it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But in that agreement, someone, for some reason, had an expiration date in it. That needs to be worked, and that may be -- you know, we want to have a current contract with everybody involved. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The question is, is Tetra Tech a successor to the contract, to the Groves Engineering contract? MR. MOTLEY: Now, I -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If they're not, then do we want to contract with Tetra Tech? I -- I can't find that -- I'm sure it's true, but I can't find that Tetra Tech has purchased Groves Engineering. I've looked at two year's worth of their press releases that include purchase of five or six, probably, different companies, and they don't include that one in there. I also found that Tetra Tech, in December, lost a lawsuit over breach of contract and was the -- the plaintiff was awarded, I think, $4.1 million in damages. So, I don't know who Tetra Tech is; I don't know if they're successor to this contract. And if they're not, I don't know if the County wants to do business with them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know who they are either, except they purchased Groves Engineering, and I didn't think it was this Court's business :.?-n3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 to look into -- to whether or not they -- the purchase agreement. They are the firm that acquired Groves, we're advised. There is a contract between this county and Groves, that we have a project underway, so somebody tell me how we keep it moving. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that contract provide for successor to -- MR. MOTLEY: Let me say that the form that I've looked at, that was presented as the form that -- between Groves Engineering and Kerr County, addresses that. It says the firm shall not assign any interest in the contract -- you know, shall not transfer any interest without the prior written consent of the City or County. So, it may be if it doesn't out-and-out say that they succeed to the rights of Groves Engineering, that Tetra Tech and the County could simply agree to that change and go on with that. Without having to actually amend the contract, in other words. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. So, how do we pursue that? MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'm going to sit down here and look at this, and then I'm going to give you an opinion on that and the change order. So, I'll be sitting here. JUDGE TINLEY: I think there's been an additional issue raised with regard to the Groves i _ - o 98 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~3 24 25 Engineering contract, not just necessarily the successor in interest to Groves Engineering, but also as to the term of the contract between Kerr County and Groves Engineering. My understanding from Commissioner Nicholson is that his research has indicated that specific contract for those services to be provided by Groves, the term of that contract expired on December 31st of last year. Is that correct, Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This contract did, between Kerr County and Groves Engineering. I don't know if this contract is the one we -- under question. MR. MOTLEY: That's what I have right here. And it looks fairly similar, but I have -- mine is not an executed copy, and I assumed -- it looks like the same agreement. I'll be happy to make a copy of this, too. We need to -- what I'm working off of is what I presume to be a draft. DODGE TINLEY: File copy? MR. MOTLEY: It's not signed or anything, so I didn't know. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This one's signed. MR. MOTLEY: It looks pretty similar, just looking at it. But I didn't know there was any specific date here. It does say time of performance. In any event, all services completed -- shall be completed no later than 1 ! ~ u 3 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ,~ 23 24 ZS December 31st, 2002. There may be provisions in here for extensions. I've just not -- JUDGE TINLEY: But at least, presumptively, December 31, 2002, this contract expires then, if that's the -- the correct format. MR. MOTLEY: That's when the time of performance was complete -- supposed to be completed. There may be remedies for going over that date, like a liquidated damages provision or something like that, that we might can look at. I'll take a look at this. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you square that with Section 1 on Page 2 of the -- of the existing interlocal agreement and Section 5.3 of the existing interlocal agreement? Tell us where the deficiencies lie and how to correct them. MR. MOTLEY: Section 1 on Page 2. What was the second reference you gave me? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5.3 on Page 3. MR. MOTLEY: That may -- may be -- we may need to deal with -- I just made reference to some sort of a contract end-date extension or something like that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MK. MOTLEY: How long -- how far along are they on these two phases? COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're working on one of i-~,-r~; 100 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them right now. That's what the change order is related to. MR. MOTLEY: Is one finished? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're half finished with one phase, and have moved to the other phase because of the -- the provisions of the easement agreement between Riverhill, the County, and the City to get that work done now. So, they're on that phase right now. When they complete that, they'll go back and complete the other piece that they're working on. MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'll sure -- I'll take a look at that, and if I can give you a report back, I'll do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Have you got anything you want to add to this, Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I don't. I'd like to know what we're going to do here, though. What Commissioner Williams intends on doing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I intend to wait and get a report from the County Attorney as to what, if any, deficiencies there are in the interlocal agreement that have to be corrected, if any, and I'd like to have an answer, and I'm given to believe I will get an answer as to whether or not we can pay a $105 change order before we leave today. -~~-n? 101 1 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And my other question would be if Number 4 had his questions answered. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it sounds like, to me, we're not ready to act. JUDGE TINLEY: Not ready to move forward on this 2.10. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It looks like. JUDGE TINLEY: Nor are we ready to move forward on 2.09, it doesn't seem. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appears that way to me. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We11, the County ALLurney said he's taking a look at the change order and will report to us before we -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can talk about Hermann Sons some more, if you want. JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- we appreciate your update on 2.11, and if nobody's got anything further to offer on 2.10 dud we're going to await further developments on that, we'll proceed to Item 2.12, which is the last item on the consideration agenda, it appears. Consider and discuss and take appropriate action to suspend, effectively immediately, Section 10 of the On-Site Sewer Facility rules, _,-03 102 1 ~~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,,., 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .., 2 9 25 commonly known as real estate transfer inspection, through July 31, 2003. Commissioner Nicholson. You brought this I'll reiterate what we discussed there; that the real estate transfer rule was apparently enacted for the purposes of providing a mechanism for inspecting some sort of a sample of the septic systems in the county, and then, of course, requiring the repair of those that didn't meet standards. We can see now that the rules have very little impact on identifying and correcting failing systems, and it appears that the concept of -- of sampling systems in this manner is flawed. A reasonable guess is that, over 20 years, the rule might result in fewer than 10 percent of Kerr County septic systems being inspected. It, in my view, is an unnecessary intrusion on property rights, hinders the real estate transaction, drives up transfer costs, and it damages the properties under contract. I want to abolish the rule and -- and find more effective ways to identify failing septic systems than this. And the suggestion was made at the last Commissioners Court meeting that, rather than abolish the rule, because of the uncertainty about water and government and other reasons, that we would simply suspend the rule for six months, and I support the concept of the i-~~-n, 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2J suspension as -- you know, as opposed to abolishing the rule. JUDGE TINLEY: Is a -- is a public hearing required as a condition to consider the suspension? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My view is that a public hearing would be required to abolish the rule, but not to suspend it. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody e]se have any ditterent opinion about that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a different opinion. I'm not sure; I think we may be able to -- and we may have to really table this until tomorrow, 'cause we'll answer the question. I think that it may require T.C.E.Q. approval to suspend it, because we're enforcing -- they approved Section 10, and I suspect they're going to require their approval to suspend it. If that's true, then we're also going to have to do a public hearing on the suspension. So, my -- my shortcut of suspending turns out to be longer -- as long, if not longer, than the other route. And since then, I've also had a discussion with the president of the U.G.R.A. Hoard, and the -- for something that I had not thought about, but we need to address. And it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm opposed to suspending it, but we have an agreement -- contract with U.G.R.A. for enforcing Lhe rules, and they make budgetary -- it's done on an annual _ _ - i i 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 basis, and they have budgetary considerations based on the rules that were in place when they entered into that earlier in the year. A high portion of their revenue, which helps pay for this -- their enforcement of our rules, comes from the real estate transfer, and if we suspend the real estate transfer, we need to have some sort of an agreement with U.G.R.A. as to how we handle that -- I guess the loss -- I won't say "loss" -- loss of revenue that they would have for the remainder of this contract period. And I think the numbers that I've been told are -- you know, could be, you know, in the neighborhood of $20,000, $30,000, $90,000. It's hard to say, 'cause it's -- you know, it's hard to go back and see exactly how much revenue they get off of that one item. But I don't think that it is proper for the County to just, all of a sudden, just say -- you know, to anybody, whether U.G.R.A. or a private individual or another government entity, to say we're going to change the rules all of a sudden; you're going to lose a large portion of your funding. So I think that this needs to be addressed. 1 really don't have a good solution to the last. I mean, I still agree with Commissioner Nicholson; I don't like section 10 the way it's currently in place, and I have no problem with pursuing that direction of suspending it, but I think U.G.K.H. and the loss of revenue that they 1-~?-03 105 1 ,.... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 r 25 would have for administration of the contract needs to be COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with -- if we pull out of any of our agreements with them, it kind of throws their budget in a tailspin, and it definitely impacts their budget, and I don't think that that's the proper way to do business. I'm certainly willing to sit down in a workshop session with U.G.R.A. and work out these things before we actually do them, but to just up and pull the rug out, 1 don't -- I don't think is a proper way to do business. As well as -- in order to install Section 10 into the county rules, the State went through their little process of their board meetings up in Austin and with approval. And, yes, they have to -- rn oraer to remove those the way -- according to them, they have to also go through those steps again to remove. So, I -- in order to do that, I think the agenda item's written just -- is not -- is not properly written here, but we're also talking about what would we do if -- if we did this? Would we replace it with another plan? And 1 never -- I never have -- I mean, I've been dealing with this for a long time, and I just never have heard a good plan in place of the real estate inspection, except for one. And just -- I'm not promoting this, but it's a thought that 1 just want to kind of throw i-~~-~~j 106 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 out, and somebody -- for you to chew on and all of us to chew on a little bit later on. You know, when we -- today, when we had some plats in here -- or when we approve a plat, the -- there's an engineer's seal on here that the lines and distances and measurements and all of those things are correct. And we -- because of that engineer's seal on there, we know that -- that we can trust him, and his license is on the -- or seal's on the line because of that. And, to me, why can't we take that kind of thinking -- or let's talk about taking the -- take that kind of thinking and bring it over here to Section 10, and that as an installer comes along and installs a system, and he puts his -- his stamp -- his professional license on the line, that -- that that is a good system, and us rely on him. Let him be accountable to the public. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That -- I mean, I have thought of something, I think, similar to that, which is basically getting the governmental entities out of the inspection of real estate transfer; turn it over to the private sector. I think that's what you're saying. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let the people that are installing these systems, let them be accountable. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Instead of the government entity. It's just a thought. I don't -- you 1 _-n3 107 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2~ 23 24 .... 25 know, y'all chew on it, do what you want to with it. But as of today in this -- this particular item, I'm not going to be in favor of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think it -- I said it last time this came up. If we have a better way of detecting failing or out-of-compliance septic systems, then let's put it on the table and discuss it, and put it in place. I think the suspension or Lne aUOllSCi icig ui .~c ~:~luii 10 is a vote to proliferate failing and out-of-compliance systems, and you might as well just take the gate down and -- and let -- put the sign up outside saying, "Kerr County Commissioners Court doesn't care." Do what you want to do, when you want to do it. Just do it. If you're not going to try to find them and correct them, you have just put water quality in this county in a coffin; you're nailing the lid on top of it, in my opinion. So, I wouldn't vote for the abolishing of Section 10 under any circumstances until and unless there's a better system in place. And if there's a better system in place, design it, bring it here, let's discuss it, find out what the flaws are, and replace the existing Section 10 with a section that makes sense. So, I won't vote for it either. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You understand I didn't say that, what he just got through saying. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll take credit for 1-2~ ~~3 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what I said. JUDGE TINLEY: This might be an appropriate time. We've had at least two parties who have indicated they would like to offer some comments or thoughts or ideas about this particular subject, and I suppose this is as good a time as any to listen to these folks. And the first one, I believe, that I was given the -- here's one from Gary McVey. MR. McVEY: McVey. JUDGE TINLEY: McVey, who lives at 507 Westway. That's out in Kerrville South, I believe, isn't it, sir? MR. McVEY: Right, it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Yes, sir? MR. McVEY: We, as Kerrville South -- I'm the Secretary of Kerrville South Community Action Group. And, first of all, I moved here about three years ago, purchased a home, and paid for a lot of -- paid for inspections, LLansfer, found out the system wasn't working. I have an aerobic system. I'm concerned about the water quality, of course, but my concern today is about the inspection transfer of these expensive aerobic systems, because we pay -- those owners of aerobics pay a fee each year to have a quarter or three-times-a-year insper_tion. It can run $160 to S30G, I yuess. So, there's a report filed of -- made 1-2~-03 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 out. That report should go to U.G.R.A. or whoever our enforcement officials are. That, I've found out, did not happen. I ended up spending about $1,000 for repair of a system that you couldn't just walk up there and look at it and see that it was -- wasn't working. Someone had disconnected the alarm, so -- and my -- I wasn't familiar with them, so I didn't catch it 'till I saw water running out of it, and then I got it fixed. So, what I'm saying is that we can't just -- I would suggest we can't just do away with this inspection system, especially for these expensive systems. And the real estate business -- and I think I've moved 15 times and purchased about 10 different properties, so I speak from that -- is that, from that side, we don't need to be known over on these hills as a -- watch out when you buy, because you may spend $8,00(1 or $10,000 to get that system replaced, because it's not inspected. No one -- the person that put mine in is long gone, so -- but that's my point, is it needs to be an enforcer. I don't care who it is. That it needs to be -- when the real estate is transferred, aerobic system, everything's up and running and it's correct, okay? Thank you. DODGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate your comments. The next individual we have on this particular agenda item is Mr. Vernon Harrison. 1 ~- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,,.. 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 ly 20 21 22 23 ,~,~ 2 4 25 110 Mr. Harrison, how are you this morning? MR. HARRISON: I'm fine, Judge, thank you. This is a subject that I have addressed on more than one occasion, and it's one I have concerns about. And I got concerned about it 'cause I got trapped in it when I came here. And I've had nothing but unhappy experiences with the operation of Section 10, and it doesn't have to do with the fact that Section 10 helped find a failing system. In my case, it did not find a failing system. Because the situation I was faced with is, when I bought a relatively large piece of commercial property, I provided in my contract that the property itself be in compliance with all governmental regulations. I threw them all in, and I asked that it be inspected to find out that everything was working. And a fee was paid to U.G.R.A. to supposedly inspect the system. At least that's what I assume. And I'm one of those lawyers who causes all this trouble, but I thought that the rule that said you paid an inspection fee meant you got an inspection, only that's not how that works, I found out later. You pay an inspection tee, but you don't get an inspection unless you go down there and tell them to go out and inspect. All you get when you pay the fee is you pay a fee, because they need that to help them with their budget. So, in my case, seven or eight months later, I found out that this septic system 1 _ - C 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 that I had relied on what I thought was a governmental agency in charge of this to check this out, I, in fact, had a failing septic system. I won't even go into the nightmares I had with trying to get that failing system fixed and all the trouble I had with the governmental agencies and trying to get that done. But the point is, Section 10 didn't help one bit. What it did do is cover up and left me, as a buyer, in a bad situatian. Number one, I couldn't sue anybody. That broke my heart, as a lawyer. (Laughter.) MR. HARRISON: And the reason I couldn't sue anybody is I paid a fee for -- for U.G.R.A. to inspect my -- my place. That -- and the realtor says, "It wasn't my fault. I relied on U.G.R.A." The seller said, "What do I know? I relied on the person who installed it and U.G.R,A," and I relied on U.G.R,A. If none of that had been in place, I would have done what every buyer should do; I would have got a septic installer to come out and check it, which is what I think we should do here in Kerr County. We should trust that buyers and sellers will look out for their own best interests. AUDIENCE: You betcha. MR. HARRISGN: And that they will require aii inspection by an expert of their own choice. And had I been in that situation, I would have gotten a septic tank 1-'7-03 112 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 installer to inspect it for me, and he would have told me, "You have a failing system." Or if he didn't tell me I had a failing system, all his assets would be mine and his license would be gone. I'd have recourse. As it is now, I got trapped in a situation that cost me a whole bunch of money with nobody to look to, because the rules said -- said everything was okay. So I say, first off, Section 10 doesn't find failing septic systems. It didn't find mine when it would have been the seller's problem, not mine. Next, even -- it failed in that transfer situation. In the situations where most of the property in Kerr County doesn't change hands -- the great majority of property in Kerr County changes hands very infrequently. Therefore, if the only system we have for finding failing septic systems is for when property changes hands, all you have to do to protect your failing septic system is don't sell your property. And then you can sit there and run the sewer in the street, because no one's coming around to check it. If I own property right on the river -- and that river is extremely important to me. I own property to the middle of the river, and I operate a -- a business that is tied to that river being clean and being a good place Tor people to enjoy. I want the river clean. But I think that using Section 10, number one, it hasn't worked. At least in my situation, it didn't i ~ ~ o ~ 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly 20 zl 22 23 24 25 work. And, number two, all my neighbors -- most of them aren't transferring their property. There can be horrible situations next door, and we don't even have a system for working through that. So, I think what we need to do is find something that will help us find the failing septic systems. Do something about it, the failing septic systems, and quit spending a whole lot of time, money, and effort bothering people who are just trying to sell their property. If they have a failing septic system, fix it. But just to make something more difficult to transfer real estate is not good. It's not good Tor the economy, it's not good for the county. And I appreciate your attention. JUDGE '1'1NLEY: Thank you, Mr. Harrison. The next individual that I have noted -- I presume this is on the Section lU -- is Bill Stacy. Is that on the right subject, Judge Stacy? MR. STACY: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward, sir. MR. STACY: I'm glad to be back with you gentlemen again. This is what you have adopted, a previous court. 't'hese -- and it's my understanding these people are going to be up here tomorrow, and I can't wait to get these Austin experts up here to Kerr County to these rules that they have dropped on us. I want to make one remark. I'm tired of hearing about trying to proLecL Che river from the i _~-o~ 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 septic system. That's a bunch of malarky. We're -- the septic systems are not polluting the river. I can tell you triis. I was in the children's camp business for 40-some-odd years, and those horses are what was polluting the river. It wasn't the septic system, believe me. I've seen it. So, Mr. Williams, you're off base on that remark about the Section 10. I -- Commissioners, I wish that you would go back and spend the time that -- when I was on the court, whet, we worked on these rules, when we had hearing after hearing after hearing and we heard the people. These rules got adopted somehow in the middle of the night, and they are a laughingstock. And you have -- you have put the people -- just like the gentleman just spoke, and it's unreal. What they want you to do is to follow the state rules, and the State keeps changing the rules. They keep moving the goalpost on you. And these guys -- and I was -- I used to put in septic systems before all these guys who made any rules were born. And, believe you me, we've put in three tanks and a leach line that worked. And if we didn't have enough leach line, we saw something coming up, we made it longer. And I can tell you this, the way that U.G.R.A. has interpreted these rules, they don't even know what a leach Brie is. 'Cause I've been there. They've cost me thousands of dollars unnecessarily, 'cause they wanted me to conform to theiL rules. I had a septic system that was 1-=~-~ 3 115 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 working, and worked for 20-some-odd years, but under the state rules, they said no, and it cost me thousands of dollars. So, I'm urging the Commissioners Court to go back to square one that we did in my court, and -- and have reviews, ask the public input, and listen to what the public is saying and listen to what the realtors are saying. And this gentleman, he's a lawyer here, and lawyers do sometimes know what they're talking about when -- when they're talking about not being able to sue somebody. I couldn't do anything. Cost me thousands of dollars to sell my own property, and you're right. So, gentlemen, go back and revise these rules. And let's ask these guys that come over here from Austin tomorrow, are they on city sewer or are they on septic lines, to make these rules? JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Judge Stacy. The next individual who has filed a participation form on this issue is Mr. Bernard Syfan. Come forward, please, Mr. Syfan. MR. SYFAN: Gentlemen, there's several things. When you were adopting these rules, '1'.N.R.C.C. did come over in these hearings, and they were asked specifically, straight out, flat out, was Section 10 required, or would the County be able to protect the river waLex with the state rules, just as they're written'? And he 1-_~- 3 116 ~_ 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 was quite emphatic; he said it can be done without a Section 10. Section 10 is covering just a teeny little piece, and it's a great big harassment. If there are places along the river that show there is pollution, that area ought to be under scrutiny, and it ought to be under scrutiny specifically. And the areas that are not being polluted, that's not where you spend your time. As far as the U.G.R.A. losing $20,000 to $40,000 out of their operating budget, if they don't have this harassment rule, I -- I don't quite understand that. If they don't have to spend the money and they don't get the money, it's a washout, unless they're charging fees to support other things. I'm not quite sure just where that $20,000 to $40,000 of loss would come. I'd be very interested to see that. In fact, are they charging enough fee to support their other operations, and that's the loss? Or does the fee just cover what they're going to do, and if we do remove the fee and what they're going to do, it's a wash? As far as inspections on aerobic systems, we've got a system of inspecting the aerobic systems, which are an abomination to everything. Those aerobic systems should be a very, very, very last resort. And if there is a -- a property transfer, I thin Y. it's up to the real estate broker involved to be darned sure that the person knows that they're being saddled with a -- a big expense. And when 1 - _ - ~ i 117 1 .~. ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 somebody is told that they ought to be getting an aerobic situation to -- that they're going to have a big expense. And that expense is not just up-front, it is forever. It is forever. It ought to be a very last resort. A last resort. You don't need Section 10. You're getting three inspections a year. If those three inspections don't mean anything, don't have them. If they do mean anything, whoever is inspecting, just like they said earlier, ought to be made responsible for guaranteeing that that system works. So, if you're worried about Section 10 for aerobic systems, it's not necessary. You already got a law that says they've got to be inspected, and it's important that they be inspected, because they fail. An aerobic system is a very, very delicate operation. It works great for a municipality, where they have a man there all the time testing it. For a little old lady in the back streets, it's -- you're saddling her with something that's awful. I -- I believe that's far enough to go. And I think that we need to -- just like Mr. Williams said, we ought to find something better. That doesn't do the job. It's not doing the job. Look where you've got pollution, and look hard. 't'hank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Syfan. The next individual that I have is Janet Robinson, representing 1 = ~ - ~ 3 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~1 22 23 24 ^^<5 the U.G.R.A. Please come forward, Ms. Robinson. MS. ROBINSON: Good morning, Judge, Commissioners. I just have two comments I'd like to make. One is, I would like for the Court and U.G.R.A. to examine these very controversial rules together in some sort of studied manner. I do not support you voting on Section 10 today. As a couple of the Commissioners have pointed out, it will have a very negative impact on our budget. We've already budgeted a loss in this program for this year out of our revenues. And the last time these rules were changed, which was in January 2001, and the change lasted until June -- July 1, 2001, it had a negative impact on our budget of $30,000. Now, you changed two rules at that time; one of them was you changed the real estate exemption from 25 acres down to 10 acres, and you changed the real estate transfer. When you reinstated the real estate transfer in July of 2001, you did not change back the real estate exemption acreage requirement, so it's a little hard to sort out exactly what the impact was on our budget, but it came to about $30,000. The contract that we are now administrating your rules under lasts until the end of our fiscal year. I would like to see us undertaking more prudent and long-term studies on this, and not make any changes in the rules until trie new Iiscal year. Then we can examine whether or not we 1 _ -u~ 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 z3 29 25 want to administer the new rules, and you can give plenty of time to examining the impact of your rules on real estate transfers, on water quality and other issues. So, that's my first point. I do think that there's some people in our organization that are unhappy with Section 10 and the inspection process, and we have some input we'd like to make into a study. And I know you all have some concerns as well, so I'd hope that, starting tomorrow, when they come from Austin, we can begin to examine what we want to do here together, and not make a hasty decision. This would be the second time we've changed this rule in two years, so it's kind of like we don't have a course set that we all agree on, and I hope we can do that. The other thing I do want to comment on, and that is the water quality issues. There are some definite problems with this type of examination. But of the -- of the systems that we have established -- or we have examined on real estate transfer, over 40 percent were either failing or failed to meet current standards. Now, I know Judge Tinley raised the issue -- this issue in an earlier meeting, and we didn't sort out which ones were actually failing and which ones did not meet current standards, but once they have not met current standards, then you can't ignore the fact that they don't meet current standards. If they've been uncovered, then they do have to be brought up to _ ~-~~~? 120 r 1 2 3 9 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 compliance. To me, that means that there were a lot of systems out there that were not up to standards. Now, of course, these were the ones that were just being transferred, the real estate. That makes us wonder about all the other ones out there that might not be meeting standards or might be polluting. I think, for me, why I volunteered to do this kind of work -- some days you have to ask yourself why -- it's because I believe in the quality of our river. We already have in the county one stream that flows into our river that is on the EPA's 305-D list. 'That's Camp Meeting Creek. That essentially means it's biologically dead. There is too much pollution in there for it to support aquatic life. I call that a dead stream. You know, there was a recent article in the Kerrville uaily Times saying that, according to the EPA, a third of our streams and rivers in the United States are no longer suitable for recreation. To me, that is a terrible thing. I grew up along a creek, and I spent hours there as a child playing in it, and I want to leave that heritage to my granddaughter, who lives in this community. I know those people where a third of their streams and rivers did not meet standards for recreation, no group like the Commissioners Court or the City Council set out to pollute those streams. They didn't siL down and make t-=~ 121 1 2 .-- 3 1 4 5 6 1 7 8 F 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 1/ 18 ly 20 21 22 23 24 ,~ 25 policies to pollute those streams. What they did was make policies without always asking themselves, how is this going to impact water quality? And it was an unintended consequence. I'm absolutely sure that these were good people who just didn't think about the river in every derision that they make. This river is the heart and soul of this community, and I don't want to look at my granddaughter, who's now nine, 25 or 30 years from now and say that I didn't fight hard enough to keep this creek so we can continue to canoe in it as we do today. That's one of the things that she and I enjoy doing together. So, I hope as you undertake changes in this program -- and I do think, on both sides, everyone agrees there is room for some changes -- that we will make the water quality the number one issue to look at what decision -- the decisions we're making today, how that will impact the quality of the river, so we don't end up with more of the situations like we have in the Camp Meeting Creek. And that's all the comment I have this morning. Thank you for your time. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Robinson. We appreciate you being here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I can make one comment'? 1'd kind of -- a little bit in response to Mr. Syfan's question about the U.G.R.A. funding and the $30,000 loss. Any governmental entity or private entity or anything 1-'~-':.3 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 7 ` 8 9 10 11 1 12 ~. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,,~ 2 4 ~5 else, you can't just one day, all of a sudden, say we're going to -- when they have staffing and, you know, their internal infrastructure in place to do something, and all of the Court to say that, and the reason is, U.G.R.A.'s only recourse, really, is either to absorb more of a loss or temporarily lay people off and cut back part of their office staff. I mean, it's not just a matter of fees coming in to administer this; there's people involved, and there's legal issues from -- in my mind, and ethical issues that we made an agreement with an entity to do something for us. From what I said earlier, I strongly believe we need to change what that direction is, but I don't think it's right to -- you know, for us unilaterally to say, well, we're just going to change it, and we're sorry if you have to reduce your staff. We're sorry if you have to change your infrastructure. I don't think tha*_ that's right, and that's why I'm opposed to doing something real quickly. And it kind of goes back to what I stated at the last meeting, that why I didn't want to have a whole series of public hearings on this topic is that, you know, it's -- we need to try to get through - - figure out where we're going and have one series of public hearings. Or if it -- and if it takes multiple hearings, that's fine, to get 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,.., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 z3 24 .... 25 the public input. Because if we have these multiple public hearings, I don't think it's right for us to basically ask the community to come back here every court meeting for the next six months as we talk about septic, 'cause they want to be involved. And we want people to be involved, but we need to have, you know, something for them to look at and the direction the Court's going to go on that. And that's why I think we really need to, you know, first step tomorrow, meet with T.C.E.Q., their staff. Then do what Commissioner Baldwin says; you visit with U.G.R.A. and get a direction, before we start setting public hearings on changing things through the process. I think if you get premature, I think it really hurts the process. That's my only comment. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's become clear to me that -- that Section 1U -- the primary purpose of Section 10 is to raise revenue. The -- the so-called protection of the river is secondary to that. The reason Section 10 was reinstated was to deal with the revenue shortfall that U.G.R.A. was experiencing because it had been abolished. That's not an effective way to protect the river. It's not an effective way of sampling septic systems. A better thing we could do, and we could do it right now, is to require the -- require those systems that we now know are not working to be -- to be repaired. I keep hearing that my neighborhood and my street, that we've got failing systems here and thew 1-'7-C3 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the county. We ought not be wasting our time and our resources dealing with this Section 10. We ought to be out there compelling those failing systems to be corrected. Section 10 is not part of the solution to clean water issues in Kerr County. That's all. JUDGE TINLEY: It appears to me that the consensus is that before there can be any movement forward on this Section 10, that, at a minimum, a public hearing is going to be required, and possibly other action, maybe subject to some approval or other consent from the T.C.E.Q. And if there's any desire at this point to move the matter forward, to take appropriate action to suspend Section 10 of the O.S.S.F. -- O.S.S.F. rules, that what I'm hearing is, possibly, if it's the desire of the Court, there be a motion that we set a public hearing for some date not less than 30 days in the future, and subject to whatever requirements T.C.E.Q. may impose or require, which, of course, can be picked up tomorrow, hopefully, and -- if there's a desire to move this thing forward. Am I in error on tha n Is that essentially where we are? If we want to move it? Either that or do nothing at this point. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know where you picked up that we want to move forward with it. JUDGE TINLEY: That's an inquiry. COMMISSIUNER BALDWIN: I didn't hear that. 1_,~ ~~ 125 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~2 23 24 25 I'm not hearing that exactly. But, you know, once we -- I think there's the steps of visiting with T.C.E.Q. and setting up talks with O.G.R.A. And, you know, once those thoughts are clear and that looks like a plan, I may second the motion. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To do what? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To do -- I'm not going to do it today. I'm saying -- I'm saying that if -- you know, once we do those things that we should be doing in a business-type fashion, then, you know, I may -- I may support kicking out Section 10. But I'm not going to until -- why have a public hearing? We need to wait till we've talked to those folks tomorrow so they can outline to us exactly what they do and what they expect us to do in order to get rid of Section lU. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I don't think my -- my question was a suggestion that somebody wants to move forward. I said if they want to move it forward. COMMISSIUNER BALDWIN: A11 right. JUDGE TINLEY: The appropriate thing to do, because of the consensus that a public hearing would be required in any event, that that would be the action to be take. And I guess, at this point, if there's anyone that desires to make such a motion, let's hear it and move on. COMMISSIONER NICHULSON: I make a motion that 1 ' 7 - u 3 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we set a public hearinq for 10:30 a.m. on March 10th, a hearing to -- to hear from the public on the abolishment of Section 10 of the rules. This will give us some time tomorrow, if the experts -- that was my motion. Now this is a c~uuctent. If the experts tomorrow tell us that -- that real estate transfers are important to protect the quality of water, we can cancel that meeting, if we hear that and believe it. They've told us in the past that -- that everything we need to do to protect the water is covered by the state rules, so we probably won't hear that tomorrow. Anyhow, I've made a motion to schedule a public hearing for March 10th at 10:30 a.m. JUDGE TINLEY: Your motion, Commissioner, said "abolish"; the agenda item mentions "suspension" of -- of Section 10. I'm not sure we can make that jump. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz, is the "suspension" versus "abolishment" still important to you? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- I mean, in my mind, my preference would be to take no action today and table this item until tomorrow, because I've gotten burned several times since I've been on this court about voting to do things befuze I had a full set of facts, and I'm not going to vote to do anything unless I know the facts; you know, exactly wtiaL the ramifications are. i-~~-os 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, help me with protocol. We'll be in session tomorrow, so if we desire to set a public hearing, we would be able to do it at that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could be in session tomorrow. We can recess today and we can go 29 hours, I understand, and recess, and we can pick up this meeting tomorrow at -- you know, the end of the workshop. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question, though, in regards to that. Is -- is this agenda item here that would be recessed and picked up tomorrow, is it worded properly to -- to set up a public hearing later on? It doesn't say that anywhere in my -- I mean, it may -- you know, the language may be broad enough to do that. I don't know. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's clear that up. I'm withdrawing that -- that item from the agenda. Now I'm considering a public hearing to suspend or abolish Section 10. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin is saying that -- JUDGE TINLEY: It's not covered by the agenda item. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can't get it on the agenda? 128 1 r 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly 20 21 22 23 29 25 JUDGE TINLEY: "Take appropriate action," I think, if you broadly construe that, the first step might be holding a public hearing. I think -- I think my question goes more to "suspend" versus "abolish." The agenda item is "take appropriate action to suspend." COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Two things, then, Judge. We're setting -- we're saying that we can't set a public hearing date 'cause that's not on the agenda? JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not necessarily saying that. I'm not agreeing with that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can to suspend it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe so. JUDGE TINLEY: If we're taking a poll, yeah, I'll sign onto that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Second -- JUDGE TINLEY: I know you don't agree with polls, Buster. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to have to hire some lawyers to really get down to the bottom of this thing. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The second question, then, is it we chose to, could we make the decision tomorrow instead of today? Is that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. I think yes ' .~ u; 129 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is the answer, but I'm only one person. JUDGE TINLEY: If we recess this item today, subject to being taken up again tomorrow at the conclusion of our workshop, which is a posted public meeting. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that what I'm hearing? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we could. Now, I'll make another comment, if it's -- this enters into anyone's thought process. I'm still not going to vote for the public hearing till we have U.G.R.A -- my concerns with them addressed. Just so everyone knows where I stand. 'Cause I think that that's not right. I think that -- I mean, I -- I just -- we need to either figure out some solution, because I don't think it's right for us just to, all of a sudden, say, "You're not doing this any more." But if we can come to a resolution with that, then I would agree. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would support that -- that theory. I'm not going to support a motion to suspend or abolish until such time as we've heard from T.C.E.Q. and asked all the questions that we possibly can ask and get all the answers available to us, and secondly, have an opportunity to talk to U.G.R.A., who has been enforcing our rules to these many years. And, thirdly, design and bring to this Court for discussion a system that i-~~-u~ 130 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 is equal to or better than what we have in place today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a pretty good comment. Can we recess for 24 hours or 72 hours? MS. SOVIL: Twenty-four. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Twenty-four. MS. SOVIL: One day. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Used to be 72. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I can see where we are, Commissioner Baldwin. Is your motion still on the table, or did you withdraw that motion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, it's been so long ago, I can't remember what it was. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think he withdrew it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't -- I don't -- I see that we are not going to vote on the item that's on the agenda, so I think I see that there may be a consensus that we can deal with -- we can adjourn and deal with that after we ask the T.C.E.Q. all the questions we want to ask them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not by my comments, you can't, because we won't have gotten input from U.G.R.A. in a sit-down session, and we will not have had time to digest that input and construct a better mousetrap, if you will, before we do that. So -- COMMISSIONEK NICHOLSON: Procedurally, we 1-;~~-_s 131 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 could wait till tomorrow. And we can do it if we have three votes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Procedurally. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to recess and deal with this again tomorrow. JUDGE TINLEY: I think, as a procedural matter, we can do that, then. And in -- in lieu -- in lieu of the motion, you'd withdraw that in lieu of that request? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: I think, procedurally, we can do that, and I would, thereYOre, recess further consideration of 2.12, subject to the matter being revisited tomorrow after the workshop, publicly posted meeting with T.C.E.Q. Okay? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we go back to Uy, Judge, get the County Attorney's opinion? MR. MOTLEY: Is that the -- the change order'? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Change order. MR. MOTLEY: I think we can do that real quick. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm asking the Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's fine. We'll -- I appreciate you bringing that to my attention, Commissioner Williams. We'll go back to Item 2.9 concerning the change order with respect Lo Lhe Kerrville South Wastewater 1-z~-~~ 132 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly 20 21 22 L3 24 25 Project. County Attorney's had an opportunity to review the specific change order, which is the subject of that agenda item. Do you have a matter to report to us, Mr. Motley? MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir, I do. On Part 2, Item 18 on Page 4, it does say that -- that the scope of services to be provided by engineering firm include consulting with and advising Kerr County during construction, issue to contractors all instructions requested by the Kerr County -- by Kerr County, and prepare routine change orders, if required, at no charge for engineering services to -- they keep calling it to "the Kerr County." When the change order's required and to correct -- it's required to correct errors or omissions by the engineer, provide price analysis for change orders, process and submit change orders to T.D.H.C.A. for approval prior to execution by Kerr County. So, there is -- excuse me. There is a provision in the contract for dealing with change orders. And then -- hold on just a minute. Do we know what the cost of this $105 deal was? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They had to put a riser on a manhole. MR. MOTLEY: So, an oversight? I mean, do we know? Submit change orders to T.D.H.C.A. prior to execution by Kerr County -- The other says this agreement shall be binding upon -- oh, excuse me, not that one. There's also a i ~ n? 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2i 24 25 broad provision on Page 2 of Item E. 6.E says this agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties hereto in a writing to be attached to as incorporated -- attached to and incorporated into this agreement -- there's a lot of typos in here; I don't think engineers type very well. Y'all can talk all you want to about lawyers. But, in any event, broad amendments are allowed under the contract. And I think that might address in part the change order, and in part some of the issues that Jonathan raised about the name changes and such as that, and the date changes. That's not actually a completion -- I mean, an end-of-contract termination date. It's just when it's supposed to be completed by. There is also routine change orders -- JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. We've only got under consideration right now this one change order, as to whether or not we can approve or disapprove that. MR. MOTLEY: I hear you. And it says right here that it is -- well, there was another question to ask too, but it does say that it can be routine change orders; they can be prepared, if required, at no charge for engineering services to the County. When the change order is required to correct errors or omissions by the engineer, provide price analysis for change order process and submit change orders to T.D.H.C.A. for approval prior to execution i _ o s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 134 by the County. So, it says routine change orders can be made by the County after they're approved by T.D.H.C.A., which is going to be Office of Rural Communities Affairs. So, I would assume that's a fairly routine approval, and you might even be able to take care of that with a phone call or something. But we have a $105 deal that we need to put on there, and I would suspect that there's -- if we haven't been doing change orders that way before, maybe that's a good time to start and find out what it's going to take. There was another issue that was raised. On Page 1, Paragraph B, it says this agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto. And heirs -- respective heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors, and assigns were permitted by an agreement. So, I think the fact that names are changed is probably not going to be fatal to anything under the agreement. This says you can do the change order, but it does impose an intermediate step of going through the Office of Rural Community Affairs, as successor agency to T.D.H.C.A. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: Am I hearing you say that, subject to the approval of O.R.C.A. -- MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY; -- this Court has the authority to approve this change order? 1-_~-U3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 135 MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's what -- that's -- let me put it to you this way. That's what the contract says, and that's what I believe it means. JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move the approval of the Change Order Number 2, reflected and approved by the engineer for Kerrville South Wastewater Project, and it will be submitted to O.R.C.A., as the other one was also. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that the same as saying subject to their approval? O.R.C.A.'s approval? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess. JUDGE TINLEY: And at that point, I'd be authorized to sign it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm -- Judge, I got -- we've done this in the past. We took care of the change order; the Judge signed the change order, Grantworks gets it, the engineer gets it, it goes to O.R.C.A., and the budget is amended accordingly. I don't know. JUDGE TINLEY: Your motion, then, includes subject to O.R.C.A.'s approval and passage by this Court, I'm authorized to sign it, the change order? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think his point is as to when you sign it. You sign it before O.R.C.A., 136 1 2 3 9 5 H 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 previously. You sign it before O.R.C.A. Then O.R.C.A. approves it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right, 'cause a budget amendment goes up to O.R.C.A, to support the change order. MR. MOTLEY: Seems like on routine or very, very -- relatively small amounts of money, $105 -- when you're talking about a $300,000-plus project, the contract might provide for sort of incidental change orders without going through that process, but it doesn't. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It very well couldn't. MR. MOTLEY: But we -- I can give them a call. I have a copy of the change order; I'll call them and say, Hey, can we do this? What do we need? If we tax it to you, how quick can we get some action on it? Maybe this is one you could table till tomorrow and -- you know, 1 -- it's kind of crazy to be held up, you know, for two weeks over a $105 deal. So -- DODGE TINLEY: I'm just wanting the Court's direction as to when I'm authorized to sign this, whether it's before or after O.R.C.A.'s approval, which apparently there's -- there's a requirement that they -- at least perfunctory. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: lt's my .-z~-u~ 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understanding, Judge, you can't even move the paperwork forward unless the Judge signs that. JODGE TINLEY: Okay. So your motion, then, presumes that I will sign it and then submit it to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move it through for subsequent approval. JUDGE TINLEY: And your second anticipates that? Okay. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we had a short meeting today. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not aware of any Executive Session matters that -- that we need to go into. Therefore, there being no action on any of those, let's move to the information agenda. Let me skip down to 5.3, reports from boards, commissions, and committees, if I might, if there's no objection to that. We've got Mr. Kyle Young here to give us a report on the First Responder program. Good afternoon now, Mr. Young. MR. YOUNG: Good afternoon. How y'all doing? 1-2~-03 138 1 .-- 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 I'm glad to be here. I've got some real good news, and we've had a lot of exciting things happen in the past month. First one that you may be aware of is that KPUB donated nine automated external defibrillators to our First Responder That makes 12 in the county now. Before, we only had three. Now we've got 12, so that's a great big step. That's a very large donation to our program from KPUB. That was pushed through -- the American Public Power Association gave them Lkie idea to do this. I was not even aware of it until it had already been done; they'd already bought them. They called me acid asked me if I could put them out with First Responders, and -- and I agreed real quickly to. The uLher thing that -- that we've been the recipient of is a local project grant through the Texas Department cf Health that we applied for with the City, which we added onto, and requested 10 paging radios for the First Responder program, and that budget has been -- that grant has been approved. So, that's a grant that's going to be for $2,550. That is a reimbursable grant. So, I guess what we would need to ask is if we could go ahead and purchase those radios with the budget that we have for the First Responders, and then reimburse that fund back before we purchase anything that we had budgeted for the First Responder program. We had training Thursday night. We had a 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 meeting and all of the First Responders that received the new AED's were trained on their use. There is a possibility that we will receive another grant for AED's that we had applied for later in last year, in which we requested 72 AED's. I don't think there was a lot of participation from other agencies on this grant. It seemed like there was not a lot of interest in it, and I believe this was -- this grant was funded for $300,000. So, there is a possibility that we may be receiving more AED's that we can put in patrol cars and have public access. So, things are looking up on the First Responders side. Great group of people. It's amazing what these people do for us in Kerr County, and I'm really proud of them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kyle, what -- I want you to go back, just for a second. How many AED's did KPUB donate to your group? MR. YOUNG: They donated nine. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nine of those. And how much do they cost"? MR. YOUNG: Rough -- I think they got a little bit of a break; normally they cost about $3,000 apiece. COMMISSIUNER BALDWIN: A donation that went out for the First Responders to give people to help save lives. And I think that's absolutely fantastic. 1 2~-03 190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 ly 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. YOUNG: It's amazing. When they called me and asked me if I could use them, my jaw hit my desk, and I was really just shocked, because I've constantly been trying to find ways to put these devices in their possession. And we -- I felt very lucky to have three in the county, and now I've got 12. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Great. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kyle? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. MR. YOUNG: Yes? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead, Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I was just thanking him. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your second item was on the grant that I guess we are going to get. You had a -- a question as to if you could use the funds we have right now. MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We probably -- I think we could do it under this item, is to approve doing that, because that's an additional purchase that's not in the budget. And -- i mean, 'cause you're -- I guess it's going to be -- you're getting something; then you're going to give the money back. Anyway, it seems that we should either 1-J?-"3 141 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Zl 22 23 24 25 approve it through a budget amendment at our next meeting, or we could do it now, probably, 'cause it says consider and discuss. We could probably act on it now. I don't know. I'm just really -- I'm bringing it up so if we need to act on it, we can get it on our next agenda. I think your idea of using that fund is fine, but we ought to have a budget amendment to reflect that. Probably better -- I see some nods down there -- at our next meeting. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think we'd go through the Auditor, put it on our next -- just do a real clean -- JUDGE TINLEY: Seems to me the appropriate thing, so you've got specific authorization for it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, do a budget amendment. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate your report, Kyle. MR. YOUNG: Great. JUDGE TINLEY: And glad to know things are moving along. What about -- what about your manpower under the First Responders program? Has that expanded? MR. YOUNG: Somewhat. A lot of our firefighters are jumping in and helping out a lot in the county, and that's been helping. We're still in need of more First Responders. I'm in the process of getting certified to teach an E.M.T. class, which I'm hoping to . z~-o3 142 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ZI be -- be able to start the E.M.T. class in probably April. And, of course, when we get that going, then we'll definitely be -- be putting out the call for any and all to come and help that are certified. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think that's great. And hopefully the media will give you some play on that, so that once you do get in a position to hold those classes, the word can get out that -- on that, that training is available, so that you can obtain those extra needed personnel. MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir. It's -- the program has saved many lives already, and without it there's no way that the Kerrville Fire Department could have the success rate that we have without the First Responders. There's just too much area to cover in the county. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody got anything else? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thanks, Kyle. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. We appreciate you coming. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, with the Court's indulgence, we have two reports remaining, one from some gentlemen whc work for the Court and are available in the courthouse, who don't have to go anywhere else. We have also a young lady who is Executive Director of R.C.& D., who's traveled here from San Antonio, and I'm certain would 1-_~-u3 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2q 25 like to get back to her business. Would the Court object to moving her in front of Brad and them for a quick, short report? JUDGE TINLEY: I've got no problem with that, if no one else here on the Court does. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With that -- thank you; I appreciate that. And, with that, I'd like to introduce Bertha Venegas, and I think -- I believe you're Executive Director of the Alamo R.C.& D., and travel to Kerr County frequently in support of the efforts of the Kerr County R.C.& D. And good opportunity for Bertha to take a moment or two to tell the Court what the R.C.& D. is doing and so forth. Thank you. MS. VENEGAS: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. My name is Bertha Venegas, like the Commissioner mentioned, and actually I represent the NRCS, which is the Natural Resources Conservation Service. And 1 was appointed to assist the R.C.& D. program, which is Resource Conservation and Development, and we cover a 10-county area, and Kerr County is one of our counties that we assist and serve. Commissioner Williams has been assisting the Kerr County R.C.& D. with some of the endeavors at the local level, and I assist all 10 counties in doing community development as well as economic development and natural resource management. And, basically, our focus is whatever i-z,_n's 144 1 .- 2 3 4 J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .~. 25 the county is in need of at the time. We do have some goals writing and leadership development. We also provide any kind of planning assistance to the counties, depending on what their needs are. We also receive grants from state, federal, and private foundations to assist with projects, and Kerr County R.. C.& D. has been very successful in doing some of those things, especially assisting the volunteer fire departments and -- and providing the fire protection program as well I just wanted to say hello to everyone and let you know that we are here and we are available to assist you in any way we can. Commissioner Williams is the representative to Kerr County, and we usually see him at the meetings here in Kerr County. And, like I said, we have 10 counties we assist, so I try to get around to everyone, but if y'all have any need for me to be here, I will definitely be here and assist in whatever I can. So, that's it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one footnote to Bertha's comments, Judge. The local group has added to its staff - or has made its staff -- they had a staff of one; changed staff. A gentleman named Bill Drake is now working for R.C.,4 D. in the capacity of assisting people and agencies in Kerr County and finding grants and money and so forth and so on. He attended -- accompanied me to a meeting i-=~-o 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly 20 21 22 23 29 25 at Elm Pass Volunteer Fire Department, and will do the same in about a week or so when we go to Center Point Volunteer Fire Department, the purpose being to try to identify dollars that would help these two fire companies acquire some larger tankers so that perhaps we can avoid major fire disasters like we recently had in Center Point, or at least work more efficiently and better to bring them under control. So, this chapter is gain'ng some ground; kind of had some floundering, perhaps, for a while, but it's beginning to gain ground, and we thank Bertha for her support and involvement. MS. VENEGAS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you coming here, Ms. Venegas. We apologize for the delay. MS. VENEGAS: No problem. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was wondering if we could get a grant -- this is kind of a fundraising theme I've had in my mind for a number of years; if we could get a grant to get James Avery to make some little gold septic tanks that we could wear as charms. You know, wear them as charm bracelets or around your neck, earrings. And I think that we could make money. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would the laterals go? i-z~ a~ 146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 19 ~0 21 ~~ 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you'd look kind of funny at times, but -- you'll have to talk to Bill Stacy about that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item, report from the Collections Department. Commissioner Baldwin, I believe you asked -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I did. JUDGE TINLEY: -- Mr. Alford to be here? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I can tell you, the things that we need to talk about, we don't have enough time today to do it. But I guess Mr. Alford can just kind of give us a -- a quick thumbnail sketch of what he's doing and what he's going to do, if you want to come back and visit -- revisit this later on. MR. ALFORD: My septic system works fine, thank y'all. And I'm very glad of that after today. Just real briefly, I guess, to get everybody's attention to the Collections Department, which works in government by y'all, we assisted in bringing in approximately $900,000 last year off of fines, court costs, and attorney's fees. As Commissioner Baldwin said, there's a very large avenue of jobs that we do, that I don't really know whether the Commissioners Court has time or needs to know right now. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You brought in 1 _' .i? 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 $900,000 this last year? MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- MR. ALFORD: Approximately. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And there's -- let's see. I got an e-mail from somebody this morning talking about -- Mrs. uecker talking about possibly expanding -- some new legislation and expanding -- possibly expanding your duties, and -- and there's all kinds of things we're going to talk about. I don't -- we're just out of time today. We really are our of time. So -- but the Sheriff has some things on his mind that we need to all sit down and talk about tkiat's -- that's available, things that we should be doing and we're not doing. And -- and one of the questions is, how do we go out and collect these things that the Sheriff has found? And -- and that's what we need to do. We have a Collections Department set up; we don't have to hire a battery of attorneys from Austin to do things when we already have things set up. So, it's a matter of sitting down and talking about all those things. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we need a workshop? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not going to stretch it that far quite yet. We'll work it out. MR. ALFORD: And that's fine. And I think everybody knows we're here to do whatever we can for any 1-,_-,,, 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 department. Thank y'all. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me -- one other question. When your office first started, we had gone back and we were collecting court costs from many years ago. MR. ALFORD: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I was kind of wondering where that is, how far back are we now, and have we cleaned up everything prior to 1990 or what? Where are we? MR. ALFORD: Yes and no. We have pretty much cleaned up the misdemeanor old money, simply because there's legislative sanctions that allow us to do that. On our Lelony money, we still go back to the beginning of time, simply because -- that's where the new law comes in at. The way it stands, just to let Commissioners know, if you commit a DWI in Kerr County and you're given a fine, a court cost in County Court at Law, you come to the Collections Department. You have to pay us your money, or, through the proper avenues, you can be put back in jail and given time served. Under felony -- for a felony conviction, there -- we have no recourse. You go out and commit robbery, you get put on probation, you do not pay your fines and court costs, there's nod a whole lot we can do to you. So, that's what this new law is going to help clean up. And hopefully, when we clean that up, our income will really go up. 1-~ -^~3 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly 20 21 22 23 29 25 149 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else got any other questions or comments? Mr. Alford, we appreciate you being here, and we thank you for your report. MR. ALFORD: You bet. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Will Brown. Sorry, I forgot he's also with the Collections Department. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Brown. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any -- any other reports that need to be given to the Court at this time? We've got various headings here, and if there's any of them we need to specifically receive, why, someone just let me know and I'll do so. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have a question, Judge. I don't know about that, but I do have a question. We've moved this particular section from the front of the -- the consideration agenda to the back. Is it going to be permanently located there, so that in the future, if we invite people to come, we can tell them about when to be here"? As opposed to having people sit through an entire agenda that they probably don't have a lot of interest in? JUDGE TINLEY: You know, I'm not sure that the exact location of the order is that important. On the other hand, you've got some folks that have an interest in a _~-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 1J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -~ c J 150 particular item that's on the agenda, that come here because of that particular item, as we had today; it appeared to me to be on the interlocal agreement and O.S.S.F. That was my perception, at least. But if -- if we've got -- if we've got them at the back end and they need to individually be moved up to the front or vice versa, you know, certainly -- certainly, if y'all will just let me know that we need to make some adjustments, you know, if -- if they're legitimate, we can make those adjustments. I don't have a problem with that. C;UMMISSlONER WILLIAMS: I just noticed they'd been moved to the back. I thought if that's going to be the permanent location, which I'm not arguing for or against, we just -- we could tell people who we invite to come when they might anticipate speaking. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't recall that very specifically, where the information agenda was previously. I'm sure you do. So, it wasn't necessarily an intentional item that I put it where it is. That's just kind of where it ended up. I did add the items of elected officials and department heads and boards, commissions, and committees and so forth, so that so far as they may have something that's of interest to us, ur possibly to the public, we can get that information out and disseminate it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- along the same 1-'~-03 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 line, I think that the -- you know, and it's very hard to do, because our -- we never really know how much time we're going to spend on a given item, but we do have guests come in, whether they're, you know, someone like Kyle, Bertha, or whoever. You know, I would really be in favor of trying to put a time spot for them, because I think it's just -- I know for both of those individuals, one came a long distance and one really -- I would be a lot happier if we don't have our EMS Director listening to us talk about septic when he needs to be out doing EMS stuff. I think if we can just time those as much as possible, I would be in favor of that. You can't always do that, and our agenda certainly is fluid, but -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We11, I did that with him and told him around 11 o'clock, see. And we were -- we were way past 12:00 by the time we got to him. But I guess if we actually put a time on there, then we can stop septic tanks and talk about EMS. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I just -- you know, it's pluses and minuses. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're right about putting them on at the end, though. To me, it's kind of rare to have someone from out of town, and it's normal to have a -- a local professional that we wouldn't want to sit here all day long. It's rare to have someone out of town. i-I~ u~ 152 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I J 16 17 18 19 20 21 L2 23 24 25 In the end, most things that I can think of are folks that -- that can come in at 11 o'clock, and very short presentations, and easy to get to, and don't mind sitting here for a minute. But not a11. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could also put reports and information items at 11:00 and go to that, you know, as close as we can to 11:00. Then, if we have nothing after lunch, we -- you know, then they're not -- the risk of doing it at 17:00 is, if we start getting behind, then we're doing what we did today, being in here right through the lunch hour. My stomach's hungry and I get irritable. JUDGE TINLEY: You don't get grumpy, do you? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do get grumpy when I get hungry. JUDGE TINLEY: That's a signal to me that -- that maybe we need to consider adjournment. Has anybody e]se got -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Recess. JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. Excuse me. I appreciate that, Commissioner Letz. We will stand in recess for furtheL consideration of -- of item 2.10 tomorrow at the conclusion of our posted workshop with T.C.E.Q. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize, it is 2.12. These was so much Lime spent on 2.10, I had that plugged in, r3 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 153 had 2.10 on the brain. It is 2.12 that we'll stand in recess on. Being no objection, we'll stand in recess. (Commissioners Court recessed at 12:41 p.m.) sTA'1'E OF 'f EXAS ~ COUNTY OF KERR ~ The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, 'Texas, this 3rd day of February, 2003. JANNETT PIEPEk, Kerr County Clerk B Y : __ ___ _ _~- Kathy Ba k, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 1 _ -~3 y... ,._ 1 2 3 9 G 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session (Reconvened) Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:30 p.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at approximately 12:30 p.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 TINLEY: At this time, if there's no objection, I will adjourn the workshop and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting that was recessed yesterday at approximately this same time. And we're back at 2.12, as I recall, on the consideration agenda. Is there any action to be taken in connection with consideration agenda Item 2.12? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're looking at me, and it's not my agenda item. I know you're being nice. JUDGE TINLEY: You're one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any action on that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No action. (Commissioner Letz shook his head.) COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we should table that item until we can digest all the information that we were given. JUDGE '1'1NLEY: 'There being no action laid on 1 ? H 0'. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 the table -- well, being no objection, we'll adjourn the Commissioners Court meeting that was originally convened yesterday. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. (Commissioners Court meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.) STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF KERR The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 9th day of Feburary, 2003. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY: _ ~ G___ __ Kathy n~puty County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 1-23-n3 ORDER ND. X7938 CLRlM5 RNll RCCOUN-fS On this the cith day of January, 2002,, came to be considered by the Coy-u•t various commissioned precincts, which said Claims and Recounts are: 10-General tor- ~iSL, 945. cH; 15-Road X Rr•idge for- 0~5, 18'x. Srtr; 1'~--F'~-rblic Library for $~;;, ~'dl3. :;4; :, ~Z~-lndiyent Health Care for tic:ts,~tie,.c5; ~'~-Lieneral Contractual Ubtigation for X145,580.00; and E'-Lake 'ingr•am Est Rd Dist ' 01 Bonds For• $ic, ic5. Dd. TOTRL CHSH REG1UlRED, RLL FUNDS: $,'y7, ~l I. 3'/. Upon motion made by Uommissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a ^ vote of 4-D-0, to pay said accounts. URUtR NO. 27y.i'~ NUllGEf HMENllMEN'I` IN SHERIFF'S UEF'RR'IMENT On this the 27th day of Jan~aaryr 2003, upon motion made by Commissioner Lett} seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Loi_rr•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr•.ansfer• $209.17 from Line Item No. 10-560-569 Operating Equipment to Line Item No. 10-560--570 Capital 0~_itlay. ORDER N0. X7940 NUDGET AMENDNENi IN COUNTY COURT Hf LRW On this the 7th day of Jan~_iar•y, "~N~h,=,, ~_ipon motion made by Commissioner, Faldwin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-N-N, to transfer s'~00.Ot~ from Line Item No. 10-4~7-40~ Court Rppointed HL-torney to Line Item No. I0-4c"7-494 Special Co~_ir•t Reporter. ORDER N0. 27941 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN ,,.~ COUNTY TRERSURER AND NON-DEGARTMENI'RL Un this the clth day of January, 2U0,;, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~D, to transfer 821'~.9fi from Line Item No. 10-4N'j-bTl L:ontingency to Line Item No. 10-4'd7-56'd Uper-ating Eq~_iipment. URDER N0. X794 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN ,,,~ NUN UEF'AFi I MEN IRL, COURTHOUSE & RELA I'EU BLUES, UOUNIY JA1L, SHERIt•t-'S DERAKfMENT, JUVENILE pROBATION, RABIES & ANIMAL CONTROL, YOU"ffi EXHIBIT CEN"fER RNll RORll R BRIDGE On this the ~/th day of January, cN~.S, upon motion made by Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the following: $1,'~OB.NU~ trom Line Item No. 10-409-4Qii Autopsy n Inquest to Line Item No. 10-409-480 Pr^operty lns~.irance; 8311.00 from Line Item Nv. 10--510-550 Ma,7or• Kepairs to Line Item No. 10-:i10-480 Insurance; Sb:,5.00 from Line Item No. 10-51c-i04 Jailer Salaries to Line Item No. 10-51c-206 Insurance, Bldg K Jail; SEI,35c.00 From Line Item No. 10-560--104 Uepi.ities Salary to Line Item No. 10-560-480 Vehicle Insurance; ^ '.637.00 from Line Item No. 10-570-499 Miscellaneous to Line Item No. 10-570-481 Vehicle Insurance; #188.00 from Line item Nv. iN-64c-2;31 Vehicle, Vas, Oil, Maintenance to Line Item No. 10-642-480 Insurance; 8390.00 from Line Item No. 10-t6(;-:=i50 Major Repairs to Line Item No. 10-666-c06 Insurance on Hy Barn; Sc,S(3.00 from Line Item No. 15-fail-c04 Ins~_irance-Workers Comp to Line Item No. 15-611-480 Insurance-Vehicles. The County 1'r•easi_u•er and County Auditor are hereby authorized to write the following checks: 816,077.00 payable to texas Association of Coy-inties, for H~_ito Liability Ins~_~r•ance Renewal 01/03-01/04. 8c6,956.00 payable to Texas Association of Coy-inties, i'or Autophysical Damage Ooveraye. and 843,03"1.00 payable to Texas Association of L'ounties, for• H'roperty Coverage Renewal. ORDER NU, 07`43 BUDGET RNENDMEN-f IN COUNTY RTTURNEY un this the '~Jth day of January, 000,;, upon moL-ion made dy Commissioner Let<, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Co~ar•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer 'L:i0~.00 firom Line Item No, 10-41::,-403 with X468.00 to Line Item No. 10-415-480 lns~-trance-Liability and X34.00 to Line Item Nn. 10-475-563 Software Maintenance. URDER NU. 7944 BUDGET gMENDMENT IN ,.~ LHKE INLiF2HM ESigff_S RD DIST qND GENERHL FUNli On this the c7th day of Jan~aar•y, c003, upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner- Naldwin, the Cn~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0: TRANSFER UUT - GENEF2RC, ITEM NU. 10-700-01U, 5:;,ts00.U0. "fRRNSF=ER IN - LgF:E INGRRM ESl" Rl"1 llIST, ITEM NU. 63-390-015, 5,800.00. _. lF2AN5HtR UUl - LAKE TNGRAM 6Sf Kll U15I, I1"EM N0. E,3-700-1;~, S3, 800.00. TRANSFER IN - GENERRL, ITEM NU. 10-390-01~, ~3,ci00.00. ORDER Nil. X7'345 ,_ LATE l:r1LL "fO FORD MO1"OR CREDT'I- CUMpANY Un this the ~7t-n day of January, cON:d, upon motion made by Commissioner^ Williams, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~D-0, to pay late bill in the amount of d10, 7~~.:,b 1-rom Line Item No. lN-;i60-57~d to Ford Motor Credit Company, for• first payment on c0~3 Ford Expedition. ORDEFf NU. X7946 HF'F'RUVE AND HCCEP"f MONTHLY REPORTS On this the c7th day of January, X003, upon motion made by Commissioner- Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, to accept the following r•epor•ts and direct that they be filed with the County Clerk for f~_~t~_ire ai_idit: Robert Tench - J. F'. #:; December c00c Vance Elliott - J.F-'. #i December- 20N:_ ^ Dawn Wright - J. F'. #c December c002 oRUER No. ~"~'~a r RPF'RUVRL OF GRRNT REG~UES"( FROM LOWER L'ULORRllU RIVER RU7"HORIIY On this the c7th day of Jan+.iar^y, c0~, ~_~pon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded 6y Commissioner Let z, the Lour•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~D-0, r•eyuesting a grant from the Lower Colorado River• R~_ithor^ity, for^ completion of the Union Ctnarch pro,7ect In an amo~_int not to exceed ~~1, 1"i.5.~0, with the stip+.~lation that any matching grant por^tion, believed to be ~@ percent, be provided by the Friends of Unlon church, and the County Judge 6e authnr•ized to slgn said Hpplication. ORDER N0. 2748 REllUCE CUUNT'Y REGIS'fRHTIUN FEES ~,.,• FUR HNNUHL RHBIES llRIVE Gn this the 27th day of Jamtary, 21ZiN;;, ~.ipon motion made by Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner- Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to reduce the Co~.inty registration to $l.kr0 during annual t-abies drive, Febr~.iary 1st thro~.iyh February 15, 2GN3. ORDER NO. 27949 APPROVE CONTRACT FOR RECONSTRUCTION ~--. OF SHEPPARD REES ROAD On this the 27th day of January, 2003, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the contract for the reconstruction of Sheppard Rees Road project and authorize the County Judge to sign the same upon the approval of the County Attorney's Office of that contract. ORDER N0. X7950 REVISION Of= F'LR1" RND SET F'IJRLIC HERRING On this the '7th day of Jam_iary, X003, upon motion made by Commissioner, Nicholson, seconded 6y Commissioner, Let z, the Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to consider the alternate plat approval for a revision of plat for Lots 43 R 44R of Cypress Springs Estates, F'hase i, and set a p~_~blic hearing on the same for- 10:00 a. m. on March 10, `r'003. OI~I)ER N0. c:7'31 RE:VIS:I:ON OF P~.RT RNI) ~-iE'1" f='IJI3l_IC I-ICflRTNG On thi> the 27i:h rfay of 7ani_rary, '._0k'~3, upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, secronded 6y Commissioner l-.etz, the Co~ar~t unanima.rsly approved by a vote of 4-0-~, that the Coy-u,t set a public hearing for Marcl°, itc'~, c:~V~ at 1~T.15 a. m. to consider- alternate plat ap~_~roval for a r?vision of plat fnr Tract<,- 13A, i sB, 14H, and 14E1 of the Y.O. Ranrhlands. r^'^ urtuEk Nu, ~ryu RHTIFY SIGNH-CURES UN ~,,, RIVERHILL L'OUNT'rtY L'LUR EHBEMENT Un L-his the ~/t-h day of Jan~.raryr l=t~N:, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams. seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Co~.irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-~D, to reappr•ove the Easement Hgreement by and between Riverhill Country Club, lnc.~ the Gity of Kerrville, and Kerr Co~.int y, as evidenced by the agreement attar_hed with the item, and L-hat in connection therewith, that the dates be properly specified therein and reflect the cur•r•ent year•r and a~athor•ize, in addition to the prior signatories, the signatory of the c~.irrent County J~.rdge to sign. 4.JhU; h:.l'i 141.1.. r:.: ,"d:a,:S iat.a r i u.arta. c"f::. F2iai ali ti 1sF?:I:Lt:;f::. til:::f-~i.af~ i frli::a•fr (u I ~f:i:at:;I:i:E:ai ^ bif1"hl I-If::a~;l'li=1l4h~1 `:iri:ihlS.ii P.LY I I Y I , I:; <: ' <:t :i :rr[av{i{:I la ~z vo't';E"_, o'(~ ,r~.._lij.._C),~ .:al.l Cl°, f:i r a.:>: <:ttrl. on _ .1 ui lE~ IS tBI f` L. (:7lli'1'Cy Fh:i al Cl ~_. la'1':I. CI IJ f'r A/ie?I:i!A'i`1:1IliE?'i i'C fa.t IJ'i`r:h:^i¢?E;?[:I W:I.'l; l'1 'fa"1 i3 Y;E?I'0 El {; i'i`ft'r"y C1T:I. f.I I)&? T7.X t7 i'7 'falti? I"1f"s'r`Olia Tli'i ,`.ii:i ll5i hi{:i;;t Cl I:i'r't:)Jtia l::'l:p cUlis al.l'L;I"t[:i"i`:i.z:i.nl;l tI'u:? t:?xi:iE;>rirl:i.'I::1_l'r`i:? ta'I' ~_ll:i "i::{:i <.ii:i.t:Aa,,trn9td„ata.. ORDER NU. 7954 RF'PRUVE CHRNGE ORllER #c ^ I:ERRV 1LLE SUU"I'H WNS I EWRTER F'IiU.JECT On this the citn day or January, LNN~r ~_ipon motion made uy Williamsr seconded 6y Commissioner Letzr the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, Uhange Urder #c requested and approved uy Lny>_neer 1-or the Kerrville South Wastewater pr o.j e ct .