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 Regular Session Monday, February 10, 2003 9:00 a.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 1 U tY~ v v 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 2 I N D E X February 10, 2003 PAGE --- Commissioners Comments 4 1.1 Pay Bills ~~Iy,S~'I 9 1.2 Budget Amendments ~"795~-~~~`~~~ 17 1 . 3 Late Bills ~ 7`7G~~G 20 1.4 Read and Approve Minutes ~"79~~ 21 1.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports ~~~~y 22 2.12 Discuss Mutual Aid Agreement with AACOG for ~%~/~~ furnishing mutual aid in coping with disasters 24, 94 2.1 Presentation by GrantWorks Representatives on ` status of Kerrville South Wastewater Projects ~~~'` 34 2.2 Discuss amendment to Professional Management, Engineering and/or Architectural Services ~ f~~~'(~ contract with Tetra Tech (formerly Groves) 61 2.3 Discuss amendments to Intergovernmental Agreement with UGRA ^~`~ G%l;cicr' 85 2.4 Preliminary plat of Stablewood Springs Ranch ~~° X79 96 2.5 Discuss using Grand Jury List for Grievance Committee as per Section 152.014(a) of Local Government Code ~7~~C~! 134 2.6 Review of the annual accounts deposited into the Court Registry ~'~`1~~y 139 2 . 9 Approval of new hire position at a 12/5 ~;1, 7`/~/ 140 2.7 Discuss rehiring former employee as full-time /9j~ employee and determine position, step & grade 142 2.8 Request for Court approval of amendments to contract with Attorney General of Texas, authorize County Judge to sign ~~~~~~ 158 2.10 Authorize Sheriff to make application for grant funds to assist with continuation of SANE ~~ ~ ~~ (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) Program "~ ~ 161 2.11 Consider and discuss approving contract between Kerr County and Daikon, Inc. --- 2.13 Approve contract with AACOG regarding Regional ~ Juvenile Alternative Incentive Block Grant in,~71~ the amount of $4,966.50, with a match of $607.40 167 2.14 Discuss a one-time tax credit for cedar eradication h~ ~~ ~'~{~~~''~ 169 2.15 Discuss future renovation and construction { ~ `,~h~jr,r - f 4 plans for Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center 173 2.16 Discuss allowing public information rack to be installed in the main hall of the courthouse ~~" 96 d 1 ~.,~~ ar 2.17 Discuss appointment of two representatives to the Alamo Senior Advisory Committee ~~~ ~. {"~"l~IJ 198 --- Adjourned 205 --- Reporter's Certificate 206 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-, 25 3 On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a regular 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. It's 9 o'clock; therefore, I will call this regular Commissioners Court meeting to order scheduled for Monday, February 10, 2003, local time, 9 a.m. I believe Commissioner Letz, Precinct 3, you have the honors this morning, do you not? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I do. I'd like to introduce a very good friend of mine who's moved back to Kerr County recently. He's -- his great-grandfather and my grandfather were best of friends for many, many years. In fact, they were such good friends, Jack's great-grandfather bought a ranch very close to ours, and he and I, after that, spent pretty much every summer since we were about 7 years old together. And recently, he's been a missionary -- or been a missionary for some time in Africa and Cypress, most recently Russia; moved back to Kerr County and lives on Hermann Sons Road. He was at a meeting I had last week. I'd like to introduce Jack Spears, a very good friend of mine. Jack, give us the morning prayer, if you would, please. 2-1G-G3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, Commissioner's comments. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, while we're -- I just mentioned Hermann Sons, and last week I had a meeting out there with, I'm guessing, approaching 100 concerned citizens about the lack of having the access that they would like to have. Most of them understood our situation and were, you know, happy with the progress we're making and the commitments the County has made. Some of them weren't too happy; thought we should be doing more, but we can't please them all, all the time. That was last Tuesday night for about two hours. Late last week, on Friday -- or Thursday and Friday, we were able to successfully retrieve both railroad cars out of the river. It was quite a feat. It took -- we had to bring in another piece of equipment in addition to the big crane we had, or big grade-all from San Antonio, but we were able to get them out. One of them was damaged beyond use. One of them, we think we will be able to reuse, and I think Leonard's planning on ordering a second one, per our Court's order last week -- or last meeting. And I know he has met with some engineers about -1G-G3 1 .- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 putting some piers in the river for the temporary bridge. That's kind of where we are on Hermann Sons, and that's really all the comments I have this morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I met with the Kerrville Area Rural Firefighters Association last week, got a really good feel about what good volunteer fire departments we have and how much they do to serve the county. They -- they have some issues that they want to deal with with the Court on contracts and -- and other support that we can give them, probably things that won't cost any money or a little bit of money. So, I'm going to be working with them, and in a month or so, they'll come to the Court with some proposals that they'll have about how we can better support them. That's all. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I've been noticing in the newspaper recently that the Dietert Claim is having a new lunch program over there, and I just thought it would be kind of a neat thing for this Commissioners Court to go over and join them in their lunch. Besides that, I understand it's $3.50 or $4.00 per person. So, personally, I kind of like that. But, if -- if anyone -- if any one of -1G-03 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 6 you are interested in going, having lunch over there today, let me know now so we can give them a call and tell them that we're -- give them an opportunity to beef up security and all. (Laughter.) So, you know, if you want to go over there and have lunch, I think it would be a good thing for our Dietert Claim, that we support financially, by the way. And this would be another way for us to support them. Sheppard Rees Road begins its closure today for 10 days -- or two weeks, I'm sorry, 14 days. I drove out there this morning. They weren't -- they weren't closed yet, but they were packing holes with dynamite right on the edge of the road, so I highly recommend not to try to go through that area. There's been some confusion, once it closed, what is the route for the citizens in that area to take to come into Kerrville? And many of them were planning on going through Saddlewood Estates, and I spent Sunday afternoon on the phone yesterday with all those citizens -- I mean, every one of them -- about that, and Saddlewood Estates is a private community with private roads, and they can close the gate if they want to. And folks are little upset about that, but that's just the way life is. And they have to go around to Bear Creek; little bit -- little bit out of the way, but not much. And I know all law enforcement and ambulance services, et cetera, are geared to -- to the Bear Creek area. So, I just wanted to remind -10-03 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 everyone of that. The 911 system -- this is kind of a Commissioner report here -- is taking a whole brand-new big-time turn in the way we function and do business at 911. We have a new director, and just the whole concept of how we go about addressing the county totally and completely changing, they will be in here in our next meeting to present the -- a real, live plan to the Commissioners Court for our adoption with timetables, entry and exit dates, et cetera. And that's an exciting -- exciting thing. In all the years I've dealt with 911, this is the first time that I have actually been excited about what's going on over there. It -- I really see a direction. I really see something going on for the -- for the best of all the citizens of Kerr County, and I'm just excited about it, and I know you will be too when you -- I think some of you got part of the plan in your boxes last Friday. So, start looking at that. If you have any questions about those things, holler at me and I'll be happy to sit down with you. That's all. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure whether it's Commissioner Baldwin or~who was responsible for that good-looking snowman on the courthouse lawn, but if you did that, you did a good job. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was not me, but I -10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,,, 2 4 25 8 saw it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I understand a lot of -- a lot of Kerr County citizens availed themselves of the opportunity to have their picture made with the snowman. Following up on what Commissioner Nicholson said with respect to the rural firefighters, I've had the opportunity to meet with a couple of our volunteer fire departments with regard to grant moneys that are available through FEMA, and I think the window of opportunity is the month of March, those applications have to be filed. I worked with Bill Drake, who's now heading up the R.C.& D. program, and he and I together visited a couple of our -- my fire departments, and intend to see that applications are filed in that window, because there is a good opportunity for some grant funds to come down from -- through FEMA into the volunteer fire departments. So, I just bring that to the attention of the Court. If any firemen -- fire departments have a need, now is the time to file an application. The applications are requested to be filed online, through the Internet, and we'll see what happens in that regard. I think your -- Hunt got a major grant last year, did it not? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Through the same opportunity. Also, for the information of the Court, the 2-10-03 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 9 City Manager of Kerrville tells me he has 49 applications on file for the airport manager's position. They're in the process of going through those, and when they get down to what he believes to be a select number for interviews, he has invited me to participate with them, represent Kerr County to go through those applications so we can come up with an airport manager. I also reminded the City Manager that our files do not reveal, and he tells me neither do his reveal, that there is an interlocal agreement in place between Kerr County and the City of Kerrville for the operation of the airport, so it's probably high time we got that done, and he's working on a draft which we'll bring back to the Court to take a look at it at some date in the future. That's it, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I want to welcome all of you here today. Encourage your friends and your neighbors, and hopefully they'll be our friends when they come here, but we're glad you're attending, and encourage you to do more, and we'd like to see more of you. Let's get on down to business, if we can, on the approval agenda. First item up is payment of bills. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and -10-03 10 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 Williams and Baldwin, respectively, that we pay the bills. Is there any -- any questions or discussion? I have one question. On the second page, under Nondepartmental, we have some technology matters, roughly $8,000 worth. And I think the Sheriff probably has more information about this than anybody. Is that correct, Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I hope Tommy does, too. Don't run off, Tommy. MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not going anywhere. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This $8,000 bill does have a lot to do with our fingerprint system that we got a grant for last year. But it was hooking up, and they had to either do some upgrades or add new firewall or something here at the courthouse. This bill kind of hit me flat-footed, because, number one, it's something Shaun had been working on to get done, and I had no idea that it was coming until Mindy sent it over with a note, where do I want to pay it from. And I didn't know we were going to get it, but it's something from Southwestern Bell for some of the technology and upgrades that had to be put into that system to allow those automatic dumps from here to Austin. And this is a system that all departments in the courthouse -- at least in the court departments, your District Clerk, County Clerk, County Attorney's office, and 198th and 216th ~-1G-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,.~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 D.A.'s offices all use it. It does away with the paper trail of having to report criminal histories or -- or criminal offenses to somebody's criminal history. It automatically dumps it into Austin as part of that system. It also helps all the law enforcement agencies around, because, you know, Kerrville P.D. does not have to do their hand-printed-out stuff. Our system will automatically dump it whenever somebody's put into our jail on that kind of stuff. So, it's very needed. It's just a bill that I was not expecting at all. And that's about the extent of what I can say. JUDGE TINLEY: Did -- you didn't have any line item in your budget to allow for this expenditure? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. JUDGE TINLEY: What about -- what about prospective reimbursement? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have talked to the D.A.'s office, 216th, about trying to assist some in this out of their seizure fund, 'cause it is for criminal use and that, and Bruce Curry has advised me he will be able to assist us with about half of it. JUDGE TINLEY: Approximately $4,000? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other prospects? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, we're still -- -1G-03 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,_, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .__. 2 4 25 Tommy had talked to Howard Hollimon on the probation end of it, because it does assist them also. It assists every criminal part. And so far, we haven't got too far with Howard, I don't think. I've got to visit with him a little bit more on it. That's where we're trying to come up with it from, 'cause it was a totally unexpected bill. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my concern is the fact that it's getting charged to Contingency and there wasn't a line item for it. I appreciate that explanation. Anybody else got any questions? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Can you explain it a little bit more? I mean, you say, you know, it dumps -- you keep on using the words, it "dumps data." Explain what we're dumping. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What you're dumping, anytime anybody's arrested -- a criminal offense above a Class C misdemeanor, okay, that has to get sent to Austin so that that arrest goes on their criminal history. So that -- and, you know, every law enforcement agency in the country can run a criminal history check on someone and see exactly what all they've been arrested for in the past. It's a very important part of law enforcement, because, one, if you've had a guy that's been arrested for murder before or something, and an officer stops him out on the road, it's a good idea to allow the officer to know what's he's been -10-03 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 arrested for, okay, before, so that you can kind of take a little bit more precautions. Also, it does affect enhancement on offenses. If it's his second D.W.I., you need to already know he's got, you know, a prior one. Or if it's the third or fourth or fifth one or whatever, you -- you have to have that. It's a requirement of the D.P.S. for us to send in all arrests on criminal -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, you mentioned it helps the City of Kerrville as well. So, if the -- if a -- say, a murder suspect is arrested by the K.P.D. They handle all the paperwork through the -- or does it come back through you, 'cause it's in your jail? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They are -- the way it's always been done, there is what's called a C.H.R. 43, which is a form that's got several parts to it. The arresting agency fills in the very top page of it and does the fingerprint card -- or the arresting agency and the jail. Then they tear that off. They'll -- the old-fashioned way of doing it was you tear off that top page, and you send the fingerprint card and that top page -- mail to it Austin. Now, when it goes to the prosecutor, the prosecutor has a second part of that same sheet of paper, okay, 'cause it is in triplicate. And he fills out his part, tears it off, mails it to Austin. And then the Court, when they actually get into court and get convicted or whatever, the Court, -10-03 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 14 being the Clerk's office and that, has to fill out their part, and they mail it in to Austin. That's the way it's always been. What will happen now is, all they do is go into the computer system that they have in their office and they type in that information, and then we dump it -- or what we call "dump," however often we need to, daily or whatever, and it just dumps all of those parts all at the same time to Austin, so that you don't have all that mailing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the reason -- I had some method to my madness in asking the question. Is it -- going back to the Judge's question, who's to pay for it? Why doesn't -- why don't we go to the City of Kerrville and get them to help participate in some of these upgrades that are saving them time and money and they're benefiting as much as the County? I mean, you know, I just thought -- it's not a budgeted item for them either, but I mean, it seems to me, as we're upgrading this portion of, you know, your department, it's -- that they should be able to help pay for some of these things that are benefitting the City of Kerrville and the K.P.D. as well. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Somebody told me at one time that, you know, people that pay city taxes also pay county taxes. And I'm trying to upgrade the law enforcement part of it. But one thing Chuck is doing, Chuck wants a -- _-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ^. 2 4 25 15 one of our computer terminals over at the police department in their conference room, so their investigators have access to it to be able to look up everything, and Chuck saved some grant money to pay for the installation of that. And we just found out Friday it's going to cost him about $3,000 to do that, so that this -- he can also view photographs out of the jail. So, he's going to -- Chuck and I work real well together. He tries -- you know, I think they ought to pay more for us housing their inmates than they do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't going to bring that up. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When I brought that up one time before, I got told the answer is, you know, Kerrville citizens pay city and county taxes. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seems like I've heard that before. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, I've heard it COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any questions? Thank you. I appreciate that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're welcome. If I can, I want to make one update, since the visitors' input didn't get on, just kind of a knowledge report for you on our radio system, okay? We start training our dispatchers -lU-U3 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~-.. 25 tomorrow and Wednesday on the new console, and we will officially go over to the new radio system Thursday morning at 8 o'clock. And that will be for a 30-day deal to make sure all the bugs are out, that window. We have to make sure everything's working right. Thought y'all ought to know that. MR. TOMLINSON: A little more background on the CJIS automated data transfer on criminal histories, it was mandated by the Legislature, like, six or eight years ago, so this is not a new program. And the fire -- the -- actually, the firewall problem was not on our end. Our data flow was not able to penetrate the firewall on the D.P.S. end. Consequently, we had to purchase a specific modem technology that has to go through Southwestern Bell, and through what's called the long distance service, which is the state of Texas long distance service, Tex-AN. So, we're -- we're actually flowing data through two different telephone companies to get to D.P.S. That -- that was the need for the technology. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? Comments? If not, 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.) -10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~- 25 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Let's get to the budget amendments, if we could, please. Budget Amendment Number 1, Treasurer's office. MR. TOMLINSON: This amendment is a request by the Treasurer to transfer $150 from her Telephone line item to Books, Publications, and Dues. It's as far as -- it's a bill from Texas Association of Counties for her dues for the Certified Investment Officer's training. JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Then maybe I'll make -- I mean, why was this -- why's that so far off the budget, the budgeted amount? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I can't answer that one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move that we approve court order -- I mean Budget Amendment Number 1. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioner Baldwin and Williams that we approve Budget Amendment Number 1. Any discussion? If not, 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 -ic-o~ 1 ,.-, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 Amendment Request Number 2. MR. TOMLINSON: This is for the District Clerk. This request is to transfer $346 from Microfilm Records line item to Bonds and Insurance. It's for -- payable to First Insurance Agency for a crime policy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just didn't -- we estimated the wrong amount? MR. TOMLINSON: I feel like -- I know that her liability coverage for errors and omissions was high. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, that Budget Amendment Request Number 2 be approved. Any further discussion? If not, 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 request -- Amendment Request Number 3, 198th District Court. MR. TOMLINSON: This amendment is to transfer $3,342.46 from Court-Appointed Attorney line item in the 198th court to Court Transcripts in that budget. We have a bill for $4,923.78 to Greenwalt Reporting -- Court -1G-03 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 19 Reporting. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson that we approve Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I wanted to say that it's obvious that Court Transcripts is out of money already. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Court-Appointed Attorney -- if you remember, at the end of last year, we couldn't dump money in it fast enough, so we've got problems down the road here. That's all. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion or comments? If not, all in favor of Budget Amendment Request Number 3, 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 Request Number 4, Sheriff's Department. MR. TOMLINSON: This request is to transfer $591 from Deputy Salaries to Vehicle Insurance. It's for the vehicle coverage for the latest purchase of the 2003 z-lo-o3 20 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 Ford Expedition. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Letz, respectively, that Budget Amendment RequPSt Number 4 be approved. Any discussion? If not, 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. That brings us to the minutes for approval. MR. TOMLINSON: I have -- I do have a late bill. JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. Excuse me. MR. TOMLINSON: I have one to Judge O'Dell for $230. It's reimbursement for -- to her for lodging at the Texas Justice Court Training Center. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve an expenditure and authorize a hand check for the benefit of Judge O'Dell in the amount of $230 to reimburse 2-10-G3 21 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 her for lodging at the Texas Justice Training Center. MR. TOMLINSON: We need a hand check for it. JUDGE TINLEY: I -- the motion included the hand check, I believe, did it not? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it did. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Is there any discussion? If not, 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 now get to the minutes. I have here before me minutes of the regular session of Monday, January 13, 2003, and special session Monday, January 27th of 2003. Do I hear a motion to approve these minutes, which are a verbatim transcript, without the necessity of reading same? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Williams and Letz, respectively, that the Court approve without reading the transcript of minutes of the Commissioners Court regular session, Monday, January 13th, and Commissioners Court special session Monday, January 27th, 2003. Is there any discussion? If 2-10-03 22 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 not, 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. I also have before me the monthly reports from various departments, which have been available for Commissioners' review and consideration. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move acceptance. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, respectively, that the monthly reports be approved and accepted. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I always like the verbiage, as -- "as reported," because there's some times they're not all there. Why are you looking at me like that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: As presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As presented. What did I say? COMMISSIONER LETZ: "As reported." As presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Cause sometimes there's some missing, some don't show up, and so we're not -10-03 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 saying that we're blanket acceptir_g all reports from county offices. JUDGE TINLEY: Only the ones that are in front of us. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only the ones that are in front of us. JUDGE TINLEY: Your point's well-made. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll amend my motion as such. JUDGE TINLEY: And the second accordingly. Any further discussion? If not, 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. Let me apologize for not taking an item in order, the visitors' input. I will now ask if there are any citizens who are present here who wish to speak on items which are not on the agenda, that -- that desire to be heard by the Court at this time. Again, any citizen who wishes to speak on any item which is not listed on the agenda before the Court today who wishes to be heard? There being none, we'll then move on to the consideration agenda. We may have a little delay on 2-10-03 24 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 Item Number 1. I've been asked -- we've got a time-specific item at 10:30 that involves Ms. Sanchez from San Antonio, and I understand she has to be back there rather quickly. And what I propose to do is, in order to accommodate her, is to hear that item now, leave it open until the 10:30 time-specific point at which it's on the agenda, come back so as to allow any citizen who desires to be heard on that matter -- give them the opportunity to be heard at that time, and only after that opportunity, place the matter in consideration for the Court to take action. So, at this point in time, if it's permissible with you, Commissioner Williams, we'll call on Ms. Sanchez. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Come forward, please. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a word of apology for the two gentlemen from Grantworks. We'll get with them in just a moment. They, too, have to travel. Thank you. MS. SANCHEZ: Thank you for taking me out of order. I apologize for the inconvenience, but there was a matter that requires me to be there by about 11:30 today. The documents that you have in front of you kind of go beyond the mutual -- mutual aid agreement item that we're bringing to you, and I thought it was -- it was probably a 2-10-G3 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 propitious moment for me to kind of roll a lot of initiatives that have been pushed down from the state level to the local level through the regional -- excuse me, through the regional councils down to you all, because they're all related. Beginning in June, the governor and the President decided that all responses to any kind of natural or, unfortunately, man-made disasters would best be handled at the local level by having all jurisdictions work together to identify their equipment, training, and exercise needs. And, to that end, they tasked us with the responsibility of putting together what we call the First Responders Strategic Plan. Commissioner Williams alluded to the fact that there is an assessment online through the Domestic Preparedness web page being operated right now by the Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management, wherein all local jurisdictions are being asked to go online, their police and their fire prevention staff to go online and identify their equipment, exercise, and training needs, what they have now and what they need to have, in order that decisions might be made about allocating money and allocating resources towards those jurisdictions that fill out the assessment, so those assessments are critical. Some people -- and I understand -- I know that the assessments are tedious. The one that we're being -lo-as 26 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 asked to shepherd with you all right now is 187 pages. It's pretty daunting. When you stop to think about what the reality would be if -- if you did not -- or your jurisdiction didn't fill out those assessments and something critical were to happen, and then you wouldn't have the equipment or the -- the training necessary, it kind of brings it all back into perspective, considering that right now we're at stage orange alert. So, this mutual aid agreement plays a part in that assessment; plays a part in how the money that's going to come down from the federal level to the state level through the COG's to you all, depends upon that level of cooperation, that level of identification. And one of the criteria for who gets what depends upon whether or not you all have a mutual aid agreement with all the jurisdictions, all the smaller cities in your jurisdiction, whether you have mutual aid agreements with other counties, and whether or not you have a mutual aid agreement with the COG, because all of these resources somehow or another have to be coordinated. And that's the point behind that mutual aid agreement. It's a template. If you already have a mutual aid agreement that you're comfortable in using with your -- with your other jurisdictions or with neighboring counties, then by all means, go ahead and use that mutual aid agreement. The -10-03 27 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 critical part is that you have to have them, because in order to have -- if you don't have them, your request for funding is going to go way down on that list of -- of who's going to be considered. It is going to be a criteria. Right now we're looking at -- or we've been told that there are at least two levels at which cut points will be made for equipment and training and funding, and one of them is if your jurisdiction is a major mutual aid responder, or whether you are merely a local mutual aid responder. So, what we've provided to you in this package is the template that the Attorney General drafted for us, for us -- when I say "us," I mean the COG's -- for us to disseminate to other jurisdictions. So, it's a template. There's one for your relationship to the COG and there's one for your relationship to other jurisdictions, and that's the -- that's my presentation. There are other initiatives in here that, you know, I think I needed to bring to you. One of them is the assessment; the other is the -- the Regional Mitigation Action Plan that you all have designated Mr. Mark Beavers to be your contact point for mutual -- for the Regional Mitigation Action Plan. That, of course, is critical in the event that you have any kind of a man-made disaster. If you don't have this hazard analysis team working on the Regional Mitigation Action Plan, and if it's -io-os 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not adopted -- if you don't have one and it's not adopted by November 2004, any disaster that you might have where you would -- where this jurisdiction might want to access money from FEMA, you would not be eligible to access that money. There would still be some public assistance moneys available to individuals, but the jurisdiction as a whole would not be able to access that money. So, your -- your convening of the hazard analysis teams and your participation in the Regional Mitigation Action Plan, for which AACOG is currently under negotiations, is also critical. It's a lot of work, but it's necessary in order to protect yourselves and in order to make sure that, should you need to access money from FEMA, that you would, in fact, be able to do that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mrs. Sanchez -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the packet, there's an agreement for the counties to serve with the COG. The other template provided was one from the counties and the municipalities within the county. MS. SANCHEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about between two counties? Is the one between -- like, say Kendall County, for example. Do we -- does Kerr County need to have one with Kendall County, or does the fact that Kerr County and 2-10-03 29 1 ,_. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kendall County have one with the COG -- does it flow through the COG? How far do you have to go with the agreements? MS. SANCHEZ: I always like to hedge all my bets, all right? I never want to -- I never want to leave any money anywhere. If I -- if I needed it, I would try to get it. So, if -- if you were to engage in a mutual aid agreement with Kendall County, depending on what resources you all identify each of you could lend to one another, that might put you in a position of being a regional First Responder, as opposed to just a local First Responder. I'm sorry I can't answer all that -- you know, your question entirely. I will get back to you. Next week we're going to be in Austin for some major training, and I'll come back and give you a better answer. But my perspective is, the more agreements you can have with people that -- that you have control over, you know, so that -- no one's being asked to send all their resources to another jurisdiction and leave themselves uncovered, but the more agreements that you can have that make sense, taking into effect what you've got, you know, equipment, manpower, training, that you have within the -- your people, the better off you are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess the next question which that kind of led to was, with volunteer fire departments, is the fact that they -- that we support the volunteer fire departments in the county financially, is -io-os 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that enough? Or do we need to basically have another -- we have a contract with them. MS. SANCHEZ: I think your contract is sufficient, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly the question I was going to ask. Is the -- if we're having -- we're approving agreements between us and AACOG, does that automatically have an agreement between Kerr County and the cachement area of AACOG? MS. SANCHEZ: It doesn't necessarily, but it does when we put together all the agreements. And that's going to be our next big push, is to make sure that every county has a mutual aid agreement with the COG so that, at the very minimum, you'll be in the running for money. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Sanchez, is there a deadline that AACOG would like to have these back? MS. SANCHEZ: The mutual aid agreement? As soon as possible. Because -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A.S.A.P.? MS. SANCHEZ: Yes, sir, because we were told in training -- you know, you went online; I think you've seen that Domestic Preparedness Assessment. We were being told back in June that the money was coming, the money was - 1 Q - ~ 3 31 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 coming, and we all kind of got ready and were waiting for the money to come, and then nothing happened. And -- except January the 28th, I believe, we were told the assessment's online; you better get it done, 'cause the money's here. Now, how much money will actually get to us, that's a whole different story, but we've been told there's about $16.1 million available for the state of Texas, just for -- in equipment and exercise assessment. Some of the people that filled out the assessments the last time around -- it wasn't as tedious as this one. I think it was only, like, a 45-pager, but right now they're getting their equipment. It's not going to be a grant of money; it will be an identification of equipment that you need and the exercises and training that you need, and then you'll be funded for those things based on different criteria, like your mutual aid agreements, whether or not you're -- what you've identified in terms of equipment, training, and exercise is included in that First Responder plan that we did. And Kerr County was accepted in that First Responder plan. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more question, Ms. Sanchez. On the -- you mentioned that there's, I guess, regional areas in AACOG, and then there's local and there's kind of regional -- I forgot the term you used. What determines if you're regional? 2-1G-G3 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 MS. SANCHEZ: I believe -- and, as I said, I'm going to be trained next week. As I -- as I understand it, the more agreements that you have with people that are depending upon you and you're depending upon them, that makes you a regional First Responder. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions for Ms. Sanchez? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This thing's come a long ways. I remember last time I was around it, last year, the State was telling AACOG, y'all get this thing put in place, get it put in place, without even sending their plan down with it. You know, we want you to do it, but we're not about to tell you how to do it. And eventually, obviously, the plan finally got there, and we're up to this point. MS. SANCHEZ: It did. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A long way. MS. SANCHEZ: It's going to be a dynamic document. There isn't any way -- we had a short -- very short time frame to put the responder plan together; I think we had from July -- they told us in June, didn't give us any direction until July, and then said it has to be ready by August or September. And we convened about 160 people who worked very, very hard in committees to identify equipment lists, identify problems, identify critical structures that 2-1u-v3 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 might be targets of terrorism. And -- and you're right, Commissioner Baldwin, we -- we kind of were flying blind, but we think we did a good job, and it's going to be a dynamic document. As soon as these assessments are done, we'll go back and refine that as well. We don't think that we've got a final document at all. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions of Ms. Sanchez? Ms. Sanchez, we appreciate -- I'm sorry, did you have something? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you being here today. And, because you were listed as a time-specific item, I think, out of caution, we should wait until 10:30 before we take any formal action on the mutual aid agreement, but we will bring the matter up again at that time and take whatever action the Court deems appropriate. MS. SANCHEZ: I appreciate that, Judge, for the opportunity. JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you coming up. MS. SANCHEZ: Thank you. May I be excused, 22 sir? 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly. Absolutely. MS. SANCHEZ: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll next go to Item 2-10-03 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2.1, presentation by Grantworks representatives on the status of the Kerrville South Wastewater Project, review of the Resolutions of Authorization previously adopted by the Court, and T.C.D.P. Performance Statement and Contract Budget Modifications required for additional engineering and attorney's fees for drafting wastewater treatment contract between U.G.R.A. and City of Kerrville, also previously approved by the Court. Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, thank you. As you can see from the agenda and the contents, each of the stylings for 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, this is an attempt to get everybody up to speed on the project itself, as it is currently underway. Last time we had -- we took a look at the interlocal agreement between the Court and U.G.R.A. for modifications, and weren't prepared to take action. Also, last time, Commissioner Nicholson rightly questioned the contract between the County and Tetra Tech in terms of its expiration and whether or not we could act appropriately under that. With all those things in mind, in all three, Judge, I thought it might be appropriate for us to have a review, take care of these items, and hopefully clear the slate so that everybody understands where the project is, and -- and move forward from there. So, with that in mind, I asked our -- our representatives from Grantworks to come down. You've seen the styling on all of those, so you know -10-03 35 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 what we're going to be talking about, and take it away. Thanks for waiting through the other presentation. MR. TUCKER: Thank you, Commissioner. Good morning, Judge, Commissioners. How are you today? As you know, there are four grant projects to provide wastewater service to Kerrville South. Two of them have been funded by the Texas Community Development Program and two of them are awaiting word on whether or not they will be funded. The applications have been submitted, and we'll find out about that pretty soon. Of the two projects that have been funded, one is under construction. We received bids several months ago, and we have a contractor out there who has -- who is laying pipe to provide sewer service to Kerrville South. The second grant, that has also been funded. We have preliminary engineering plans for what that project's going to look like, and we should be going out for bids for that this spring. So, that is the status of the projects right now. When it's all said and done, we should provide wastewater to pretty much the entire Kerrville South area, if all the projects get funded and all goes well. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We have two grants funded. MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir, we have. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two contracts for funding, both -- excuse me, both of them in the same area of 2-i0-03 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Kerrville South. MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir, we have. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which takes us down to Loyal Valley. That's the next funding we'd be awaiting; is that correct? MR. TUCKER: The two that have been funded, the 2001-year contract is to provide sewer service on a -- on Wood Drive. That's the one that was under construction. The second one is the 2002-year contract. That's to provide sewer service to the eastern portion of Loyal Valley Road. That's the one that we'd like to go out for bids this spring. And then the two that are pending are, one, to provide sewer service on Ranchero Road and Contour, and then the last one is to provide sewer service to the remainder of Loyal Valley. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I just want to be sure, however, that the two sources of funding that we have in place right now -- MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for which funds are drawn down as work is progressing -- MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- takes care of the Wood Drive and associated, and the bypass around the lift 25 I station. 2-10-03 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is the City of Kerrville lift station -- MR. TUCKER: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- off of Route 173; is that correct? MR. TUCKER: Right. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So everybody understood that. MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, we have before the Court authorization to -- Resolution of Authorizations which grant to the Court the authority, as corrected, that were put into place in May of 2000 and October of 2001. MR. TUCKER: Yes. Those -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2002 and 2001. MR. TUCKER: Those resolutions were passed early in the life of those two grants, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And those provide to Judge Tinley and this Commissioner, who was designated to be a part of this project -- MR. TUCKER: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WTLLIAMS: -- the authority to sign on behalf of Kerr County as you perform your administrative work and send down those draws and so forth 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 in accordance with the work being in progress and completed; is that correct? MR. TUCKER: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, so, those authorizations are in place. Are any other authorizations required? MR. TUCKER: No. These authorizations allow y'all basically to sign the request for payment and purchase voucher, which allows us to draw down grant money to pay toward whatever contractor has done work that has been approved, so that it appoints signers. It also appoints the County Judge -- the office of the County Judge to act as the chief executive officer when dealing with -- dealing with this grant, so it authorizes him to do things, such as sign budget modifications and -- and perform modifications and things like that, kind of smaller paperwork issues that may be on the periphery of this grant as it goes along. Now, I should point out that it's a program rule that if you make modifications that are very large, substantially change the project -- for example, if we transfer more than 5 percent of the grant. fund from one line item to another, that will be considered more of an amendment than a modification. It would require a public hearing -- advertised public hearing and greater steps. And, so, the appointment of the County Judge as being able to act as executive officer in this ^-10-03 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 grant is already kind of artificially handicapped, the limit of what that can do, meaning less than 5 percent of budget changes or not substantially changing the scope of the project. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That`s called modification? MR. TUCKER: Those would be called amendments. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those are amendments, okay. MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. And we -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We are within 5 percent? MR. TUCKER: Both of the modifications that we've submitted have been less than 5 percent. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Which do not require public hearing? MR. TUCKER: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But, as presented, it will -- the authority is in place for those to be executed? MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anything greater than 5 percent, you would bring it in here? MR. TUCKER: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Public hearing would -10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .~-. 25 40 have to take place? MR. TUCKER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the Court would have to approve that again; is that correct? MR. TUCKER: That's right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before the County Judge could sign? MR. TUCKER: Well, the Court wouldn`t have to approve it, but we would have to have the public hearing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I ses. Would you speak to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don`t mean to be difficult on this. We've talked about this a long, long time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- and when I go back and remember -- try to remember what we did close to a year ago, the main reason for this resolution -- both the resolutions was so this Court didn't have -- the whole Court didn't have to do payment vouchers, and that makes sense. But when I read Section 3, I -- and I`m reading this probably closer than I did the first time -- I have a problem with the -- basically, it's authorizing the County -10-03 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Judge to act in all matters in connection with this contract. And that -- I'm not sure, you know, that we can delegate that. That's something that seems -- maybe we can. It seems like it's granting -- the Court is delegating an awful lot by that language. Now, I hear what you just said, that, you know, over 5 percent, by the terms of the contract, it's got to come back to the full Court, but it's that word "all" that I have -- you know, I'm concerned with. I want to make sure that we're acting properly as a Court and that we can do that. And I think that we need to pretty much understand -- or decide what "all" means. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Want to tell us? MR. TUCKER: Well, I understood that "all" would mean anything that would no` require, by the program guidelines, various court action. Now, this shouldn't trump any type of county rules that you may have or traditions or resolutions that you already have. T.C.D.P. guidelines are still in place. This document is mainly to satisfy the development program more so than to provide rules for y'all, you see. So, when I would submit this budget modification that perhaps y'all -- the Judge will sign today, what they're going to look for at the program site is his signature on the form in relation to this resolution. Yes, this resolution allows the Judge to sign this budget modification. Now, for -- to be more than 5 percent of an <-10-03 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 amendment or a larger thing, we would show further evidence; that would be public hearing and things like that, that I discussed earlier. So, not wanting -- really, the nature of this document is not to change county rules, but more to change -- or to describe T.C.D.P. rules more than anything else. But, I -- I understand your concern. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just the term "all" seems -- JUDGE TINLEY: I think, at this point, Mr. Tucker, there have been one or possibly two construction draws which have been authorized, and that's the only thing that I've done in connection with this. MR. TUCKER: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly, if -- I have no problem whatsoever with the Court further defining my authority, if -- if Commissioner Letz would feel more comfortable. MR. TUCKER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: With -- if this resolution is to confine my authority only to that which is required under the -- under the Community Development Program guidelines, and not outside of that, I've got no problem with that. MR. TUCKER: I don't believe would it fall outside the guidelines, so whatever y'all would pass to make you feel comfortable with that, that would be fine. -1G-C3 43 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 might ask the County Attorney if he has any thoughts on it, 'cause I've listed you as a speaker on this also, David. MR. MOTLEY: Are you talking about just the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Resolution. MR. MOTLEY: -- the form? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Resolutions of Authorization, which are in place. They were enacted in 2001 and 2002. MR. MOTLEY: Okay. Well, I'm not actually -- let me step up here, David, and see what we've got here. I want to doublecheck. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's Section 3 that my question's on, David. (Discussion off the record.) MR. MOTLEY: Well, I -- this is an accomplished fact, apparently, both of these, and I don't know really what we could do a whole lot. Are you talking about amending these now? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just wondering. I mean, the reason we did this was to make payment, you know, work more smoothly. And the grant was approved, and this contract. And the question comes -- you know, that I have is that it says, you know -- and we're under Section 3 on ?-10-03 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MOTLEY: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That the Commissioners Court directs -- delegates and directs County Judge, all matters in connection with the Texas Community Development Program contract. And, I mean, "all" -- MR. MOTLEY: Well, as Kerr County's representative, I suppose. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And what I'm hearing -- MR. MOTLEY: Well, are we proposing to do a similar resolution for the two new contracts? Is that the idea? MR. TUCKER: Yes. MR. MOTLEY: Or one or both of them? MR. TUCKER: Yeah. These contracts are -- or these resolutions are submitted to the County early in the life of these contracts, when we're setting up a bank account, setting up designated signers and things like that. The main reason for that is to kind of expedite matters when it's under construction, especially when you have a contractor out there putting forward capital for materials and supplies and stuff. If we needed court action on a -- on every step -- and, essentially, you voiced yourself we have a court action on every step -- it could delay it weeks and weeks and weeks, and the contractor is high and dry. -i0-03 45 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 BALDWIN: The alternative is to convene the Commissioners Court every time to pay a bill. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I mean, I don't have any problem with paying. I mean, the payment of vouchers and all that, that's clearly -- I mean, he basically -- the Judge is verifying the work was done and authorizing payment. I think that makes sense. JUDGE TINLEY: They're certifying, as our representative and through the consulting engineer, that the work was performed. They -- they, as the management consultant on the administrative arm, furnish that to me and say, "This is in line for payment," and I sign off on it. That's a construction progress draw. MR. TUCKER: Also, just, for example, other things, such as the budget modification that I've submitted to you prior to this meeting, if we had a construction draw -- we do it right now, but if we had a construction draw on the 2002 grant that was dependent upon that budget modification, that draw would not be paid for by T.C.D.P. until the modification was approved, so it could act at times as a bottleneck on these. I'd like -- to classify them as these kind of minor modifications that we make to the contract as we go along could act as a stopgap as things progress. Major modifications, like I said, have more public input and are -- are not signed as a matter of -1u-03 46 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 course. That's just a possible -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my recommendation would be at this point to not modify these two, but we might want to look at them a little bit closer. MR. TUCKER: We can change -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: The future ones. MR. TUCKER: If the Phase III and IV -- as I was saying, the Ranchero Road from the highway to Contour, and the remainder of western Loyal Valley -- grants are to be awarded, we could have more precise verbiage on that section when I submit those resolutions to the County for approval, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. MOTLEY: I think David just said -- I mean, as far as these two, they're done, looks to me, and Judge Tinley has offered to have the Court reexamine his authority with regard to the next -- or with any of these contracts, so it seems to me that if the Court wants to be more specific rather than the term "all," or if it wants to have somebody else act as a designated representative, whatever, I mean, I think he said he's amenable to that, so I don't really know what we'd want to do regarding these. I think these are both fine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. TUCKER: That would be fairly soon, too. -10-03 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If these contracts get funded, we should find out in the springtime, and so these resolutions would be presented before the Court in late spring, early summer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. TUCKER: So that would be a good opportunity then. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dave, if you would, then, would you speak briefly to the budget modifications that are under the 5 percent cap, so that we can approve this this morning and move on to -- MR. TUCKER: Sure. Well, the -- the one I believe that is on for today is for the 2002 grant, Number 722411, I believe. And that is to increase engineering and administration fees. The engineering fees are to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 721075, is it not? MR. TUCKER: 721075. Is that the one that was already signed by Judge Henneke, or do I have those two reversed? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the one that's awaiting signature. That's been here, and it has an accompanying letter to Wendy Langebeer, the Regional Coordinator, and it talks about the Performance Statement Modification Contract Number 721075, and I believe that's the one. MR. TUCKER: What's the date on that letter? -10-03 48 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: Well, when you sent it to me, it was January 17th. MR. TUCKER: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's been revised to the 22nd, and I guess we can revise it again. MR. TUCKER: No, no, we don't need to do that. We're increasing engineering fees because of the -- it's the realities of construction. As you mentioned earlier, we have the Riverhill Bypass. Originally, the sewage that we were going to collect from this project was going to be pumped by a lift station -- and, as y'al1 know, lift stations are pretty expensive -- up over a ridge, and then connect into the main line later at some point. That had been scrapped in favor of eliminating the lift station, doing the so-called Riverhill Bypass, where we connected to the Nimitz line by doing a line across the Riverhill Country Club. It was a matter of reducing our capital costs, and it`s just a more practical way to do it. The reason that's creating additional engineering fees, that required more plans, more designing, more surveying and things like that. And, also, dealing with several agencies on this project, with the Guadalupe River Authority and the County and working with the City, and, to be honest, working with us. The engineer has been kind of pushed and pulled throughout the past year and a half on this project, and the costs have -1G-03 49 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 started to come up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the second phase, much of that had to do with the payment of the -- or of the budget modification to accommodate the attorney's fees? MR.. TUCKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the drafting of the contract between Upper Guadalupe River Authority and the City of Kerrville for treatment of sewage; is that correct? And the Court had already approved that? MR. TUCKER: Well, the Court did approve that particular one. I wasn't sure about those attorney's fees going toward drafting that contract. I had thought that it was going towards drafting the interlocal agreement and then working on the easement that we needed to lay the line across the Riverhill golf course. I didn't have any specific information, or don't have it with me now, that it was for the contract between U.G.R.A. and the City that -- that is outside the scope of -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correspondence dated December 16, 2002, addressed to the Honorable Judge Fred Henneke, dealt with that issue, and it was for retaining of the M.L.K. firm. MR. TUCKER: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Out of Austin for the specific purpose of drafting that agreement. 2-10-03 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TUCKER: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe. Am I correct, Mr. Monty? MR. MOSTY: I wasn't involved in it. I think it is M.L.K. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm MR. TUCKER: Okay. I don't materials with me right now, but that is a expense the administration -- the addition fees are going toward. Attorney's fees. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And pretty sure. have the grant-eligible sl administration all we're doing today is -- is approval of the budget modification, which gets sent to the people who gave us the money? MR. TUCKER: Basically, yes. Right now the grant is not structured to pay for those -- the attorney's fees, and if we don't do the modification to allow for those attorney fees to be paid for with the grant, then it's coming from the County instead. But since it is a grant -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's get 2.1 out of the way, and I would do so by offering a motion to approve the Contract Budget Modifications required for additional engineering and attorney's fees for the Kerrville South Wastewater Project. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and -10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 71 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 seconded -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And authorize County Judge to sign same. JUDGE TINLEY: -- by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin, respectively, that the Court approve the T.C.D.P. Performance Statement, Contract Budget Modifications, and authorize the County Judge to sign same. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any further discussion on that item? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question. On the tail end of your comment there, I think I heard you say that these attorney fees are not in the grant as of today? MR. TUCKER: Correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you're just going to fire a shot at it? Is that what I'm understanding? Let me finish. MR. TUCKER: Sure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if it doesn't fly, then the County's responsible for the attorney fees? MR. TUCKER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody understand that? MR. TUCKER: I discussed this with the regional coordinator, my counterpart at the State. I told -l0-03 52 1 -. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 her that this modification is coming to pay for these attorney fees, faxed the invoices to her for approval, and I have received verbal approval on this. So, it's not a guaranteed approval, but this -- this is not a shot in the dark, as it were. This is a -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what we were advised early on. MR. TUCKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That this would be a legitimate budget modification. MR. TUCKER: That`s correct. JUDGE TINLEY: As a follow-up on that, Commissioner Baldwin, to your inquiry, in reviewing these billings, I note that most of the -- most of what I see in those billings deals with a transaction between the City of Kerrville and U.G.R.A. on wastewater agreement -- I assume it's wastewater. It could also mean fresh water; I don't know. It's not -- there's an entry here on -- okay. "Continuing work." That would confine to it sewer, I guess. I have, number one, a question, if we have an obligation -- this County has an obligation to be responsible for attorney's fees relative to a transaction between the City of Kerrville and U.G.R.A., or whether or not that falls under the scope of our grant that we'd received from T.C.D.P.; and, secondarily, then, the question is, if we 2-10-03 1 -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 transfer those funds from the grant moneys for the payment of those fees, will it not reduce the amount that we'll have available for the project itself, and then obligate the County for any -- any additional sums that might be due? MR. TUCKER: Sure. JUDGE TINLEY: Concerning the construction phase? MR. TUCKER: Sure. Well, there`s -- I have two general responses to that. First of all, this County applied for the grant with -- kind of knowing that the services would be provided ultimately, that the -- the flow would go to the City of Kerrville wastewater plant, and that the U.G.R.A. was going to operate the system. So, basically, their responsibility for having to draft an agreement with how to handle the waste would not have existed without this grant to begin with. So, in that sense, it makes sense that it's folded into the -- within the budget of the grant itself, because it is a legal requirement that is emerging from the project itself. Secondly, we obviously can come up with some type of agreement to see if there are future attorney's fees coming -- emerging from this project, to see if we can curtail it or predict what's going to happen in the future. We`re already up against the 5 percent budget modification limit, so any other transfer of moneys to pay for additional "'-10-03 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 engineering or fees -- or, excuse me, administrative fees, meaning lawyer fees, would have to come through a public hearing and a public forum and need approval from yourself. And, so, that -- there is that. Lastly, we happen to have a favorable bid opening. When we awarded this construction contract to Compton, we in fact had a balance of about $98,000 in construction fees left, even after fulfilling the obligations of this 2001 grant. So I think, in that respect, it gives us a little bit more freedom in using these -- these grant funds to pay for this agreement. Because we had such a favorable bid opening, we have extra funds. Those extra funds, that $98,000, is basically being eaten up as we go along by the possibility of an impact fee from the City and other charges as well. So, we are already in a position of having extra grant money that we were either going to do -- to prolong and extend services to this project, or to pay for costs as they emerge throughout the life of the grant. This is an example of the latter. So, if we were in a situation to where we had a bid opening that spent all of our construction money, and we were going to be asking U.G.R.A, for additional funds anyway to increase their match commitment to this project, then I think we'd be in trouble, and possibly would have more of a basis to question the responsibility of these fees. But since we did -10-03 55 1 ..._. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have such a favorable bid opening, we do have, on this first grant, the wiggle room basically to take care of these attorney fees and pay for these agreements. We don't know how favorable our openings are going to be on the remaining three projects that we're working on. This is just our opportunity to take care of that, and take care of that now. JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Commissioner Williams mentioned that there was previous authorization by the prior Court in the sum of, if my recollection serves me correct, approximately $6,000, $6,200, for the payment of attorney's fees. Do you recall that? MR. TUCKER: Well, we have submitted two budget modifications for our two existing projects. One of them was entirely engineering fees, and the other was administration fees, lawyer's fees and engineering fees. I think there may be a mixup on the two here. JUDGE TINLEY: I guess my question is, I have some recollection that there was such an approval, and I'm sure other members of the Court may recall that. I guess my question is, are we talking about expending those funds, as previously approved, as part of this? Or have those funds already been expended? MR. TUCKER: They -- JUDGE TINLEY: And we're talking about the new expenditure of approximately $6,000. -10-03 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TUCKER: No, it's six thousand -- I think 963, right? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $6,963. MR. TUCKER: Yeah. That is the only request for increased engineering or administration fees for -- to pay for attorney's activities that we have presented so far. There's just been that one for $6,963. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're -- they're noted in Modification Number 1, Judge. MR. TUCKER: See, there are two Budget Modification Number 1's, because they are both the first respective modifications for the two separate grants. That may be contributing to the confusion. JUDGE TINLEY: T`m not sure that answered my question about the $6,000 that was previously -- MR. TUCKER: Right. It -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- approved by this Court. MR. TUCKER: It hasn't been drawn down. The money has not been requested from the -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hasn't been paid from the -- there's approval for payment, but it's not paid. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that the same moneys that we're talking about here, or are we talking about for separate -- for different services? ^-1d-03 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 57 MR. TUCKER: No, it's -- JUDGE TINLEY: For which there will be additional billing, and those funds expended? MR. TUCKER: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: From -- from that $6,000 whatever? MR. TUCKER: Sure. JUDGE TINLEY: And, now, the modification that you're talking about now will be totally separate and apart coming from the grant funds? MR. TUCKER: Now, the -- the one modification that we created to request additional administration fees was prompted by that particular group of lawyer's fees that I received from -- from the Commissioner. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, That was last year. MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. Well -- JUDGE TINLEY: I think I understand. MR. TUCKER: Yeah. Sorry about that. Yeah, we only are requesting it at one point. It's the additional engineering fees that are only requested on the 2001 Community Development Grant. Just the request for whatever that amount is; I don't have it. JUDGE TINLEY: But the Performance Statement and the budget modification -- Contract Budget Modification, just incorporates that $6,000-whatever? 2-10-03 1 ..-, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,.._ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 MR. TUCKER: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: That was previously approved? MR. TUCKER: Right. I -- that's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TUCKER: I have no additional attorney's fees that have come up, and have not drafted any additional modifications for any more attorney's fees. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, in essence, we're already on the hook for this $6,000-plus? MR. TUCKER: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. Any more questions? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. It's nat a question, really more of a clarification. Could the Judge please reread the motion? And this is more for clarification, because it's confusing; there's two contracts and two Modification 1's, and explicitly say Modification 1 under this contract, so that the motion's real clear as to -- you know, for future times as we look -- to know exactly what we're voting on here. JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of the motion that was made -- and the reporter may have to remind me if members of the Court don't have the ability to remember, 'cause I sure don't. Who made that motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was Commissioner -1C-C3 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,.-~ 25 Williams, I believe. JUDGE TINLEY: And you seconded it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm afraid so. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Can you remember what you seconded? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Good. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I'm not going to share it with you. JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to see if I can get it right? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to see how tough you are. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The bottom of this page. JUDGE TINLEY: The motion, as I understand it, is that the -- that's been made and seconded by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin, respectively, is that the Court approve the T.C.D.P. Performance Statement and Contract Budget Modifications as presented by the Court, and authorize the County Judge to sign the same. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The total of those, Judge, for clarification purposes, totals $12,500, which represents 5 percent. That takes care of both attorney's fees and engineering modifications. Is that correct? 2-i0-03 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz has asked me to point out, and I think rightly so, that -- that the -- that the Performance Statement modification deals with T.C.D.P. Contract Number 721075. MR. TUCKER: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: And the budget modification deals with T.C.D.P. Contract Number 722441. MR. TUCKER: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Does that clarification satisfy you? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: With that clarification, is that satisfactory with you gentlemen on your motion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: AlI right. Is there any further discussion or questions? 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 TINLEY: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Hopefully we've got you over 2-10-03 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 61 the hard one. Now we'll go to the next one. MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir, thank you. Sorry about the confusion there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next one has to do with the -- I'm sorry, Judge. You need to call it. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item is 2.2, consider and discuss and take appropriate action on amendment to Professional Management, Engineering, and Architectural Services Contract between Kerr County and Tetra Tech, formerly Groves and Associates, Inc. Commissioner Williams, again. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe the folks at Grantworks sent down a suggested amendment for the Professional Management agreement. I sent that down to the County Attorney for his perusal and comment. And, David, if you will, would you come address the Court and tell us about the one-page amendment that you have sent back with suggested changes in it, so we can maybe get this one moving too? MR. MOTLEY: Well, the requested items to be amended were the completion date and the amount of budget. I was looking at this. I thought that it was a part of the old contract that said that the -- the contract is drafted in four parts. It said -- in Part 1, it said it adopted and incorporated Part 4, and I thought, well, I ought to go 2 10 03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 ahead and adopt and incorporate 2 and 3 while they were incorporating and adopting, so I added that. And then, also, went ahead -- this was not meant to be an all-inclusive amendment; this was trying to be kind of a brief amendment for the purposes that it was sent down. I went ahead and said that any reference in the agreement -- previous agreement to Groves and Associates, Inc., should be construed to read as Tetra Tech, Inc. And, really, that's the only changes I made in it. I did not know the date of the architectural services -- the -- well, I guess I called it the original Professional Management Engineering and/or Architectural Services Agreement. That's the date. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the date? MR. MOTLEY: Is there another one besides that one? 'Cause the other one I had didn't have a date on it. MR. TUCKER: They're -- both the two contracts are included on one engineering contract. MR. MOTLEY: Is that right? Okay. MR. TUCKER: By the way, for the Court, this amendment applies to the engineering contract for both the 2001 and the 2002 projects that have been funded. They have one engineering contract to manage the engineering services on both of the existing contracts. This contract and this amendment are for that. We're not going to be coming to you 2-10-03 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 63 again for another amendment for their other engineering contract for the 2002 project as well. This is for both. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The engineering is in place for both? MR. TUCKER: For both. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The grant funded this part of the project? MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. That's what we're asking for an amendment to today. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have the date so we can fill that in? MR. MOTLEY: It says May 8. MR. TUCKER: May 8, 2001. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May 8, 2001, okay. MR. TUCKER: That's what I have. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I guess I'm asking the question, counsel, are we -- are we going to be taking action on the smaller version, which was provided by Grantworks, or the larger version, which was provided by you? MR. TUCKER: Just to clarify, the smaller version actually was created by Tetra Tech, based on an e-mail Grantworks put together saying, "Here's the major issues the County has." But this document was created by -l0-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 Tetra Tech. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That appreciably extends the date of the contract to May -- March 18, '04, and includes the budget modifications totaling, thus far, $104,663. MR. TUCKER: Well, the modifications are less than that. The total new contract amount. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Total new contract amount for engineering, I'm sorry. MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir, and changing from -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I missed that. MR. TUCKER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, where are we, counselor? MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'm putting in the dates on the contract amendment, if that's what y'all want to do. I mean, there's nothing wrong with amending the contract, or the -- the engineering contract that I can see. I mean, we went through it, and everything's fine, as far as from the legal end of it. But, I mean, I'm not talking about the executive decision of whether or not you want to do it. I'm just saying it's fine as -- as we've modified it. I just got off the phone with Mr. Kaviani, and he was asking about it, and I told him somebody would give him a call here in a minute when we got finished and let him know what happened. -10-03 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 65 So, he's well aware of this. He has a copy of the amended agreement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The amended version that you provided to the Court? Or the -- MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, the one you're holding in your hand there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. MOTLEY: I e-mailed him -- I mean faxed him a copy or something last week, so -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the engineering firm is comfortable with this? MR. MOTLEY: He -- I just talked to him; he didn't raise any sort of disagreement. I talked to him before we did it. I told him exactly the changes I've proposed to make, the two additional changes, additional to the ones that were sent down, which was change of the completion date, the amount of the contract, the fact that we're changing Groves Engineering references to Tetra Tech, and then the other -- it's to include Parts 2 and 3, and the -- you know, the contract -- I think it was a little bit ambiguous. It says -- on Part 1, it said we are incorporating Part 4 herein, you know, by reference. And I looked at it and I said, well, I wonder why they left out Part 2 and 3. We probably ought to go ahead and bring all -- the whole contract in one agreement. That's the only _-10-03 66 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 thing I changed about any of this, and so it's kind of a minor change, in my estimation. So -- so, whatever the Court wants to do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's find out real quick what the Court wants to do. I move the approval of the budget modifications to the Tetra Tech agreement, as approved by the County Attorney, essentially embodying the date -- the date of 5/8/2001, extending the agreement to March 18, 2004, and modifying the total fee for services to $104,663. That's a motion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you not want to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And authorize County Judge to sign same. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- change the name to Tetra Tech? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, changing the name from Groves to Tetra Tech. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin, respectively, that the Court approve the amendment as presented by the County Attorney, his drafted format, to Professional Management Engineering and Architectural Services Agreement, which changes Groves Engineering to Tetra Tech, performance date extended to March 18, 2004, -10-03 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 67 acknowledging that the total fee for services is increased by budget modifications to $104,663, and incorporates the Parts, 2, 3, and 4 of the previous Professional Engineering Architectural Agreement with Groves Engineering, now Tetra Tech, and authorize the County Judge to sign such amendment on behalf of the County. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I do. I have some discussion -- questions. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can't find that we have a contract with Tetra Tech. What I find is that we have an expired contract with Groves, and that we're told, but haven't been officially notified, is that Groves has sold that firm to Tetra Tech. And I find in this expired contract that Groves does not have the ability to assign or transfer its interest without the prior written consent of the Court. So, what I see is that we're being asked to amend the contract -- make an amendment to a contract that doesn't exist. MR. MOTLEY: Well, read the part that you said that they had to get prior approval. From who? On -10-03 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-. 25 that -- what you were saying? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Part 4, Paragraph 5, Assignability. MR. MOTLEY: Now, I didn't know -- I can't sit here and tell you that I know the exact change that was made -- and Dave may know more than I do. I thought it was just a change of name. I didn't know it was actually -- MR. TUCKER: They -- Groves and Associates was purchased by Tetra Tech, and all assets were purchased by Tetra Tech. MR. MOTLEY: Are they not the same principals that are running -- I mean, isn't Mr. Groves still an officer in the -- MR. TUCKER: I don't know. president. understanding. MR. MOTLEY: They told me he was vice MR. TUCKER: He is vice president. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my MR. MOTLEY: I don't know how to answer the question that Commissioner Nicholson's proposing. The fact that the date has expired, I believe, is something of that -- and I believe there was even notice from Groves Engineering that the date was coming up and that they needed an extension, and it probably wasn't acted on timely. But -1U-03 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the fact that the -- the original contract has expired, I don't think, in and of itself, means that we can not amend it at this point in time if the parties agree to it. And I believe everybody, it's my understanding, you know, agreed to go ahead and -- and modify the contract. Without that, we've got kind of an unusual situation, in that we have contractors out there -- a contractor out there building, putting in -- laying sewer pipe, as such, and the engineering consultant on the thing is all of a sudden not going to be on the job. And it probably can be taken care of by preparing a new contract with Tetra Tech, if the Court would rather do that than amend the existing contract. But the -- I don't think that there's anything about the fact that contracts expire that makes it illegal, if everybody chooses to agree to it, to go ahead and modify the contract after the date. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I don't think the contract being expired is critical. I think it's whether or not we have a contract with Tetra Tech, is what's critical. We went through a -- a process, RFP or something similar, to select Groves. Shouldn't we -- if we're going to make a contract with Tetra Tech -- MR. MOTLEY: A new one, you mean? Or get permission to extend? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Extend. 2-10-03 ~o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MOTLEY: Modify or whatever, amend. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: See, we don't know that Tetra Tech has bought Groves. We haven't been notified of that. And we have not given our permission in writing for Groves to transfer that contract to -- to Tetra Tech. MR. MOTLEY: I don't have the contract in front of me, and I don't remember -- I think it's in Section 4, but there is a provision in there that does say that, you know, the rights of the contract do survive to the -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Heirs. MR. MOTLEY: -- successors -- heirs, successors, et cetera. And if somebody bought -- if any business buys another business, they typically buy their accounts and accounts receivable and all that, such that goes with it. I guess, in order to really know that, you'd almost have to look at the -- you know, the paperwork between Groves Associates and Tetra Tech. And I'm just not privy to the nature of their -- their agreement is between themselves. I just understood that it's basically the same organization. So -- (Courthouse fire alarm sounded.) (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: In view of the confusion that's taking place, we'll stand in recess for about 15 minutes, reconvene at about 20 till 11:00. _-10-03 71 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 (Recess taken from 10:26 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Let's reconvene the meeting -- regular Commissioners Court meeting, which commenced on or about 9 a.m. local time, February 10th, 2003. We were in the midst of discussion of Item 2.2, and Mr. Tucker with Grantworks was here, and my recollection is that Mr. Nicholson had raised a question about whether we even had a contract with -- with Tetra Tech at this point, or some shade of that. I believe that's where we were. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I might make a comment, it seems to me that if Tetra Tech bought Groves, that's pretty clear cut; we have a contract, and everything's okay. We just need to fix up some clerical errors, you know, and you say they did. Well, then, I mean, all we need is -- I don't see why we can't approve this subject to them providing the documentation that they bought them. MR. TUCKER: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Letz' point is well-taken, that the contract provides that it is binding upon and inures to the benefit, among other things, the successors, which is a -- generally occurs in -- in a corporate capacity of a successor in interest. But our problem is -- is that we don't have anything to evidence -io-os 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .- 25 that, be it certification from the Secretary of State of the State of Texas, of a certificate of merger or consolidation, or -- or other appropriate evidence to indicate, in fact, that what used to be Groves and Associates is now in its entirety Tetra Tech, by virtue of purchase all of the stock or whatever the arrangement may have been, and we don't have that evidence. So, lacking that, we're just -- we've just got a big question mark. MR. TUCKER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: As I see it. MR. TUCKER: Well, we have -- for what it's worth, have paid four invoices to Tetra Tech. In fact, no engineering invoices payable by the grant were ever paid to Groves. Kamron Kaviani, who's been working closely with myself and Commissioners and many other people on the project, is definitely an employee of Tetra Tech. So, basically, whether or not it's demonstrable right now, it's a matter of fact that Tetra Tech purchased Groves Associates. So, if I could get some evidence to y'all to that effect very shortly, perhaps an amendment to the engineering contract could be passed with the understanding that, within 7 days or 14 days or whatever, I can get you some type of proof that this has -- this exchange has taken place. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a couple -- a -10-03 73 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 note, following up on Commissioner Letz' -- I went through my file, which is about that thick, on all the various correspondence and so forth, and the last document that I can find in my file with the various plans and so forth for Kerrville South is a document dated September 26, 2001, on the letterhead of Groves and Associates. It sends the plans and so forth and so on. And, thereafter, everything in the file is Tetra Tech. And I would note, just for information purposes, that this amendment that's being proposed calls to attention that the engineer, acting by and through its duly authorized vice president, Brad Groves, P.E., is hereby authorized to perform..., so forth and so on. Brad Groves was the principal in Groves and Associates, and is now vice president in Tetra Tech, and he's continuing with the activities of the engineering firm. I don't know what else we need. If we need some other document, I guess we could -- I'm suggesting to the Court we can approve this and move forward. If we need to have a presentation of some formal documents of transfer indicating that that did take place, I'm sure we can make that happen. MR. TUCKER: Also, as -- the contract had expired December 31st 2002. Tetra Tech has been proceeding with engineering since then, I guess as a demonstration of good faith. They have no intention of abandoning this contract, as it's been evidenced by their continuing work 2-10-03 74 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 and effort toward this project. Perhaps a matter of good faith comes into play. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney, are you satisfied that we can move forward? MR. MOTLEY: Well, I -- you know, again, the information I was given is that they were just successors in interest to Groves Engineering, and, you know, I would assume anybody purchasing any sort of a firm would -- part of what they're purchasing is the accounts and the business that they have ongoing, unless some other arrangement is made. And I'm -- again, Dave has mentioned that Tetra Tech remains on the job and continues the consulting engineering, the subject of the -- of the contract. So, apparently, they think, and have thought since -- I guess it was December 31st, that they're still obligated by the agreement. And, you know, one thing -- I guess it's up to the Court to decide, but I don't think anybody`s specifically raised any issues about the engineering work that's been done. I think it's perfectly allowable that we could go ahead after the fact -- I mean, after the expiration of the other contract, and amend this. I don't know of any reason why it wouldn't, if the parties agree to it. So, I mean, if they're going to go ahead, if -- if the plan is to go ahead and get documents evidencing the transfer of ownership from Groves to Tetra Tech, and you "_'-10-03 75 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 want somebody to look at that, I'll be happy to do that, if that's what the plan is. I think we're fine where we are on this right now. It's a very slight increase in the funding. I don't know what it was, probably about -- maybe $13,000, something along that MR. TUCKER: $11,000. MR. MOTLEY: So, it's not a lot of funding increase. And I think that they need the additional time. As I understand it -- now, I may be wrong about this, but this additional time up on the -- that's added to the contract is going to contemplate finishing the other two phases; is that correct? MR. TUCKER: No. MR. MOTLEY: Or is that just these two? MR. TUCKER: Just these two. MR. MOTLEY: I know one's underway and one`s going out to contract fairly soon. So -- MR. TUCKER: We have already gone out for bid -- or proposals for the Phase III and IV. The two outstanding grants have not been awarded yet. At that time, if and when that contract gets awarded, then you'll have another engineering contract brought before the Court, which will have a later expiration. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Court will have to choose who the engineer is. ?-10-03 76 1 ^ 2 3 table? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TUCKER: At the point -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a motion on the JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, there is. There's a motion on the table that -- want me to repeat it all to you? (Commissioner Letz nodded.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: We took a break. JUDGE TINLEY: What a guy. There's a motion on the table that -- that the Court approve the Professional Management Engineering or Architectural Services Contract amendment as presented by the County Attorney and authorize the County Judge to sign the same, motion having been made by Commissioner Williams and seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. Is that correct? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think you can sign a contract with -- with Tetra Tech. Even if we get the documentation that Groves Engineering has been purchased by Tetra Tech, it still requires written approval by the County for them to assign the interest. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The agreement shall be binding upon successors and assigns permitted by this agreement, and this agreement requires prior written 2-10-03 77 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 by the County, point one. Point two is, we went through some sort of process to select Groves Engineering, and it had something to do with their ability and capability to perform the contract. We haven't gone through that process with -- with Tetra Tech. We would need an RFP or something similar to that to make a contract with Tetra Tech. And then point three is that an extension from -- from the end of last year for 14 and a half months doesn't sound like an extension to me; it sounds like another contract. We had a contract for them to do work that had to be completed by December 31, and I can imagine that -- that there's good reason that might have run over, but running over by 14 and a half months? I don't think so. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, a large part of the reason had to do with the excessive rains and floods that took place in Kerr County in the months of June and July which rendered it impossible for them to do the work that they're now doing, which was to cross Camp Meeting Creek underneath -- bore underneath Camp Meeting Creek with a line. So, they were totally delayed in that regard. And, you know, even if the contract is extended to March whatever -- we're talking about March 18, '04. If the work is completed sooner than that, it's completed sooner, and the contract ends. MR. TUCKER: That's right. The March 18, '04 -10-03 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 date is the contract end date of the state grant, the 2002 Community Development grant. That's when that grant expires. That's where that date comes from, is when the contract is over between the County and the State, so we just matched it up with that. They have to finish it up in time for the grant itself to expire. That's where that date came from. COMMISSIONER WILLIP_MS: That's another reason. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, may I make a suggestion? Could -- could we give the County Attorney these three or four issues that Mr. Nicholson has? And I respect those. At the rate we're going, we're going to be here through April, maybe May, and he's got plenty of time to take a look at these things and get this particular item back to us. Or we can sit here all day long on this one issue. This is -- this is Item Number 2. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got a big one yet to come. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just suggesting that Motley take whatever -- whatever it is Mr. Nicholson -- I think he had four issues, and answer those. Give us legal advice, whether we can do it or not. If we can't do it, trash it. Let's go on to something else. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other thing, I mean, -10-03 79 1 -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 „_„ 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .._ 25 that I see -- and I agree with Commissioner Baldwin. I mean, I defer to the County Attorney. The other thing it seems to me we can do -- I don't know if we can do it under the way it's styled -- is to, you know, approve them one by one. I mean, you know, Commissioner Nicholson's concerned about the -- I mean, to me, the concern out of the, I guess, three or four interests that he's mentioned that are important to me are the -- whether Tetra Tech bought Groves. And if they do -- you know, the way I read this, and I'm not an attorney, I don't see that that requires our approval. You know, it's just kind of one of the interests -- we're dealing with the same group. I mean, but anyway, you know, that's just the way I look at it, but I'm not -- so we can defer that to the County Attorney for an opinion on that point. But why can't we approve it the way it is? I mean, Tetra Tech's doing the work. Let's get through this contract. I mean, I think it's -- I think the -- the down side to the County is a lot worse by not proceeding, and I think we need to -- you know, Tetra Tech's doing the work. We're going to be open to a lawsuit if we try to -- if we delay this thing, or damages for us causing delays. To me, I'd rather go forward. If we need to make an amendment, we need to make the amendment, and let's be done with this contract. It's underway right now anyway. I really think -- you know, that's just my point of view. ''-10-03 80 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: We've got a motion that's been made and seconded, and I heard a suggestion from Commissioner Baldwin -- are you offering an amendment to the motion that -- that the approval be conditioned upon the County Attorney's review of this matter and approval for legal sufficiency of the questions and issues raised by Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that would be fine. I'm not real clear that Mr. Nicholson will agree to everything. I want him to be satisfied as well. JUDGE TINLEY: You're offering that as an amendment to the motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am. JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. We have an amendment to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's got to accept it, too. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that amendment's not acceptable in the form it was stated. I would like for us to approve the extension, and ask the County Attorney at the same time to satisfy the Court at a subsequent meeting that the "successor and assigns" clause and any other associated documentation that he can come up with that verifies the sale and assumptions of Groves and Associates to Tetra Tech and present it to -- and I'd like for to us -~o-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 move forward on this, and that's the sense of where I'm coming from. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I withdraw my second. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's your motion again, Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just to proceed as -- along the lines that you had spoken, and at the same time, ask the County Attorney to -- to double-check to be certain that the "successor and assigns" clauses are appropriate, and to bring back whatever letters of documentation he can that -- that confirms the sale of Groves to Tetra Tech. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what's different from that and my amendment? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm really not sure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what we said. JUDGE TINLEY: The difference, as I see it -- and, for goodness sakes, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm incorrect -- is that the motion on the floor is final action to approve the amendment and authorize the County Judge to sign the same, and the amendment -- and determine subsequent to that whether or not the legalities have been satisfied, whereas yours would be a conditional approval, and it would -10-03 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 82 be approved and I would be authorized to sign it only after the County Attorney had reviewed it for legal sufficiency in view of the issues raised by Commissioner Nicholson. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right. JUDGE TINLEY: You're not going to correct me? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, 'cause that's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, counselor -- I mean Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion on the floor to approve it as submitted, the arr_endment under 2.2. Do I -- do I hear a second? (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: There being no second, that action dies for lack of a second. We'll move on to Item 2.3 -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can have an additional motion on that item. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would make a motion that we approve the amendment, but delete all provisions related to Tetra Tech at this time until that issue is resolved. -10-03 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 83 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded that the amendment as presented be approved, with the deletion of all references to "Tetra Tech," motion being made by Commissioner Letz and having been seconded by Commissioner Williams. Is there any discussion on that item? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It sounds like a compromise that might help us move along, but I'd have to ask, who's going to sign for the consultant? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Groves is named in it as the authorized vice president, authorized to perform services and so forth, based on the dates of the old contract. MR. MOTLEY: That's who Mr. Kaviani advised me is the responsible party when I talked to him the other day. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we could assume, then, Mr. Groves would sign on behalf of the that. That's what Kamran said. I asked him who is the person who would have the authority to sign on behalf of Tetra Tech, and he said Mr. Groves. And I said, "Is he the president?" He said, "No, he's the vice president." So, that's what I put in that document. All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it seems to me if -10-03 84 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 delete the references to Tetra Tech, then the agreement's with Groves and Associates, and they -- Groves and Associates needs to come back to us and show that they're Tetra Tech. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? 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. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't believe it. JUDGE TINLEY: If you would modify the -- the amendment, Mr. Motley, to delete all references to Tetra Tech. MR. MOTLEY: Go ahead and go with Groves? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Groves and Associates. That's who our agreement's with right now, until we resolve this. That's the only changes you want to put in there. We can date it, but leave -- it's okay to leave in the money, the date, and the reference to the other two parts of the contract? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what was approved. 2-10-03 85 1 ~-- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,..._ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. MR. MOTLEY: Do you want me to try to get a document to that effect to you before the end of the meeting today? JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that it's critical, from my standpoint. MR. MOTLEY: I just said if you want it, I can probably get it for you. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that it's critical, Mr. Motley, but -- MR. MOTLEY: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: The motion that was approved was to delete all references to Tetra Tech. MR. MOTLEY: I'll do it. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Let's move on to 2.3, consider and discuss and take appropriate action on amendments to intergovernmental agreement between Kerr County and Upper Guadalupe River Authority to reflect agency name changes, contract numbers, professional engineering company name change, and amount of U.G.R.A. cash matching funds, removal of Paragraph 6 as shown on the amendment attached to the agreement, and the name change -- changes on the signature page. I assume that's T.C.D.P. to O.R.C.A. We don't have Tetra Tech in this one, do we? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we don't. 2-10-03 86 1 ~" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TUCKER: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure Mr. Tucker or Mr. Hartzell needs to address this one. MR. TUCKER: I just got this about 20 minutes ago. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This has to do with the County Attorney and Mr. Mosty and U.G.R.A. MR. MOTLEY: Really, Richard had asked for something that I did not provide him, which was a red-line version, to kind of show what changes that I had made. Mr. Williams had asked for certair_ changes, and I think we had accomplished them. I sent a copy to Richard, and he looked it over and had some -- he attempted -- I think he was out of town most of last week, and he attempted to make the changes that we were requesting, and so I redid a copy and sent it over to Richard. And I really think we've not had a long time to sit down and talk specifically about these changes. I was going through the contract just as we were speaking and marking the -- the amendments I made. I could sit down with Richard, maybe, briefly and explain it, if y'all want to move this agenda item just a couple down the road a little bit. I can show him the changes that I made, so it might help move that along a little bit. MR. MOSTY: We -- we started exchanging redrafts Wednesday of last week, I think. And the latest -- 2-10-03 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 87 this one I got over the weekend, and I've looked at it and the Grantworks folks have looked at it, and we've named everybody generically. We've taken out the Tetra Tech/ Groves question; we've just named them as an entity. I looked at -- at David's, and the substantive issues of correcting a -- there was a little conflict in supervision. There was a bidding question of whether the County had authority. We've deleted that entirely. And I think that I am comfortable with this. We still need to look at a couple of things, so my suggestion would be that if the County sees fit to approve it, why don't you approve it subject to any comments that Mr. Motley -- nonsubstantive-type wording, and then we can submit it to U.G.R.A. on the 19th and we can get -- we can put this to bed. And if there's -- and if -- and if U.G.R.A. or I have some substantive issue, then David can bring it back to you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you comfortable with that, Mr. Motley? MR. MOTLEY: Yes. And Richard's seen exactly what the changes were. I'd say there may be a few more changes, but what we were trying to do was to take out from this document -- we were trying to make it a document where it would be used on an as-needed basis, as opposed to prospectively saying these two subcontractors or professional consultants are the contractor. We took that -io-o3 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 88 out, made reference -- instead of Tetra Tech, I think we're calling it a project engineering consultant, generic term, and the project administrative consultant, which is a term pretty much just kind of coined, for somebody who is serving currently in the role of Grantworks. And those would be Grantworks currently. And we thought, by doing that -- and I think that the requirements of the grant require that we would go out each and every time we're seeking those grant funds, and by RFP or similar methods, we would seek to get the consultants approved on a case-by-case basis, rather than having one document sort of preapproving them. That's the only real objection that I had had. We had made a couple of changes about, as Richard says, the bidding. The Commissioners Court is the one ultimately to award the bid, and no majority vote and everything. And I really believe that was an oversight that that was ever put in here. I think it was something that was straightened out last time. Anyway, I think I'm boring the Commissioner, Commissioner Baldwin over there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's just worried about lunch, that's all. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, you're not boring me. MR. MOTLEY: Okay. All right. I don't mind. In any event, that's really the changes I sought to -10-G3 89 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 accomplish by amending the contract. And I -- I actually -- in reading over it, you know, I'm never really completely happy with anything. I do see a couple of typos in here, but I can get that straightened out if y'all want to act on this now, or if you want to wait a few minutes. You know, whatever your pleasure is on this. I think it's pretty adequate. We added some definitions that weren't in there. Other than that, there's really not a whole lot we did, other than do away with any reference to future projects, if anyone wants to use this as a template for other projects in the grants as they come up. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Mr. Motley, the -- the one which you've provided us, final DM2703, from a legal sufficiency standpoint, is that -- oh, okay. Okay. That format is acceptable to you to move forward on? MR. MOTLEY: There -- there are a few little typos in there, but other than that, the format is fine. JUDGE TINLEY: And that's acceptable with you, Mr. Mosty? MR. MOSTY: It is tentatively acceptable. JUDGE TINLEY: I understand when we -- MR. MOSTY: In my first review of it, I haven't found anything that substantively changed. There's some changes in wording, but I didn't -- I think they're okay, so my recommendation would be that -- that if it meets -10-03 90 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 with y'all's approval, that y'all go ahead with it, and hopefully I won't come up with something in my -- when I leave here. JUDGE TINLEY: Of course, we all know that on future contracts that are not yet before us, we're going to have to take those on an as-presented basis, and that this one would -- would be in place for Contract Number 722411, that we do not, according to my understanding, have an interlocal agreement on at this time; is that correct? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. MR. MOTLEY: I don't know those actually by Number 721075, 722411. I don't know which one of those does or does not have -- I know there was one agreement that I came across. JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whichever came first, we have the interlocal for. Whichever came second, we don't have the interlocal for. MR. TUCKER: 721 has an interlocal right now. The 721 number has the interlocal. MR. MOSTY: The lower number has the interlocal. MR. TUCKER: The lower number. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, this would put us in a position of having in place an interlocal for both -10-03 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 91 grants which are funded and the work is underway? MR. MOSTY: That's correct. And then -- and then any future ones would have to go through the same thing y'all have been talking about this morning, contracts and all that. MR. MOTLEY: Well, actually, you know, I -- I question whether this is going to take care of the 722411 arrangement. I think we may need to do something separate for that. If -- if the idea was to go ahead and incorporate that second grant into this, that was not my intention in working on it, but I can -- we can do that. Or we can have a separate agreement for that second grant. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The first "Whereas" has both contract numbers in it. MR. MOTLEY: I know. It says that they've already been done. At the time I did this, I thought that there was a separate agreement of approval for 722411. I was not aware until after I drafted this that there was not an interlocal agreement pertaining to that. I thought this was -- the first one was either global as to both of them, or that it was a separate agreement as to each one. I didn't realize there was another agreement for 722411 when I drafted this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- okay. So, we have a -- there's no work started on the 722 one yet; is 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 92 that right? MR. TUCKER: Construction-wise, correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: When is the work contemplated to begin on that? MR. TUCKER: The engineer expects to advertise for bids in the spring, so we could be proceeding with construction as early as early summer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on that timetable, I don't see that -- I mean, I don't see why we don't -- and I agree with David, that based on the way I would read it, we were kind of looking at more of a template today. I think we need to get one contract that has all the blanks filled in for the 722 agreement before us and vote on that, and then at -- you know, if, by chance, that agreement, you know, satisfies us for future agreements, that's good. But I don't see that we can approve a template for a specific contract. I think -- I mean, I think it's basically -- I think we need to come back one more time. MR. MOTLEY: I think it would probably -- in order to have an interlocal agreement on 722411, we probably -- we might be able to amend the original interlocal agreement on 721075 and expand it to cover both. We could probably do that, although nobody really likes amendments much today. So -- but we can do whatever y'all pretty much want to do on this. We can have a separate 2-10-03 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 93 agreement for the second grant. We can draft this agreement that I have to incorporate the grant -- I think probably what Commissioner Letz is saying, the intent of this document was to create a document to be used in the future as a template form. I didn't realize that we were going to try to put the second grant into this, so I apologize for that if I had a misunderstanding, but I will -- in an effort to expedite -- MR. MOSTY: Might I say something? This thing's taken on a life of its own. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has. MR. MOSTY: The purpose of this was to try to correct one agreement, rather than having four each time something came out. We've now drafted five or six. My suggestion is that if we do one for -- for 722441 -- 411, let's do that, and then I'll have it on the word processor, and next time you just do a new interlocal under each of them, have four interlocals, four agreements. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In an effort not to use any more of the Court's time, I'm going to withdraw this one, and also acting under the assumption that winning two out of three is not bad, and we'll come back another day. Thank you both, gentlemen. And thank you, Eric and Dave, for taking your time to come down here. Have a safe trip to -10-03 1 ^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .-,. 2 4 25 94 Galveston. JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate it, gentlemen. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is 2.4, and we do have some -- some speakers who have signed up for this, that item being consider the preliminary plat of Stablewood Springs -- excuse me? MS. SOVIL: You need to go back to the 10:30 one and vote on that. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Sovil. I appreciate that. Mrs. Sovil has reminded me of my earlier statement that we were going to go back to the 10:30 time-specific item before we took any action. It's now after 10:30, and that being the case, I will recall Item 2.12, consider and discuss and take appropriate action on Mutual Aid Agreement by and between Kerr County and Alamo Area Council of Governments to set up suitable arrangements for furnishing mutual aid in coping with disasters. Do you have anything further on that, Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. If no one wants to speak on it, Judge, I'll offer a motion to approve the Mutual Aid Agreement as presented. JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anybody present who -- who's filled out a request to participate on this -LO-03 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 item that hasn't made it up here, or who otherwise wants to be heard on that item? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mark, do you have any comments you want to make on this issue? MR. BEAVERS: No. My name's Mark Beavers, Training Chief, Kerrville Fire Department. I was here to listen to Ms. Sanchez; I thought she was going to be here to speak. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She was. She has. She's gone. MR. BEAVERS: Okay. And -- no, I don't have any comments at this time from the fire department, City of Kerrville position. And so -- JUDGE TINLEY: We have an information package, sir, that she presented to us, and we'll be happy to provide you with a copy of it, if you've not already received one, so that you can review it. MR. BEAVERS: I believe I have that. Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anybody else that desires to be heard on that action? Okay. Commissioner Williams, you were in the process of offering a motion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did offer a motion, based on the filing of the agenda item, Judge, and authorize County Judge to sign same. -i0-03 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 96 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Williams and Nicholson, respectively, that we approve the Mutual Aid Agreement between Kerr County and Alamo Area Council of Governments for suitable arrangements for furnishing mutual aid, coping with disasters, and authorize County Judge to sign the same. Is there any further discussion or comments? There being none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next item, and now I will bring it up, is 2.4, consider preliminary plat, Stablewood Springs Ranch Subdivision in Precinct 4. This shows it being the County Engineer and Mr. Domingues and Mr. Jackson. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, your list of -- I have a letter here to the Commissioners Court from you, and you have listed six concerns. Is number one and number -- MR. JOHNSTON: Just observations, reviewing the plat. 2-10-03 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You've listed six observations. Is one and four the same? Is that the same -- what's the difference between one and four? It has to do with ingress/egress. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, let's go through that. I think their main -- the main entrance to the subdivision is off of Cardinal Hill Road, and it shows it on your plat coming down actually through some non -- non-platted area. It turns into Stablewood Springs Drive West and it goes up to the right-hand side of the plat, and that's where actually the subdivision begins. Whereas, on the other road, Maybee Drive West comes through Bumble Bee Subdivision through an existing road, and there's a gate across the road there, and then that also enters the subdivision on the left-hand side. So, there are two different entrances to the -- to the subdivision, or potential entrances. They probably prefer one over the other, but that -- they have access through those two different ways. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your question was should the area between Cardinal Hill Road and the subdivision be a part of the subdivision? MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. As it is now, that's not part of the subdivision. The area from -- shows the road is actually traversing across an unplatted area until it gets over to the -- to the subdivision. There's a -10-03 98 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 considerable amount of road there that's not in the subdivision, which would traverse that by an easement instead of a right-of-way, and then it enters a subdivision where it has a designated right-of-way. It ties back into that Bumble Bee Hills where it also has a County road there. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is Maybee Drive West in Bumble Bee Hills a county road? MR. JOHNSTON: It is a county road. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But you said it was gated? MR. JOHNSTON: On the other side it's county road. It's not on this -- not on the present side, but on the other side it's county road. It stops at the gate there, before it gets to the gate. Gate's not locked, by the way. I think it's just a -- a pipe that goes across the road. It's a non-lock type gate. JUDGE TINLEY: That's coming from Bumble Bee Drive, you're saying? MR. JOHNSTON: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- okay. MR. JOHNSTON: I think it's called Maybee Drive on the plat. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Frank, could you -- MR. JOHNSTON: That was the question I had, is whether or not we can access the subdivision by way of an 2-10-03 99 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 easement; that in the past we've always had a subdivision -- a right of way actually tied into a county or state or public road. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I certainly would be uncomfortable with an easement, just right off the top of my head, without discussing it with you or -- I mean, what -- what would become -- MR. JOHNSTON: I'm sure you'll get the answer to these questions from the next speaker, but that was my -- my way of throwing it out to maybe get an answer. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a great question. I have the same question. I think it's a good question. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question, can you tell me a little bit -- this is not the typical subdivision that we've looked at ordinarily. Can you kind of explain the concept, or would you rather have Mr. Domingues or somebody else -- Mr. Jackson or somebody, I mean -- MR. JOHNSTON: Probably David would be a better spokesman on that. I know this is a -- the first condominium/subdivision combination that we've ever had in Kerr County, so -- in the past I think there have been, of course, subdivisions and there have been condominium projects. This one's kind of combined into one. And the 2-10-03 100 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 other items, I guess, are self-explanatory. The -- part -- part of the area inside the -- this ownership is in another subdivision; it's in Bumble Bee subdivision, Lots 49 -- 45 through 49. So, if they were to be incorporated into this subdivision, there would have to be an abandonment, replat, and simply excluding -- you know, they're presently excluded, but they're on the left-hand side there as you see the part I'm talking about. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then this issue of the floodplain being shown on the plat on one side of the creek, and -- MR. JOHNSTON: Shown on one side. In previous renditions of this plat, it was shown on both sides. He -- they claim that that's not part of the subdivision now over on the other side, but that probably should be shown on there to see what the extent is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- yeah. I just -- probably Mr. Jackson's best. I think it's an interesting concept. I think it's a good concept. I mean, it's just that it's different, and I do share the concerns you have about the easement. And I guess the -- maybe I ought to ask the question, you know, as to why the road runs along the edge of the subdivision rather than inside the subdivision. I mean, I could possibly see the beginning 2-10-03 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 portion, but it runs all the way along the outside edge, it appears, and that seems odd to me, his rationale and reason behind that. Maybe he can answer that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're talking about Stablewood Springs Drive? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: I'll also point out, so far I haven't -- haven't received the flood test -- flood study -- the drainage study. I don't think I received that. AUDIENCE: I faxed them twice. MR. JOHNSTON: Maybe we have them in the file. I just didn't run across them, but I've been out there several times during construction and looked at the road, and I think it's well-built. But there will be some testing on the final base, and then the -- at the time they pave it, you know, we'll check that. But we haven't received that, of course, yet. And Number 5 was supplied by the surveyor. I think these lots are all separated; they have horse trails between them. And the particular Units 11 and 12 are -- I think there's a contemplated buyer that doesn't want them separated or something, so that's what that is. May have been a provision of the condominium. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, going back to your conversation with the lady in the rear of the room right quick, she had faxed you what? The road base test? 2-10-C3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 MR. JOHNSTON: That would be compaction test. AUDIENCE: I have them right here where I faxed them, if they want. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the drainage? MR. JOHNSTON: Drainage study, we haven't received yet. It's still being worked up. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. JOHNSTON: My understanding. MR. JACKSON: My turn? Thanks, Franklin. I'm David Jackson, 820 Main, Kerrville, on behalf of the applicant, to address the history, perhaps, as the -- in answer to Commissioner Letz. We got preliminary plat approval for a larger number of units encompassing all of the property. My client decided to do two things; to reduce the size of the development, both in the area covered, as well as the number of units, and also to go to a condominium concept. We appeared before the Court sometime in December, I recall, as to the key issue of whether or not a condominium is or is not within your rules. That debate aside, we said at the time we'll come in with a compliance to the extent that we can, but try to adapt that to a condominium setting. There are other condominiums in the county. I don't know that anybody other than my client is going through this process, but that's 2-10-03 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fine. Your rules are, to me, established, and my client agrees with that approach to be sure that certain key elements are satisfied. A drainage study is one of them. We don't have it in, so your approval today would have to depend upon that being submitted and the County Engineer approving it. We want the roads to be up to standards. The tests have been done. There's still some additional work that would need to be done. So, I think what I'm here today to say is, my approach and suggestion to the Court is that if we do a condominium, that you approve this map, and that that map be incorporated into the condominium document, which is recorded, which becomes the legal definition of a unit for the purposes of completing a deed, loan work, and so forth. And that that document, which is of record here in the courthouse, also be provided to Frank so that he has it, and that we not have a conventional recording of the plat. But that's a distinction without any real purpose, meaning we know we have to -- to get your approval, and we're willing to do that. And we also know that we're going to record something, but we can debate exactly how we record it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, on the -- are there restrictions somewhere that the total number of units are 12 -- 15, 16 units? Seventeen? MR. JACKSON: Seventeen units. And the -1G-03 104 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 restrictions would be under the Condominium Act. We have a -- Texas has a Uniform Condominium Act. It has various requirements. In fact, some are mandatory, some are not. But the point being, that's where you'll find these units and this configuration tied down. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And the -- the property outside of the units is the common area? That's owned by -- MR. JACKSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the condominium association? MR. JACKSON: Correct, and that's one of the concepts that's different than a conventional subdivision. Common areas in a conventional subdivision, so-called property owners' association approach, the common area is owned by an association itself. Here, each of these owners, by the very definition of the condominium, own an undivided interest in the common area that's within the dark blue line of the condominium project. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The road issue, how -- the roads are not part of the condominium? MR. JACKSON: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How are those maintained? MR. JACKSON: We prepared a document that's a dedication document that would make it clear that the 2-10-03 105 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 condominium owners have the access, which is the very essence of why you require any of this. Secondly, that the road be maintained. Third, that it's understood it's a private road, so that the County does not -- in fact, I copied it right out of what you require on the plat, that it can't become a public road that's maintained by the County unless and until -- the same language. There's been discussions about being served by an easement. First, from the logic point of view, the only reason that you, it seems to me, have a rule about access is to be sure that the people who have a unit, a lot, whatever it may be, have access to the property. It's valid, enforceable, no questions asked. There are probably different methods by which you accomplish that. You could have a fee simple title. You could have a dedication. You could have a simple easement. All of that adds up to, in my mind, a legal conclusion that access is afforded to the public road. Maybee Drive does provide access, so technically that is -- that particular requirement is met, but I think that's a little misleading. That is not where the main entrance is, and I don't want the Court nor anybody to be misunderstood about that. While that may technically be in compliance, I think it's more appropriate to consider where are people really going to come in and out, and that's out to Cardinal Drive. That's where the gate is. The -10-03 106 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 access through Maybee is available, but it's not going to be used. In fact, that would be a little hard on the residents in Bumble Bee if everyone comes in and out that way. I think they probably prefer, like has been happening, to go out the other way. Frank's comment Number 1 says that it's served by an easement. Technically, it's going to be a dedication, but those are lots of words that don't add up to very much, and I think you need to be furnished with a document. I prepared it, and I can either submit it to David or to Frank or to the Court, however you want to do that, but it's going to unequivocally, without reservations, say that that road is available for those residents and they'll maintain that road. Now, it does go through private property, which is my client's property, and he wants to retain all of that property, so he'll also retain the use of that road in common with them. But that doesn't mean they don't have it, and it will be clear that it can't be -- with exception of the gated -- the entrance, it can't be gated or constructed in any way. Sixty foot wide, complies with your regulations. That's important; you don't want to narrow. Then he makes the comment that we never allowed a subdivision by an easement. And I'm involved in a lot of different projects, so this morning I spent some time and I pulled some plats, and I'm happy to present these to -10-03 107 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 you, but let me just cover three that are accessed by a private easement, not even a dedication. And, again, I'm not sure there's a distinction, but maybe there is. The Horizon is serviced by an easement, and the plat shows that. And, again, I can show that if you want. The Grotto Springs sitting out behind Whiskey Canyon, and it's also served by dedicated easement; I pulled that instrument. I've tried to make sure that my document does at least what they did, if not more. Then the other one that I found that, from memory, I looked at again is Twin Springs, and I think I represented the developer in that one. I think I came to the court. And it, too, has a document that provides access across somebody else's property. It's not tied to a -- a county, public maintained, or highway. I think there are others. And I think that this particular -- if you would approve this particular approach, it would be no different than what we've done in a lot of other instances. But let's apply logic. What would be the difference in owning property all the way out to the public road, or -- if I'm an owner, or having a document that says, no ifs, ands, buts, and wherefores, I have access to my property? I think it adds up to the same thing. And in each of those other instances, there are other people who are using some of those roads. That's one of the reasons why I think they -10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108 were created as an easement or a dedication. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- you know, this -- I haven't spent a great deal of time thinking about this, but I tend to agree with you. I mean, I think that the preference is to have it a deeded right-of-way, but I don't think there's a requirement in our rules to that effect. And I'm -- you know, we do have -- I'm sure there's many, many people in the county that get access through various types of easements, so I don't guess it's a big issue. It just it seems a little -- you know, more of a question as to why, as opposed to can you. MR. JOHNSTON: I know clients want to retain the ownership of that property subject to that dedicated easement, dedicated right-of-way, 60 foot. That's the reason. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, what if he sells that to someone, and then some morning that new owner gets up and says, "Well, I don't want this easement here any longer"? MR. JACKSON: COMMISSIONER MR. JACKSON: you -- if you do a document cannot take an adverse posi COMMISSIONER Legally impossible. BALDWIN: I don't know -- No, I will give you that. If and you record it, that owner Lion. BALDWIN: Okay. That is the -10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~^ 2~ 25 109 point that I want the County Attorney to sell to us. MR. JACKSON: Fair question. And there shouldn't be any hesitation in his conclusion that if you -- if you have a dedicated right-of-way, just as in all these other situations, that that's true. Not that we should go into all these other subdivisions, but I'm now representing The Horizon homeowners' association, and I've just reviewed it from that point of view. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. MR. JACKSON: And there is no question that that document -- that particular access road that they drive in every day can't be cut off. And, as a lawyer, I tell you that, but I realize I'm not your lawyer. David will have to tell you that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that can be worked out between now and final plat approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, from my standpoint. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't think we're asking David on the spot to give us -- maybe you were. MR. JACKSON: No. No, that would be unfair. But I accept that challenge, and I think it's a fair question, and I think I can satisfy the County Attorney that 2-10-03 1 -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 110 that's true. JUDGE TINLEY: He's the man you got to satisfy, and you understand that. MR. JACKSON: Absolutely. That's fair. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Jackson? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: From the point of view of a unit owner, a purchaser of one of these lots, what -- what is the distinction between a conditional subdivision with common areas and a condominium subdivision? MR. JACKSON: In this setting, it's probably only that each of those unit owners own an undivided interest, actual undivided interest in all of that common area, as opposed to that common area being in a property owners' association. There is another distinction that, simply stated, there is no law about property owners' associations. There's a property owners' association protection act, but it's got some limitations; it's not very broad. Legislature tried to get into this area a lot in a conventional subdivision. The Condominium Act -- the Uniform Condominium Act, the new act, so-called, for the last five years, really builds in a lot of protections to the owners as to key issues: Repairing in the event of casualty, payment of taxes, insurance protections. There's some things under the Condominium Act that you've got to -lo-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 file a budget, you've got to file management, you've got to tell the owner of a condominium prospectively a lot more information than you do in a conventional setting. Now, ironically, the approach here for our purposes is, that's a preferred approach. That's an approach that some folks will view as an improvement, perhaps, in a conventional setting. You can debate that all day long, but that's -- that's my take on why there is a difference and why there are two different -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What was the developer's motivation to -- to change from traditional to the condominium? MR. JACKSON: He believes that the condominium concept is more marketable. My client has done another condominium and feels comfortable with what all that means. It's not in this area; it's in Houston. And feels like that that's a concept that seems to ring truer with the concept of each owner buying into an entire property, not just their little unit. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Overall, my comment -- I mean my questions are not at all negative towards. I'm exited about the -- I think this is a -- when we wrote -- or did our last revision of the Subdivision Rules, this was the direction we were trying to point the rules to. Based on this deleting the word "condominium" at one point, kind of -10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 112 make it a more encompassing -- that word probably needs to go back, and make some adjustments to cover that. But I think this is a -- you know, a good direction -- area of direction that I would like to see the County going, where we have more common areas and not quite the high density development that we've had in some of the other subdivisions. And there is a -- I don't know how many -- what's the total number of acres? JUDGE TINLEY: 144. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 144. So you can -- you could have more units. MR. JACKSON: And we did at one time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're putting in less, you know, number of units on it. Central water system? MR. JACKSON: Bumble Bee, yeah. You approved the last one based upon the Bumble Bee availability. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it will be the same? MR. JACKSON: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER well, the community water s condominium -- Same deal, right. LETZ: Individual septics? WILLIAMS: Right. LETZ: And both of those work ystem will work with the 25 ~ MR. JACKSON: Right. c- l U- U 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 25 113 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- format. I presume the septic -- MR. JACKSON: Right, same issue. To the extent a particular area -- we think that the septics can be sited on each of those units properly, but they'll also have an easement if it needs to encroach upon this large common area, to be clear that the drain field or whatever -- those regulations are what they are, and we'll comply with those. We understand that. Now, the water system design's a little better, if anything. With less units, there would be a little better pressure, because it's the same system that's serving Bumble Bee, and there will be some additional things done, but served by the same well, the same capacities and so forth. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the right-of-way -- or the, I guess, dedications are all 60 foot? MR. JACKSON: Yes. Yes. In fact, Charles and I were just talking. I've got the document; I thought perhaps you might want to try to do that today. That's a little unfair. I think you've said go to the County Attorney, and I accept that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my final comment would be -- on this is that the -- and I'm sure you're aware of this. To me, the drawback for doing the dedication route versus the other is that if, at some point, the association -1G-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 wanted to turn those roads over to the County, there would be -- it would not be as easy as if it was a deeded right-of-way. You could just turn the right-of-way over. It may be -- it might be okay. MR. JACKSON: And that's a good point, but the document does -- or should give them a right to dedicate it to the public. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just more whether the County -- MR. JACKSON: And it's -- you know, if you look through it, a properly drawn document should -- should make clear the maintenance issues, the fact that it's unobstructed, unless everybody approves, that it's dedicated. The owners may want all those needs to be in the document. Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, one other comment. And on the -- for final plat approval, remember that we -- there will be the requirement from T.N.R.C.C. to declare -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There will be all the other -- the drainage and all the other stuff. MR. JACKSON: Right. And I think if we don't finish the roads, we need a Letter of Credit, those sort of things. Right, I understand. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Floodplain. 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 115 MR. JACKSON: We can locate the floodplain; that's fine. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about this part -- and there is, I guess, the question of Commissioner Letz about Lots 45 through 49 being in another subdivision. MR. JACKSON: It's not in our subdivision. It's not in the condominium -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, nothing's going on there? MR. JACKSON: Actually, you can't build on them. Well, let me address that. That's fair. You can't build on them; it's in the floodplain. Be a mistake to build on them, anyway. In order to replat or vacate those, you have to go through the process of making sure that you don't adversely affect anybody else in the subdivision in which you're located. And, quite a long time ago, before this ever happened, there was some discussion about that. The leadership of the Bumble Bee association said, "We would prefer that you not vacate that," 'cause they want the assessments from those lots. They can't be built on anyway, and so my clients said, "Okay, we'll sit there." There was some discussion about trying to prepay a large number of assessments to get them vacated, and said that doesn't make much sense. We'll just leave them where they are, what they are. And it's not -- when we record the condominium -10-G3 1 --- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 116 document, they will not be in that condominium document. If you look at the dark blue line, it's not in there. Right, that heavy line. JUDGE TINLEY: That's all the questions of Mr. Jackson? We had two citizens who -- in addition to Mr. Jackson that signed up to speak on this issue. The first one that was presented to me was Catherine Fox. Ms. Fox? MS. FOX: Thank you. My name is Catherine Fox. I'm a native of Kerr County, having lived the majority of my life on a hill situated directly below the proposed development here, and south of Unit 16 and 17, as designated on your plat. From 1995 to the present, this parcel of property, in various forms, has appeared before this Court a total of four times for preliminary plat. The concerns of my family and neighbors, who either have already been or may very well in the future be adversely impacted by continued development at the current site, remain. While I am encouraged by the reduction of sites to 17 in comparison to previous plats which proposed higher density, hydrology, density, and also their corollary relationship still remain serious issues. Sites are cleared and unpaved roads in place. These alterations alone have proven their impact on neighboring properties in the October 2000 and July 2002 floods, as well as in other lesser rainfall events. -ic;-u3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 117 The addition of homes on the sites and the paving of roads in the future will further affect stormwater runoff, as well as drainage impact from the common areas designated on this plat, if they were to be made with changes. Direction, velocity, volume, frequency of flooding, and damage concerns remain. Our real property and riparian creek lands are at stake. The proposed property site presents itself as a very unique topographic challenge with preexisting factors which make its hydrology complex, the most important and obvious being this parcel's stormwater runoff sheds rapidly onto downhill existing homes and properties, many of which are located directly beside a creek, known as Bumble Bee Creek. The runoff then travels under Highway 39, less than a mile away, at two separate locations. One of these locations is directly beside Highway 39 and my family's private entrance at the confluence of Bumble Bee Creek and the Guadalupe River. The other location is directly beside a point where a county road, Highway 39, and a private drive all meet. Serious adverse impact issues exist, therefore, to both private and public access properties, and this should be carefully analyzed. A professional hydrology study and strict enforcement of county subdivision drainage rules are imperative, as well as adherence to all T.C.E.Q. guidelines 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ._.. 2 4 25 118 with regard to on-site sewage facilities, et cetera. No variances concerning these issues should be considered for responsible development to materialize with this project. If the Court will kindly indulge me for a moment, when the previous plat appeared before this Court one year ago, on February 11, 2002, Judge Tinley and Commissioner Nicholson, respectively, were not on board. Therefore, I wish to recount a few comments. Franklin Johnston stated then, "There is a concern about drainage." He also referred to the post-development runoff rule, which is of utmost concern to myself and other neighboring property owners. Commissioner Letz, quote: "Our Subdivision Rules will require that very strict standards be met regarding runoff." "I can assure the public that we will do everything we can within our rules to protect other property owners in the area," unquote. Commissioner Baldwin stated that he grew up near the area -- excuse me. Commissioner Baldwin then stated, quote: "I will assist our Engineer's office in any way I can to provide intense scrutiny to runoff and drainage issues. I think, on this particular issue, the County should require the developer to dot every I and cross every T before coming back into this courtroom," end quote. Commissioner Williams, quote: "We will look very carefully at the hydrology issues, the runoff issues, to make certain 2-10-03 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there is not corollary damage to other people's property. That's important." End quote. Finally, Judge Henneke closed with, quote: "Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the preliminary plat of Stablewood Springs Ranch in Precinct 4, subject to comments by the Road and Bridge Department, particularly of the emphasis upon hydrology concerns and study for that property," end quote. Therefore, having briefly reviewed the Court's previous stand on the previous plat submitted with regard to hydrology issues, I submit to the Court respectfully that this plat is basically more or less the same, and therefore warrants the same attentions. I implore you to weigh this into account before making any motion. Anything less than a detailed, well-planned development that factors in its hydrologic impact on myself and other existing neighbors is unacceptable to us. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody here on the Court have any questions of Ms. Fox? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Fox? JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you -- excuse me. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one. If -- if all of the T.C.E.Q. and the county rules are complied with, without any variances, will that satisfy your concerns? MS. FOX: Well, yes and no. I mean, I am -10-03 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not, and I want to make this perfectly clear, as you can see by the form that I filled out, against the development. I simply want us to be protected from flooding, erosion, et cetera, et cetera. And, therefore, we've got to see a hydrology study. We've got to have time to review it ourselves before it -- you know, final plat, which I understand we will have that right. But we've just got to have every single one, Section 5.06, A through E, with drainage met. I mean, we were here first. We're bottom of the hill. And I assure you that if you were in the same position, you would be a little concerned, too. And that's basically what this all revolves around, are water issues. We don't have any issues with any other things. And, of course, we're pleased that it's a high class development. You know, that's wonderful. But I think that the Court really needs to look at the hydrology issues, especially the correlation between the density and the hydrology, because if you were to look at a U.S.G.S. map of the topography, you would realize that that common area has to be there, because it would be virtually impossible in some of those places to put a home. If you did, you'd be parallel to mudslides in California on hillsides when it -- when it rained. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Appreciate your 2-10-U3 1 .-. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 121 comments, Ms. Fox. Mary Hart Frost. You signed up to speak on this item. MS. FROST: I did. And I have copies of my statement for you and for each of the Commissioners. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Do you want to just take them MS. FROST: Just pass them across, yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners and Judge Tinley. I know all of you, and I'm privileged to be able to have a chance to make my statement before you. My name is Mary Hart Frost. My husband and I are owners of a home on Lots 27 and 28 in the Bumble Bee Hills Subdivision along Bumble Bee Creek. I also share ownership of property with my cousins at Pleasure Hill, which is a family development established in the 1920's. Both of these properties abut the proposed Stablewood Springs Ranch Subdivision, and have been and will be further adversely affected by the proposed development. Our Pleasure Hill property has already suffered from runoff flooding in homes located there due to the removal of a substantial amount of cedar and underbrush during the road building and home site preparation phase of the proposed development. A home located on Lot 40 in the Bumble Bee Hills Subdivision also suffered runoff flooding damage in October 2000. Our property will suffer significant additional runoff flooding damage during the continuing ^-i0-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-, 25 122 construction of roads and home sites. The clearing and site development work already done has damaged the natural drainage gully by the county-maintained Pleasure Hill Road that for years has carried the rain runoff to the Guadalupe River under State Highway 39. This natural drainage gully has been eroded by increased rain runoff due to the bare caliche left by the road and site development and the bulldozing and burning of cedar and underbrush. Today I am speaking to concerns for myself and numerous cousins and neighbors who own property at Pleasure Hill and in Bumble Bee Hills. We made a statement to the Commissioners Court one year ago opposing the approval of the proposed preliminary plat for Stablewood Springs Ranch Subdivision. We are pleased to see that the preliminary plat approved by Commissioners Court on February 11, 2002 has been withdrawn. Today you are considering approval of a proposed preliminary plat for the Stablewood Springs Ranch Subdivision. This proposed preliminary plat shows a lower density; 17 home sites instead of 28 home sites in the February 11, 2002 preliminary plat. Also, the acreage of the development has been reduced from approximately 187 acres -- and I thought it was to 160 acres, but they say today that it's 144 acres, with the lake and four decorative ponds being removed from the proposed plat. We are pleased to see that the density 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 has been downsized. This is a positive step towards responsible development. However, the concerns we spoke to the Court about on February 11th, 2002, are the same for the proposed preliminary plat being presented today for your approval: Drainage, pollution of Bumble Bee Creek and the Guadalupe River, erosion of the Bumble Bee Creek creek bed and its riparian lands, water availability, and septic systems. As the Court is aware, Stablewood Springs Ranch Subdivision must provide a professional and comprehensive hydrology study of the rain off -- rain runoff impact of this development on our downhill properties at Pleasure Hill and the Bumble Bee Hills Subdivision. The development must also meet all Kerr County's water availability requirements. This is imperative, as the existing CCN holder, Bumble Bee Hills Water System, currently provides water to our homes. We thank the Court for their prior rulings and request that the Court continue to keep our concerns in the forefront. Any future proposed development that does not address these concerns would be irresponsible development, and therefore simply not acceptable. Thank you for your attention to these important issues with regard to consideration and action for the approval of this or any future proposed preliminary plat submitted by Stablewood Springs Ranch. Do you have any 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 r 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..~ 25 124 questions for me? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Frost, I do have a question. In Paragraph 2 of your statement, you mention that c]earing and site development work already done has damaged the natural drainage gully by the county-maintained Pleasure Hill Road. Am I given to understand by that, that the county-owned right-of-way for Pleasure Hill Road has been adversely impacted, eroded, or otherwise damaged by virtue of what's gone on out there? MS. FROST: Yes, and I have pictures of that. You can see how the gully has eroded toward the road, and it's -- there's a very little space there between the road and the gully dropoff. And that will just increase with further construction, with houses that have roofs that shed off more water. Yes, I am saying that. JUDGE TINLEY: And it's based -- based upon what you've observed living in that area? Are you telling the Court that continued rains will cause continued erosion and deterioration to the county-owned right-of-way and the road itself on Pleasure Hill Road? Is that your belief? MS. FROST: I'm absolutely saying that. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Frost, same question as I had for Mrs. Fox -- Ms. Fox. If the -10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 125 subdivision complies without variances with T.C.E.Q. and Kerr County rules, will that satisfy your concern? MS. FROST: It will satisfy our concerns if we have a review of all the hydrology issues so that we can be convinced that they will no longer -- they will not any more adversely affect our downhill property, which has already been flooded before any homes are built, before the road is paved. All these variables make a huge difference, as you well know, in what the runoff is going to be from this subdivision. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mary, are you talking about an independent review by a professional engineer? Or just a review of the homeowners of the hydrology report when you get it? MS. FROST: We would -- we would review it and then we would, of course, call in someone who was a professional hydrologist to review it for us, because obviously we wouldn't be able to make those determinations without someone who had knowledge. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was the purpose of my question. MS. FROST: Right. Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only comment -- I've talked to Ms. Hart and Ms. Fox numerous times about I think our Subdivision Rules are, you know, putting as much 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-~. 25 126 protection as we can to protect the people in surrounding subdivisions. The reality is that people have the right to do the developments, and our role is that, you know, we require drainage studies and other studies, roads and such, to -- to, you know, protect the residents of the new subdivision and the surrounding area. Anytime you put in a subdivision, there will be an impact. And, you know, it may not be a positive impact. We don't know, even with the drainage study. So, I mean, all I can say is we'll continue to do -- you know, like our rules state, we have drainage studies that are ordinarily strict, and we will follow them. And, you know, the impact -- I mean, we -- as we get more and more floods -- and you've been a longtime resident of the area. Every time we get a flood, things change a little bit, and they're going to continue to change. And whether you have development or not development, you're going to get changes. Creeks are going to change course; rivers change course. The Guadalupe's getting ready to make a huge change of course near Comfort. Is it because of development? Maybe. But development's here, and we have to adjust with that. All we can do is pass rules and require studies that, you know, are reasonable to protect, you know, most of the citizens. MS. FROST: Let me just speak to that a minute. As you know, this has been my little packet for the 2-1G-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 127 last year, trying to understand what your rules cover so that I can speak to this out of -- not out of emotion, but out of regulation. And, obviously, you can imagine, this is a very emotional situation for me. But under Drainage -- I should have that paper -- here it is. Where's the section on drainage? Here it is. Of your Subdivision Regulations, 5.06, Drainage, is very clear about the fact that drainage facilities shall be provided and constructed in accordance with approved plans. Drainage facilities shall be designed to minimize any adverse impact to private property or public right-of-way, either within or outside the proposed subdivision. The post-construction runoff rates at the point of flows leaving the new subdivision shall not exceed the preconstruction peak runoff rate for the 2-, 10-, or 100-year storms, respectively. Provisions must be made to assure that no adverse impact is made to existing drainage systems within public right-of-ways. If you follow these drainage guidelines, we will be protected. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. MS. FROST: If do you not, we will not be protected. JUDGE TINLEY: Based on your comment that you've made to me a bit ago, Ms. Frost -- MS. FROST: Pardon me? JUDGE TINLEY: Based on the statements you 2-10-u3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 128 made to me a moment ago, it's your assertion that -- that the development that has already occurred out there is adversely affecting areas falling within county roads or right-of-ways? MS. FROST: Right. Any other questions? JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions of Ms. Frost? MS. FOX: May I say one thing, please? May I say something? Or I won't if you don't allow me to, obviously. JUDGE TINLEY: We don't want to stifle you. Come forward, Ms. Fox. MS. FOX: Thank you. I think there's a compromise here that I can think of, and I'm not even a hydrologist. But, I mean, with all due respect to the developer and his representation, David Jackson, who has been working very hard on this project for seven years now, with us at his heels the entire time, and being a native of the area and living directly below that hill all of my life and playing all of my childhood life on the developer's property, because my grandparents used to be the caretakers of it, if everyone were to really work hard on this, I think we can make this happen, myself. And I think one of the ways to do that, as I stated before, is to just simply downsize it some more. Now, I know that means dollars and 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-, 25 129 cents to the developer, but the correlation between the number of sites and the hydrology cannot be disputed. It's there. It's never going to go away. And to protect us, and I would think to even increase the beauty of the sites and the privacy and make them just, you know, really special to the type of client who is going to purchase such an expensive property anyway, that would be a way that we could all be happy. Seventeen sites, in my opinion, is just still too much, They may not think so, but that's why we've got to see the hydrology study, because hydrology will dispute or -- I mean, it will either prove or disprove that. Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's the key. Thank you. Okay. What action, if any, do we need to take on Item 2.4? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The action would be -- and it's in Commissioner Nicholson's precinct, but the question I have is, it's a preliminary plat, but it's really not a preliminary plat. But I guess you would term it preliminary plat. I don't know what else we would call it. Preliminary approval of condominium concept is really what it is, but I don't know how we -- I don't know what we do on that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is more the concept -- 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- side of it than a preliminary plat? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not a plat. There's no plat required on a condominium. See, that`s -- that's what David Jackson addressed briefly. They're filing everything, they're following our rules, but it's not -- it doesn't fit the page right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, is there a -- in a condominium situation, is there a final plat? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, there must be in order for them to have a document from which to do their conveyance. There will be a final plat that's placed of record, absolutely. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- JUDGE TINLEY: Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Jackson. Is that not a correct statement? MR. JACKSON: That's correct. It will be attached to the uniform compliance condominium documents as an exhibit, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do we have to do today, then? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think we would approve the condominium plat as presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Concept. _-10-03 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Concept or -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's more than a concept. A concept, as defined in our Subdivision Rules, they're beyond that. MR. JOHNSTON: It's a confusing term. The condominium law, I think, refers to a plat; it says in parentheses, "This is not a subdivision plat." So, they call it the same thing, but it's different. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think preliminary condominium plat, that's what I'd call it. That's what it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you making a motion to COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- it's his precinct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there another step between here and final? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes -- well, final would be the next step. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Final is the next step, so there's not another place to -- for us to have the opportunity to peek to make sure that all the things are being done? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, but they have to be able to -- they have to -- 21 days ahead of time, they have -10-G3 132 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 to get to it Road and Bridge and -- you know, and get all the documentation to it. Isn't it 21 days, Franklin? MR. JOHNSTON: I think it is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Twenty-one days. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that the point where we would see the hydrology study? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Of necessity, I would think -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much time would that allow, for example, for the Bumble Bee homeowners to do their work on it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what would happen, I mean, from a -- assuming, you know, worst case, a lack of cooperation between -- you know, David's shaking his head, but it would be 21 days, we get it on our agenda. If they object and they say they haven't seen it, we don't have to act on it in 21 days. MR. JOHNSTON: That's the final item, isn't it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a minimum -- MR. JOHNSTON: If we need to review it more -- MR. JACKSON: We'll give them a copy at the same time we submit it to Franklin. That's fair. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just because it's on the 2-10-G3 133 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 agenda doesn't mean we have to -- frequently on final plat approval, we haven't approved that. We might say, well, you know, we need to get this. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's key to final approval for the homeowners -- for Bumble Bee people to get a chance to look at it and be satisfied that it meets all the requirements without variances and have time to get that done. So, I'll -- I will make that motion, that we give this preliminary condominium plat approval of Stablewood Springs Ranch. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion is made and seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Letz, respectively, that we give preliminary condominium plat approval of Stablewood Springs Ranch Subdivision. Any further discussion or comments? 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 just lost one member of the Court. It appears that it's going to take us a while to wade through the rest of what we've got to do here, so my suggestion would be that we adjourn and reconvene at 1:15, 1:30. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear. -10-03 134 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: 1:15 -- I mean 12:15. Oh, are you going to go to lunch? MS. SOVIL: 1:30. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I thought you were going to make arrangements for dinner. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, the lunch place is full. We can't even get in. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess until 1:30 p.m. (Recess taken from 12:04 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: All right. It's 1:30 in the afternoon, and we will -- we recessed for lunch shortly after 12:00, so I will call to order and reconvene the regular Commissioners Court meeting originally commenced on Monday, February 10th, at 9 a.m. Looks like we're down to 2.5. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Running right along, aren't we? MS. VAN WINKLE: We're just zipping right along, aren't we? JUDGE TINLEY: Nothing wrong with healthy, complete discussion. Item 2.5, consider and discuss using the Grand Jury list for the Grievance Committee as per Section 152.014(a) of the Local Government Code and 2-1~-03 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 selection of such members, if approved, as per Section 152.015(a) of the Local Government Code. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of the County Clerk. MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, this is something that we're supposed to do every January, except with the election that we just had, it kind of threw me late. In the backup, I have the section where the Grievance Committee comes from, and we have -- y'all have a choice of either selecting the Grievance Committee, being the County Judge as the chairman, the Sheriff, Tax Assessor/Collector, County Treasurer, the Clerk, District Clerk, County Attorney or District Attorney, and then the number of public members necessary to provide nine voting members, or you can take the nine members from the Grand Jury. So, that's the first thing you need to decide. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Historically, we get it from the Grand Jury list, I think. Isn't it eight, plus one? MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or is it nine -- who's a non-voter? MS. PIEPER: Normally we choose 15, just so when I send out letters -- because I have to have replies back, and some of those will reply that they don't want to serve or would rather not, and so therefore we take the z-ie-o3 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 first nine that do accept. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay. That's a good -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Has that worked well in the past? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I don't think we've ever heard from anybody, have we? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I make the motion we keep doing that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Baldwin, respectively, that the Salary Grievance Committee be composed of nine members drawn from the Grand Jury list -- actually, we're going to draw 15, I believe, and -- but it be composed of nine to serve off of those that are drawn, with the County Judge being the chairman of the committee. MS. SOVIL: No. JUDGE TINLEY: As a non-voting member. County Judge is non-voting. MS. SOVIL: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: But merely chairman. It provides for the chairman in Section 152.114. Any further discussion on that? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It also says down 2-10-03 137 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 there that they respond back to you in writing? MS. PIEPER: Yes. I will send all 15 of them a letter, and then normally they'll just call, and then I will make a note of that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says here that they will -- MS. PIEPER: We ask them to respond in writing, but they don't always do that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None. JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. out their name. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now we pick them, right? JUDGE TINLEY: Right now? MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir, and you have to call COMMISSIONER LETZ: To make it quicker, why don't you pick one? to do it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the Judge has 2-10-03 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Arnold Garcia, 132 Montebello Court, Kerrville. Bill Huggins, 521 Oakland Hills, Kerrville. Janice Rochelle Jackson, 317 Mack Hollimon, Kerrville. Gunnar Kramm, K-r-a-m-m, 509 Oakland Hills Lane, Kerrville. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Precinct 1. JUDGE TINLEY: Rebecca Jons, 3231 Cedar Wood COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Precinct 1. JUDGE TINLEY: Anne S. Williamson, 376 Englewood Drive, Kerrville. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Precinct 2. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should be Precinct 1. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Too bad. JUDGE TINLEY: Lois Shaw, 217 Pearl Street, Kerrville. Ronnie Pace, 505 West Creek, Kerrville. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He'll love that. JUDGE TINLEY: Joyce Schupp, H.C.R. 78, Box 230-E, Ingram. George Daniel Boone, 1365 Saddlewood Boulevard, Kerrville. Jack H. Parks, 208 Doris Drive, Kerrville. Charles Browning, P.O. Box 769, Hunt. Mitzi Lee Sprado, 929 Redbird, Kerrville. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Precinct 2. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hmm-mm. JUDGE TINLEY: Stephen Schmerbeck, 1505 2-1U-03 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ridgemont, Kerrville. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is 15. JUDGE TINLEY: Larry Spillman, 129 St. Andrews Loop, Kerrville. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Neighbor. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that 15? MS. PIEPER: That's 15. JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I got. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If he calls me, I'll tell him the Judge did it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, do you bring nine of those people back at some point and -- MS. PIEPER: I will just give a letter to the Judge of which is the first nine that responded, that accepted. COMMISSIONEK BALDWIN: So, they automatically become the committee? MS. PIEPER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that takes care of that item. We now move on to Item 2.6, consider and discuss review of the annual accounts deposited in the court registry, pursuant to the provisions of Article 887(b) of the Texas Probate Code. Ms. Pieper. MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, this is just another thing that we do once a year that I just have to give you a 2-10-03 140 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 report on, and I've attached where I got the code at, which is 887(b) of the Probate Code. And this is a report of each account that we have. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody got any questions? COMMISSIONER LETZ: We accept this? Or -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we accept the annual accounts report as presented by the County Clerk. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioner Letz and Baldwin, respectively, that the Court accept and approve the annual accounts as presented by the County Clerk, as required by the provisions of Article 887 (b) of the Texas Probate Code. Any discussion? 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. We're at Item 2.7. Where's Linda? She's not here. We'll go on to Item 2.8, consider and discuss request for Court approval of the amendments to the contract with the attorney -- no, that's Linda also, isn't it? Let's come on down to 2.9, consider -lo-os 141 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 and discuss approval of new hire position at 12/5. Ms. Rector. MS. RECTOR: Yes. Well, I was very happy to see this lady's application come across my desk, and didn't hesitate to hire her. In the backup letter, she has 15 years experience in tax office and appraisal district work. She has a very strong background in collections. In the appraisal district she came from, they did both appraising and collecting. She worked in Nueces County tax office. She was City Secretary in another county, so she's very, very qualified for the position, and has done voter registration and motor vehicle also, so she's pretty well-rounded. They also had Software Group in Burnett County, where she came from, so she is very familiar with the programs that we have in place already. So, I feel that she should come in at a higher level than a 12/l, since she's so highly-trained and knowledgeable, and just a very, very pleasant person. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paula, what's this do to your budget? MS. RECTOR: The line item is -- that position is already funded for a 12/5, and it's been sitting vacant. I've hired two people since it came open, and both of those have gone on to better paying jobs. So -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So the only thing that -10-03 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we're doing is -- you're asking us to do is to allow you to come in at 12/5 as opposed to 12/1? MS. RECTOR: Right. And that position is already funded at a 12/5. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to approve the new hire position as a 12/5, per the request. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, respectively, that -- that we approve the new hire at the Tax Assessor/ Collector's office to come in at a 12/5 position. Any further discussion? 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. MS. RECTOR: Thank you, gentlemen. JUDGE TINLEY: Where were you? MS. UECKER: In ancther meeting. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We'll go back to 2.7 now, consider and discuss rehiring a former employee as a full-time employee, after having retired on March 20, 2-10-03 143 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 2002, and determine -- and to determine position, step, and grade. MS. UECKER: Basically, I'm -- I'm kind of asking for some direction, in addition to a solution. A 20-year employee of mine retired March of last year. As a result of that, she -- well, as a result of that, in the budget process, I eliminated that 17 position, combined her duties with another staff, and what I did was I eliminated one 17, which created a 13/1. Now I have the opportunity to rehire this person. She's requesting it because her situation didn't quite work out. She's an -- has always been an excellent resource for all of us, 20 years, excellent employee relationship. I mean, good with the other staff, really knew what she was doing. My problem is -- is that she wants to come back full-time, and she realizes that I cannot give her back her 17/9, and that's okay with her, but then I have offered some options down here. Number one is to offer the current position at a 13/1, which would neither be acceptable to myself or to her, I know, or offer it at a 13/13, which would be an annual salary of $24,000, approximately $2,500 less than what she was making before. Now, that may or may not be acceptable to her. It is to me. The other would be to offer a position, and it was -- this is kind of based on a recommendation from the personnel officer. Since I do have 2-10-03 1 ,,,_. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 144 some position 9's -- I mean 15's, to offer that position at a 15/9, which would still be about $2,500 -- a little less than $2,500 more -- less than what she was making. None of those options would do anything to this year's budget. It would, however, affect next year's budget. So, you know, I'm -- I'd be lucky to get this employee back. I really would. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What would it be in next year's budget? What would it be compared to last year's budget? Would it impact next year's because you simply deleted that line? 12 ,.., 13 14 year? 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. UECKER: Yes. Well -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it was there last MS. UECKER: It was there -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or the year before? MS. UECKER: It was there last year. It is not in this year`s budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. MS. UECKER: However, knowing that I was going to have her do some part-time work, purging -- making room, with all the civil and criminal files that we could destroy, I put in enough money in the part-time budget so that she could come in and do that, which she has been doing. In the meantime, she's been working full-time anyway -l0-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 145 at various attorneys' offices. So, based on that, she's made the decision that maybe she should come back full-time, or she really wants to. And she's been wanting to for a while, just didn't have the courage or whatever to ask me. And I finally, you know, jokingly said, "Well, why don't you come back full-time?" And she -- "Can I?" You know. So -- and I think she's acceptable with the -- the lower rate. I mean, we've already talked about that, the lower salary, because she's having to pay the County to keep up her insurance anyway. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. MS. UECKER: So she's losing money there. JUDGE TINLEY: There's only about $500 difference between the last two. MS. UECKER: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: On an annualized basis. MS. UECKER: Right, that is correct. JUDGE TINLEY: As a 15, however, she would have the supervisory role in -- MS. UECKER: Which she would probably, anyway. I would certainly take some of the administrative stuff off of her, like -- well, that's already been done. I've got another person that's doing all of her administrative stuff. She'd still be supervisory, but I would not ask her to do the administrative thing. As a 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .~. 25 146 matter of fact, there's two -- I've taken appeals away from her -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Taken appeal away from her? MS. UECKER: The appellate process to Court of Appeals. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appeals, T see. MS. UECKER: Appealing all those cases, and then judicial reports have gone to someone else. And those -- those are the administrative things that she's been doing for years and years and years. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, can you go back to last budget? And you eliminated the 17/9 and got a new 13 level? Or -- MS. UECKER: No. That one -- because she was retiring -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MS. UECKER: -- that went back to a -- oh, and what I did, rather than putting that position back to a 17/l, I combined those two positions, because we were getting to the point where we had as many chiefs as we had, you know, Indians. So, rather than do that, one, I talked to the other employee that accepted those responsibilities, and I think we got all that worked out real well, and that was the accounting clerk. And then I was going to bring 2-10-03 147 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 another one in, instead of a 17/1, at a 13/1. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you increased -- the other position was a 17 -- not this one; the other position that you combined. I'm trying to make -- I mean, I'm just trying to make sure that we're just not moving numbers around just to meet the needs of an employee. I mean, we shouldn't do that. I mean, if there's -- you know, I know you made some changes based on the retirement, but at the same time, you also get certain levels of her -- part of her job went to somebody else. MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. Her administrative duties were split between two other -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But those -- both of those two got raised, as I recall. MS. UECKER: Not -- not -- no. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were at a 17 or an 18 or whatever? MS. UECKER: Yeah. One of them -- yeah, they were both administrative already in different areas. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MS. UECKER: But, no, they did not get raised. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they were two -- as 17's, and they stayed 17's? MS. UECKER: Well, they were 15's, but then 2-1u-03 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,.-. 25 the Court -- one of the studies raised them up to a 17. But, no, it did not raise -- see, it was a step in grade. Did not raise the step. It did, however, get the grade, I think one grade each. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Linda, if this individual has returned, will her responsibilities be the same as they were when she left, or are they going to be altered to some extent? MS. UECKER: They're going to be altered somewhat in the -- she's not going to have the -- as much of the administrative stuff, because those have been divided between two other staff members. But she will, however, because of her experience, be in a supervisory position. As a matter of fact, I'll probably use her as -- in a training, as well as, you know, the filings and -- she knows how to do everything. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She would be, however, greater than a person put in at 13/1? MS. UECKER: Absolutely. Absolutely, no question. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And my other question is, is there sufficient dollars in your part-time line to offset the difference in the two? MS. UECKER: Yes, there is. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a -10-03 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hypothetical question; I won't drag out of you a yes or no. If we -- if we offered every County employee that had 20 years employment with the county the opportunity to retire and come back to work full-time six months later, would they all take a set? MS. UECKER: I'm sorry, what was the last -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The question is, if you let everybody with 20 years service retire and then come back to work as a full-time employee six months later, would that be attractive? MS. UECKER: Exactly. And that's why I'm not offering her, you know, the 17 step back. You know, she's going to have to go back somewhere to the beginning. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So the only point here is -- is a precedent we can live with. MS. UECKER: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it okay to do this? I don't have the answer. MS. UECKER: And I thought about that. You know, I don't want to make this an encouragement for, you know, someone to retire and then say, okay, I'm coming back, and -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What you're talking about, Commissioner Nicholson, is exactly what the State's doing. 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 150 MS. DECKER: State's doing it big-time. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: State does that intentionally. MS. DECKER: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In sector, there are federal laws, restrictio MS. DECKER: I work on a -- directors, and one gentleman that retired, from the State, and they hired him back in position. the private ~s. You -- a board of full retirement the same COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a safe assumption that she would go off of the pension? MS. DECKER: Yes. Yes, she will lose -- she won't lose that retirement; it will stay in the fund, but she will not continue to draw retirement benefits. Plus, she will have to -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That answers my question. MS. DECKER: She will have to -- she will lose all benefits that she had accumulated at the time she retired, including sick leave, vacation, everything. She'd have to start from Page 1. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's a new hire. MS. DECKER: She's a new hire, as far as that's concerned. The only thing I'm trying to do is be -10-03 151 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 able to get her -- not anywhere near what she was making; she realizes that, but enough that would justify her being a 20-year employee and, you know, knowing everything. JUDGE TINLEY: Question. MS. DECKER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: I can see from the -- from the prior position schedule that you apparently eliminated her position and then brought back a lesser position. MS. DECKER: Exactly. JUDGE TINLEY: Now, my question is, if you back out the cost-of-living increases that have been given -- MS. DECKER: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: -- in the previous year that she was a full-time employee and the next full budget year, would there really be any budget impact between the two? If you do away with the -- the cost-cf-living increases, which is a variable for everybody. MS. DECKER: Do away with those, would there be an impact based on my request for the next full budget year? JUDGE TINLEY: Total personnel costs in your department. MS. DECKER: Total personnel, not including any cost-of-living? 2-10-03 152 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: Yeah. MS. UECKER: Probably a little, yes, sir. Except for the fact that -- well, no, I didn't either. I'm not -- JUDGE TINLEY: You understand where I'm coming from? MS. UECKER: I thought I did, but let's try again. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're going to bring her in -- or you're proposing to bring her in at something less than she was doing. MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: At a -- at a lower step and grade. You had another position that you created from her higher position, which is in place for this budget year. MS. UECKER: For the full year. JUDGE TINLEY: Right. Assuming that constant remains, is the difference between the reduction that you're going to get if she comes on board, and the increase that you gave to the one that you elevated slightly when you eliminated her position -- MS. UECKER: Oh, I see what you're saying. JUDGE TINLEY: Are those approximately equal? MS. UECKER: They'll be approximately equal. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 2-10-03 153 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 MS. UECKER: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're saying is, but far the -- but for the cost-of-living increase, there's probably not going to be a budget impact? MS. UECKER: Except that I won't be reducing those other two positions. If I reduced those, then that would be equal. But the difference would be the increase in those two steps of the -- of the two employees that took her -- her duties. You see? JUDGE TINLEY: So, you spread the difference between two employees; therefore, you increased slightly -- MS. UECKER: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEX: -- two positions when you eliminated hers? MS. UECKER: Exactly. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. UECKER: And I was trying to do the County a favor there too, 'cause, you know, I didn't want to have to pull in another 17/1. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- you know, I agree with Linda; she did try to do that, but I see -- you know, in trying to reduce and split. But now the result is, if we go through and bring back a 15, whether it be 15/9 or -- we're ending up with more chiefs than you had -- or more mid-level chiefs than you had last year, and -10-03 154 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 you have very few Indians left. MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. Well, and another reason for that, Jonathan, is you can look back at my record. I have very few -- I have very little turnover. So, you know, the County is saving money there by -- but I don't have that turnover. And some of those have -- some of the positions have increased to the point where the ones that were doing it before -- it's hard to explain. I can't -- I think you know what I'm trying to say, but, I mean, it's up to the Court. I'm asking for direction here. And whatever the Court decides is certainly fine with me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, my personal feeling, I don't particularly like the idea of a 13/13. I mean, that doesn't -- that person really can't -- you'll be coming back at budget and creating a new position, which, you know, I'm not -- MS. UECKER: But that is the level that's open, is a 13. COMMISSTONER LETZ: But isn't 13 the highest? MS. UECKER: 13/13 is the highest, yes. Except I do remember, during the budget process, that the Treasurer said that what she could do -- and I think it was because of some of the Sheriff's employees, that just adding 2 and a half percent to that 13 would make a 13/14. I don't like that step and grade system anyway, but -- 2-10-03 155 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'd rather see it a 15/9, frankly. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, cut through to the bottom line. Why not? MS. UECKER: I mean, I don't have any -- I understand the Court's position. Xou know, I'm between a rock and a hard place. I don't want to lose a really good employee, but I don't want to encourage anybody else to do this. You know, whether it's my employees or anybody else. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know, I don't think it's -- the fact that she, you know, retired, I mean, is irrelevant. She -- her circumstances have changed; she wants her job back. The problem is, her job isn't there; it's a lower level job. That's what's happened. MS. UECKER: In reality, I think she was kind of forced to retire because of her family. And, I mean, that's irrelevant here, but -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- MS. UECKER: You needed a hard question for today anyway, didn't you? COMMISSIONER LETZ: From the long-term, I'd rather leave it at 13, but I think it's -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my thinking is that there's only about $500 difference between the two, number 2-10-03 156 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 one. And number two, if it's a 15, the training capacity, I think, is important, because this particular employee I've known for many, many years, and I think she has a good deal of potential to train -- train other employees. MS. UECKER: She even serves as an interpreter in the courts with no fee, and -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And she runs me out of the court at times, too. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gives you more latitude. MS. UECKER: Yeah. And the reason I'd really like to see the 15, though, is because it doesn't really look good to have a 13 doing the training. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. I'll offer a motion -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will change your job description for that employee? MS. UECKER: Oh, yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We got -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I offer a motion to authorize the hiring of a 15/9, $25,374. JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll second. JUDGE TINLEY: Got a motion and second by Commissioners Williams and Nicholson, respectively, that the _-10-03 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 District Clerk be authorized to do this rehire of a previously retired employee, and to bring that employee on as a -- as a 15/9. MS. UECKER: Before you vote, I might need to add to the motion that it's contingent. on whether or not she accepts this. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- JUDGE TINLEY: You're authorized to offer the position. MS. UECKER: Yes. I just want to be authorized to offer it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, force her into it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You don't have to put a gun to her head. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You said that she has a capability with this to train. Train who? You don't have any turnover. MS. UECKER: I know. I mean, they've been there so long. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who's she going to train? Are we going to practice on people? MS. UECKER: Well, you can come up and train if you want. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one other question. This would require a rewrite of the job -10-03 158 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 description? other. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other? MS. UECKER: It's not going to be that great COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next year's budget? MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. UECKER: But it will be an impact. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or discussion? 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. MS. UECKER: Thank you. I apologize for putting you in a tough position, but I decided if I gave it to you, I wouldn't have to deal with it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Exactly right. MS. UECKER: Now, the next item -- JUDGE TINLEY: Item 2.8, consider and discuss request for Court approval of the amendments to the contract 2-10-03 159 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 with the Attorney General of Texas, authorize County Judge to sign same. MS. UECKER: This is just kind of a boilerplate deal that's going around the state. There have been some amendments in the contract that are minor, because -- I think basically because of Lockheed's buyout in the S.D.U. program. They were the ones that had bid the project. I think the old contract actually -- I'm not sure -- I think it did. It's about that thick, you know, and I've got a copy of it somewhere. I'm not sure you want to read it, but it's basically a cleanup of -- with the S.D.U., being the child support disbursement unit. See, this -- this contract allows us to bill the Attorney General's office for all of the personal input that goes to the S.D.U. We send them a bill for every case that we input into their program. One of their -- one of our computers is their computer, and it's a product called Stratus. We log on and we give them all of the case information on each case. We charge them for that information. JUDGE TINLEY: And we haven't been getting reimbursement for that service previously? MS. UECKER: Yes, we have. We have, absolutely. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does this new contract have any impact on revenues or costs? -10-03 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 160 MS. UECKER: No, none. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we approve the amendments to the contract with Attorney General, State of Texas, and authorize County Judge to sign said contract. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded that the amendments to the contract with the Attorney General be approved and the County Judge be authorized to sign the same. Is there any further discussion or questions? 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. MS. UECKER: Do you want me to wait for the contract? JUDGE TINLEY: We'll have it pretty quick. (Discussion off the record.) MS. UECKER: Thank you. Sorry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Come again when you can stay longer. 24 25 10 new -10-03 MS. UECKER: Well, Rusty`s fixing to ask for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 161 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He can ask all he wants. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it's gone down some, huh? JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item is consider -- 2.10, consider and discuss authorizing the Sheriff to make application for grant funds to assist funding for continuation of the S.A.N.E. -- that's Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner -- program. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. First off, Item 2.11, I do want to just scratch off the agenda. The representatives from Daikon could not be here today. So, that will help. And, actually, to kind of sum up what I'm trying to do here, there's an editorial even written in the San Antonio Express, I think a while back, that probably explains more of what I'm trying to do than anything else, and it is titled "Arrests Become a Joke if Evidence is Uncollected." Unfortunately, it didn't sound good on the Hill Country at all, but it says -- and I'll read it, 'cause I do think it's kind of important to this. "Law enforcement officials in the Hill Country have their priorities a bit mixed up. What is the sense of spending time and money to pursue criminals if they don't also collect the evidence necessary to convict them? The Sexual Assault Program at Sid Peterson Memorial Hospital 2-10-03 162 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 Kerrville closed in May because it lacked funding. Thus, for the past seven months, sexual assault victims have been forced to travel to San Antonio to be examined for forensic evidence. Understandably, not all victims are up to making that drive to have the evidence collected. Police, prosecutors, and health care workers agree that is a problem, but they are all hesitant to allocate funding for the program out of their budgets. "This involves 20 to 25 patients annually. Those highly traumatized victims deserve to have their cases dealt with in an expedient and professional manner..." and it goes on about the reporter, "but private donations helped pay for a $40,000-dollar culpascope. This piece of equipment is necessary to conduct the highly specialized forensic examination that provides evidence juries expect when they judge sexual assault cases. That equipment is now gathering dust because no one can come up with $50,000 to hire a nurse who can set up the program and run it again. What might be beyond the reach of a single agency in the community should -- could be shared. Leaving potential evidence uncollected after a crime is committed is, in itself, a crime." What this is, the culpascope, the piece of equipment they're talking about in here, is a highly specialized piece of equipment that does minute examinations 2-10-U3 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ., 2 4 25 of victims of sexual assault, and it's linked directly into Dr. Kellogg, who is one of the four knowing-most experts on it in San Antonio. And it -- they have been able to take these kids over here and get them examined, and then you have a lot of local agencies that step in to help. Kids Advocacy Place, you know, helps with the traumatization. You have Hill Country Crisis Council, who has volunteers come over 24 hours and start working with the victims from the time they reach the hospital, sometimes even before, all the way through the court process. And there is crucial evidence that has to be gathered during this time, and what happens is, since they shut it down because of funding, these kids have to go to San Antonio. Well, a lot of them aren't going to go to San Antonio. Number two, they get down there, they're traumatized again, and you don't have the local agencies down there that we have here that can access them. In talking with the hospital and with the police chief and both D.A.'s, and everybody -- everybody agrees we need this program, but all this came up during the middle of a budget year when nobody had that kind of money in their budget to fund this program. And so, what I asked the hospital to do -- the hospital is not against having the program. They've guaranteed a room for the examinations to take place and a place for the culpascope to stay, but they -1G-C3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 164 were having a problem coming up with the funding to keep the nurses trained, 'cause it is specialized training, and the on-call hours and the other costs that go in with the examination itself that they don't get reimbursed for. And so, since nobody was willing to -- to -- none of the agencies were willing to step up and just take a lead on this, I got to thinking about meeting with them. And what we came up with is to ask y'all for permission for our agency to apply for a grant that would cover -- it's not $50,000; it's not quite that much, but would cover for their operating at least one more year, in hopes then that there is some new reimbursement ways that we can get money back from the A.G.'s office that we can help the program start getting the reimbursements in to help fund some of the exams, or at least give us time to go to each of the different agencies and try and collect some money from them, get them to budget it during the budget process, and see if we can keep this program going. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much will this cost us? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Nothing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 22 23 24 ,-.. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yet. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. 2-1C-C3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,.-, 25 165 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been -- well, motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Letz to authorize the Sheriff to make application for grant funds to assist in the funding for the continuation of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner program. There would, at least at this juncture, not be any -- any residual cost, ongoing commitments to the Court. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further questions or discussion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you identified possible grant funds? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sources? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More than one? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're going to apply for one right off the bat, one locally, and in hopes that that will take care of our problem now. We have done most of the grant application already and gotten letters of support from the police department, both District Attorney's offices, Kids Advocacy Place, Hill Country Crisis Council, even some of the other law enforcement agencies, and they're -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- for this program. -1C-03 166 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: Thank you. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So I'm also asking that the Judge sign his part of the grant application. JUDGE TINLEY: I gather that the motion would also include my signing on behalf of the County? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know, I have to think about that. May have to table that one. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Certainly. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I remember when the -- I watched the community jump through hoops of getting the scope, $40,000, and you and I both were around. And now we've got this piece of machinery and we can't get anybody to turn it on. That just absolutely blows my mind. We have to go somewhere to get money to pay somebody to turn -- well, I don't get it. Whatever. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or comments or 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 BALDWIN: We're cruising now. 2-10-03 167 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: We're moving. JUDGE TINLEY: Blowing and going. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, what happened to your number 11 here, buddy? I've got lots of questions. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a good one, too. The representatives from that company called me first thing this morning and had to cancel. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll now move to Item 2.13, consider and discuss approval of contract between Kerr County and Alamo Area Council of Governments regarding Regional Juvenile Alternative Incentive Block Grant for $4,966.50, with a match of $607.40. Mr. Stanton? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question related to the last one, if I might. Is there anywhere in the County that keeps track of all the grants that we apply for? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I keep track of everything that I apply for. And all the bills and -- and the rest of the grant stuff, as far as our department, Mindy has in the Auditor's office, 'cause theres a special line item added to the budget and everything that covers all the grant expenditures individually. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the Auditor keeps track of each one that's outstanding? Seems like we're getting more and more around -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I know he does for my 2-10-03 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 department. I don't know what -- MR. STANTON: They do the same for us. JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's an indication of where we need to look for the current tabulation of -- all right. Mr. Stanton? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Like the Judge said, there is a contract or a grant agreement between us and the Alamo Area Council of Governments for the block grant that's used to supplement our county budget as far as placement of children in detention, for detention services. Actually, this -- this is -- this contract that we're talking about signing today is already in effect, and has already been going through. In fact, we applied for our $4,966.50 last week. We just need to get it signed. It was supposed to have been signed previously, and it just somehow didn't get on the docket -- on the agenda. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where does the match come from? MR. STANTON: It's already funded in Fund 10 through the county budget; it's already funded in our -- in our line items through residential placements. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. MR. STANTON: It's the grant that we've been -- it's a grant through Alamo Area Council of Governments that we've had since I've been here. It's the same thing z-io-os 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 169 each year. We just pick different -- different things to use it towards each year, and this year it was used for COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve the contract between Kerr County and Alamo Area Council of Governments regarding Regional Juvenile Alternative Incentive Block Grant in the amount of $4,966.50, with a match of $607.40, and authorize County Judge to sign same. 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. MR. STANTON: Thank y'all. JUDGE TINLEY: Item 2.14, consider and discuss a one-time tax credit for cedar eradication. Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you. This will be short and sweet. I had a constituent approach me that wanted us to do a similar action like we did in the rainwater cachement program, and as a backup, I put one 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 170 sheet of -- from the water cachement program in there, and just changed the verbiage to cedar eradication. I will not vote for this, because I don't believe in these kinds of things, but I assured my constituent that I would bring it to the table. I understand that if we do the cedar eradication program, that there is a small group that will come in right behind them with special grasses and want a tax credit for that as well, and I think it just goes on and on and on. But I would like to hear your thoughts on it. Hearing none, I'm not going to make a motion. Somebody talk. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Cedar eradication is a great idea. that happens. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Most wonderful thing COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think the County can't afford to fund it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just curious as to what the criteria would be. I mean, what they would have to do and so forth, but just -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's confidential information. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is government. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you'd have to -~0-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 171 kill me if you told me? COMMISSIONER you up a little bit. COMMISSIONER right, cedar eradication -- those programs, it would be be the top of my list. But them all. BALDWIN: WILLIAMS: if I were cedar era i f do you Might have to freeze Okay. But, you're going to do any of ~ication. That would one, you got to do COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe there's some funds from the Forest Service or somewhere to do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There are funds around for this -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good program. It really is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- through the N.R.C.S., and also -- and that's funded. Federal program. And there's also a state program that is very similar to our rainwater cachement program; that program exists, but there's no funding in it to do anything with it, so it's -- you know, or very little funding in the state program. I think that's the way to approach it, is request the Legislature to help fund it. And I'm sure with their budget problems, it will be high on their priorities list to add this. I mean, it's a good program; I totally support it, but there hasn't been a way established yet to pay for it, 2-10-G3 172 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 long-term. I think the Water Development Board is working on how to pay for it, because they recognize that it is a very important project, and long-term, I think it -- there may be funding. But it's not something that the local counties can afford to do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a great program too, and I agree. I never -- I never had an opportunity to see firsthand what the results of the program are until I've -- I took a look at a property owner out on Elm Pass Road. And it's just amazing, the water coming out of the hills after a period of time after cedar has been removed. I have no problem with the program. I just didn't see where the Commissioner found the money. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just like your water -- your rain cachement; there isn't any. But -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unfortunately. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- if y'all see my constituent, could you tell him how hard I fought for this thing? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be Bob Smith? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Tell him I battled you guys, and just couldn't -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll vouch for you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 2-10-U3 173 1 ~.., 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's all. JUDGE TINLEY: I have to make a copy of the transcript. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, he doesn't know we do that. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you for your time. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move along to Item 2.15, consider and discuss future renovation and construction plans for the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I just figured, you know, after three years, we ought to, you know, keep on going. But, no, on a serious note, I mean, I think there -- from what I heard, anyway, there is agreement that something needed to be done out there from the Court's standpoint. And I think, you know, we -- well, I think now is the time to figure out what that -- if we can come to an agreement, what that next step would be. I think it's -- we have a problem out there, from a safety standpoint, in a couple areas. And I think we need to figure out, if possible, in total agreement as to what direction this Court goes. And if we can't agree, then we have to decide the direction the 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 174 Court goes there, too, because we cannot continue to operate it, in my opinion, the way it is. So, I just put it on the agenda to try to get things going. I will -- and this may or may not, you know, impact the Commissioners' and Judge's position on this. I talked with DRG -- Wayne Gondeck -- briefly about this, and found out -- I asked him, I said, Where are we from our agreement with you, and the selection that the Court made of the building team if the bond issue passed? And their opinion is -- or his opinion is that if we decide to do something that somewhat fits in, even though it may not be all at once, into the plan that was presented, which is basically a new barn portion and renovation portion and parking lot portion and maybe exhibit hall portion, you know, they can be scheduled. That we -- if the Court chooses, we can continue to use the design team that we have currently selected, which is Huser Construction and Allen Alder, the architect. And I see a big plus to that, that there we would have a -- if they're willing to -- I have no idea if they'd be willing to work with us or not, but they would be able to have some cost figures, certainly, enter into anything we'd entertain doing. And it also shows that we have not -- you know, the $10,000 or so that we sent to DRG is still there, too. I mean, it's not like it was a wasted -10-03 175 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 exercise, necessarily. I toss that out for what it's worth. But if we do want to use any of their services, I think it's something that we could talk to them about doing, but -- and I'm just looking kind of -- the bond issue had, as I looked at it, four components. One was new barn, one was to renovate the arena, one was to renovate the parking lot, and one was an exhibit center. And I'd kind of like to go around the table and get everyone's opinion on prioritizing those; one, two, three, four, as to importance, as kind of the first step to see where we go. And I'll start. I mean, to me, the new barn is the highest priority out there. I think renovating the arena is second, and I think it's a toss-up between the exhibit center, as it was previously presented, and renovating the parking lot. I will note, though, that the -- the exhibit center and the barn get kind of closely tied together, depending on the direction the Court goes, because some of the components that were going to be in the new exhibit hall are now in the -- out there in the old exhibit hall, and they need to be figured in somehow. I'm not real sure, you know, how that is -- or how that would happen. That's just kind of my opinion. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I've expressed mine repeatedly over the course of the last year and a half, so I'll wait to hear somebody else's for a change. -10-03 176 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: I'll give it a shot. I agree with Commissioner Letz, that we have to do something. And the facility's in poor repair, and we can't go on long like that. I'm also mindful that when we took it over some years ago, we promised that we`d take it over, and I guess it was either a direct or implied promise that we'd maintain it, keep it up for the -- for the use of the youth in the county, and I think we need to keep that promise. So, while I've been, at best, tepid about the -- about the proposal in the past, I'm now willing to try to find some way to -- to at least create a new barn and renovate the arena. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we're going this way. JUDGE TINLEY: Fine. I'll be happy to speak to it. I'm -- my position has been since the very beginning, and I think -- I think it's been adequately reported, that when you look at the history of that entire facility out there, we had some hardworking farmers and ranchers and people that were affiliated with them that dug down in their own pockets and signed notes at the bank and donated materials and donated time and donated labor and everything else, and constructed the facilities that are there now. And, having done that and gotten all of the improvements that are now there up and running, they handed -10-03 177 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 them to Kerr County in mid-1990. I think we have an obligation. I don't care whether we made a promise, didn't make a promise, express or implied. We incurred an obligation to these people that had put this thing together as they had to, ga forward with it, and to keep it in some kind of reasonable condition, and where it could be suitable for the purposes that it was being utilized, and that obligation has not been honored. It has not. And we must do something from some standpoint to at least get the facilities that are there up to a condition that -- that's usable, they're safe, they meet legal requirements. We've got a number of legal requirements that aren't met out there. And if we can, through some way, shape, form, or fashion, give them the expansion room that they need -- the size of that activity in the show, for example, the stock show, has grown to a considerable degree since all these hardworking people put that thing together out there. And I think we -- part of our obligation is to give them enough space to put that show on. If we want to go some other direction, I think we need to look for other -- other funds, and that may be forthcoming. I don't know. There may be some other funds out there that can be used to go beyond that, but at a minimum, I think we need to upgrade those facilities, good and usable, and expand it to the 2-10-03 178 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 point where they've got enough room to do their thing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, even though I'm still reeling from the cedar eradication defeat, I'm in agreement with almost everything that's said here today. That if it's -- just the exhibit center is what I have disagreed with all along. I see it as -- as a different function altogether. But, as far as the stock show is concerned, I'm -- I'm in total agreement that we need to begin. I appreciate Commissioner Letz getting this back on the agenda, and we need to keep going with it. It's -- I know it's difficult to get -- to get grants or other moneys from private organizations. Sometimes they -- they certainly don't want to enter an affray, but they also sometimes don't like to be the nest egg of an operation like this. And it's my opinion that this Commissioners Court needs to come up with "X" amount of dollars and lay on the table, and let -- let the foundations come to those dollars and start from there. But we have to renovate or rebuild, or whatever the verbiage is, that new barn; the old -- the old stock barn that we're in now. It has to have a roof, it has to have windows, it has to have almost everything. And just -- I'm not sure where we are in the arena, but I know the arena's used so much that it has to have some work done to it, too. But parking lot and exhibition center can drop off the list, far as I'm concerned. That's just my opinion. 2-10-03 179 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 But I did pretty good to be so soundly defeated in this cedar eradication thing. As you can tell, I'm bruised up, and so I feel better; appreciate you letting me talk a little bit. I feel so much better. Is that what you want to hear? I mean, do you want me to go on? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question, but I don't think that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me -- I happen to agree with Judge Tinley, that we do, in fact, have an obligation -- that Commissioners Court has a very solid obligation to provide public facilities, the nature of which can be defined by the Court based on the utilization, perceived or otherwise, of the entire community, not just a segment of the community. I don't think anybody on this Court, including my friend, Mr. Letz, has been a stronger proponent of this proposal than I have been, and I continue to be, and I think we need to find a way to provide, as the Judge said, usable, safe, environmentally clean facilities that will allow our stock people and agricultural folks to do what they do and do it better in the future, and to provide a safe venue for public events. If we put a new barn up, if that ends up being part of the plan, then we're going to have to take a solid look at a venue for public events. So, you know, without assessing any particular priority, I would hope that this Court can come together and 2-10-G3 180 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 find a way to do what we were unable to find a way to do with the most recently defeated bond election, but there I am. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're saying bring back the same plan -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't say that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that people voted down? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I just -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm asking. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to find what the plan is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have -- and I guess I'll ask Commissioner Baldwin. The current exhibit center that's out there now, that's what I call the front part of the hog barn, whatever you want to call that thing. Do you think that needs to be renovated? Or you just turn it into a big barn? And I'm just -- I mean, you know -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think that's one 2-10-03 181 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 of the critical issues. I heard a lot of discussion about the front portion of the building on the west side, what's called the exhibit hall now, and people see that that's a concrete floor, that's a tiled building, and it appears that one probable option is to renovate that and use it. But I think that one of the outstanding questions that we need an answer to is, what's the real difference in terms of dollars of renovating that or rebuilding that, as it were? I -- I think the numbers are going to be very, very close. I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of difference. But I think we need some sort of expertise, people in the engineering and construction trades business, to give us a better idea of what it will take to rehab that front portion, as opposed to replace it. And then, if it's rehabable for appreciably less cost than it would to be to replace it, how can you incorporate that with a back portion, new area, where the current hog barn facility is? I don't think there's any question about the arena; that's a totally separate issue. But I see that as pretty much the front-burner question. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I agree. That's why I asked Commissioner Baldwin -- I'm not trying to paint you in a corner or anything. I'm just curious as to -- I know you didn't like the exhibit center as it was in the bond issue. My question is, really, is it -- you didn't like the 2-10-03 182 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 stand-alone portion of it? You didn't like any part of it? I mean, I'm trying to figure out which part you didn't like. Maybe -- and maybe it's all of it. I mean, because it's -- you know, it's a -- I'm willing to take, you know, and get on board more easy on the first step of building a barn. I think if you're going to build a barn, you certainly need to figure out what you're going to do with that front part of the building. And, I mean, I don't see it as a -- you know, as an option. I think to renovate it -- I mean, I think I've talked -- we have talked -- or I have talked to a lot of contractors about renovating it. It is possible. It's just -- and I think it is cheaper than building new. It's not a whole lot cheaper, I don't think, but it depends a lot on how much you renovate it. You can renovate it into making it like a barn, or you can renovate it to make it like an exhibit hall. And -- and there's lots of things in between there. I mean, and that's kind of where I think the Court needs to -- or I -- what I'm trying to -- fishing around trying to find out as to what kind of renovation, you know, of that front portion are we talking about. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there is something about that front portion that perhaps is salvageable, and it is an expensive component, and that's the concrete slab floor. And there was some discussion, 2-1C-03 183 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 although very small in depth, with building experts who believed that that could be incorporated into a new flooring, concrete flooring, incorporated into a new barn. Part of the barn plan to begin with was to have at least one-third of the barn with concrete floor. You know, the question is, can do you that? And, if so, you know, have you saved any money? Is it more problem than it's worth or whatever? And I don't know. I guess we've got to find out. JUDGE TINLEY: I see that as issue number one. Can you cost-efficiently rehab that portion, or do you just start over? And I think the other question that you've got to plug into that is, the current exhibit hall area, if you want to have clear span space, I think that presents another issue, because we've got various support structure on the interior within that space, and if -- if you're going to opt to have clear span space in that particular area, then you've got another issue from a structural standpoint about those exterior walls. But I see that as step number one, to try and get somebody with construction trades and engineering expertise to give us some of that information. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think, you know, that gets us to kind of where I started with the current design team. I mean, and I think and we found out last time, contractors are willing to give you a little bit of information free. When they start to do any kind of detail 2-1U-03 184 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 work, they're going to start charging, unless they know that they're going to get the job at the end of the tunnel, if there's a job. That's where I think we are right now with the design team that we selected, is that -- you know, and I haven't talked to them at any length, but I think if they knew they're going to get the job, if we can -- you know, if they're confident we're going to agree on doing something out there, they're going to get the work, I think they'll be very -- you know, put a lot of hard numbers together. But if we're just going to go and say, "Can this be renovated? Give us a ballpark," we're going to get what we got last time. I mean, or we're going to have to spend money to get a true evaluation. And last time we got -- you know, it was difficult for the Court to authorize spending money, you know, blindly. JUDGE TINLEY: We may have to come up with a lick-log and spend a little money to get a true professional engineering evaluation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: You know, we might be penny-wise and pound-foolish. I would -- at this juncture, it would be my suggestion that -- I don't mean to dump this back in your lap, Commissioner Letz, but you've been at the point of this column for some period of time; we just will 2-~0-03 185 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 leave you there -- is to let you get back with the people that you've been talking about consistently, and -- and talk with them preliminarily about the ideas that you've heard, and also investigate maybe what it would take us to get a preliminary evaluation made by a true expert. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I'm hearing -- JUDGE TINLEY: Bring it back to the Court, and if we want to spend the money, that's fine. Let's go for it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm a little reluctant to do it, and the reason is -- or go too far down the road, because I did it last time, and I don't mean this ugly, but it wasn't believed. Really. I mean -- you know, I mean, I've -- I've been -- I've met with Mike Lowe and his company, Don Biermann and his company, Steve Huser and his company, and came up with estimates on what renovation and construction are going to cost, and they were estimates that I presented, and I'm hearing the same thing now as well. Let's go out and get more estimates. We've already done that, you know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's before we picked design-build. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I -- you know, to me, we're at the point where we can either hire one of those or another construction company to do some work for us, and 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 186 planning, or we go with Huser as the design team that we selected. I don't see the point in me going out and getting people to give me estimates again, 'cause all that will do, it's going to waste six months. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask the question, through you to Commissioner Letz. Could we obtain that information from DRG based on our current contractual relationship, even though it might cost us a few more dollars to do so? JUDGE TINLEY: I don't see why we couldn't. I mean, they're in that business. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can do that, but I think you could get -- see, I guess it goes into -- I think we get it free from Huser if we're going to do something, but I doubt he's going to -- unless there's some -- I don't want to speak for Huser Construction, but -- or the architects, you know. I would suspect they're willing to put some of their time, certainly, into it to advise us if we're going to continue that design -- the relationship we currently have with them. But if we're not, then I think we need to hire somebody. JUDGE TINLEY: Legally, T don't think we can make even a probable commitment to the design/build team that were selected conditioned upon the passage of the bond issue, 'cause we're talking about a different project, 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 187 obviously. Or I think we're going to be talking about one. Obviously, we're -- the bond issue wasn't approved, so apparently we're going to switch gears. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess the -- according to Wayne Gondeck -- and what we probably ought to do is get, maybe at the next meeting, Gondeck and Steve Huser here so you all can ask them questions, 'cause I don't want to -- even though I've talked with them, because -- but Wayne Gondeck feels that the continuation of the project was based on the bond issue passing, but hiring them was not contingent on the bond issue passing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hiring Gondeck? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hiring Huser. Hiring the team, you know, was one thing, but they didn't have anything to do until the bond issue passed or we had funding for it, basically. We don`t have funding, so, you know, they're still hired as a team, but we don't have any money for them to do anything. JUDGE TINLEY: If the project's going to be different from the one that the design-build teams were invited to participate on, I don't think we can legally make any commitment to any of those people that bid on it. I think if the project's going to be different in any material respect, I think we've got to go back out and -- and give everybody a shot at it on whatever basis we select. I don't -10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-, 25 188 think we can lawfully do that. Now, having Huser here and -- and Gondeck, and asking Gondeck about his thoughts on -- you know, possibly even hiring him specifically to look at some specific aspects from an engineering/ architectural standpoint, give us his opinion, certainly, we -- that's a professional services thing, and that's -- I think it would be -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with you. It depends on how far different -- I mean, you know, if we change it materially, yes, I think you're right. It just depends on how much it ends up being changed. That's why I asked the question, is it a matter of moving the exhibit hall renovation into the building or building a new one? I'm not sure that that is a change in the project. I could easily see if we were to renovate the current exhibit hall to the point that it is now, that it would not be -- you know, build a barn, do some renovation to the arena, and then plan to do an in-house parking lot over time, I don't see that's a whole lot different project. I don't know that the cost, to be honest, would be a whole lot different. If you add it all up, probably save maybe a half million dollars, I guess. But that may be phased in over five years to get that done. But if we're talking about just building a barn and renovation of the arena, that's all we're going to talk about, well, then, I think it is a materially 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 189 different project. That's where I -- where we`re headed directionally as to what we're going to do out there, you know, has a direct impact, to me, on whether it's material to the project or not. But if there's a cause for concern, we certainly can talk to Gondeck and see what he'll charge to be an adviser, and get him here next meeting. That's kind of where I'm coming from, if we do have a contractual relationship with DRG, Wayne Gondeck. And I think it would be interesting to pose the question to him in terms of what it would cost either to take that building down in its entirety and replace it with a new barn, or attempt to renovate it, and see what kind of response we get from him. And if he has to have some additional fees to make those determinations, then we can decide how to pay him. JUDGE TINLEY: The Sheriff was waving his arms frantically back here. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, but if y'all don't mind my making a comment, even though that was a very -- probably one of the worst voter turnouts I've seen in this county, they still spoke and didn't want to use taxpayer money. Everybody well knows I'm definitely in favor of grants, and I think our department's done excellent on getting grants over just the last couple of years. It's been about over half a million dollars. And with that project and that whole facility out there being geared 2-10-03 190 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 towards the youth of this county, and I know I even checked into that one time, getting donations -- when we went out for donations for, like, bulletproof vests, you know, where as long as it's for a specific cause, we could do it. Why can't there be somebody -- instead of talking about grants here or there, why can't someone go ahead and just apply for some grants and see, you know, what you can get? Mainly, I'm like Jonathan, rebuilding that first barn, the old -- old barn and exhibit hall; that's been -- ever since I've been a kid, is probably one of the most important parts, because the big barn out there, if you look at it, it's even got the plaques on all the awnings out there on where -- who donated and who helped pay for that. Why don't we let the community -- Buster -- I don't know if Buster had the guy that came in here during the deal and said he was against it; said that he was against it because it only helped, what, 3 percent of the county, being the youth or whatever, and that it helped the businesses economically. And some of his points I, you know, kind of agreed with. But -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't have him in here. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But some of his points -- and why can't -- you're talking about having to spread it out over the next five years, anyhow. Why can't the County do something with applying for grants and taking donations -10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 191 and see what we can come up with? Because there are a lot of ranchers and a lot of youth that need that facility. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, we've done that. I think I know at least three of the -- of the members of this Court have talked to grant people about this project. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But has a grant ever been applied for? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Court -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you apply for? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Court has to first come up with something that we agree on that we want. 'Cause no grant person is going to give us any money if we can't get five of us to agree what we want. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's exactly the point. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the thing. That's where we are. We're sort of trying to get that -- if we can get the five of us to come up with something that we're all comfortable with and agree to, I think that there -- and I think Commissioner Baldwin's right, and if we can find some seed money from the County to put out, I think there's a really good chance we can get some of this funding through grants. But the Court has to agree as to what we want, and until we -- 'cause grants, if it's controversial, they're "L - 1 U - U 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 25 192 not going to do anything. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's exactly right. They're not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's what it -- that happened through the bond issue; it became very controversial. So, you know, everyone was "King's X" until the Court gets their act together, was what it's perceived. I don't have a problem. I think that's why it's on the agenda for to us agree on what needs to be done, and what I'm hearing is the next step is to get Wayne Gondeck in here and see what it's going to cost to get some professional input. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's invite him and see if he'd be willing to come see us at our next meeting, and we can kind of bring him out and see where we go from there. Is that pretty much a consensus? COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think, in the meantime, if all the Commissioners would kind of figure out what -- you know, what they want -- you know, maybe they already know. But we need to be able to start putting that on the table so we can see if we can get an agreement. MR. BARRON: I hope that y'all remember, y'all do have an engineer on y'all's staff. Maybe he could go over there and give you some elementary numbers as to what it's going to take to go back and forth. 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 193 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Been there. Suggested that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great idea. He's a structural engineer, too. That's a great idea. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further discussion on that item, or do we move on? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'm thinking about Commissioner Baldwin's concept about putting some money on the table and seeing -- and having a plan that we all agree on. He didn't say that, but he implied it, I think. And seeing if we can attract some money. Let me hear from you. Is that conceivable? When we're not going to -- I'm pretty sure we're not going back to the voters again on another bond issue. Maybe we are; I don't know, but I don't think so. Is there any circumstances where we would put a half million dollars on the table and -- and say we'll put this much up by the taxpayers' funds if we can attract another million or million and a half? Is it doable? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the question is, what are you putting it on the table for, Commissioner? If we have identified that, we're all on the same page. Put "X" number of dollars out with the view that it's bread on the water, if you will. Then there may be some opportunity. But I think -- as Commissioner Letz said, I think we all --10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 194 have to come together, know what we're going to do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, on that same line, the other part of it is -- I mean, depends on how big a project as to what percent we're putting up. One way you read the vote is they don't want tax dollars spent on that project. The other is, you know, they don't want 100 percent of the tax dollars to be spent on the project. Depends on what you think. So, I mean, I think we need to have somewhere in there, before I'm going to vote to take money out of tax dollars, I'm going to want some public feedback that they support it. Because I'm not inclined to -- you know, like, one thing that I wouldn't do is turn around and try a tax anticipation note or anything, which to me circumvents the voters. I'm not any more in favor of putting it back before the voters than I would be something like that. But, you know, if we can, you know, go into reserves and find some -- you know, maybe $500,000, I think we'd have to, one, really look at what that's going to do for our budget for a while, and then I think you have to figure out and really give the public a lot of time to give us some feedback as to what they think about that, because if we don't get positive feedback, I would not be in favor of it. JUDGE TINLEY: I think the point you just made is very, very important. The voters told us, by a slim 2-10-03 1 ..-_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 195 margin, that no prevailed over yes. But what we need to hear from those voters that did vote, and also the ones that didn't vote and others, is what is it that they do want? And we've got the media here, and I wish they'd put a great big question mark on their story, and let us know. We have a difficult time reading minds. I'm reminded on a very frequent basis by my wife that I'm not a very good mind reader, so I need -- I need to know what they're thinking. All of us do, I think, and we'd encourage them to let us know. The more people that are voting, the better off we're going to be insofar as knowing where we are. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a very good point. I was reminded by a lifelong resident of Kerr County, whose family has blood, sweat, and tears in that building right now, that -- she said, "Bill, you may have to go back and to voters twice." Been known to happen in Kerr County before. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It would only be speculating, but as somebody said, it passed -- or failed by 76 votes or something like that. I would guess that there was more than 76 people that voted against the exhibit center. JUDGE TINLEY: The stand-alone? I think that's a very real possibility. But, like I say, tell us what they didn't like, what caused them to go negative 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 196 instead of positive. It's hard for us to read their minds, again, so -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the other point that I'll just toss out on the table is on the exhibit hall. And this is, you know, for those in the community, whether or not the Court supports that. Are they opposed to the exhibit hall concept, or are they opposed to tax dollars to build the exhibit hall? In other words, if we were to receive a grant for the exhibit hall, would they like that? Or, no, we don't want that either? I mean, and I don't -- I don't know the answer to that, but I think that enters into it, because I think it -- the exhibit hall question as a long-term -- you know, whether we should have it, should be addressed, because I think it directly impacts potentially the renovation of the current exhibit hall, what you do there. And because they're somewhat related; at least they were intended to be related in the bond issue. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: I think we've sufficiently run that one out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We'll go on to the next item, 2.16, consider and discuss allowing public 2-10-G3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 197 information rack to be installed in the main hall of the courthouse. I placed this on the agenda as a result of receiving a letter, as indicated in the backup material. Not as any particular sponsorship of that item, but merely to put it out for the Court, for their consideration. I would -- my concern is the establishment of precedent. What would we end up with in the final analysis? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's exactly my concern. Although I'm a big fan of Alcoholics Anonymous. You might have the Cedar Eradicators of America come in and want -- want their own little booth or little table, you know. And we would have to draw the line there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can get out of control. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It could get out of control. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very quickly. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to say no right up front. You don't have to sit here and visit with me all day. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it sets a bad precedent, regardless of the organization. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else got any comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm on 2.17 now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 198 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move on to Item 2.17, at the request of Commissioner Letz. Consider and discuss appointment of two representatives from Kerr County for the Alamo Senior Advisory Committee. I placed that item on the agenda after receiving communication from the Alamo Area -- Area Agency on Aging, which is some sort of a committee under AACOG, is my understanding, and we are allocated two spots, two positions on that -- on that committee, Alamo Senior Advisory Committee. One of them just expired at the end of last year, and another one is not filled. My recommendation would be that we accept requests or applications, as it were, from persons who might be interested in that, with the assistance of the media, if we advertise the availability of those positions. I might point out that -- that the committee, I believe, meets once a month, traditionally. That they are attempting to obtain funding to offer some sort of travel reimbursement to those persons who might be designated by this Court to fill those positions, or we would encourage anyone with an interest in -- in senior-type activities to contact us for appointments to those positions. That would be my suggestion. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I was interested that you put this on there, 'cause I had it coming from the last AACOG meeting. I wrote a note to 2-10-03 199 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 myself to talk about this. So, I took the liberty of going over to see -- I talked to Maggie Schreiner up there about this, who is the head of this, and then this past week I took the liberty of talking to Tina Woods at Dietert Senior Center about this to see if she had any recommendations and so forth. One of the problems that she identified for me, which I'll pass on for the benefit of this discussion, has to do with the time of the meeting. On that very same day, they have a meeting in the a.m. for vendors who are engaged in senior activities; i.e., Dietert Senior Center and others around the AACOG who do similar things. And then at 1 o'clock, they convene this meeting, and so Tina told me that she has offered representatives or people who might be interested in representing Kerr County to ride in with her for the meeting, but the problem is that she goes in for a 9 o'clock or a 10 o'clock meeting, whatever, and they're sitting there twiddling their thumbs until 1 o'clock. And, more importantly, by the time the meeting's over, for a lot of the -- lot of folks who might think about this, they're in the heat of the San Antonio go-home traffic, and they don't like that idea. So, finding those people who might be willing to serve has not been all that easy. Having said all that, I asked her, is there a possibility that Dietert transportation could arrange to take them in and bring them back? And, while it's possible, it seems at this point to -10-03 200 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 be a bit cost-prohibitive in terms of one van, one driver, two people, and all the time engaged in that. So, I just wanted to bring you up to speed, that I had talked about it a little bit, and that's kind of the dilemma that we face. But we do need to get that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, what's the -- I guess the main purpose of this committee? I mean, does it -- is it a way to attract funding to -- if it's a funding thing, I mean, how about somebody -- Tina or someone at Dietert who would have a -- I guess an interest in really procuring the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Item 3 in that stuff, that material that the Judge provided, I think it sort of answers your question, Commissioner. It has to do with policy and funding and monitoring and contract monitoring and various controls and so forth and so on. It's -- I guess they do have a good bit of oversight on these programs. That's the best answer I can come up with. I don't know, but I can find out for you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe, rather than trying to find -- I think in the past, we've tried to find retired people to fill this position. If we try to find not necessarily retired people, but people that are in the retirement business, they would have more of an interest and be better able to attend the meeting. Just an idea. 2-10-03 201 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: Someone with nerves of steel to drive in San Antonio traffic, maybe. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's just like all those other committees down there, Jon. You know, this committee deals in -- in senior citizen issues, funding for the -- this bus, funding for meals, you know, all those funding issues. And we really do need those two people on there for -- there's our seat at the table. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that committee comes out with their recommendation and goes to the full board, which Commissioner Williams sits on, but it's pretty important. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why if we get somebody from -- you know, from Dietert staff and, you know, maybe some of the other retirement communities or -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It doesn't say anywhere that they have to be older folks. JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, no, they don't. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can get somebody -- maybe someone from Hermann Sons. Seems to me that people that are dealing in the -- in that segment of the population would be, I mean, much more inclined to want to attend, be interested in it and being able to bring something back to 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 202 the community as well. Which -- JUDGE TINLEY: I think it is important, especially when they -- demographics being what they are in Kerr County, that -- that we're actively represented. It certainly doesn't hold us in a very good light if we have these high numbers of senior citizens up here, and we don't have representation. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going back to the Judge's comment about taking applications. I really -- I think that's a great idea. And send them in to Commissioners Court, and let's wade through them and see who is available at certain times, and understand that they got to drive through San Antonio and Boerne. JUDGE TINLEY: Customarily on a Friday afternoon. Normally, the second Friday of the month in the afternoon is when those meetings are held. And the persons do not have to be over 60. I suppose they could be 26, as far as that goes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If they have an interest. JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. And we appreciate the media's cooperation in publicizing that. We'd be interested in knowing about those folks, and them applying to us so we can consider them. Anything else? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, the same thing -10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 203 applies -- although it's not on the agenda, but the same discussion about the Alamo Regional Transportation Board. Currently we only have one representative to the Alamo Regional Transportation Board, and we desperately need another one. Now, that meeting -- I think that group, I believe, Judge, meets quarterly, and I believe it meets in Boerne. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh. JUDGE TINLEY: That's even better. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Even better. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't have to go that far. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the media's going to advertise, put a "Help Wanted" sign out for us, maybe include the Transportation Board as well? JUDGE TINLEY: They're all writing quite furiously. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm -- I'm pleased. I was going to let you do the ad. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're going to sell us an ad? MS. LAVENDER: You've got to do it. I'm going to video the ad. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have anything -1G-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-, 25 204 further? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a question for Commissioner Baldwin. Do you have any update on when our State Representative might come and visit with us about water covenants, legislation support? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. I talked with his staff -- I believe it was last Thursday. I'm sorry, I can't remember when it was. I tried to get it on the agenda today. I was checking on it to see if it could land on today's agenda, and they haven`t gotten it back from the Legislative Council yet. And as soon as -- as soon as they get it, they're going to notify us -- me, Thea, whoever -- to get it on there. I think there's -- in your question there, I don't believe -- or at least staff tells me that it never has been the intent of the Representative himself appearing here. I don't know if I started that or how that started, but they tell me that he never has any intention of actually coming and presenting. He'll just send it down here, let us look it over, run it by our attorney and vote and go on. I guess we'll have to do our own resolution. But they assured me that it's going to happen. I even mentioned that I'd heard a rumor that he wasn't going to send it regardless, but that is untrue. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, would you like to 2-10-03 205 1 handle that? .-. 2 3 job. 4 5 make sure. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're doing a good COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, just wanted to COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I have noted that you -- about 10 years ago, you moved from west Kerr County to Kerrville. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And now you're already backing the cedar choppers. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, no, not exactly; that's not backing. Are you telling me that I'm going to get run out of one, too? JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. There being nothing -- nothing further to come before the meeting, I'll declare it adjourned. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that. (Commissioners Court meeting adjourned at 3:03 p.m.) 2-10-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 206 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 19th day of February, 2003. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk Kathy Ba , Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 2-10-03 iJ i~t ii Ir R I`d U . ~_ i 'J ~ r l.Ll-1 J. 1}'I;a t-i('dU [••~il_.C~UU('a I `~i Un ~:r1is tt~e l~+th day o1- I-eL']rf_+ar~y, i'+Lik1~i, r..~ame •to be consider~ed by ~:r'ie i;of_+rt vara.of_+s tvomniissloner~s~ prec].ncts, wt•+xch7 said L:taXms and 1kT-'I.VeTIeY~a1 '1"i]'r~ ~liJa,~~l~.k:ikiy 1'i•._h'1r"'~-' I-'Y'O'l:eC~l:1i]n "I-Or~ #tig,.:,..:r..:r..v•ay 1:]-•-1'iocld i»+rldyE? i=or ~>~:::rgj+l;~.:_iF3? 1'i--i-'f_+bllc L.ibr~ary i°or ~,=;.~,+~i':~fs..~~;q ;~~tf-.-lrtdiyer+'G I-ieai~tt~ ~ar~e i-or~ ~~~r,'~i'~~.i~~~~g r~+--1-'er~manen~: Impr~nvemer+t 1-or ~ig(3(/~.+~~q t~1-llistr-•ict i-administration 1-or $~:;~~L+.+Ci~;i, I U I HL l.:FiSH ht~G!U 1 I~tEU I- UK HLI_ t- UIVU::i : ~ 1 ti.ag 4i:=+C.1, tit.. UpaT-~ motion made by l;ommissioner~ Irlilliams, secf.]nded l]y Commissioner 1=~aldwin, t•t•re Cof_tr~t +.tnanimof_tsly approved by a vote ofi 4-~+-~+, to pay said accof_+nts. ,,,^ UI•tlit..l•~ ~uU. c ~':~.:~~ ~i~UU~. r ~r~1ErWVm~~"r 1 tv GUU1U'TY l"REflSURLR un this the l~+th day of t=ebr~_+ary, ~+t+~,_;, ~_+pan motion made by trommissioner k+aldwin, seconded by ~.;ommissloner Williams, •the Lo~_+rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-0, to transfer $i;~.+c~~i from Line Item t~lo. 'l+~-4`x-1-~+~:~t+ Telephone to ~.irre l~:en+ Iwo. 1VJ-4`~r-~~1~~ L-~ook~-1-'~_tblical:ions-U~_+es. ~~ll.)1~~. l HI+IEIWI.)I~I~f~i l l lu L7TS1"RIC i CLLh~r; On this the i~th day ofi t=ebr~_~ar-~y, c+Zi~;::;, ~_~pan motion made tay Commissioner Lets, seconded by l.sOmlrllaSloTler' L-~aldwin, the L.:o~_~r~•t ~ananimo~.~sly approved by a vote of 4-~-0, to transter~ ~._;4E,. k1~ from Line Ttem hlo. 1~-4~~--4i~ l~licro tt=ilm tiecords to Line ~.tem IVo. 1~[i-~+;~~-~:~Lrb L~onds n lns~_-rance. .-- Utlll~hc iVU. ~r"~~,~c~ ktiU1)1.~~ i t-1f~i~rWlli~It~V 1 1 N 1 `~ti t ti ll t 5 f I~ 1 lr I LUU tt 1 Gn this the 1~th day of reGr~~_tary, ~~~+~, ~_ipon motion made by Commissioner Let:, seconded ~y lomma.ssionc'r r~iicho:isc~n, the L:o~_~rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~11, to transter ~~, i:;4~:. 4E, tr-•om Line Item No. i.0-4~,i.:,--4~` C:oi_ir^t Appointed Httorney to Line Item tdn. 1V~•-~+~:;b-~'~r t~o~.~r~t Iranscr°ipts. .~ UrtU~tt CyU. ~'r`~e,1 NUl.lia~ t HMI=NI.JIYf~hl7 .l IV '~'H~.Ft I I- F y 5 1.)~F~t-1 ht 1 r4L-1~I I I.Jn this the i~th ~tiay c~i= 1-eor~_~ary, L~Z~+~:~, ~_~pon motion made ~y Camm~.ssiorier~ k~alciwin, secorrdect r,y t~ommissioner Lets, Che tro~_ir~t unanimously approved by a vote ofi 4-+~-~, to transl-er $::i'~il. ~:~~[~ trnm Line Item IVn. 1~-::~~~--1~'~4 IJeputies salary to Line Item (~to. 1~-`rr~,~-~+tirL- Vehicle lns~_~r~ance. i-ii-~ i-~ tt U V H L U t- L H i L t-1 L L. I U I+.Htf 1 K. U' ULLI_ Un this the 11tlth Gay ot~ t-ebr~_~ary, `~~~, ~_tpor-~ motion made by Commissioner Let:., seconded by CommissionerK Williams, the l:o~_ir~t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-~, to pay late bill l~~ the amount o1- ~`~:;i~.~~ 1=rom Line Ttem 1~--4~(--4tiJ Keimb 'For Lodging. The Go~_inty A~_iditor and Co~_tnty 7"reas~arer are hereby a~_~thori~ed to write a hand check in the amo~_~nt of $i_..:;~Li.V~VJ mace payal~le to N:ari r;. U~llell. UFtUEIt IViJ. iw l''~E~.=i AF~I-'ftLiVE IO AC:Cf•`F=''I- 1~1TI~IUTE.~i AMID WAIVE REF1Ti1~IiJ Un this the iki~th day o1- E=el~r~_iar~y, `~-~+~~, ~_rpon motion made by Lornmissxaner~ Williams, seconded by Lommissioner~ Let:°., the Co~_trt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-~, waived reading and approved the fii~l.Lowing min~_rtes: I'.err~ Co~_~nty L:ommisslonersx Go~_tr1: t~teg~_ilar~ Uess:~on, Monday, Jan~_~ar~y 1.:;, c~kt._;, '~:~+~ a. m. and N:err l:o~_tnty L;ommissionersy tro~_irL Upeclal session, Monday, ~1an~_iar~y c: 1, c~Z-~;;;, `~i:~+~ a. m. C1f2Uk.ht iVU. ~ r'~uit AF1F'RCiVE AIVli ACCE~'"I" h101V-(~HLY ttLi-'UK ~ a un thxs the lkrtii day of rebr~.rar~y, ~:~~~, ~_rpan mntxan made by Commissxorrer Lets, sec•anded by Commxssxaner~ i~ichalson, the Co~_trt unanimo~_rsly appr~oved by a vote of 4-~--~, to accept the 1-oilowxng repor~ts as pr~esentd and c~xr~ec-L- that they ue tiled with the Co~_rnty Clerk tor~ tutor~e a~_rdxt: Jannett F-'xeper~, ira~_rnty Clerk general-Jan~_rary c~~;; fr~_rst--Jan~_rar~y ~~k~ William Hier~hol~er, gl-rerifit J an ~_iary c-L~k~~; Vance C.11 xott, J. F-'. #1 uecember~ c~LiiLi Uawn Wr~xght, J.I~'. # J~an~_rary ~~~~ I:ar i f~' I}e 11, J. F'. # Jan~_rary `~s~3 Wi 11 iam E. Ragsdale, J. F'. #4 Jan~_rary ~~ti~ UhiTJ~.H IV(~. c 7'~b HF-'4-'kUV~. i l:lli-' f'k:hihUhtMf-~Itill:k: ~~! N I E.M~IV f ,,..., HI~1~ CCi1V f f~tHC 'f' ~UlitaE l MUli 11~ 1(::H f" 1 OiVS Un this the i+~th day of Febr~_~ar°y, corn:;:;, ~_~pon motion made by trommisslnner W111zam5, sczcondeci by ~:nmmisslaner Ljaldwin, the l.:o~_tr1: ~ananimo~isly approved by a vote of 4-~-~, to appr~o~e the TLDF' Performance Statement and Cantr~act P~_rdyet Modifications and arathori~e the i.~o~_rn~Cy J~_idye to sa.yn tine same. URli~hc NU. c t'~C,b Hh'i-'RUNE= NMf=1VliMEhi I I'U 4-`kUF- t~Ua 1 UfuNL f*1i-1(Vi-1l:;k.lYil=l~l I, ,.~ ~iVt3IN~ERII~G ANDiOf~ Af~C:HIl-ECTURHL ~il~I~tUll:~;~ l.:UiViKHl..:l Un this the i~+th e~ay of {~ebr~~_tar~y, c:k1>L~..:;, ~_rpon motion made by Lamm~.ssioner~ Let.:, seconded by Lommissioner Williams, the Co~_rrt unanimo~_rsly approved by a vote of 4-~-~, the Amendment to h`r~o1-essinnal i~larfagement, engineer~ing anchor Hrci-ritect~_ir-al ~erv~.ces trontraci: between F'.er~r L:ourrty and .I..~Tf1A ('~l_:H, for~merly taroves and 1=15sOG1~tBS, Inc., as presented, with deletion at all references to f~etra "i ech. [J i~{ tJ~ k ntu . ~ r ~~ ~ r H1-'1-~KLiVL Mir I UNL H l U H~;RL~.M~.N I i1n this the 1~cith~ day o~l- h-ebr~aary, ~:~rC,:~, ~_i~on motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner IUict~olson, the Co+_~rt unanimo~_~sly approved by a vote of 4-~-0, the M~_it~_ial F~id Hgreement by and between itierr t.~a~anty aryd taiamo Hrea Co~_~nr_zl 01- governments to set ~_~~ s~_~itable arrangements t~or~ i-~_~rn~.shing m~_~t~_tal aid in cnWing with disasters, and a~_ithori~e ~:o~_~n~4y J~_~dge to sign the same. .... . UhtU~tt IdU. Lt':jl_r~ H4-'1-'i"{UV~ 1-'flt.L1I~II~HF{Y F-'L(-11 U I F-1tiL~WUUU al-'h! l l~lla~ I•tE-ilVl.;H urr this the 1~th day of f~ebr-•~_~ary, ~:~~~, ~_~pon motion made by Commissioner iVir~holson, seconded by Commissioner Leta, the Co~_~rt unanimously approved by a vote ofi 4-~-~, the f~'reiiminary L;ondomini~_-m i~'lat o1' ~tablewood ~prinys kanch. ORDEF~t NO. ~: r ~~~,`~ aF'F'FtOVE: L;FtHNll .1Ui~Y L1S'i- On this the i~th day of February, c~~::3, upon motion made by Commissioner, Nicholson, seconded ry t~ommzsszot7er Naldwzrt, the Lo~_tr,t ~ananimo~~sly approved by a vote of 4-~-0, thie tar°and J~_tr^y List for the t~rzevance t.;ommzttee as per Se`t ion 1.`~~. ~1t+{a) 01- the Local tjovernmcnt L:ocie and Selectzan of s~_tch member's as per Section l:_,L.~c11:.=,tsa1 oi- the Local Government (rode: Hrnold Uarcia, i~c Montello t/o~_trt, I•'.errville, '~tX 7ti~~ti Genzse ttachelle Jaci•