1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, February 24, 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
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
2
I N D E X
February 24, 2003
PAGE
--- Commissioners Comments 4
1.1 Pay Bills ~ J~fI~' 6
1.2 Budget Amendments ~,'1~117" ~7~8~ 7
1.3 Late Bills NLn1~ --
1.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports..,~~~/~'! 11
2.1 Resolution in support of funding request
for Texas Tech University, Hill Country ~ 71~~ 12
2.2 Resolution in support of proposed legislation
regarding consolidation of Headwaters Ground-
water Conservation District and U.G R.A. into
Kerr County Water Authority ~'~~ ~'~c~Nf' 13
2.12 Resolution to join safety incentive program
offered by Kerr County's Workers Compensation'~~~~~
carrier, Texas Association of Counties 58
2.13 Approval of Project Plan for Kerr Emergency
911 Network ~ 7GSµ 66
2.3 Letter of support/resolution for HB-630, ;~~~
designation of section of State Highway 173
as 173rd Brigade Memorial Highway 83
2.4 Request for variance from replatting within r~
n c~,t ~F
subdivision to move property line by survey'" 89
2.5 Preliminary revision of plat of Tract Nos. 48
and 49A of Kerrville Country Estates, Section
Two; set public hearing date .~~~~~' 100
2.6 Preliminary revision of plat of Site 15, J.L. 7y~.1
Nichols Subdivision, set public hearing date`" 102
2.7 Consider installing signs on roads in Pct. 4 ~~`~~'~ 105
2.8 Consider name changes for privately maintainedr~119~'~
roads in accordance with 911 Guidelines 108
2.9 Request for budget amendment to transfer money
from salary line item for Constable, Pct. 1 ;~'J~~TG' 112
2.11 Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement
between Kerr County and Upper Guadalupe River
Authority }7`~`~~ 117
2.14 Recommendation of Airport Advisory Board to „~)f~~
approve revised Airport Layout Plan and Airport
Master Plan Update, authorize Judge to sign 122
2.15 Recommendation of Airport Advisory Board to N~. GI4T~_,y
approve revised airport lease agreements with
Kerrville Aviation, Inc. 130
2.10 Acknowledge receipt of copy of 2002 Racial ,~'I'I`i3
Profiling Files submitted by Constable Ayala 162
2.16 Discuss future renovation and construction plans~~~~ ~`
for Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center and hiring
consultants to assist Commissioners' Court 166
--- Adjourned 211
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. I'm going to
call to order the special Commissioners Court meeting for
Monday, February 24th. It's 9 a.m. local time. Looks like
we don't have adequate seating for those -- and I anticipate
that there will probably be some more shortly, so we have
made arrangements to utilize District Courtroom Number 1
upstairs. As you get off the elevator, if you'll make a
right and go down to the courtroom there, that's District
Courtroom Number 1. So, at this time, we will stand in
recess and we will reconvene up in District Courtroom Number
1, just as soon as we can kind of get situated there.
(Commissioners Court was moved to District
Courtroom Number 1.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'll reconvene the
meeting, special Commissioners Court meeting, Monday,
February 24th. I believe -- Commissioner Nicholson, I
believe it is your honor this morning.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let us pray.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
2-24-03
1
2
3
4
5
b
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I'd like to remind
you that those of you who desire to speak on an item that is
on the agenda, that's listed on the agenda, we would ask
that you fill out a participation form indicating your
desire to speak on that item. And there should be some, I
believe, at the back of the room. You'll find them back
there. We'd ask that you please fill those out and see that
they get up here towards the front. Now, with respect to
items which are not listed on the agenda, you have the
opportunity to speak to us about any matter that is not
listed, and that time is now. Any person who has anything
that they want to address this Court about concerning an
item which is not on the agenda, they are entitled to come
forward at this time and to tell us what's on their minds.
So, if there's anyone -- any citizen out there that wants to
come forward and speak on an item not on the agenda please
come forward at this time.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Again, any citizen who has
anything to say on an item not on the agenda, please come
forward at this time. I assume there's no one. At this
point in time, I will call for Commissioners' comments.
We'll start with Commissioner, Precinct 4, Commissioner
Nicholson.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have
2-24-03
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anything, Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have nothing, sir.
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing, Your Honor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One brief comment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll be talking about
water later on. I thought I'd start out with water first
thing this morning. Last year the Commissioners Court and
the City of Kerrville and Region J and other entities passed
a resolution to the Water Development Board appealing the
population projection for Kerr County, and I'm pleased to
announce that late last week, I received a letter from the
Executive Administrator of the Water Development Board
saying that they have approved the revisions as submitted
and they are going to present those -- actually, they'll be
presented to the Water Development Board for their final
approval today, but it's just a matter of them voting to
approve it, now that the staff has approved it. That's very
good news for Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: The only thing I have to
mention this morning is -- it got some media attention this
-~4-03
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
past week -- the local Vietnam Veterans of America chapter
of -- the Hill Country chapter has managed to secure the
moving wall, which is a replica of the actual memorial wall
in Washington, D.C. to the Vietnam veterans. And they have
made arrangements for that replica wall, which is
approximately one-half size, to come here to Kerrville. It
will be at the V.A. Hospital. The exact location on those
grounds has not been yet ascertained, but it will be there
from July 11th through July 17th. It will be there for a
week. I was very happy to see them be able to secure that.
They are working now to try and raise funds to cover the
expenses of those, and any of you who feel that that's an
appropriate thing to help with, there's been an account -- a
fund set up at Bank of the Hills in order to help them
defray that cost. But I would urge every one of you, when
it does come here, to go to that memorial, because it is --
it is a very moving situation if you`ve never been there.
I -- you may have some thoughts about that particular
conflict, but I assure you that your thoughts of the
veterans and the men who gave their lives -- men and women
in the service of this country, will be renewed, and your
spirit changed accordingly at that memorial. That's all I
have this morning. We'll now move to the approval agenda.
We're going to talk about paying the bills. Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: Do you have any questions
-29 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
regarding the bills?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively,
that the bills be paid. Is there any discussion or question
or comment? 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. Let's move to
budget amendments. Budget Amendment Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number -- Budget Amendment
Number 1 is for Road and Bridge. We're asking for a
transfer of $2,776 from Workers Comp Insurance to Property
Insurance. It's to pay a bill to J.I. Specialties Risk.
It's for the liability coverage of above-ground fuel
storage.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1 by
Commissioners Williams and Letz, respectively. Yes?
MR. TOMLINSON: Judge, I do have a -- I do
.. - ' 9 - 0 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
8
need a hand check for that bill.
JUDGE TINLEY: And your motion --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Included in the
motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. The motion is to
include the delivery of a hand check in connection with that
item. Any discussion or comment? 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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Request Number 2 is for the
J.P. office, J.P. Number 1. It's for the replacement of
a -- a matrix printer, $498.15. Our request is to transfer
$498.15 from Contingency in Nondepartmental to Operating
Equipment for that department.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move for approval.
MR. TOMLINSON: I need a hand check for that,
also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Letz, respectively, to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2 and authorize
-7.4-03
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issuance of a hand check. Any discussion or question? If
not, 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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: This request is for
Commissioners Court and the County Court. The request is to
transfer $203.75 from Professional Services in the
Commissioners Court, a hundred -- $140 in Conferences and
Dues for the County Court, $63.75 into Books, Publications,
and Dues for Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Letz, respectively,
to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 3. 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
Amendment Request Number 4.
2-24-03
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
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is a request from
the 198th District Court to transfer $750.60 from the
Court-Appointed Attorney line item. $650 of that goes to
Court-Appointed Services and $100.60 to Court Transcripts.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Williams and Nicholson,
respectively, to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 4.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A question. Tommy,
tell me again what court-appointed services are?
MR. TOMLINSON: This -- this particular bill
is for -- it's for psychiatric evaluation for Cause Number
1356; it's a criminal case in the 198th court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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. Do we have
any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: None.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a -- I
?-24-03
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have another budget amendment here. Am I the only one here
that has it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that amendment's under
another item.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's an agenda item, as far as
I know, if it's the one I think you're referring to. I
think it's Number 12.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Nine? Okay. Approve and
accept monthly reports. What action do we need, gentlemen?
Do you have any reports over there, Ms. Hamilton? I have a
report from the District Clerk for the month of January.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we accept the --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- report presented.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson to approve the
monthly report for January 2003 of the District Clerk. 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. All right.
Next we'll go to the consideration agenda. The first item
2-24-03
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•--
25
on the agenda is to consider and discuss approval of a
resolution in support of the funding request submitted to
Texas Legislature supporting Texas Tech University, Hill
Country. I placed this item on the agenda at the request of
Mr. Greg Shrader. Mr. Shrader?
MR. SHRADER: Thank you, Your Honor,
gentlemen of the court. My name's Greg Shrader. I
represent the Advisory Board of Texas Tech University of the
Hill Country. We have an appropriations request before the
Legislature this year for about $2.7 million to fund the
operations of Texas Tech University, Hill Country, its three
campuses for the next two years. That is an exception item;
it is not a special item, so it should get good
consideration. But we are asking the Court to support this
resolution as we pass it on to our -- to the Legislature in
Austin. Last year, Texas Tech Hill Country campuses served
about 150 students through a combination of distance
learning and traditional classroom settings, and we are a
growing university, and the goal is to offer public higher
education in the Hill Country. And, with your support, we
think we can get that funding approved. Appreciate your
consideration. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not unless you want to
talk basketball. Which y'all can, I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move the adoption of
2-24-03
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
the resolution as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin,
respectively, to adopt the resolution in support of the
funding request submitted to the Texas Legislature
supporting Texas Tech University, Hill Country. Is there
any further discussion? 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.)
MR. SHRADER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Thank you,
Mr. Shrader. Appreciate your presence here this morning.
Okay. Next item of business, 2.2, consider and discuss
resolution by Kerr County Commissioners Court in support of
proposed legislation entitled "An act relating to the
consolidation of the Headwaters Groundwater Conservation
District and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority into the
Kerr County Water Authority." Commissioner Baldwin? This
item was placed on the agenda at your request, I believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I
did it, only because I'm the messenger here. I don't -- I
don't exactly -- I understand that there may be one or two
?9-03
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
people here that would like to speak to this issue. Do you
want to -- my recommendation is, let the audience speak as
they wish, and then maybe we could have our round around the
table up here, and then call for a vote. That's my
recommendation. Or we can break for lunch.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We may have to do that at some
point in time. I have a number of public participation
requests as to this particular agenda item, and I will go
through them. Looks like the number that I have here is
somewhat equally divided, it appears. The first
participation request I have is Mr. Jerry Griffin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks familiar,
doesn't he?
MR. GRIFFIN: A little familiar? Thank you.
I'm Jerry Griffin. I live in Hunt, and I'm here to oppose
the resolution, and basically on two points. One, its form,
and the other is its substance. The form, I think the Court
is being asked to approve a draft bill, unfiled, that has
not had any public hearing related to that bill conducted
with it. I think that puts the Court in a very tough
position, almost an unfair position, to take a position as a
court. Obviously, as individuals, I think you could, but as
a court, I think it's -- it's not a good practice to take a
draft piece of legislation and comment on that. Perhaps if
2-~9-03
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you had jurisdiction over either one of these state
agencies, I think that would probably be appropriate, but in
this case, since you don't, I think that the form is to --
is somewhat against good practice; let me say it that way.
As to the substance, I really believe that water issues --
and I know Commissioner Letz is wrestling with this on
Region J. Water issues for this region go far outside Kerr
County boundaries. We have a situation here where we've got
a big dog in the hunt called Bexar County and San Antonio.
Don't take this comment to me -- from me
meaning that groundwater's not important. It is. It's
very, very important. But I think surface water, and
particularly those owned by the State in the rivers and
tributaries, are going to be extremely important, because I
think that's where Bexar County and San Antonio is going to
look, to the north and to the northwest particularly, to
find those -- those resources. I believe we need a state
agency focused on surface water, with no other distraction,
if we're, in the next 10 to 20 or even 30 years, to make
sure that Kerr County has the water that it needs. And for
that reason, I think the U.G.R.A. structure is -- is proper,
and I think the Headwaters is proper. But there you have a
difference, again. State-owned versus right to capture,
property owner issues. And I think trying to mesh the two
of them together is not the way to go. Thank you very much
2-24-03
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
for your consideration.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Mr. R.E. Warren.
MR. WARREN: Thank you, Judge and
Commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to come and
present the -- pardon me -- proposal that was developed by a
committee that Harvey Hilderbran formed in September and
October last year. But let me give you, by way of
introduction first, I'm a geologist by training. I'm an oil
and gas explorationist by vocation, and I'm a citizen of
Kerr County by choice, and I plan to stay here. Getting
back to the committee that was formed by Representative
Hilderbran, this committee had a charge, and I'm going to
read it. It says the committee's charge was looking at
long-term planning for the county's water supply -- doesn't
make the distinction between surface and underground
water -- and the management of surface water by the
Guadalupe River Authority and the management of underground
water by the Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District.
So, 16 people got on this committee, and we
served about eight weeks. We asked for and received input
from the T.C.E.Q., from the Texas Water Development Board,
from the Watermaster, from the U.G.R.A., from the Headwaters
group, City of Kerrville, and a whole host of concerned
citizens. Throughout their presentation, it became pretty
obvious that perhaps there was a lack of communication
2-24-03
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
between some of these organizations. We asked -- when we
saw the U.G.R.A. present its population projections for the
next 50 years, that Kerrville -- Kerr County, pardon me,
would be decreasing in population, and yet here's U.G.R.A.
telling us that they're going to use twice as much effluent
water as they are now in a given period of time. And, quite
frankly, I don't remember how -- what that time is. So
that's pretty obvious that somebody's not talking to
somebody else. When the Headwaters presented their
approach, we asked the question, because it was on our minds
then, do you stand and talk with the U.G.R.A. to see if they
have common problems that you might be concerned with and
they might be concerned with? And the answer was no.
So, in line with the mandate, we came up with
a democratic vote to take the presentation that was -- that
was given to the Court as of this day. I think some of the
benefits of not changing the duty of the U.G.R.A. or
changing the duty of the Headwaters group, but of merging
the two entities with exactly the same mandates, with
exactly the same type of bonding authority for this new
group that's going to be adhering to all contracts that have
been signed by both entities, is going to result in kind of
a conjunctive management, which both entities are going to
be working together. And I realize that their
responsibilities are different, but I also realize that you
_-24-03
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can't divorce water from water. It's -- it's a fact.
I think another thing that we could look at
as a benefit from this proposal would be the tax situation.
Our state is looking at cutting taxes every place they can
get and raising taxes every place they can get. The
U.G.R.A. has a taxing authority of 5 cents per hundred of
real estate valuation, and they're currently at 3.34 cents
per hundred. They could go to 5 without paying anybody
leave or anything. I'm not saying they are; I'm just saying
they have the ability to go there legally. The Headwaters
group is at -- have I cent per $100 of valuation, and
they're at their max. We're proposing in this proposal that
we have a limit of 4 and a half cents per hundred. That's a
25 percent reduction, if everybody went to their limit; if
U.G.R.A. went to 5 and such. So, that's one advantage I
feel that we would gain from the merging and not divesting
of any authority from either entity together.
I think another thing, right now we're
sitting out here and we're paying rent over in one building,
and insurance, and if we brought them all to the U.G.R.A.
building and put them under one manager -- one general
manager who would look after -- but this general manager
would be supervised by a nine-man board, two men elected
from each precinct, and one at large. So, we'd -- we'd
reduce taxes, and hopefully we've insured local control, and
-24-03
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
I think we've gone a long step towards conjunctive
management. Gentlemen, I thank you for allowing me to come
and speak. Is there any questions? I'll sure attempt to
answer them.
COMMISSIONER
one question. When you say
you don't mean just men, do
MR. WARREN:
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER
BALDWIN: Mr. Warren, I do have
electing this nine-man board,
you?
No, no .
BALDWIN: Just wondering.
MR. WARREN: I mean everybody. No. Thank
you, Buster. I appreciate that.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Warren?
MR. WARREN: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. The -- I was
not part of the committee, as you know, that Representative
Hilderbran put together. Can you tell me who was the
representative that spoke from U.G.R.A. and Headwaters?
MR. WARREN: Jim Brown and the leader -- the
then president of the board for U.G.R.A., and Jim Hayes from
Headwaters.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I asked
that is because of two of the comments that you've made
regarding -- related to Region J. One was population
2-24-03
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
20
projections, and I can explain the difference there real
easily. Those numbers were changed by the State and we
appealed them, and they've changed back up, so the
population projections now approved by the State show a
steady increase over time. And the number's all we're
doing. Your committee, they came out with a new revision
and showed the population going down, so you were told what
the State had just said they were going to use, but they
have already revised them to what we -- I guess basically,
in effect, they were.
MR. WARREN: I think that's right,
Commissioner, but -- but my point is -- is that one hand
wasn't talking to the other hand when they were projecting
one going down and one going up by the use of effluent
water. And -- and subsequent actions -- subsequent actions
I didn't put into this, because I was trying to do it --
what we were considering at the time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- and my
point goes back to -- I don't want to get too far off on
this. Both of those organizations are very active
participants in Region J, and talk at those meetings. I
mean, they're the -- primarily City of Kerrville are the
primary people from -- from Kerr County, and they -- and
they both were very familiar with the population
projections, and both their boards appealed the projections,
2-24-03
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
so I don't understand --
MR. WARREN: Why would not, then, the two
agree when the presentation was made to Representative
Hilderbran's committee?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. I wasn't
there, so I can't answer -- I know that they do fit
together.
MR. WARREN: I think we have -- there's 16
people that were on that committee, and while we might not
all agree, which we didn't, on even the proposal, we heard
the same thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Region J made a
presentation, too. There was probably half the members
there when I was there that night. So, I don't know
anything about Representative Hilderbran's committee. I've
never received a report; I don't know anything about it,
really. All I know is that those agencies -- the population
issue raised, those two agencies communicated and agreed.
And they agreed to meet, if you look at the minutes from
Region J, about every month for the last, probably, three
years. So, anyway, that's all.
MR. WARREN: They have an individual -- I
can't -- I can't recall his name. I can describe him.
Little, bitty, short guy with a mustache that presented the
dichotomy of population. And he's going down, and effluent
~-~4-03
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
water is going up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. WARREN: Those are the facts we had to
take into account.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions for
Mr. Warren? Thank you, sir. We appreciate you being here.
MR. WARREN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bill Stone.
MR. STONE: I'll just make a very short
presentation here. I oppose on the -- the -- I don't see
that they're going to gain anything from it, and they're a
state agency. You're going to try to set up a nine-man
board, and locally elected, and it can be influenced
politically too much. So, my -- I'm just against the
proposal.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Mr. Lewis E.
Cosby.
MR. COSBY: Morning, gentlemen. Thank you
for having this -- having this agenda item here today. We
appreciate it. A lot of folks have worked very hard sending
around petitions throughout the county, talking to people,
having meetings at people's homes, talking about the water
issue. And because of all of those -- those petitions and
all those concerned citizens, Representative Hilderbran came
in here and set up a citizens' committee to study this.
_-29-G3
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
He's listening to the people. I'm hoping that you will,
'cause this is what the people want. And they've put a lot
of thought in this, a lot of work, and I hope that you
gentlemen this morning will consider that when you decide
what you're going to vote, and support this resolution.
It's important to us. It will reduce our taxes, and that's
something that we need to have done in this county. We
don't need two separate boards controlling our water. One
can do it. If we have it -- an elected board, then they
have to answer to the people. Right now, Headwaters
doesn't -- I mean U.G.R.A. doesn't; they're not elected.
The people have no say in what they do. Headwaters, it's a
different story. But you can look already in the newspaper
in the last few weeks, all of the stories about Headwaters,
the mismanagement there, the loss of moneys, the fact that
nobody's bonded when they're supposed to be bonded. Maybe
we need some people out here, citizens looking at that and
supervising these people. That's why I support this, and I
hope that you gentlemen will too. Thank you.
(Applause.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Mr. James F.
Hayes, president, Headwaters Groundwater Conservation
District.
MR. HAYES: Thank you, gentlemen. Honorable
Judge Tinley and Honorable Commissioners of Kerr County, my
2-29-03
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
name is James F. Hayes, and I am President of the Board of
Directors of Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District.
I come before you today to urge your vote against the
proposed resolution that would support legislation merging
Headwaters and U.G.R.A, into a single entity. The Board of
Directors, at our February 12, 2003 Headwaters meeting,
spoke and voted against this proposal. Each director spoke
against the proposal from his own perspective. While we're
not always united, we vote -- we voted unanimously against
the opening of our legislation. I am -- I know most of the
distinguished people that serve on the water advisory
committee. Many are my friends, and I respect their
opinions. However, as president of Headwaters and as
individually, I respectively disagree with their decision to
recommend the merger of the two entities. To merge
Headwaters and U.G.R.A. would be like trying to merge the
army and the navy. The army and navy operate in two
different environments, as do Headwaters and U.G.R.A., and a
merger would not be beneficial to the citizens of Kerr
County.
Surface water is owned by the State of Texas,
and in Kerr County the state water is overseen by U.G.R.A.
through its authority granted to it by the State of Texas.
Kerr County is the only county in Texas to have a one-county
water authority. If we play fast and loose with U.G.R.A.,
2-24-C3
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Guadalupe Blanco River Authority will gladly take this over.
If we lose U.G.R.A. to Blanco -- Guadalupe Blanco River
Authority, we'll be taking our issues to Seguin instead of
taking them across the river to visit with our friends and
neighbors about it. G.B.R.A. has some groundwater authority
in place, and that would threaten the Headwaters effort.
The preferred method of groundwater zegulation in the state
of Texas is through independent groundwater districts.
We're fortunate in Kerr County that Headwaters is a
single-county district. All of our directors are local
residents and are elected to four-year terms. The citizens
of this county have the opportunity each year to change the
complexion of this board. There are two open positions on
the board this year, and the election is May 3rd. Sign-up
is going on as we speak. Each board member serves without
pay and puts in an abundance of time and effort.
Headwaters is still a new district by water
district standards. The oldest water conservation district
in Texas is the High Plains Water District in Lubbock. I
grew up on the South Plains and lived the better part of my
life in the Texas panhandle, where there are numerous other
water districts that contribute economically and to the
quality of life of the citizens who reside in these areas.
All of these districts have had growing pains in the early
stages. Headwaters has had growing pains also. However,
2-24-03
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
with time, this district will become a significant asset to
this county. Give us time to become involved with us. If
you're unhappy, offer up the candidates and then go vote.
If it is the objective of your vote to strike
down a board that has been duly appointed by the governor of
Texas that has oversight of state water, and to strike down
a duly elected board that oversees and manages groundwater
for the district of Kerr County, both offering local
control, then your objective will be realized if you vote
for this resolution. If it is the goal of your vote to risk
both the entities because there are a few disgruntled, vocal
persons who do not get requests granted to their
satisfaction, then your goal will be realized when you vote
for this resolution. If it is your objective to create a
super agency that would possibly be less responsive, then a
vote for this resolution will start that train down the
track. If it is your goal to risk both entities to the
whims of the Legislature, who may or may not be swayed by
our local representation, then that's where we're going.
Remember, an elephant is a cow after a committee of the
Legislature has worked on it.
And last, but not least, what do you say to
the Headwaters board candidates? They're in the process of
filing and gearing up for a campaign. Xour vote for the
resolution will say to them, You can run, but you will only
2-24-03
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
have a four-month term. How many good people are willing to
put their names on the line for a four-month term? Would
you? Kerrville and Kerr County enjoy a good community
value. By that, I mean we're located in a good area, and
people want to live and work here. Basically, Kerr County
is a good neighborhood. Few are leaving and many are
coming. Good community is no accident; generally as a
result of moderate taxation and moderate regulation.
U.G.R.A. and Headwaters should both use good judgment in the
application of rules and good judgment in the assessment of
taxes and fees. No doubt, we have failed to meet the
citizens' needs in some areas, but failing on some issues is
no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Good
community values is indicative of rising real estate values
and an ever-increasing tax base. Basically, community value
is defined as a value of all the future benefits when added
together. So, having said this from both the position of
president of Headwaters and personally, I urge you to vote
no on the resolution. Let's find a better way to solve our
problem. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Any
questions for Mr. Hayes?
(Applause.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Tom Milligan.
MR. MILLIGAN: Morning. Judge Henneke and I
-29-G3
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
decided a while ago that I might chicken out and walk out
and not testify. Good morning, gentlemen. My name is Tom
Milligan, and I'm a resident of Kerr County, Precinct 1,
for -- be 10 years in October. And I admit to former mayor
of Bluebonnet. If I had the -- the vote, and the Headwaters
were a dictator a number of years ago, I would -- Headwaters
would have never been created. I was a press agent,
information education director of the Texas Water
Commission, predated by Texas Water Development Board;
changed names, Texas Water Precinct, so forth. Well,
actually, I was on my way to retirement; it wasn't a
full-time -- I was a full-time employee, but some delegates
of Kerr County had to get a groundwater district created,
I'm told, and I can't prove it. Some of us ex-Water
Development Board, by that time, they were locked out of
those meetings, because mid-level and geologists thought --
have told me this is not a critical groundwater area.
But let me go back to your agenda item. I'm
for the merger of the two -- two entities. I've been in the
water reporting business since 1953, commercial, and then 15
years at the state. And I didn't get appointed or asked to
be on this Water Advisory Committee, but Representative
Hilderbran offered me the opportunity, or -- or said he
would, to look at a draft of this before y'all got it, and I
didn't see it till last week, which is beside the point.
2-29-G3
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
Yes, this is the only one-county water authority. Oh, by
the way, one of my credentials I'm rather proud of, I was a
director of the Headwaters district for about three or four
hours.
(Laughter.)
MR. MILLIGAN: George Holekamp, Mary
Virginia, and one or two others got me to run as soon as I
moved to Kerrville, so I did, and I won by 8 or 10 votes.
And a well driller, Mr. Edmonds, called for a recount, got
him a lawyer, spent money which I didn't spend, 'cause I'm a
poor boy; I don't get this Social Security, and I lost by
three or four votes. Well, the old lady election judge --
god bless her, I can't remember her name -- said the ballot
box had to be mailed. But I got sworn in to serve one day,
and we had an executive session. And I think, Fred, were
you our lawyer then, that day I served? It was executive
session. Is it legal to tell what Colonel Parker said in
there? Look at -- yeah. Anyway, you're not interested in
history.
Do you know, I -- after hearing Mr. Griffin,
I tend to agree. It really ain't none of the Court's
business at this point to -- to -- unless you get out and we
get public participation when we see a draft of this
legislation more extensive and spelled out. And, you know,
I admire you for taking the challenge here, but Harvey told
2-24-03
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
me a long time ago -- I mean Representative Hilderbran --
that he was -- I don't know what he's going to do if y'all
turn the resolution -- just say, you know, you're not going
to recommend this. I was hoping he'd be here today. But,
you know, in the long haul of water business, it really
ain't going to make a whole lot of difference, except to us
bureaucrats. The public can participate at any level if
they're willing to get off their duff and get involved on
water issues. I tried to write during the drought for
commercial newspapers, magazines, success stories coping
with no rain, and it wasn't a pleasant chore, but I made $50
a week doing it.
I put my trust in y'all. Most of you
Commissioners and new County Judge, in their wisdom, if you
want to be a big dog in this fight over these two agencies,
why, just get with it. And I might ought to -- you know,
they didn't tell you a while ago, Brother Hayes, who -- and
the article in the newspaper didn't say. It mentioned it
would have two distinct divisions, a groundwater division
and surface water division. Now, way back there -- you
know, and water don't stop at the county line, Commissioner
Letz, and all that business. But I sat and watched them for
years, Texas Water Development Board, taking census and
population projections, and 25, 30 years ago you didn't have
to go to -- threaten to go to court to get yours adjusted
-24-03
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
31
and changed. You go to Dr. Herv Grupp, Texas Tech guru,
who's now -- well, very good man.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. MILLIGAN: I asked the former Judge if
y'all had a time limit. A few times I've been before bodies
like this --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The answer is yes.
(Laughter.)
MR. MILLIGAN: I believe the County Judge --
my question was addressed to him.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. You said
"y'all."
MR. MILLIGAN: Thank you very much.
Appreciate your courtesy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Milligan.
(Applause.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Fred Henneke.
MR. HENNEKE: That's a hard act to follow;
that's not fair. Everyone, my name is Fred Henneke. I live
at 1207 Warbler in Kerrville. I rise in opposition to the
resolution, and I would like briefly to remind you all that
Representative Hilderbran's committee, which has gotten a
great deal of attention today, had a 16-person committee.
The vote on the proposition that's now embodied in the
legislation before you is, taking that one meeting, without
-2~-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
prior notice, the proposition got seven votes, which is
significantly less than a majority. There were six votes
registered against the proposition, leaving three members of
the committee who were not registered as either in favor or
opposed. I believe strongly, from visiting with the members
of the committee, that those members of the committee would
have been --
JUDGE TINLEY: Use the microphone, if you
would, please. People in the back are not able to hear.
MR. HENNEKE: Thank you, Judge. I apologize.
I believe strongly that the members of the committee whose
votes were not registered would have been opposed to the
proposition. I do not believe that a signif -- that a
change of this stature and importance is in order with less
than overwhelming support from the majority of the
population, if not at least from the majority of the body
that considered the resolution. I believe it requires a
great deal of study, a great deal of thought, and a great
deal of evangelism if a change of this nature is to be
presented to the Legislature, and the people who then are in
support of the resolution are in need and encouraged to go
to the Legislature and speak in favor of it. I believe with
the division of the community that we have today, if the
legislation before you were to be introduced and presented
at a committee hearing before the Legislature, you would
2-~9-03
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
33
find the unique situation of the community in which the
legislation was designed being very greatly divided as to
its benefits, and I don't think that serves any of us at
this point in time. I would urge you all to vote against
the resolution. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
(Applause.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any other persons
here in the audience that wish to speak in favor of the
proposed legislation? Would you please come forward, ma'am?
And you'll need to give your name when you come forward. I
wasn't referring to you, Marie. I was referring to the lady
behind you. I'll get to you.
MS. DAVIS: All right, I'll sit right here.
MS. RACKLEY: My name is Shirley Rackley. My
address is Boerne, Texas; however, I own property in Kerr
County, and I'm incensed at -- and I support the merger, and
for a very good reason. I personally asked to see the
budgets of both entities. I was told that they were not
available to the public. Those are public entities, and
they are, by law -- since I was a federal auditor --
required to have a budget available to the public. I'm
incensed that anybody in this room would tolerate these type
of headlines with directors. I will be glad to hand these
out to you if you would like to see them. One says
2-24-03
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
34
Headwaters Directors Disagree. What is a budget? The
budget is published. It's not a budget, it's just some
numbers put on a paper. It doesn't show where any revenues
from permits -- doesn't show anything. It's -- it's
disgusting. It's appalling. And it shows that an
interested citizen had to go file in Kimble County against
Headwaters, instead of being able to file in Kerr County.
So, I support the merger, and I'd like to be on that board.
(Applause.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Bronson Evans.
MR. EVANS: I'm a resident of Hunt, and I
just wanted to get my opinion noted that I agree with
Mr. Henneke and Mr. Griffin on their points, and they're
very much against the merger. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEX: Thank you, sir. Ms. Davis?
MS. DAVIS: Good morning. I'm Marie Davis.
I live in Precinct 1, and I support the merger. I think if
there has ever been a time in our history that we need
smaller government and lower taxes, it's now. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
(Applause.)
JUDGE TINLEY: John D. Fatheree.
MR. FATHEREE: I'm John Fatheree from Hunt,
Texas. I'll be very brief; Commissioner Baldwin can get his
lunch on time. I oppose the resolution. I don't think the
2-24-03
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
35
-- the Court should be involved in this at this point. It's
an unfiled bill. I think it's a mistake to merge these two
entities. I think they do have different purposes. So, I
would ask the Court please oppose this or not pass this
resolution. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there
anyone else who desires to speak in favor of the resolution?
Yes, sir? You may come forward. Please give your name
before you speak.
MR. BASS: My name is Randy Bass. I'm a
sixth-generation resident of west Kerr County; been in Hunt
all my life. Water in Kerr County is my life. I'm in the
water business; I'm a pump installer. I'm also representing
the newly formed group, Concerned Citizens for Fair Water
Regulations in Kerr County, and I would like to point out a
few things that I think are being overlooked. First of all,
there's too much made out of the separation of surface water
and groundwater, and I'll point a couple examples out to you
that may make that clear. Before we had a river, it was
groundwater. The water that feeds the Guadalupe River is
coming out of the ground. Because of that, it's pretty
hard, in my mind, to completely separate them. Secondly,
the biggest water user in Kerr County is the City of
Kerrville. City of Kerrville pumps out of the groundwater;
also pumps out of the river. Not only do they pump out of
2-24-03
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
25
both, they treat ground -- surface water and put it back in
the ground.
Now, I want to ask you, whose water is it? I
feel like that it started out as groundwater. It may have
been surface water for a little while, but now it's being
put back in the ground, so I don't see any reason why one
authority can't have jurisdiction over both. And I seem to
hear from the people that are opposing this resolution that
they think there has to be a loss of authority because you
combine two agencies into one. I don't see that problem at
all. If we're going to have legislation that will change
the format and allow this to take place, I see no reason why
Kerr County Water Authority cannot have authority over both,
cannot participate in the Region J water, just as they're
doing now separately. But it looks like, to me, if you've
got one agency that is controlling all of the water in Kerr
County, there has -- there is no need to lose any authority,
to lose any local control, and instead of having a
two-headed dragon, maybe just have one. You're going to
have a dragon either way, but I think it's easier to fight
one head than it is two. So, I definitely support this
resolution based on that fact, plus I'm not opposed to
having a little lower taxes either. Thank you.
{Applause.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Bass. And I
-24-03
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
37
want to thank all of you who took the time to come here
today to give us your views, and we appreciate that. We
need to know what the citizens are thinking about particular
issues that come before the Court. The matter is now before
the Court, and I guess the question is, where do we go from
here, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I have some
comments that I'd like to make, and I feel like everyone at
this table probably does as well. I want to tell a little
story about Senate Bill 1 and Region J. Several years ago,
Commissioner Letz and I got ahold of Senate Bill Number 1,
and we had to buy us a wheelbarrow to carry that thing
around for a while, but we started looking into it. And the
more we looked into it, the more serious business we saw in
it, and that was particularly the development of the
regional water plan, and ultimately the state water plan.
And we read the thing and saw the direction it was going,
and realized that if we wanted to -- Kerr County to
participate and be able to protect our own waters, that we'd
better get busy early and get -- get in the program.
So, he and I hopped in the car and drove to
Bandera and met with the county judge and loaded him up, and
went to Rocksprings and met with the county judge, and
ultimately ended up down in Del Rio, and worked our way west
down to the border, and designed what we know today as
2-24-03
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
Region J. And Jon and I took that to Austin and met with
the Executive Director of the Water Development Board, and
walked into his office, said, "Here's our plan, and we're
pretty adamant about this plan, and we want -- this is what
we want to do." And a few months later, when the Water
Development Board was ready to vote on creating the regions
around the state, Region J's proposal came up, and the City
of San Antonio was there to protest with a loud voice,
because they wanted to -- Kerrville and Kerr County included
in the same region as Bexar County and San Antonio. But
guess what? The Water Development Board told them no, that
Kerr County has put together a plan and had several months
ago, and therefore, the Region J was birthed at that time.
Not only that, we got Commissioner Letz put
in as the chairman of that region, and through his hard work
and diligence, has built Region J as one of the leaders in
the state. Now, they came along and put together the water
plan for Region J and turned it in, and then the State takes
all the regions and puts them together to make a state water
plan. That plan is not 100 percent complete yet. My -- one
of my fears is that we -- we are -- we can base part of our
vote today on the issue of we're not sure where the state
water plan is and what it does. We're not -- I don't have a
lot of confidence in it. You know, our health and safety is
in jeopardy as long as the Legislature's in session. And,
2-?~-03
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you know, at any point up in Austin, there can be
amendments; there can be all kinds of things happen, as we
all know. And I just kind of have the fear -- have a fear
of something going awry there, and we're really not sure
what plan -- what's -- what the plan is going to be for the
water in Kerr County, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Now, besides that, the State came up with, a
couple of years ago, a groundwater management area. If you
looked at a map and looked at the State's groundwater
management area, that does include Kerr County and Bexar
County. They're in the same area. This Commissioners Court
last year sent a resolution to the State opposing this area,
and did not want -- we clearly said we do not want to be
included in anything that San Antonio does, much less water.
And, to me -- I mean, I've got this sometimes devious mind,
but I can see -- what makes me scared -- I'll just lay it on
the table. What makes me fear all of these things, I can
see us consolidating the groundwater and the surface water
together, and San Antonio tap into all of it. That's a
scary thought to me. There's a lot of us have been here a
long time, protecting the water rights and the water of Kerr
County, Texas, against San Antonio in particular, and I'm
going to continue that.
I know I don't agree with everybody in here.
I've had -- actually, there's been two folks from Precinct 1
2-~4-03
40
1
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 spoke here today that are in favor of this issue. It's
the only two that I've heard from, and I saw them today.
So -- and, believe me, my telephone has been ringing a lot,
at my house all weekend long. I guess -- I guess it just
hit the papers at the end of the week or something. I don't
know what triggered all that, but I'm glad it did. And
that's where I'm at in the issue, and I just -- I just think
that in everything that this court does, we need to be
careful how we go about doing things, and -- and that's what
I intend to do as your representative. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this will come
as no surprise to my colleagues, who I've served on this
court for some four-plus years, that I will have something
to say about it. And for the new Judge and Commissioner
Nicholson, I do, in fact, have a few thoughts that I think
need to be imparted to you. Kind of interesting to me how
history has a way of repeating itself. Sixty-four years
ago, a group of people from Kerr County petitioned the
Legislature to establish the Upper Guadalupe River Authority
for the very express purpose of protecting our river -- our
stretch of the river, and doing those things necessary to
properly manage our surface water. Here we are 64 years
later, and we're sitting here in Commissioners Courtroom and
we're debating whether or not the U.G.R.A. should continue
2-29-C3
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
its life as a single entity or be merged as -- into some
other entity, which may or may not have the same vision and
authority and opportunity to serve the people that asked for
it to be created.
After an unprecedented yearlong assault on
the U.G.R.A., we're here today attempting to convince our
State Representative whether it's good to have one agency or
we should have two agencies, as it was originally intended
by the Legislature. In my opinion, this whole harangue over
the past year has been about septic tanks and State and
County rules and regulations governing their use. Perhaps
there may even be some personal agendas in here as well.
For the past year, U.G.R.A., its board, its employees, and
Headwaters and its board and its employees, have been
publicly pilloried, particularly U.G.R.A., for administering
Kerr County's on-site sewage facilities, and as everybody in
this room knows, those rules are promulgated by the State of
Texas. We've been repeatedly told that U.G.R.A.
detractors -- by U.G.R.A.'s detractors that about 2,000 Kerr
County residents have signed petitions calling for the
abolition, or more recently, the merger of U.G.R.A. with the
County's other water regulating agency, Headwaters. By my
calculation, that's about 4.5 percent of Kerr County's
population, which tells me that 95.5 percent of the people
in Kerr County are, as typically is the case in the United
2-24-03
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
States of America, the silent majority.
So, the following reasons I advance to you
support my belief that the legislative intervention that
Representative Hilderbran is being pressured into
introducing is bad for Kerr County. U.G.R.A. is a river
authority by statute, a water conservation agency.
Headwaters is a regulatory agency. The agencies have
differing legislative intents, missions, and purposes,
which, if combined, will ultimately lead to conflict. An
example: Would the combined agency allow groundwater to be
used to augment river flow to the City in times of drought,
to the possible detriment of the thousands in the county who
rely on groundwater? Think about it. Legislature --
legislation initially creating Headwaters put that agency
under the administrative management of U.G.R.A. Shortly
thereafter, all the concerned citizens realized that their
conflicting missions created major problems. Representative
Hilderbran then introduced legislation permitting Headwaters
to go about its business on its own. Surface water is owned
by the State, and river authorities were designed and
legislatively created to protect statewide resources from
the vagaries of local politics. Groundwater is available
for use by whoever owns the land it is under, so it's a
controlled -- controlled locally. There is no overriding
state interest in terms of groundwater.
2-24-03
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
43
This proposed legislation puts local politics
right smack-dab in the middle of our water, and in my
opinion, that is wrong, wrong, wrong. So, I think
Representative Hilderbran's Water Advisory Committee, after
hours of listening and discussing the notion, they managed
only a bare majority in favor of a merger, and they
discarded the notion of abolishing U.G.R.A. Mr. Warren has
put a lot of time in on this proposal, and it came out of
the committee. It does not eliminate bureaucracy. In fact,
it adds a layer to it to be funded by the taxpayers. In
fact, there are no savings to taxpayers in the proposed
legislation. Currently, the combined agencies' tax rates
are below the proposed cap; thus, no savings. Of greater
concern, a cap imposed without taking into account the costs
of future worthy and desperately needed county projects is
shortsighted. The problem today is not the existence of two
water agencies in Kerr County, but the perceptions held by
special interest groups about each county's or each agency's
administration. If there are problems to be addressed, we
should take them up with the governing bodies in charge,
seeking solutions instead of creating a new entity that has
the potential to obstruct or dilute the ability of each
agency to perform within the Legislature's intent.
As to water diversion rights and beneficial
projects for Kerr County, think about this one. U.G.R.A. is
2-24-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
44
the holder of 2,000 acre feet of water diversion rights for
the use of its citizens who live outside Kerrville city
limits. This permit expires in 2010. That means we have
seven years left to use it or lose it. Water treatment and
distribution projects are not put together overnight.
Political distractions have cost the U.G.R.A. 12 to 18
months of work on needed projects, and who knows how much
more time will be lost if its governance is changed. Who
among us wants to take the blame for losing 720 million
gallons of surface water annually if the water rights
diversion deadline is not met? You think about that one.
U.G.R.A. is involved in several projects important to Kerr
County's water quality. For instance, the wastewater
treatment collection system has been designed and
construction is underway in an area of Kerrville South where
there is a high concentration of failing septic systems,
tanks that are now polluting Camp Meeting Creek. The
project involves Kerr County, the City of Kerrville, and the
Upper Guadalupe River Authority.
U.G.R.A. and the City were in negotiations
for expansion of the water treatment facility, which would
allow U.G.R.A. to begin distribution of some of the 2,000
acre feet to unincorporated areas. The meter is likewise
running on this one. Mapping for a Center Point wastewater
collection system and a consolidated water system needs to
2-24-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
get started now. Headwaters is engaged in aquifer well
monitoring and establishing pumping regulations, both vital
to our future use of groundwater. It is time to remove the
cloud of uncertainty from U.G.R.A. and Headwaters so that
these agencies can get about the business they were meant to
do. Finally, as to governance of the boards. Personally, I
would not presume to tell the governor of Texas that he is
incapable of selecting and appointing qualified, respectable
citizens competent among us to serve the best interests of
the state of Texas and Kerr County. That is the heighth, in
my opinion, of impudence, so I would hope that
Representative Hilderbran after today would shake his head
and say about this legislation, it's not a good idea. It's
time for it to go away. Thank you, Judge.
(Applause.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comments will be a
little bit briefer, I think, but I do have a few things I
would like to say, and they go a lot to -- going back to the
committee a little bit. And when I talked to -- or asked
some of the questions to Mr. Warren, it's kind of the guts
of what I was -- one of my concerns is. I wasn't part of
the committee. I don't know who the committee talked to. I
don't know what the people were asked. I don't know how
2-24-~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
46
much time they had. I don't really know anything about the
committee, other than a few articles I read in the paper.
And while I hope that was reliable, I'm not going to bank on
that either. So, you know, I'm -- I feel like I'm at a --
sorry, Greg. But I don't -- so I don't have any report as
to what the committee did, wants to do, what they looked at,
or anything like that, and yet I've been presented with a
draft of legislation based on the committee. I can't do
that. I mean, I -- even if I was going to be in favor of
this concept, which I'm not, I need more information. I
mean, it doesn't make sense to me that we're being asked to
make a recommendation to the Legislature on something I
don't know anything about. So, that's just kind of my first
problem I have with the process we're in right now.
From listening to people today and other
times, you know, there's a lot of -- evidently a lot of
frustrations and a lot of concerns, but I'm not sure which
of these concerns the legislation is really aimed at trying
to correct. I've heard very little today about, really, the
science related to groundwater, surface water, and a lot of
things that I've had -- I've learned a lot about recently on
Region J; very little that this is a better way to manage
water in the state of Texas. I haven't heard -- I think
Mr. Bass was really the only one that even addressed that
difference between groundwater and surface water in this
_-24-03
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
47
area. It is a very hazy line. But, to me, it's a -- if
there is a better way to do it, well, then it should be done
statewide. Kerr County shouldn't be treated differently
from a legal standpoint with water than every other portion
of the state. So, if it's truly felt by the State of Texas
and its citizens that we should really start merging surface
water and groundwater, it needs to be done statewide. I
don't want Kerr County to be a guinea pig, because I think
that leads us down a very scary road potentially.
A lot of what I hear as the reason for the
legislation is discontent with both entities. If that's the
reason, well, then we need to go back in the community, and
I would certainly help -- and I've been very critical of
both these agencies at times. They need to do a better job.
But there's no reason to combine them because you're mad at
each of them. That doesn't make sense either. I hear a --
concerns about taxation, and it usually -- a lot of times
that follows with taxation without representation or
lowering taxes. Well, I -- I don't think this would set
lower taxes by combining them, based on the -- the draft
that I've looked at. But I do have an issue -- and I agree
with, I think, all the comments -- or many of the comments
that I've heard about the fact that an appointed board has
the ability to tax. And I would be much more inclined to go
down that road and see how to correct that problem, but that
2-24-03
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
48
has nothing to do with combining the two entities, in my
mind.
Another problem I have with the process right
now is that, one, it still is a draft legislation, and I
have learned as a Commissioner that every time I vote on
something before it's the final version, I get burned, so
I'm not doing that any more. Now, if they want to resubmit
this to the Court at a later time when they have a final
version, then, you know, that's another issue. And, related
to that, I don't know if everyone in the room has read or
not the -- the draft that Representative Hilderbran
submitted to the Commissioners Court, but most of the --
it's a very short bill. But it refers to Article 16 of the
Constitution and Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Development
Code, and that's really where all the changes are made. I
didn't -- I received this late last week. I haven't had
time to go back and really look at what this bill does. It
has great and very far-reaching ramifications, I do know
that.
And I think the final thing that I want to
say is -- and going on -- I touched on it a minute ago. It
goes back to property rights. One of the things that I have
been -- you know, tried to be a very strong advocate of is
private property rights, and right, I guess, closely related
to that is local control. That's something that
2-24-03
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
49
Commissioner Baldwin mentioned, when I first got involved
with Region J. He and I agree with that, and we have fought
very hard to keep -- you know, fight for property rights and
fight for local control. I'rn very scared, by combining
these agencies, you're combining a -- a surface water that
is owned by the State with groundwater, which is owned by
individuals. And when that happens, to me, we're merging or
getting closer to, you know, making that line even vaguer
than it already is. And I know from dealing -- my dealings
with Region J and dealing with the entities in Austin, they
would be nothing happier for them to get rid of the rule of
capture, get rid of property rights, owners owning
groundwater. It would make it a lot easier for the State.
And I see this as potentially a step down that road, and
that's probably the biggest reason I'm not in favor of it.
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What we're faced
with in Kerr County is unique. We have two single -- two
single-county agencies that have the responsibility to
protect our water, surface and subsurface. Both doing a
poor job. They're poorly planning and they're a burden to
taxpayers, and they are insensitive to the needs of their
constituents. The good news is that there's a solution
readily available. We have the opportunity to resolve this
2-24-03
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
50
intolerable situation by merging the two agencies under new
management, with oversight by an elected board, selected by
the people who they serve. We have the opportunity to
create an agency that would be effective in protecting our
precious water resources, and do that in a way that is both
cost-effective and user-friendly. Over the past few years,
we've become increasingly aware of both the need to be
proactive in protecting our water, and also become aware
that the two agencies charged with that responsibility are
not doing that job. It's not new news. Often our
newspapers contain stories about their mismanagement, and
citizens have increasing alarm about the appalling
situation, and citizens' groups have been formed in an
attempt to deal with the problem.
Two failing agencies, the Headwaters
Underground Water District and the Upper Guadalupe River
Authority. I can't say much about Headwaters that hasn't
already been chronicled in the newspapers. Watching
Headwaters operate would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.
They're so dysfunctional the director had to use the Open
Records Act to get information about the agency that he was
elected to manage. Board members have had to resort to
asking the District Attorney to investigate the conduct of
other board members. Attending their board meetings is
comical; best entertainment in town, and it's free, unless
2-24-03
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you're a taxpayer. If you believe for a minute that this
agency can fix what's wrong with it and get back to the
critical work of protecting our aquifers, you're way too
naive. They're broke and they need a fix.
U.G.R.A. is not funny. It has a history -- a
tragic history of extravagance, incompetence, and
misconduct. U.G.R.A. has squandered taxpayers' dollars on a
series of expensive projects like the ASR well and the flood
warning system; probably about $2 million on those two
projects alone. They've squandered more than a half million
dollars on their extravagant office empire that's about
three times the space that they require. They're hostile
and abusive with their constituents, and they're
continuously on the prowl for ways to satisfy their lust for
power and additional revenues. U.G.R.A.'s a disaster, and
it's a disaster that we're paying for in terms of tax
dollars and the angst of having to deal with mean-spirited
bureaucrats and the failure to protect our water.
U.G.R.A.'s deteriorated too far to be a candidate to be
fixed by an overhaul. It requires major surgery, and the
surgery cannot wait. If we don't find a cure now, the
disaster will only worsen.
Kerr County citizens have been crying out for
several years. They're frustrated by their inability to get
local officials to act on their grievances. The citizens
2-24-03
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
have periodically formed ad hoc committees or groups in an
attempt to bring attention to the need for reform. Mostly
these efforts have been ignored, or the people who work on
it have been -- have been denigrated. They've been referred
to as small groups of radicals, special interest groups who
want to pollute the environment, vigilantes, crooks, or
other labels to discredit them while preserving the
status-quo of a political system open only to an elite few.
That strategy was a mistake. The concerned citizens have
grown larger and their voices have grown louder. While the
politicians ignored them, the bureaucrats at the U.G.R.A.
employed a circle-the-wagons strategy; ignore them and
stonewall them and they'll go away, just like the other
groups did. One of these groups, with no budget and no
organization, mobilized hundreds of people and collected
more than 2,000 signatures to inform the County about the
abuses of the U.G.R.A. They petitioned their State
Representative to abolish the U.G.R.A.
Now, for the first time, an elected official
took the time to listen to these grievances and to follow up
on citizens' concerns. Our State Representative, Harvey
Hilderbran, met with concerned citizens and then established
a committee consisting of a cross-section of community
leaders to look into the problems that had been exposed.
This committee worked hard to do the research needed to
2-24-03
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
understand the problem and to devise a workable solution.
The Hilderbran committee solution proposes to reorganize
water management in Kerr County. It provides for citizens
to have a say in water management by electing the board of
-- of the reorganized entity, and to provide for a permanent
method of redress of grievance. This brilliant solution has
the potential to solve all of the problems we're currently
experiencing, to do that in a cost-effective way. It will
reduce -- reduce the tax cap of the combined agencies by
25 percent. Some estimates of the annual cost savings of
combining the two shows that it would produce more than
$200,000 a year in savings.
Our Representative, Mr. Hilderbran, has
prepared a legislation for us to realize this effective
government, and asks Commissioners Court to indicate its
endorsement to the legislation. I am grateful to
Mr. Hilderbran for his commitment to the people of Kerr
County for and for his leadership on this critical issue.
I'm also grateful to the many citizens who have worked hard
to improve their government. I fully support this plan for
reorganization, and I urge this Court to give it its
endorsement. Thank you.
(Applause.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Lest we lose sight
of what's before us in this proposed draft -- and that's all
2-24-03
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
it is at this stage, is a draft. It is unfiled legislation.
It is a draft. It is a starting point. When it was
submitted to us, the -- the condition to its submission was
that in the event there was no resolution by this Court in
support of going forward with this draft being filed, it
would not be filed. So, what is before us is whether or not
we're going to discontinue the debate on a legislative
solution, effectively. The debate can continue, but it
can't effectively if there's a bill not there to debate. It
doesn't mean that there will, ipso facto, be a bill filed
and passed and immediately placed into effect.
If the Court passes a resolution in favor of
the draft as it is before us, there will be a bill filed.
The debate will continue. The various concerns will
continue to be voiced. The opportunity to voice those
concerns will be many and in various locations; I suspect
not only in Austin, but also here in Kerr County. So, the
action today is not whether or not there will, in fact, be a
merger of the functions of those two existing agencies as we
know them into one agency. This is only the first step.
But without this first step, a possible legislative approach
to the problem, whatever you may perceive that problem to
be, will no longer be available. I think debate is healthy.
I appreciate the interest you citizens have shown, and I
think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered,
2-~4-U~
55
1
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 some concerns that need to be probed. Different ideas
need to come forward and to be put into the mix on this
thing.
There are some obvious -- obvious benefits to
having a consolidation of government functions. In this
case, you would go from two boards to one board.
Presumably, that's more efficient. You would go from one
general manager -- two general managers to one general
manager. Again, presumed efficiency. You would be
maintaining one office instead of two. Again, presumed
efficiency. The tax cap that is in this current bill --
current draft is less than the tax cap that is available to
be imposed upon you now as you sit here today. So, there
are a lot of different thoughts to be had with respect to
the proposal of consolidating these functions. Contrary
to -- contrary to the statement that it would be like
merging army and the navy, the army and the navy work under
the Department of Defense, and they both got one daddy, and
they must necessarily be coordinated, I think. I sure hope
they're going to be, or we're going to be in big trouble
here pretty quick.
The fact that there are differing functions
and differing directions that they're coming from from an
administrative and bureaucratic standpoint doesn't mean that
they cannot administratively be combined under one roof.
2-24-03
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
56
But back to my main point. I think we should keep the
debate alive and keep all of the options open to, quote,
solve the problem, whatever you perceive that to be, by
whatever means, including legislative. And when this draft
was forwarded to us by Representative Hilderbran, the
indication he gave is that it will not be filed to allow
that particular aspect of the debate to continue unless this
Court passes a resolution permitting it to be filed. I
think the debate will continue irrespective of what happens
here today. I hope it does, because it is an important
subject. But I think we need to put today's action in the
perspective that it really fits. Thank you.
(Applause.}
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, may I make one
comment?
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want to make one
comment, and that's going back to the process a little bit.
I've been a Commissioner for going on seven years, and this
is the first time Representative Hilderbran has given this
Commissioners Court veto authority over one of his bills.
So, I need to make it clear that the -- you know, from what
the Judge was talking about, the -- for the debate to
continue. I think debate will continue either way. I think
it's good and healthy for the community. But Commissioners
2-24-03
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- Representative Hilderbran made the decision that he's
going to want to hear from the court first. He can file
this bill at any time if he so chooses, and, you know, it
has nothing to do with what we do as a Commissioners Court.
So, I mean, it's -- you know, I appreciate -- I'm glad he is
listening to us and turning to us for a dialogue, but for --
you know, T don't think it's an accurate statement that, you
know, we're going to prevent the debate from going forward
if we don't vote for it. I mean, Representative Hilderbran
can clearly file this bill at any time, and that's what he
is in office to do. Like I said, we've never -- he's never
asked us to do this up to this point in time.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's your pleasure,
gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we
endorse the bill as requested by Representative Hilderbran.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion by Commissioner
Nicholson that we endorse the draft legislation as proposed
by Representative Hilderbran, that legislation relating to
the consolidation of the Headwaters Groundwater Conservation
District and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority into the
Kerr County Water Authority. Do I have a second to the
motion?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Being no second, the Chair
2-24-03
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
declares that the motion dies for lack of a second. We have
a -- we have a time-specific item for 10:30. It's a bit
after that now. I would like to call that particular item.
That's 2.12, consider and discuss approving the resolution
to join the Safety Incentive Program offered by Kerr
County's workers compensation carrier, Texas Association of
Counties. I placed this on the agenda after discussing the
matter with Larry Boccaccio, who is the Texas Association of
Counties' safety representative, and he's here with us
today. And I'm sorry we're running a little bit over and we
got you on a little late, but we're glad to see you.
MR. BOCCACCIO: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: I might point out that in the
past year, our workmen's compensation rates, through Texas
Association of Counties, has decreased approximately
20 percent, which is a pretty stunning increase in workmen's
compensation rates as those rates go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you say decreased
or increased?
JUDGE TINLEY: Decreased.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Decreased by 20 --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 19.6, I think, is the
figure they -- they gave me. I actually calculated about 22
or 23 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like your math better.
2-24-U3
59
1
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: My calculation was 23 percent,
down from $221,250 to $170,283. That's a pretty good chunk
of -- pretty good chunk of money; I calculate over $50,000.
So, those are your tax dollars that we managed to hang onto
and not send to an insurance company, at least so far. It's
a retro audit arrangement, so we'll have to see what the
final result is. Mr. Boccaccio?
MR. BOCCACCIO: Good morning, Your Honor. I
promise you I took a shower this morning, so I -- I saw the
crew get up and leave as I walked in, so I just, like -- oh
well. Anyway, what I want to present to you is -- is the
TAC Safety Incentive Program. And it's similar to what Kerr
County participated in -- I believe it was two years ago.
The Safety Incentive Program itself is modeled after two
programs that the Texas Workers Compensation Commission
uses. They use it in their Hazardous Employer Program.
They use it in their Rejected Risk Program. What TAC has
done, we have basically adopted the same plan, and we put it
out to our counties and say, Participate in our plan.
Complete all the seven components, and at the end of the
year, when we come back and audit it, if everything was done
successfully, we'll rebate you 10 percent of your workers
comp premium. And for Kerr County, I believe that's about
$17,000 -- yeah, almost 18. 17 --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 856.
2-24-03
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
60
MR. BOCCACCIO: $17,856. So, it's a pretty
good chunk of money. What I will tell you about the
program, it does follow the same seven components that the
Commission uses. At a bare minimum, we require Road and
Bridge and the Sheriff's Office to participate. Anybody
else that -- that you see that has a problem or that I see
that has a problem, if -- if we can get them to buy into
this safety program, then that's a bonus. But as far -- as
I said, bare minimum is Road and Bridge and Sheriff's
Office. It does have seven components that are listed in
here, and if you'll flip to Page 2, it will show you --
actually Page 1 on this -- it will show you a timeline that
we have established. The initial letters went out the first
week in January. We're still in the initial phase meeting
right now, and I'll actually be completing those with my
other seven counties by the end of this week. The adopted
resolution is due Friday in Austin.
After we've gotten the resolution to
participate, then we have approximately two months to get
the seven-component accident prevention plan in place. And,
if I'm not mistaken, there is already one working; there's
one there. I just -- I don't know how much it needs looking
at and kind of massaging and seeing what's there. So it's
not like you're starting from ground zero and working up;
you've got something in place already. We just need to see
<-24-03
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what's there, take a look at it, see if there's any needed
changes or anything needs to be added. Once the plan's in
place, oh, I'm free to do some training with the safety
committee to teach them how to investigate accidents, do
inspections, things of that nature. I'll come back around,
oh, mid-July, and somewhere in between September and October
I'll come back to do a final audit, and then I'll let you
know the -- the respective percentage at that point. How's
that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question.
Mr. Boccaccio, I seem to recall that Kerr County
participated in this program last year, or -- and perhaps
years before that. My question is, is the $17,856 Safety
Incentive Program fee reduction based on our participation
last year? Or is that kind of a pro -- proactive estimate
of what it will be for this year?
MR. BOCCACCTO: It's based on participation
this year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Current? This year?
MR. BOCCACCIO: Right, correct. A couple
years ago, when y'all were in the program, we did it a
little bit different. We awarded the county the money up
front, and at the end of the year we audited it. And it
caused some problems, because we'd already given the money,
and towards the end of the year it's like, well, let me see
2-29-03
62
1
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 work, and some of the work wasn't there. So, it was
like having to go back and take back the money. So, this is
an award, basically. You earn it in this year, this
calendar year. And in October, that's when I'll send the
letter to the Judge and say, "You've received 'X' number of
percentage, and the estimate is..." In this case, $17,856.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that come back
to us in the form of an actual monetary rebate, or credit
against next year's premiums?
MR. BOCCACCIO: It will come back -- what
I'll actually do, probably January, we issue a big check and
we'll do a press release.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Big check. How big
is it?
MR. BOCCACCIO: Big. It's a big check. So,
it will -- it will be directly -- you'll actually see the
money the first part of next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Boccaccio, the -- the
workers comp rates, which, of course, is -- is the big
insurance rate that we pay, is it your belief that the --
that the significant reduction that we've gotten this year
from last year's premium may be, at least in part, due to
our participation in the safety program in -- in the year
prior to that?
2-29-03
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BOCCACCIO: I do, Judge. It's a -- like
I said, there's something in place, and they're working at
it, or I really don't think you would have seen that type of
reduction. The -- the pool, as a whole, saw a 40 percent
increase this year, basically across-the-board. Some of
them saw a lot more than that. So, it's -- what I will say
is that, yeah, you do have something in place, and let's
keep it in place and maybe take a look at it and see if it
needs a little bit of changing, and we'll go from there.
JUDGE TINLEY: My point is that if we -- if
we continue to participate in viable safety programs, in
addition to the big check, we also have the opportunity,
hopefully, to -- through safety procedures and programs, to
have a further decrease in our workers comp rate?
MR. BOCCACCIO: You bet. That's -- and I'll
tell you what. Y'all know as well as I do that the cost of
medical and the cost of workers comp these days is -- has
basically just gone through the roof. And the only way that
we see right now to stop it is the prevention phase, to keep
the accident from happening in the first place. And -- and
the only way you're going to do that is with a viable safety
program that -- that is backed from the top down, and that
the employees know is there. So, yeah, it's -- you keep
that safety effort up, and I forecast that you'll see some
money -- some benefits out of that in the future.
2-29-03
64
1
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. Boccaccio?
JUDGE TINLEY: Got any other questions for
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that
we approve the resolution as presented to join the Safety
Incentive Program offered to Kerr County by TAC.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I presume that would include
me to sign the resolution?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: To deliver to Mr. Boccaccio
today?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, to
approve a resolution to join in the Safety Incentive Program
offered by Texas Association of Counties, the Kerr County
workers compensation carrier. Any discussion?
MR. SMITH: I'd like to make one comment, if
I may.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
MR. SMITH: I think I can talk loud enough
here. My name is Gene Smith, and I was an election judge
out on the bond issue for the barn -- the Ag Barn. And one
2-24-03
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
young man came up to me and he said -- he was an
electrician, and he said -- he said electrical wiring in the
Ag Barn is -- is in very poor shape, and they might have a
fire out there. Well, I didn't think anything more about
it, but we've had a lot of citizens burned up in fires, even
though they're not the same kind of fire. But -- and I
don't know the truth of this guy, if it was just one man's
opinion, if it's not a valid deal, but I would think that it
would be appropriate if we would have some type of
inspection on the wiring out there, because he said it
should be condemned. So, if you're having a safety program,
I would like to suggest if we do go forward in this safety
program, that we would inspect those facilities and make
sure we don't have the type of publicity these other places
are having. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your concerns are noted. Any
further discussion? All those 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 carries. Thank you,
Mr. Boccaccio.
MR. BOCCACCIO: Thank you, Judge. Thank you,
-24-03
1
~-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
66
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, I'm going to
propose that we take our mid-morning recess. We're running
a little bit late there; I think the reporter is probably a
little weary, needs a little break. And we will -- we'll
recess until 5 after 11:00.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably be easier to
reconvene downstairs. We're giving everybody their exercise
today. Thank you. We appreciate your patience in
accommodations with us moving up and down.
(Recess taken from 10:51 a.m. to 11:05 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item -- we will
reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting, that being the
special Commissioners Court set for Monday, February 24th,
originally beginning at 9 a.m. Next item for consideration
is a time-specific item, Item 2.13, consider and discuss
approval of the Project Plan for Kerr Emergency 911 Network,
and execute specific deliverables as specified in the
agenda. Mr. Amerine. Amerine, I believe it is. I
apologize.
MR. AMERINE: Amerine, correct. Welcome --
I'm glad to be here. My name is Bill Amerine. I'm
Executive Director for the Kerr 911 District. Thank you for
hearing me today on this issue, Commissioners and Your
2-24-03
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Honor. Today --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fix the mic so people
can hear you. Might get a little clearer.
MR. AMERINE: Okay. Today with me in the
Commissioners Court are a couple folks from my Board of
Managers. Stand. Charles Lewis. We have Walt Harris over
here, and sitting behind him in the camo outfit -- he
doesn't want to be seen -- is my manager of M.I.S., Bill
Reese. The singular purpose why I'm here today is to
discuss and seek approval for this plan for the Kerr 911
District, their charter for execution to provide the
infrastructure and ability for public safety for 911
service. This plan -- what makes it different from previous
plans is the coordination of multiple suppliers to that
process, those being the Kerr 911 District, the County, the
two cities, Ingram and Kerrville, and the U.S. Post Office.
The essential reason why I'm here to talk to you is that
we're obligating the County in this plan to several
activities, and I would like to discuss those in some detail
after I give you the summary of what the plan entails.
911 District will spend the next several
months, through August, doing an address analysis of the
current citizen base in Kerr County. That will be a
validation of addresses against phone numbers, with names,
to make sure that what we present in the notification
2-24-03
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
68
letters is valid and points to a physical address for each
phone number that resides in our database. Once we're
complete with that activity -- and, by the way, that process
will include the coordinated efforts of both the Post Office
and the Address Coordinators of the County and the two
cities. Once we're complete with that process, we're asking
the County to send out a mailer to all the citizens allowing
them to understand what address changes may be in store for
them. Once that's complete, we're asking the citizens to
come forward and identify for us any problems with the
addressing that we've recommended.
Also, there's a situation where we have a lot
of property owners in Kerr County that have multiple parcels
of land and may have renters or leasers on those properties
that need to be notified of the 911 addressing effort.
During that citizen-input period, we'll be validating and
correcting those address issues that are discovered during
that process and updating our database. At the tail end of
this process, which we'll probably be sending sometime in
the November-December time frame, we'll be sending all of
our appropriate information to Post Office for their
official notification that they'll do, which will be in the
-- probably in the time frame of January 2004. We believe
this process will clear up a majority of the problems we
have with addressing in Kerr County.
2-29-D~
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
Just kind of a general thought: Why is this
even important? We have addresses out there. We could put
those addresses in the database as they exist, and we should
be able to operate just fine. Why inconvenience the
citizens of Kerr County? Back in 1999, in a joint effort,
911 District, in conjunction with the County and cities,
approved a naming standard, which I brought with me, Road
Name and Address Guidelines. The reason for even going
through that process is to make sure that our emergency
service response folks can absolutely have the best chance
of finding a caller. Having inconsistent numbering on
roads, having duplicate road names, having no-named roads,
having number blocking that does not make sense will result
in a tragedy, there's no doubt. It hasn't happened; we've
been lucky, but it will happen. We believe the slight
inconvenience that we`ll cause in this addressing effort
will pay off in dividends in saving lives or property.
Now, specific to the plan and how it affects
the County, we've asked in our proposal for the County to
approve five major points, adopting first of all the plan,
then formalizing the timeline that I've presented in your
packet, which starts on the 1st of March and goes throughout
the remainder of the year. Second item is to resolve the
issue of unnamed roads. And I believe, through our
analysis, we've determined that there's something less than
-24-03
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
~o
900 roads that still need to be named. Most of these are
private roads. And the issue with those, if they were just
private roads with one citizen living on them, probably we'd
leave them the way they are. They're currently numbered,
and currently in our First Response books, and you can find
them in that way. There's no sign, but you can find them.
But what we're finding is, a number of these private ranch
roads and private roads have multiple dwellings on them and
small subdivisions being built, and without them being
named, it will be difficult to find these residences.
Adopting a standardized numbering for the
county. Kerr 911 acts in a consulting role in this process,
and we don't have the authority to request or demand --
whatever the correct adjective is -- to have the citizens
change their numbering scheme. So we ask, as we make these
recommendations through our address coordinators, that the
County, with their authority, have those addresses changed
in court order form so that they will go out and be legal.
Finally, funding of these notifications is something that
we're not funded for in the Kerr 911 District, and there is
some inherent cost with that. I don't have those estimates
for you. I think -- correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner
Baldwin -- that's in the works?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it is. We'll
talk about that in a moment.
2-29-03
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
MR. AMERINE: Okay. And then establish
effective date. And what we're recommending, so that
there's the least amount of confusion with the citizens of
Kerr County, that we correspond the effective date of these
physical addresses with the Post Office notification, which
would be sometime first of next year, around the first of
January 2004. Those are the major elements of our plan that
the County would be responsible for approving. The rest of
the plan, I'd be glad to comment on any of other
contributors to the plan, as you see fit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, how many -- on the
unnamed road issue, you said the majority of them are
private roads. How many of them are not private roads? Do
you have a count?
roads?
MR. AMERINE: They're all private roads.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're all private
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The -- and the
criteria you're using is still the quarter mile, and when
there's multiple -- or I guess and/or multiple dwellings on
it? I'm going back to these guidelines.
MR. AMERINE: Right. I believe it's 52.8
feet is the -- what we're using. I could be wrong.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, but to
2-24-03
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
name a road, it has to be longer than a quarter mile?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir, you're right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And has to have -- and
multiple dwellings? Or multiple dwellings?
MR. AMERINE: Well, multiple dwellings would
definitely be the minimum that you would want to look at.
You could go ahead and name -- you know, we do this thing
where if a citizen of a private road wants to have a sign
put up and name this road, he can do that through petition.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. AMERINE: And he pays for the sign. But
the real key is when it looks like property's going to be
subdivided and multiple dwellings are going to exist, it
would make sense to go ahead and number those parcels as
they're created and platted, and go ahead and name the road.
Then the naming is -- the addressing and naming is pre --
pre-taken care of before the dwellings are actually built.
But for these that we're specifically talking about, we
believe these do need to be named, for the fact that they're
more than a quarter mile long and there's multiple
dwellings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. AMERINE: I kind of went a roundabout way
to answer your question. Hopefully I didn't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. No, I'm just -- I'm
-24-03
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
thinking as I'm going through, 'cause it's been a -- it's a
difficult point for me to wrap around because of, you know,
my familiarity with some of the rural areas where these
roads exist. And do you -- does 911 have a high level of
confidence that your maps of where these roads are are
correct?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, we do. In many cases, a
lot of those maps have been -- a lot of those roads have
been surveyed by site and we've gone out with GPS to
actually get the points to put into our database.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. How are you going
to -- how are you going to get the information to the
Commissioners Court as to what roads you feel need to be
named?
MR. AMERINE: I think that we've already made
a cut of it, have we not? If not, we'll -- we definitely
can provide you a list of the numbered roads, what they are
today, that need to be named.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- I mean, but, you
know, how do we -- will there be a map associated with that?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I haven't seen a recent
list, I don't think.
MR. AMERINE: Certainly, we can provide that,
along with the numbered roads.
2-24-03
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think that -- I
mean, I think, you know, I have no problem with, you know,
trying to solve that problem. I'm not sure that we're going
to be able to if we can't get people to cooperate.
MR. AMERINE: Well, certainly, it's
voluntary. And, I mean, with a private road that's not
state or county-maintained, it's strictly up to the property
owner to decide whether they want to name the road. If they
choose not to, even though it's not as ideal, there will be
no signage; there'll be no specific name associated with the
road. They're still numbered. They'll still be in the
First Response books that we provide to our emergency
service personnel. They can still be found, but they're not
signed as numbered roads. They never will be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- well, then, the
plan is going to have it that we send out the notification,
the original -- what do you call that -- the -- I guess the
notification letters, and let everybody know on that letter.
Right now, it will -- for those 900 roads, it will just say,
"You're on road..." and it's got a four-digit number?
MR. AMERINE: I think the -- that is a
prerequisite process. The naming of the roads has to occur
prior to that notice that will be sent out. It's a separate
process altogether. I mean, the notices will be the final
address. This is what your old address -- mailing address
2-29-03
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
was; this is your new physical 911 address. Please come
forward if there are issues with what we're proposing. But
the named road issue probably has to be addressed prior to
those notices.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But let me -- you're
going to be able to give us a list, then, of the names -- or
the names of all the people based on the phone numbers right
there, I presume?
MR. AMERINE: We can do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we can send them a
letter saying, "Your road's going to be a four-digit number
unless you name it"? I'm trying to figure out how,
physically, we're going to be able to, in a couple of --
matter of two or three months, name these roads that I never
have been convinced we need to name. I don't know why we
can't just request just the name --
MR. AMERINE: We may be the best source of
that information, since we've consolidated it from the phone
company and from KCAD against the -- the legal ownership of
those parcels of land. We -- we will be able to provide
some level of that information --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. AMERINE: -- for you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So if we can get, you
know, by precinct, all the unnamed roads, with addresses.
2-24-03
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
76
MR. AMERINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And names. I mean,
otherwise, I don't know how we're going to tackle the
problem. And, you know, I have no problem tackling it. I
just need to know how to do it.
MR. AMERINE: Without eyes in the back of my
head, I don't know if I have someone squirming like crazy
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not too bad. Keep going.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, he's squirming.
MR. AMERINE: But, no, we -- based upon my
relatively new and recent knowledge of what we have in our
databases, I believe I've seen all that information that
you're requesting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And our -- the
County's address coordinator will -- is going to assist us
in all of those things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of obtaining all that
information from them that we need, as well as when we get
ready to mail out the notifications, there's going to be
some expense of that, and we are going to work in the next
two weeks on putting that together. He's going to come up
with probably a number of some sort and what kind of
2-24-03
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
envelopes, you know, the total expense of the thing. And
we'll be back here at this Commissioners Court in two weeks
with a request for funding of it when we get rocking and
rolling on the issue, huh? We're going to get this program
going.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very good. I just -- I
just was trying to get -- I wasn't paying attention as much
as I can. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're not going to
do it, I can tell you. But I also saw -- I heard you voice,
too, the -- the enormity of -- how many unnamed roads?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 900.
MR. AMERINE: Less than 900.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Less than -- you know,
898 or something like that, unnamed roads. And that -- that
is a big undertaking. That's a huge one, and we're -- we
have to get to work and get that done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying.
We have about three months. By June, that needs to be done.
Otherwise, we're going to start sliding. So, you know, we
either need to, by -- by June lst or close to it, either
have a new name and approve it, or leave it as the number.
MR. AMERINE: I think we can provide the
Commissioners Court -- Commissioners that information
relatively quickly. I'm not talking weeks, I'm talking days
2-24-03
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
to put that together.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to commend
you, Mr. Amerine, for your really complete and
straightforward synopsis of what our varied responsibilities
are among the all the interested parties. And I'm
particularly gratified by your statement, which we have
never heard in this court before, that despite past
addressing efforts, Kerr County addressing is largely
incomplete. I think we've been saying that to the 911 folks
for a long time. It's really neat to hear the
administration of 911 admit it, and have a plan to step
forward and correct it, so I really appreciate your work
that you and your board have put into this. And as far as
my thoughts on Kerr County, the sooner we get it done, the
better it's going to be.
MR. AMERINE: One of the things I failed to
mention with any kind of detail is that I think a key
element to this plan is citizen awareness, and we have, as
you can see, on the timeline a rather extensive strategic
plan for getting the word out to the citizens. We're going
to use the media largely for that. We're also going to go
to a lot of publicly held meetings to try to answer
questions. I think the awareness issue is key, because I
think the more folks know about why we're doing this and
-24-03
79
~~
1
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 it really means to them tangibly, I think the less
severe impact it will have on them. It is an inconvenience;
I'm not going to deny that. People have held their same
addresses for sometimes decades, and it seems a gross, you
know, intrusion by the government to come in and say, "You
need to change." I think the key element here -- and, you
know, I'm pounding this drum a lot -- is it's about public
safety. It's not about anything else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I totally
support --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just to tag along on
Commissioner Williams' remark, I like what I see here. It
inspires some confidence that we know what we're doing and
we're going to get it done. If we can execute as well as we
plan, that will probably happen. I am concerned about the
County's ability to get its 898 roads done within three
months. I'm sure that can be done, but to reinforce what
you said, we've got to get after it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: About 850 of them are
in your precinct. So --
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- we're going to do
our job.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In the Kerr County
government, who is responsible or accountable for -- for
2-24-03
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
handling the process of getting those roads --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our coordinator is
going to help you and I do it. That's our job.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know about
you, but I am going to need some help.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, so am I.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Amerine, do we have our
duplicate road name problems solved?
MR. AMERINE: They're being addressed, and I
believe they will be solved by the time -- that includes
inside the City of Kerrville as well as the county. They
are being addressed as we speak. I haven't had any
indications, sir, that there's going to be any roadblocks to
getting those duplicate road names taken care of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, going back to these
guidelines, which I'm -- with all my little yellow
stickums -- or green stickums in it. Do you mean to relook
at some of these at some point?
MR. AMERINE: The guidelines themselves?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Some of the -- and
I'm talking -- they're very minor things, but to me they're
-- as an example, I was going through this book again over
the weekend, and one of them is, under the guidelines, if
it's a farm-to-market road, we call it a parkway. And it
2-24-03
81
1
--~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
never -- never made a lot of sense to me. And I -- you
know, and I think of Cypress Creek, which is probably the
main one that I have in my precinct, the Cypress Creek
Parkway. If there's an emergency, someone out there is
going to say Little Cypress Creek Road, and I think it is
more confusing to have some of these, to me, artificial
names associated with roads, you know, just for the sake
of -- because it's in our guidelines. Never made sense to
me. And there's very few things of that nature, but at some
point I really would, you know, like to either use the
opportunity to, one-on-one, sit with you, go over these.
That might be the easiest way, and then if there are, you
know, some changes recommended, come back to the full Court
or something like that.
MR. AMERINE: Certainly. I'd be a little bit
concerned about introducing a lot of changes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. AMERINE: I understand the process is
happening even as we speak, and the District is already
starting the renaming in our database. I'd be concerned
about introducing that kind of change, because it
fundamentally could change a lot of what we've already
accomplished.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. AMERINE: But, yeah, certainly, I think
-?4-03
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any document we have -- and that kind of leads me to segue
to what I want to kind of wrap up on this plan, is that this
is a framework. It's a living framework, and as we qet into
this and see how it's executing, we may need some changes.
I may be back in front of the Commissioners Court talking
about some of these substantive changes to the plan. I
think it's well thought through, and I want to thank the two
Commissioners that have been on our working groups,
Commissioner Letz and Baldwin. Their input's been valuable.
But I think, like this plan, until you get into this and
actually see how it's going to work, you can't be confident
that it's just going to go. But, yeah, I think -- I made a
note, sir, that we can sit down and talk about that and see
what could be changed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right, appreciate it.
Looks good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions? Do I
hear a motion that we approve the Project Plan?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I so move. Is that
what we're doing, approving the Project Plan?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we do,
yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
2-24-03
83
1
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 that we approve the Project Plan as presented by
the Kerr Emergency 911 Network principals. Any further
discussion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
MR. AMERINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've taken care of
four whole items, I think, already.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're important
items.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, they are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item up for consideration
is 2.3, consider and discuss approving a letter of support
or resolution for House Bill 630 relating to the designation
of State Highway 137 between Kerrville and Jourdanton as the
173rd Airborne Brigade Memorial Highway. I placed this
matter on the agenda at the request of Representative
Hilderbran. There has been legislation introduced in Austin
to so designate that stretch of highway between Kerrville
and Jourdanton as the 173rd Airborne Brigade Memorial
Highway. It will be, like a number of them, a dual
designation, I'm sure, just like we have a portion of
2-24-03
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
Highway 27 East out here designated as Memorial Highway.
The history of -- of the 173rd is contained -- background
and history is contained in the -- in your materials,
gentlemen. And the most recent activity, of course, for the
173rd was a very elite Special Forces/Special Operations
type unit in Vietnam, and it was deactivated after that
time. And, however, it was reactivated in Europe just two
years ago for action in that region. As I say, the matter
is being furthered by a bill filed by -- or to be filed,
apparently, by Representative Hilderbran, since it does
concern more than just Kerr County, but goes on down to
Jourdanton.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, let me make a
comment about it. There -- the 173rd Airborne Brigade is a
tremendous, distinguished outfit, and probably deserves to
have some recognition, even in the form of a road, but we
were just talking about duplicate names there just a moment
ago, and that's been a plague in Kerr County. And what I --
what I am concerned about is that this legislation moves
forward -- maybe to conclusion, maybe not -- without the
benefit of some public input, as we have spent most of our
morning taking on other topics about this. And what -- and
what we're doing here is changing the name of a very
important road. Runs right through the heart of my
precinct, so I guess I have a piece of interest here. And
2-24-03
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
without the benefit of the public weighing in on it and
saying, "Yes, that's great; we'd like to do it," is the name
going to change actually? Or is it just going to change on
the books in Austin or in TexDOT or wherever? And I really
would -- I really would hope that somehow or other we could
figure out a way, if the Representative doesn't ask us to do
a public hearing, that -- I would be more comfortable if we
did, in fact, do a public hearing. If no one showed up,
then they didn't show up and that's it. But I think it's --
it's important that the public weigh in on the change of the
name of a major highway that runs through their property or
that they access every day of their life.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your point's well-made. Any
other thoughts on this particular item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see any
problem with doing it. What's the problem? Is there
something wrong with doing this?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're dealing with
groundwater and surface water here? Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see that
there's anything wrong. I just would be more comfortable if
we had people tell us, "Fine, change the name. I like it."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it's on the
agenda, just like that item was a while ago. I mean, I
2-29-03
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
don't care one way or another. What -- I mean, I don't see
them -- I see the importance of it honoring a group of
people that gave their lives for our country in Vietnam. I
don't -- you know, I don't know. Y'all do whatever you want
to. I don't see the debate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- I mean,
I'm in favor of doing it either today, or doing a public
hearing and then doing it. I mean, I can't imagine anyone
being against it. I don't have any problem at all with it,
you know, putting it on the next agenda, doing a public
hearing on our next agenda, doing that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would be
comfortable doing that.
MR. JOHNSTON: Does that change everyone's
mailing address that front that road, then?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I don't believe so.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it would just be an
additional designation. Memorial highway. That particular
stretch would -- according to the text of the bill, it would
require TexDOT to put up appropriate memorial highway
markers at both ends and at various intervals in between.
MR. JOHNSTON: People's addresses on the
highway -- it's called Bandera Highway, not even called 173.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if that's all
that's involved, Judge, just putting up a sign somewhere at
2-24-G3
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the beginning and end that says that this has been
designated such-and-such memorial -- 173rd Airborne Brigade
Memorial Highway, and doesn't change the actual designation
or people's addresses, then, you know, I don't have a
problem with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: The text of the -- of the bill
that's -- that's before me says the Department shall design
and construct memorial markers indicating the highway
number, which it would continue to remain Highway 173, that
designation as the 173rd Airborne Brigade Memorial Highway
and any other appropriate information. And I assume there
will be some sort of historical or similar type markers
that -- at either the beginning, the end, or somewhere in
between, along with the other designations. But as I read
the legislation, it's not going to change the official
designation of State Highway 173.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Still going to be
Bandera Highway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's similar -- I think
if anyone's driven on Highway 83 to Leakey, that's
designated -- I believe it's the Vietnam War Memorial
Highway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, there are
others out there that have the designation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's still Highway
2-24-03
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
88
83.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Highway 27 out by
Schreiner College and V.A. Hospital --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wish we would have
asked the 911 folks how they would treat it. If they're
going to continue to represent it in their -- in their
system as State Highway 173, Bandera Highway, then I'm cool
with that.
approve.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Letz, respectively,
that we approve a resolution in support of House Bill 630
relating to designating State Highway 173 between Kerrville
and Jourdanton as the 173rd Airborne Brigade Memorial
Highway. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I never have
seen an actual resolution.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bill?
MS. SOVIL: It's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we'll just tell
them we'll consider this your resolution.
JUDGE TINLEY: Letter of support or
2-24-03
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
89
resolution is what it indicates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Authorize County Judge to
write a letter of support and attach the court order.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what my
motion said.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I said.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glad y'all picked up
on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. With that
addition, is there any further discussion? If not, all in
favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Letz, and Nicholson
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.}
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Record me as an
abstention, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The record will note
that Commissioner Williams abstained from voting. Next,
Item 2.4, consider and discuss request for a variance from
replatting within subdivision to move the property line by
survey on Lot 14 onto Lot 15 to allow septic leach field.
Commissioner Baldwin.
MS. KROHN: Good morning, Judge and
Commissioners of the Court. My name is Virginia Krohn, and
2-24-03
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
my husband and I have bought these two lots in Country
Manor, and one of the lots is -- Lot 14 is a half-acre lot.
Lot 15 is an acre and a half. And we're not really asking
to replat, and there's nothing that we really come under to
actually move a property line. So, what we want to do is
ask that we move the property line on 14 over onto 15,
making two full 1-acre lots, which would make two, 200-foot
frontage lots, which is a more desirable lot in the county,
and it would allow us to move the septic field up from a
lower area up into a more desirable area beside the house,
instead of down the hill. This would have no impact on
the -- on the community.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's on a water
system.
MS. KROHN: It's on a water system, a public
water system, Kerrville South.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it your intention
to keep both lots, or to
MS. KROHN: Both lots will be sold. And
that's why I want to do this before I sell them, because
once I sell them, that's going to be set at a half acre and
an acre and a half.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, to me, it is
a revision of plat. I mean, you're changing -- especially
if you're getting ready to sell the property. I was getting
-24-03
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ready to -- you know, if you were going to keep them --
either way, doesn't make that much difference, though. But
if you're changing the lot line, that is a revision, by
definition. And when we -- when you go to sell it, do the
title work, they're going to -- it's going to be a problem.
MS. KROHN: Well, what I was requesting to do
is actually move the property line by survey. Just --
Charles Domingues has already surveyed the entire plat, and
he would basically come in and move that center line over to
where they're both two 1-acre lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the subdivision --
the plat of the subdivision on the county records will not
be accurate, then.
MS. KROHN: Could be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- I mean,
that's --
MS. KROHN: So, then, that's relating --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, it's a minor
revision of plat.
MS. KROHN: Well, what you get into there in
this area, these are, like, $5,000 lots. And when you get
into meeting all the requirements, I'm going to spend $5,000
to move that line.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jannett, what's the fee
for minor revision?
2-24-03
92
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. KROHN: It's not the fees, it's the
survey and the paperwork that Charles Domingues is going to
have to submit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But he's already
surveyed.
MS. KROHN: He's only surveyed the outside
line. He said when he gets into replatting and then he
comes in, surveys that line, and does the replatting
paperwork, it's going to be quite expensive. Everyone will
have to be notified of this, too. And -- and it gains me
nothing, I can tell you that. I can still put the two
houses; I can still put the septic tanks in there. It's
just going to make two more desirable lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand what you're
saying. I'm just saying that -- I mean, and I -- you know,
I understand the -- the cost issue to it.
MS. KROHN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if we start going
down the road of having plats on record that are not
accurate, then there's no reason to plat.
MS. KROHN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's just -- I mean,
it's a first, you know, and if you make an exception here,
you -- how do you not make an exception somewhere else?
MS. KROHN: Sure.
2-24-03
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do recall that we have,
on occasion -- and I believe it was in Falling Water
Subdivision. I'm looking at Lee; I believe it was Voelkel
Engineering. There was a note put on a plat once, to
prevent from having to resurvey the whole area, that you
were relying on the field notes of a prior survey, and that
-- you know, and then you just had to use the work that
Charles Domingues has already -- already done. Lee, do you
remember doing that? Maybe it was Don's.
MR. VOELKEL: It was my brother, probably. I
don't recall that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I -- and I'm
pretty sure we did do that. But this same situation,
they're changing a lot line, and we -- you know, rather than
having to do a full survey of the plat, it was just a note
on the plat that -- you know, to protect his liability,
basically what it was, that he just surveyed this one line,
and was relying on the prior surveys on the plat for the
rest of the survey information.
MS. KROHN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would save funding
or save money, I think.
MR. JOHNSTON: Would make the lot -- how long
would that take?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How long? I mean,
2-24-03
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Charles already has the -- well, I mean, that's -- I mean
I'm not a surveyor, so I don't know how long -- I mean, what
he has to do to locate the line to start with.
MS. KROHN: It's not the location of the
line. He can come out and locate the line and put the pins
in, but then he has to submit the paperwork to the County,
and that's where he said his expense comes in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's interesting.
MS. KROHN: And I have talked to a couple of
private people who have done this, and they said it does
come up to, like, $5,000 by the time you move that line.
Now, they could have been completely replatting, you know,
coming in and splitting a piece of land. Maybe that's
something different.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's essentially what
you're doing; you're moving a lot line here. And that --
that price seems high to me for moving a lot line, I agree.
But I don't -- you know, I can't, you know, comment 'cause I
don't know -- you know, if Charles Domingues gave you that
quote, that's his quote.
MS. KROHN: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have the County
Engineer and the county -- elected County Surveyor in the
room. I wonder if we could get a comment from either one of
2-24-03
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
them, or both.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not to mention County
Attorney. What, Franklin?
MR. VOELKEL: Are you talking about a comment
on pricing or comment on the moving of the lot line?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Both.
MR. VOELKEL: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about moving of
the lot line? Do you have any comment about moving the lot
line?
MR. VOELKEL: My comment as the County
Surveyor would be the normal procedure, which is what Mr.
Letz said, would be to file a replat or revision of a plat,
just to keep all those records straight and no title
problems down the line. That's basically what we've been
doing, the procedure we've been following. And it -- I know
there's some expense involved in that. There's no doubt
about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much of an
expense, elected official?
MR. VOELKEL: I'd really rather not comment
on that, because of some fees that have already been -- that
seemed to me to be a little bit high on the ones that I
have. But --
2-z4-cs
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's enough.
MR. VOELKEL: They vary. How about that?
They vary in cost. The County has made it a little simpler
with the -- with the new -- what do you call it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Revision of plat.
MR. VOELKEL: Revision of plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Minor revision of plat.
MR. VOELKEL: Minor revision, making not so
many fees involved, which has helped also.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin? Your turn.
MR. JOHNSTON: There again, it now falls
under the definition of revision of plat. So, you know, any
change to that would be in your court to grant a variance or
whatever to that.
MS. KROHN: That was what I did at first, is
I went and visited the County and talked to Franklin, and
that's what he recommended, I do go for a variance, because
what -- this particular piece of property falls within the
City's jurisdiction and the County. And since the City was
less rigid -- or is supposedly less rigid, I thought that I
would go to them, so I went to Franklin and said would he
give up jurisdiction over that property so that I could go
to the City to move that property line, and he said I'd be
better off going before the Court. So, that's how I wound
up here.
-24-03
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 LETZ: I mean --
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the -- I think maybe our
rules may be more -- more stringent now than the City's,
some of these ETJ lots.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Irregardless of the
wisdom of doing it, what would it take to give -- to make
this happen, other than go through the process? Is there a
way to do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only thing we can do
is grant a variance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can grant a
variance to -- that's what you're asking us to do?
MS. KROHN: That's what I'm asking you to do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No other way?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you're talking
about the cost. I mean, the Court, in our last revised --
or revision to the Subdivision Rules, we lowered the cost
substantially for a minor revision of plat.
MS. KROHN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the -- the cost side
of it that we had control over, we reduced, you know. I
don't know what it totaled up, all the fees, but a couple
hundred dollars maybe from the County and to all the other
entities. So, the other, you know, piece of the puzzle is
the surveying charge to prepare the document, and it can
2-24-03
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
come to court at one time.
MS. KROHN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is a public notice
and notification requirement, 'cause it's a revision, but --
MS. PIEPER: It's paid by the County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that's paid by the
County.
MS. KROHN: Yeah, there's no cost there.
It's strictly by the surveyor. Could it be that Charles
Domingues is not aware that there's -- is there less
paperwork involved in the minor revision?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He'd spend less time,
clearly, because he'd come to court one time.
MR. JOHNSTON: He's aware of the process;
he's done those before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is exactly the
reason we made the revision to our rules, to allow for it
to -- because it is -- I mean, it was costing a great deal
of money, and they're having to come to court two times when
all they want to do is a lot line. So, we eliminated one
trip to the court and most of the fees.
MS. KROHN: Mm-hmm. Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: I might point out, the
variance process, too, that you -- just strictly saving
money is not a valid reason for a variance.
2-24-03
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
MS. KROHN: Well, this isn't just about
saving money.
MR. JOHNSTON: Has to be other reasons.
MS. KROHN: You have a letter from U.G.R.A.
that talks about it would be a better septic field.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think it -- I
mean, it's something -- you know, I think it's a better
configuration for those lots to have two 1-acre lots.
MS. KROHN: I think so too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ms. Krohn, may I
suggest to you that possibly you go back and visit with your
-- with your engineer -- your surveyor?
MS. KROHN: Charles.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And make sure that
y'all are on the same page and thinking the same things.
And you can always come back here --
MS. KROHN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- in two weeks.
MS. KROHN: Sure.
MR. KROHN: Can I just say one thing here
also? I'm Virginia's husband. This isn't where we're
trying to get more financial gain to ourselves by doing
this. It's going to cost us the same amount of money to
bring in all the dirt for the leach field in either place
that we put it. In Lot Number 14, which is the smaller lot,
2-24-03
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
if you would go out there, take a look at it, there's
various big boulders that -- first of all, this lot really
has an incline on it. There's very big boulders at the
bottom portion of this lot, and if we have to put the leach
line there, we may have to tear up those boulders, which may
cause disruption in the soil down there, and then could
cause our neighbors further down below us more problems with
water runoff. So, we're trying not to disturb that boulder
field there, if you want to call it that, and that's why
we're trying to do this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I appreciate your
-- 'cause it will. There is no question, it will cause
problems downstream.
MR. KROHN: Yes, it is. Yeah, like I said,
it's going to cost us the same amount to do it either way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's talk. We'll
talk in the next week or so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to --
MS. KROHN: Appreciate your time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Krohn. Item
2.5, consider preliminary revision of plat of Tract Numbers
48 and 49A of Kerrville Country Estates, Section Two, at
Volume Number 4, Page 131, and set public hearing date.
MR. JOHNSTON: Even though it says
preliminary revision of plat, this is actually one of those
2-24-03
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
expedited alternate platting process -- yeah, it is.
They're dividing a lot, 10.11 acres, into two 5.06-acre
lots, and what we're asking for today is the public hearing
part of that, to set a public hearing, and then they'll
actually come back with the plat at that time or on a
one-time basis to get it approved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to make one
comment. You remember Mr. Evans brought this to the Court
before in a little bit different form, that didn't fit us
very well. And he's happily, with a smile on his face,
going to do it the right way this time.
MR. JOHNSTON: Like -- Mr. Evans was kind of
like the previous item. He didn't want to do it at first.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Similar. Very
similar, yeah. What date?
MR. JOHNSTON: Thirty days.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10th or the 24th?
MS. SOVIL: I think it's -- they asked for
March the 10th, I believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: We can do a 30-day --
MS. SOVIL: Next meeting after that is the
24th.
MR. JOHNSTON: 30-day wait, I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: March the 10th is what they're
asking for. That's not going to work.
2-24-03
102
1
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. SOVIL: March 24th is not 30 days either.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: April 14th?
MS. SOVIL: April 14th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: April 14. I move that
we have -- set a public hearing date for April the 14th at
10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Nicholson,
respectively, that we set a public hearing on April 14,
2003, at 10 a.m., to consider the preliminary revision of
plat of Tract Numbers 48 and 49A of the Kerrville Country
Estates, Section Two, as shown in Volume 4, Page 131. Ts
there any further discussion on that item? 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 carried. Public
hearing is set on that item. Next item for consideration is
2.6, consider preliminary revision of plat of Site 15 of
J.L. Nichols Subdivision in Volume 2, Page 59 -- I assume
that's plat. And set public hearing date for the same.
MR. JOHNSTON: This was a 5-plus acre lot
that's -- that they want to divide into 1.97 and 3.25. It's
2-24-03
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
on a water system, and actually it's in the Ingram and the
Kerrville ETJ; it's in everything, so I guess they'll have
to get them to sign off on it also. It's on Lafayette Road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, while
they're looking at this, do you have any idea where the
issue is of ETJ subdivisions, whether the -- the new law
says that we can either join forces with the City or do one
or the other? And the City was working on that in their
master plan. Have you heard any -- where we are on that
issue?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think Judge Henneke
approached both the City of Kerrville and Ingram, and I'm
not sure that there's any -- there was any resolution to
that. I don't think we ever came to agreement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We really need to get
the resolution. People -- this kind of stuff, they have to
file in both jurisdictions, and it's very expensive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Almost a year late in
doing it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have visited briefly
with the City Attorney about this, and -- you know, about
moving this forward. One of the City Attorneys.
MR. BRINKMAN: We took this to the City of
Ingram, because they were the majority, and I talked to
Danny Edwards, and he had one question that I answered, and
-24-03
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
he said everything was fine. Even though the plat did not
ask for his signature -- or the preliminary list that we
took it to, but they signed off on it. I"m sure they'll
sign off.
MR. JOHNSTON: They would have to sign off on
the plat, though there needs to be a block on there for them
to sign.
MR. BRINKMAN: For some reason, it wasn't on
the list of -- the sheet y'a11 gave me for the preliminary
plat to go around and pay the fees and such. But we did
take it to the City of Ingram.
MR. JOHNSTON: Then the final plat, they need
to sign off that they agree with all the --
MR. BRINKMAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do either of these
have construction on them? Are there buildings on either of
these lots?
MR. BRINKMAN: The Dr Pepper people are here;
they own the property, and they -- they have their building
on the 1.97 acres. And they do have a septic on it, and
it's recent.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: They have -- 15B, I think, is
the open lot.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir. Vacant, yes, sir.
2-24-03
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What do we need to
do? Set a hearing for the same date as the previous one?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, we'll have to set a date
for public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What date is that?
JUDGE TINLEY: April 14.
MS. SOVIL: 14.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we set a
public hearing on this for April 14th.
JUDGE TINLEY: 10:30 okay?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10:30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Letz, respectively,
that we set a public hearing for April 14th, 2003, at
10:30 a.m. to consider preliminary revision of plat of --
plat of Site 15 of J.L. Nichols Subdivision, as shown in
Volume 2, Page 59 of the plat. Any further discussion? 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.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is 2.7, consider
2-24-03
106
1 installing signs on roads in Precinct 4. Road and Bridge.
2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Want something to
3 throw at him? Or --
4 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to the next item
5 there if -- are you here on 2.7, Franklin?
6 MR. JOHNSTON: Oh, Truby -- I told Dave this
7 morning Truby was ill today, and I don't know a whole lot
8 about 2.7. I think Dave probably knows more about it than I
9 do. It's about changing the -- changing names in a
10 subdivision. It's our understanding that we have to get a
11 court order in order to change those names.
12 MS. SOVIL: No, this is installing signs.
13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is installing
14 signs.
15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it relates to the
16 moratorium we put on putting signs up because of the
17 addressing, and these are ones --
lg COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We asked them to hold
19 up.
20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that we asked them to
21 hold up on. Buster, is this the list we talked about with
22 911 that needed to be released?
23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, this is the same
24 1 issue.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- and Truby was at
u-24-03
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that meeting, and they're going to work it out, so I presume
these are the ones they agreed to put -- to go ahead and put
signs up now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Truby's
concern was that she wanted to bring this back to court to
make sure that she had the authority to put these signs up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And in talking with
her, my concern was that -- and you all could help me with
it -- is anyone going to be surprised? Do we have a lot of
confidence that everybody out there whose road is being
changed knows that it's going to be changed?
MR. JOHNSTON: The names are all being
changed. There's a list in there, what they're changed to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any
confidence in that point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our addressing
coordinator is here, and he may -- may or may not lend some
confidence. But --
MR. BULLOCK: Yeah, those people on those
streets have been notified of the address changes, and
that's what Truby was waiting for, is to make sure that
everyone had been notified.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's what we do;
we wait till they're notified, and then we put our signs up.
2-24-G3
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we could, as sort
of a rule of thumb, no surprises. If, over the next -- next
year or so, if we could do the kinds of things that 911 is
proposing, so that whether or not they like it, they know in
advance what's going to happen to them, I think that would
be a good thing. So if we have some confidence in there
being no or few surprises on this, I'll propose that we go
ahead and I make a motion that we give Road and Bridge the
authority to put up signs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that emotion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin -- or Nicholson
and Baldwin, respectively, that -- that Road and Bridge be
given the authority to put up the new road signs for the new
road names, as per the list provided. Any further
discussion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item is
consider name changes for privately maintained roads in
accordance with 911 guidelines.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll start with this one,
'cause the majority of them are in my precinct. And it's
2-24-C3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
109
kind of -- I think it goes to Commissioner Nicholson's
confidence level. We do the -- the name change originally.
There's always -- there's a backup, hopefully, saying who's
requesting the name, and -- and usually it's the property
owner. In this case, we have that, and I'm in favor of all
of the changes in my precinct. I think there's one in your
precinct too, Dave.
20 over it.
21
22
23 it?
24
25
2-Z4-03
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why is your name all over
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see Les Newberry's name
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that all we're
dealing with today, are these five?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five private road name
changes. Four of them are in my precinct, and they're all
-- you know, back up. The property owners in the area
wanted to change them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if you
would -- let's see. The -- this sheet, if you would go back
one more, can you do that with me?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I got all mine out of
order already. Would we be looking Newberry Road?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It has my name all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
110
all over it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Down at the bottom,
the Commissioner. I'm the Commissioner. Les Newberry is a
property owner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, down there. Well,
it's in my precinct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't have it.
Somebody wrote my name on there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's your precinct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know about
the first one, but the second one --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. On the second one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're so confused.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're on another one there, I
see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the third one.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're on four of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So everybody is in my
precinct these days, huh? Is that what we're getting at?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not everybody.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're the one
that's designated to take the phone calls.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's the answer to
25 ~ "no surprises." They get to call you.
2-24-C3
111
1
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: I don't think that --
I think this is Precinct 3.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I think Jones is in
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know Jones -- I mean, I
know it's in my precinct. Unless I'm more confused than
I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ask Road and Bridge
to correct their document.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I visited with
Truby about this, and I was aware that they're certainly in
my precinct, based on the line, and Mr. Newberry requested
these changes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's okay for you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's okay from my
standpoint.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to slide it back
from Buster's precinct to yours and approve these?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, from my four. For
your one? I make a motion that we approve the name changes
for the privately maintained roads as presented by Road and
Bridge.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
2-29-03
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
112
seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, that -- that
we approve the name changes for the privately maintained
roads in accordance with 911 guidelines and -- as presented,
those being five specifically numbered ones, 1753, 3037,
3038, 3036, and 3035. Any further discussion? 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. Next item,
consider and discuss request for budget amendment to
transfer money from salary line item. Precinct 1 Constable,
Mr. Pickens, is here with us. That was the item you were
referring to earlier.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: With the budget amendment, the
unnumbered one. Mr. Pickens?
MR. PICKENS: Thank you, Judge,
Commissioners. I know it's 12 o'clock; everybody wants to
go eat lunch. I'll make this real quick. What I have
before y'all is, I've discussed with Mr. Baldwin here last
week considering a budget transfer amendment from salary
line item to some new line items, as we had discussed in the
past, for some office supplies, from $50 up to $500. And
that's for -- to get my letterheads and business cards and
2-24-03
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
113
envelopes so I can conduct my business in the proper manner.
For books and publications, dues, which in the past budget
was $75, increased up to $500 due to the fact that -- from
one example right here, I purchased a book out of my own
funds for -- to help me serve my papers within my precinct
and within the county. Due to the fact of listening all
about the -- the road changes the name changes and so forth,
this really helps me get along and get my papers served in a
timely manner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bobby, you purchased
that out of what? Out of your pocket?
MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was $75. Why
didn't you just spend it out of this?
MR. PICKENS: Because at the time, this just
came in. I just got this, just recently.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That explains it all,
yeah. Okay.
MR. PICKENS: And then also for the -- due to
the fact that Legislature is meeting right now as we speak,
from my past experience being in law enforcement, on the odd
years is when they meet and they pass new laws, criminal
laws, civil laws. So, we're going to have some new books
coming into effect September 1st to be purchased, as far as
traffic laws and so forth. The next one will be the
2-24-03
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
telephone. Being the fact that my office is now located
downstairs, it's no longer the J.P. office, so I'm absorbing
the expense on that phone. Also, I have purchased a cell
phone to help me with my duties as the -- serving the
papers, and where the J.P.'s office can keep in contact with
me at all times. I'm asking that the Court increase that up
to $500. That's a new phone line item. The vehicle repair,
as far as using my personal vehicle, for oil changes and
therefore because of the increased mileage on serving
papers, to help with preventive maintenance. Same as -- as
far as the fuel; it's $250 to offset some of the expenses
that I've acquired on that. What I've just given you is
also a letter from the County Treasurer showing that at the
end of this fiscal year, I'll have a little over $3,800 left
in my budget, which this is the money that was not spent
October lst and part of November, 'cause nobody was in the
office at that time, due to the fact that we had the
election. All I'm asking is for $2,000 to be transferred
around to these line items.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. I move for
approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin and Commissioner Williams,
respectively, that we approve the budget amendment request
2-29-03
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
made by Precinct 1 Constable, and transfers as therein
requested. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you.
You can see the note at the bottom where Bobby and the
County Auditor had visited and worked out some things before
it ever got to me, but I visited Bobby and -- in order --
and it's hard to tell -- I mean, he doesn't have any
spending record to know what it's going to take to get that
office going. The former constable just simply didn't spend
money, and so it's difficult. So, I thought we would fire a
shot and let him get it cranked up, let him get going, but
also advised him that -- not to hang his hat on -- on his
budget looking like this next year. I mean, there's -- we
have to address the constable's budgets on -- I'll point
out -- when we get down to it, I'll point out some
discrepancies all the way through it and take a look at it.
But I just want you to understand, Bobby, there's a
possibility it may not look anything like this.
MR. PICKENS: I understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Did he say, "I
understand"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Didn't say, "I
agree." He said, "I understand."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Long as he
understands, that's all I'm looking for.
2-24-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
116
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can make a quick
comment on that as well -- and this is kind of more to the
Court than it is to Bobby -- is that the constables'
salaries, about five years ago we went to great lengths to
get them all equalized. We raised them, eliminated travel
allowance, large part of it as I recall, and somehow in the
last five years it's gotten all out of balance again. And I
think it's something -- that's one of the areas that we
really need to look at with the next budget, because I
think -- I mean, they're -- you know, they shouldn't -- they
should be the same, to me. Whether we need to adjust -- you
know, do something to get them more in line with each other
again.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When it comes that
time for that discussions, I'm also going to want to talk
about Precinct 4 being somewhat different, in that it covers
60 percent of the county. And I -- I know y'all have had
these conversations before, but we're going to have to have
them again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fair enough.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
25 ~ (No response.)
2-29-03
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
117
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
MR. PICKENS: Thank you, Judge. Thank you,
Commissioners.
JUDGE TINLEY: You betcha. Thank you,
Constable. Did I hear your stomach growl, Commissioner
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what that was?
Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: About 9:30 this
morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. What's the pleasure?
Do we go forward? Do we --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got some folks
waiting; they've been here a long time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd do the -- let's do
11.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, let's do 11.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll go straight to
2.11, consider and discuss and take appropriate action on
amendments to the intergovernmental agreement between Kerr
County and the U.G.R.A. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Returning this item
again for the fifth time, I believe. And I think this time
we have a -- a document in front of the Court that -- that
-24-03
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
118
passes muster from both the County Attorney and the attorney
representing the River Authority. David, would you address
that, please, and Richard, so that the Court knows?
MR. MOTLEY: Do you have a copy of it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe we have
copies of it.
MR. MOTLEY: I ran an extra copy off for you
this morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
MR. MOTLEY: There's not much to say about
it, except that we -- we made the changes that the Court had
requested. We made this -- and Richard had made some
suggestions on this that we make this apply only to what I'm
calling the second grant. It's really the third, if you --
if you count the study grant, but the 722411; it's that
grant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's -- the second
applies to the -- to the sewer project.
MR. MOTLEY: Right. Yeah, I'm sorry, right.
And we made it apply only to that. And we made any
change -- as we had done in the engineering contract, we
made any reference to Tetra Tech instead be the reference to
Grove and Associates, Incorporated, until we find out a
little bit more about the status of the buy-out or what
happened on that. Left a blank only for the date of the
2-24-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
119
contract and the amount of matching funds that U.G.R.A. has
placed into that. I'm not sure what that amount is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's on record; we
can research it.
MR. MOTLEY: Basically, it was the same
agreement that -- or the template agreement, except that it
did not -- this one is -- is retrospective, in that there
already have been appointments of -- and contracts retaining
Grove and Associates and Grantworks. So, this is a
historical-type thing, to make up for a past situation. And
Mr. Mosty had suggested that when we get to the next two,
that we would just use this sort of as a template to go
forward with it, but then prospectively deal with the fact
that the Court would, at some time, take up the issue of --
through RFP's, the issue of the engineer and then
administrative consulting firm, and we'd change it at that
time. But I think Richard had the right idea, to just make
this the retrospective agreement, and -- and I think it's
just basically the same agreement that you already had.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which memorializes
the second contract for grant moneys?
MR. MOTLEY: Yes, that's correct. Put that
one to bed, and we'll deal with the next two if and when
they get funded.
25 I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
-24-03
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
MR. MOTLEY: On a related issue, I assume
that you got the copy of the contract on the engineering?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. MOTLEY: And that's okay. Passed on down
the line.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Been signed by the
County Judge.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay. All right. Well, I don't
have anything else to add to it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval
of the intergovernmental agreement as amended between Kerr
County and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, and
authorize the County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second that motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin,
respectively, that the Court approve the intergovernmental
agreement for Texas Community Development Program, Texas
Colonia Construction Fund awards relative to Contract Number
722411, and authorize the County Judge to sign same. Is
there any discussion?
MR. MOSTY: Well, and you will insert the
last grant -- there is that one blank for the last grant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
2-24-03
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
J9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOSTY: The last matching funds you see
on Page --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Matching funds
amount.
MR. MOSTY: You can just have the County --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the bottom of Page
1, you're referring to?
MR. MOSTY: County Judge's -- yes, that's a
matter of record in the last resolution. So, just for that
clarification.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate that, Mr. Mosty.
Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Nicholson voted against the
motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
MR. MOSTY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, we have a room
full of airport people, City employees, et cetera, et
cetera. We could work it two ways. We could go ahead and
knock it out on an empty stomach, or they could take us out
to lunch, and --
2-24-03
122
1
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: What is your preference,
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd rather do it on an
empty stomach, of course. No gifts here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You have attorneys
and city engineers and busy airport folks, and city
attorneys and county attorneys and -- wow, a lot of talent
out there. Let's go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Better hire some
lawyers to take care of us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's take up Item 2.14. I
assume it's the pleasure of the Court at this time to
consider and discuss, take appropriate action on
recommendation of Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Advisory
Board to approve revised Airport Layout Plan, Airport Master
Plan Update as presented, and authorize County Judge to sign
same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge.
I'm going to defer to Paul Knippel, who is the City of
Kerrville's Director of Public Works -- I think that's the
correct title -- who is serving in the capacity of interim
director of the airport as we search for a new airport
manager. Paul?
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir. You took my opening
lines, but that's all right. And we're not here tonight
2-24-03
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to -- this afternoon to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't say "tonight."
MR. KNIPPEL: This evening -- this afternoon
to ask for any -- any money. I'm here to try to carry a
couple of items across the end zone, so to speak, get some
closure on some matters that have been pending for several
months now. The first item is 2.14, regarding approval of
the Airport Layout Plan and approval of the Airport Master
Plan Update.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everybody get a copy?
MR. KNIPPEL: The -- the driver behind both
of these documents is the Airport Layout Plan. That's an
11-page reproducible-type document with full-size drawings.
It has -- it outlines proposed growth for the airport, both
from an air operations standpoint and also a land use
standpoint, for the next 20 years. That document, the
Airport Layout Plan, has been through the F.A.A., it's been
through TexDOT Aviation. Everyone has approved it. It
hasn't been signed; the signatures start on the local level.
So that document, the Airport Layout Plan, is enclosed in
the Airport Master Plan. It's one of the fold-out sheets,
the 11-by-17. So, that's the first thing. The second thing
that we're here today to ask approval on is the Airport
Master Plan Update. That's more of a -- a verbal narrative
expansion of the -- the drawings themselves. It doesn't
2-24-03
124
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
carry quite as much weight as the Airport Layout Plan does.
It sort of provides the basis for the development of the
Airport Layout Plan.
The Master Plan also goes through an
inventory of current facilities. It provides projections
for what we think we're going to see out at the airport over
the next 20 years, and it discusses three growth
alternatives. One of those three alternatives has been
accepted by the F.A.A. and TexDOT Aviation. That growth
alternative is -- is the Airport Layout Plan that we bring
before you today. Both of these documents began work in --
in 1998, and they -- they culminate, you know, with -- with
authorization by the Court. I'm going before the City
Council tomorrow night to ask for the same. These documents
are important in that, should the direction of the Court and
the -- and the Council be to further pursue airport
improvement grants, those -- we are only eligible for those
grants if the specific improvement is shown in these
documents. Approval of these documents doesn't commit the
Court or the Council to further expansion or development of
the airport; it just provides us a basis for doing such.
So, with that being said, that's basically all I have on
2.14. If there's any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Paul, by -- by us
voting and adopting 2.14, that doesn't -- 2.14 does not
2-24-03
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
address the 2.15 issue?
MR. KNIPPEL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The leases and the
verbiage and the names and all that are not in there at this
point, are they?
MR. KNIPPEL: Not directly. The Airport
Layout Plan does designate different parts of the airport
property, of the 550 acres, I think it is, within the
airport property for different uses.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. KNIPPEL: Aviation or non-aviation,
different areas for different types of hangars within the
aviation area, so forth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand, and I
think you've answered my question. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for
Mr. Knippel?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This -- this
approval of the plan, I'm -- I'm trying to get straight what
we're approving here. We`re not starting down a path that
will lock us into expenditure in the future? I'm looking at
Commissioner Williams, 'cause he knows more about this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I can't say
that there won't be times when we might have to put up some
match money for grants, but the approval of the plan is the
2-24-03
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
precursor to any grant applications. You have to have that
in place, or you're out in left field with no opportunity.
So, there may be some times down the line, but those are all
separate things that the Court would take under discussion
and discuss the relative merits of it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would we essentially
be saying to the Airport Board, then, yeah, go ahead and
start down this path and we'll deal with each one of those
as -- as they come up?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That`s correct.
Airport Board recommends it. This has been in development
for, what, two-plus years, Paul?
MR. KNIPPEL: Since '98. Tt --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Five years. And the
Airport Board does recommend Court approval, and is
recommending the same thing to the City Council tomorrow
night for its approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have a comment. I
guess, what is the timeline for this? What if we didn't
approve it today? When does this have to be approved by?
Is there a -- a date?
MR. KNIPPEL: There`s not. Obviously,
something that's been in development for five years doesn't
have a great sense of urgency. I think that we run the risk
of -- of F.A.A. taking another shot at it and starting the
-24-03
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
process over again, and that's a concern on the part of the
folks at TexDOT Aviation also. I think there's a desire on
the staffers who have been working on this to close it. I
will say that the -- the growth alternative plan that is
identified in -- in the document that you have there, the
Master Plan is a 20-year document. The growth plan in there
is a zero to five-year document. We are already halfway
through the improvements that are shown in there. In terms
of the last couple of years, as you recall, the Court
approved matching funds for some -- some big capital
projects at the airport, and so we're kind of well on our
way buying into the document, effectively.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- and, you know,
the documents -- I don't have any problem with it, the
substance of it, at all, but I do have a problem with the
text. And it goes back to something that I've mentioned on
numerous times, I think, in this court, is the -- it goes
back to, I guess, the lack of recognition the County gets
for being a fifty-fifty partner in that project. I had to
reread the first, I don't know, 15 pages twice before I
could ever even find Kerr County, and I -- I strongly object
to that. This airport has been funded by county residents
as much as city residents throughout, and I think that the
County needs to be recognized. And, you know, going through
here, and it talks about all the reasons for the growth and
2-24-03
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
all the things that are good; it's because it's next to the
City of Kerrville. Well, that's not true. It's because
it's in Kerr County. It talked about 50 percent of the --
you know, the -- 45 percent of the population is in the city
limits, which is why this airport is needed and going to
grow more. Well, again, I mean, it's -- Kerr County's
growing. The county's growing faster than the city is. I
don't know what the breakdown is, but I'm quite certain that
there's quite a few people that have airplanes out there
that are county residents, not city residents.
So -- and I'm not going to vote against it
for this reason, but I would vote against the next plan, if
I do have the opportunity, if the County isn't recognized
better and isn't shown to be a fifty-fifty partner in this.
And this goes to the next step that really needs to be
addressed more at the City Council, I think, and probably
the City Manager, is that in the past, whenever the grant
came up, the City kind of came to the County and said, well,
it was in the Master Plan, so y'all need to pay your, you
know 10 -- 15 percent, 10 percent, whatever the percentage
is, with very little input going into the process, and that
needs to change.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Commissioner
Letz' comments should be well-taken. I don't disagree with
^..~
25 them.
2-24-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes. And that had been
mentioned to me prior to this meeting, just your first
comment regarding the equal recognition, and we'll get that
on the cover page for sure, and we'll endeavor to change the
text accordingly as well. And as far as the grant process
goes, it's -- in my opinion, it's easier to get your
approval on the front end, before we spend a lot of time
developing any further projects out there, than it is to
just show up and say, well, here it is. So, I'll -- I
wasn't involved in a lot of those, but that's how we intend
to do business.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're just the
messenger, Paul.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the point that
we made when interviews begin for the new airport manager,
so that the airport manager realizes that it's a fifty-fifty
partnership, just like it is at the library,
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Paul.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you, Paul.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are we? Let's
see, which one is that? I would move approval of the
recommendation of the Airport Advisory Board for the County
approval of Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Master Plan --
Airport Layout Plan and Airport Master Plan, as -- as will
-24-03
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
be amended, and authorize County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin,
respectively. Do we have any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to vote
for it also. I'm going to support what Commissioner Letz
said.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? All
in favor -- all in favor of the motion, indicate by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Item 2.15,
consider and discuss and take appropriate action on
representation of Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Advisory
Board to approve revised airport lease agreement with
Kerrville Aviation, Inc. I might note for the record that
we do have two requests from the public to participate in
this particular agenda item. Commissioner Williams, do you
have any opening comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just for openers,
Judge. Just -- again, I'll turn it over to Paul to present
the revisions as are being recommended to the Court and
2-24-03
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
131
explain them, and invite anyone else who might have comment
in support of or against to speak up. Paul?
MR. KNIPPEL: I want to -- staff is here
today to request your approval of three lease documents that
are before the Court regarding our -- the fixed base
operator, or Kerrville Aviation, out at the airport. The
three -- the three lease documents cover an area -- this is
the Airport Loop Road right here. This is what is known as
the -- the KX Aviation lease, where the Kerrville
Aviation -- you know, kind of our quasi-terminal building
right here, if you will. And then we have over here the
S & S lease, which is known in your documents as -- as Lots
9 and 10. There's a -- what's become known as the blue
hangar here on the end, so we're talking about these two
properties right here. And in relation to the airport apron
right here, this is the taxiway out to the main runway. So,
this is the Lots 9 and 10, and this is the -- the KX lease.
With regard to that, we'll cover the first one. What we're
bringing to you today is a -- is a proposed sixth amendment
to the lease for Lot 3 and the two buildings -- three
buildings they're on. The sixth lease amendment basically
just accomplishes two things. It increases the number of
mandatory services that must -- that are required of the
F.B.O. to air frame power -- air frame and power repair of
the airport -- airplanes, and also, that amendment also
2-24-03
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
132
releases -- also changes the wording that's involved with
the establishment of fuel flowage fees.
Just to kind of set the stage, the main
sources -- the principal sources of revenue for the airport
are ground leases, fuel flowage fees, and primarily that's
it at the moment, and some sales tax and property taxes.
The -- so that -- that document is fairly straightforward.
It's an amendment or an addendum to an existing document
that's been carried forward since the -- since the '60's.
I'll back up just a second here. I think Commissioner
Williams included a copy of an agenda bill that I have, and
I also gave the same agenda bill to our City Council. These
same items are going also to the Council tomorrow night.
That agenda bill went into a lot of -- a lot of detail. I
tried to convey what occurred at the Airport Advisory Board
meeting with regard to all these leases as best I could
without getting any more verbose than necessary. We're here
today very simply to seek your approval on all of these
lease items.
The second item is the -- is a new lease
for -- for the Lots 9 and 10. Right now, those are ground
leases only. They're due to expire in 2005. In 2005, the
blue hangar, which was built by the original F.B.O. hangar
owner, will become the property of the airport and subject
to outright rental rates. The incentive for the City and
2-29-03
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
133
County to approve of this lease is that the -- the lessee
has performance requirements in that he has requirements to
construct an additional hangar on the Lot 9. There will
also be a release of a portion of the Lot 9 as well, back to
the airport for further leasing, which will provide some
additional airport frontage road -- airport apron frontage
availability, and there's a number of different things. And
I think I probably should best stop right now and just see
if there's any questions. You've all had an opportunity to
read the agenda bill and so forth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Remind me again,
without going back and reading it, how -- how's the fuel
flowage fees adjusted?
MR. KNIPPEL: The --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's happening with
that?
MR. KNIPPEL: The current lease says that the
fuel flowage fees, which is basically a tax on top of the
rate, on top, is -- that fee is set based on a comparison
with some named airports; New Braunfels, San Marcos, and
three others.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. KNIPPEL: So -- and it also has a cap in
there, and I believe that cap is at 5 cents per gallon.
This addendum will change the language to say that the fuel
2-29-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
134
flowage fees will be based on a comparable rate at other
airports.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No specific number?
MR. KNIPPEL: No specific airports. And that
-- and in doing so, it removes the cap as well. And I think
our fees could go up quite a bit. We seem -- right now
they're 5 cents a gallon, and they could go up to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who sets that rate?
First of all, who gets that money? Does the City/County --
MR. KNIPPEL: Airport --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me.
MR. KNIPPEL: Sorry, sir. It goes to the
airport fund. Which, right now, the -- the City has the
airport -- an airport fund in the budget, and most fees and
expenditures -- or revenues and expenditures come in and out
of that budget, and any projected shortfalls are approached
through the Council and the Court to make up on an annual
basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me why -- and
this will be my last question for a minute. Tell me why the
City and County wouldn't want to just allow the blue
building to run its course, and then -- I think by 2005 was
the year that the lease is up there, and then we become
owners of that facility. And as -- in my mind, it looks
like to me that a good business way to handle that facility
-24-03
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
135
out there is that we let the lease run out and then we take
ownership, and then lease it to make money, as opposed to
not make money. Where am I -- where am I wrong in that?
MR. KNIPPEL: I -- I think that the -- I
think that we will make money off this proposed lease. I
think there'll be revenues directly to the airport, in
addition to additional property and sales tax that come
right back to Kerr County and the City. I think the short
answer to your -- your question is a -- goes back to a --
one bird in hand is worth two in the bush. We -- we
could -- the benefit to the City and the incentive that's
brought forth in it as a negotiating point also with this
lease is that -- is the added improvements that come forth
with the lease. The additional hangar that will become the
property of the City -- or not -- of the airport, excuse me.
I'm used to standing up before the Council. That -- the new
hangar that will become the property of the airport at the
termination of the lease, I think that's a benefit right
there. It's a new building. I think there's also the --
the -- of course, the added -- there's a requirement as well
to construct a self-fueling depot. So, with -- and also,
with the -- there's a variety of additional sources of
revenue other than simply the rent on the blue hangar that
come forth with this lease.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Were you not going to
-24-03
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
136
crunch some numbers for presentation to the Court on these
options?
MR. KNIPPEL: I did that, yes, sir. I did a
-- a local economic revenue analysis on this. I'll pass
that to the Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now you got to
explain it to us.
MR. KNIPPEL: The box there is really the --
the revenue sources themselves, over to the right part of
the page. The things to the left part of the page are kind
of what goes into the right part of the page. Down at the
bottom are the assumptions. Essentially, what we have here,
when we get to the bottom line, we projected over a 30-year
period of this lease the total income to the area, meaning
the airport and Kerr County and the City of Kerrville, those
three entities, is over $1.3 million. Now, that's based on
some very, in my opinion, conservative numbers, such as a --
a growth of fueling of only 2 percent annually, flat-line
tax rates, flat-line sales and property. No -- no increases
in those in terms of the percentages. There's a -- a
3 percent growth projected based on the Consumer Price Index
for the hangar rental itself. There's a -- a 3 percent
projected C.P.I. growth of the land lease itself, also. The
past five years, we've seen a 4 percent.
-24-03
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
137
So -- and to get to the heart of Commissioner
Baldwin's question, we ran it out where we compared the
proposed lease, as it is before the Court now, to a
hypothetical lease that may come online in 2005, and we are
projecting a -- a -- about a $300,000 difference over that
time period. Now, there's a lot of variables that could
move in this. The projections, I think they're
conservative; they could be much higher than what they are.
There could be a whole lot more revenue than the 1.3 shown
here on this page. Somebody -- alternately, somebody could
say well, I'm willing to pay a whole lot more than what we
consider fair market value for that blue hangar in 2005.
The -- and that may or may not be the case. And are they
going into a 30-year lease at that rate, is another
question. So, the -- there's a lot that can be said. If
there's no other questions, I can continue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I guess it
really boils down to, you know, the competitive bidding
issue. Or it does to me, anyway. I mean, I may be a little
bit off base on that, but -- so if we -- if we -- what
you're saying is, if we go along with the recommendation of
the Airport Board -- and this hasn't meant anything to me
quite yet; these are a lot of numbers -- we would be better
-- you're saying we'd be better off financially, probably,
by going with the recommendation of the Airport Board than
2-24-03
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
138
going the competitive bidding route?
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir. I think that -- and
that is because the
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where's the income
on -- on the recommendation? Where does the income happen?
By -- you know, the way I understood it, and I may be off
base again, that the new -- the new facility or the new
building being built out there on the Lot 9 or 10, whichever
one, is a storage facility, is it not?
MR. KNIPPEL: The new facility will be used
for storage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And how does that
create any additional revenues?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Airplane storage or other
storage?
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir, airplane storage.
It -- it brings additional fuel consumption to the airport,
for one. I think that -- and it works in with the overall
business plan of -- of Kerrville Aviation right now. The
lease isn't just Lot 9. It's -- the lease is Lots 9 and 10,
and they work together with the whole overall operation. So
-- and that hangar will become the property of the airport
at the termination of the lease, which then it will be
opened up for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
2-24-03
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
139
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the question
of competitive bidding that Commissioner Baldwin raised is
also a question I raised the other night, and in subsequent
discussions I -- I had, I rethought the issue, but I think
it would be important perhaps if the County Attorney would
just give us a brief expression about competitive bidding
when we are involved in leasing something, as opposed to
when we are involved in the purchase of goods and services.
Can somebody enlighten the Court as to the distinction so
that there is comfort -- a comfort level is raised on
leasing versus purchasing?
MR. MOTLEY: Are you talking about now?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, because, you know, I --
this is an item I did not know was on the agenda. Getting
surprised again, I guess. There is exceptions to the laws
that would allow this kind of agreement. How's that for an
answer?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Works for me.
MR. KNIPPEL: I think that on a -- and this
issue of a competitive bid versus a -- a fair market type or
a -- a rate structure formula came up during the Airport
Advisory Board meeting when we had this -- this lease before
them. And then the gentleman over here is going to probably
make a presentation in a minute saying, well, I can pay a
2-24-03
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
140
lot more money than what they're proposing to. And so it
becomes the -- the nature of the issue then before us
becomes a -- one of, are we going to have a competitive
basis for lease execution on the airport, or are we going to
set a rate and adopt a formula for rate structure, and then
invite people to -- kind of on a first-come, first-served
basis is -- is sort of where that tends to go. I think --
and on that note, the -- the staff, our City Manager, we all
kind of would want to voice our opposition for a competitive
structure. I think that that does not create, necessarily,
a development-friendly environment.
You might have some short-term gains with
that, but there are some -- but if you're into -- if we have
a new user, for instance, who wants to use some of the
nonindustrial or the nonaviation related land out there, and
he goes through the process of spending a couple of months
with the City or the County, developing, negotiating a --
what part they want to lease, and seeing how it works in
their business plan, and then we get to where we agree on
it, then we have to say, "Wait, let's go out for a bid," and
we have to go -- and go to the public. Perhaps this could
become the policy, that we need to go to the public then
and -- and solicit any other higher bidders that could come
in for a dollar more, for instance. I couldn't find
anything -- our City Attorney didn't find any requirements
2-24-03
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
or prohibitions in -- in the local code for purchasing
that -- that applies to this, nor did I see anything in our
grant insurances that we have with the State that requires
or prohibits this. We can only do things in a fair and
reasonable way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, see, that's
where you and I kind of are on opposite sides of the -- the
fence here, because I -- I see a fair and a reasonable way
is offering it -- offering the opportunity for public
property to all citizens. You know, I mean, I hope we
can -- I hope we can spend enough time here where you can
convince me and show me that I'm wrong, okay? But I really
don't see -- I don't see what you're saying up to this
point.
MR. KNIPPEL: Well, and I -- I think that --
I think there's merits to both sides. It's what's going to
be the best thing for the City -- for the airport overall,
with what we have right now and in front of us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's start throwing
something at him every time he does that.
MR. KNIPPEL: I'm sorry. I'm going to have
to start saying "the airport." I think we have an
opportunity to -- to -- to work with an existing business
that we have at the airport who has been there, has a
history with the airport, who has come forward wishing to
2-29-03
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
expand and grow. And by virtue of -- by the expansion of
the -- and the extension of this lease at this time, he's
able to accomplish some of the goals, but he needs to tie up
that blue hangar with everything else to make that happen.
So, it's kind of a -- we -- we make the best decision with
what we have in front of us. That's my take on it, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have a few
comments. I'll be much easier than Commissioner Baldwin, I
think, on this one. First, I don't know that the whole
Court knows Mr. Kennedy, if he may have introduced himself
to the full members of the Court. He currently leases the
property, the Kerrville Aviation building, and has done
it -- you know, I don't have a plane. I'm not sure if
that's good or bad, but I'm probably glad I don't have one.
But a number of people I know in Kerrville do, and a lot
greater number of people outside Kerrville use this airport,
and speak very, very highly of the way he runs his facility.
I think he's done -- and that was, what, three years ago you
took over?
MR. KENNEDY: Less than two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than
took over operation. He's, in my mind, done
out there to start that. I mean, I think we
lessor that we're working with. When I look
chart -- Paul, you can stand up again; I hav
two years ago,
a real good job
have a good
at the -- the
e a question for
2-24-03
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
you. Thought you were going to be out of it. Where on this
chart in the box does it show the -- the flowage revenue?
Is that the right terminology, fuel flowage revenue?
MR. KNIPPEL: This part right here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see the fuel. It went
from self-serve depot. The other is from additional planes.
MR. KNIPPEL: Right. If -- the one is from
the self-serve depot. That's self-explanatory. The other
is from additional planes that will be --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the new hangar, I
imagine.
MR. KNIPPEL: -- in the new hangar.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where is the current
revenue? I mean, the current amount that we are getting
each year? Not the -- I mean, that column is the additional
planes in the new hangar. That's something new. These come
in online, so to speak?
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then the self-serve
depot, I guess that's online?
MR. KNIPPEL: No, it's not. It has some time
requirements to be -- to be built.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. KNIPPEL: Along with this new lease.
I -- I think that all the hangar -- the aircraft that are
2-24-03
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
144
being stored now are on -- are under the other lease, on the
Lot 3 facilities that are currently on the other lease.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So this analysis only
shows Lot 9 and 10; it doesn't include Lot -- or the current
operations?
MR. KNIPPEL: Right. This is only for the
purposes of what -- what the new proposed lease on Lot 9 and
10 would do to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Under the --
the blue hangar rental, in Year 2016, there's a large
increase, and that continues throughout the balance of the
lease, and that's where the majority of the revenue comes
from. Is it that they're -- I mean, I guess, what's the
logic behind that, of why that starts all of a sudden in
Year 2016?
MR. KNIPPEL: That's -- that's the give that
the airport has in the negotiation of this lease, is a delay
in the rental rates for that hangar.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And in -- I guess, in
lieu of that, we're getting another hangar built?
MR. KNIPPEL: We're getting another hangar
built. We've got some taxes and some flowage fees that come
in the door.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When's the new hangar
built?
2-29-03
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
MR. KNIPPEL: It's got a timeline to be, I
think, constructed roughly in two years, it has to be
finished.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's done in the
front end of the lease?
MR. KNIPPEL: There is a -- there's some --
in the lease document, there are requirements for -- for
timeline for getting a building permit and subsequent
construction of the hangar and completion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there an estimate of
the cost of that hangar?
MR. KNIPPEL: Four to five hundred thousand
dollars.
MR. JACKSON: 500,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four to five hundred
thousand? And the -- the revenue -- the rental revenue, you
know, of the people that, you know, rent space in the
hangar, in the blue or the new one, that revenue goes to the
operator, correct?
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I think one of the -- one
of the questions that may not be clear -- one of the items
may not be clear, the extension of the lease that applies to
the blue hangar is only a 10-year extension, through 2015.
2-24-03
146
1
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: That's why that --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's why that income stream
to the blue hangar comes online in 2016.
MR. KNIPPEL: That's correct, sir. I didn't
make that point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the -- in the -- 30
years down the road, or, you know, 30 -- whatever, 33 years
down the road would be when the revenue stream on the new
hangar would kind of hit the City/County.
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes. County/City.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's getting good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Paul, another couple of items,
if I might. The -- the release of a portion of Lot 9 when
the new hangar is built, what portion of that lot will be
released?
MR. KNIPPEL: The map that you're looking at
doesn't show that. Right now, Lot 9 is all of this area
right here.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
MR. KNIPPEL: Here's the proposed hangar.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
MR. KNIPPEL: This -- about 100 feet of it
will be released, so there will still be room for another
2-24-03
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
hangar right here on the end.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. KNIPPEL: Is that -- the lease document
requires that once this -- there's a -- a certificate of
occupancy issued for this new hangar, that a survey be
recorded on this property, and then -- and that cleans it
all up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Where's going to be the new
self-service fuel depot?
MR. KNIPPEL: Right here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Over by the blue hangar?
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Okay, next item.
On your fuel flowage charges, you had mentioned that the
modification of the revision -- of the sixth revision, I
believe this is, to the Katz Aviation lease -- or Kerrville
Aviation, excuse me; I go back a ways. I won't tell you how
long I've been looking at this stuff. That it puts it on a
comparable -- the comparable is that fuel flowage charge, or
is that gross fuel charges relative to other facilities.
Are we only talking about the fuel flowage charge?
MR. KNIPPEL: I think the document uses the
word "rate." Comparable rate to other airports. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So we're talking about,
then, if -- if the comparable facilities are -- are
'L-29-03
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
charging, say, what, two-forty for one hundred, that -- that
he's going to be required under that formula to take his
fuel price to be comparable with other F.B.O.'s in -- in the
-- in the industry for comparable facilities? Is that what
I'm hearing?
MR. KNIPPEL: I think that -- I see your
paint. I think it means the comparable not so much applies
to a comparable dollar amount that's charged to other rates
for fuel, but to a comparable in terms of operations and
airport capacity. How many -- how many planes are coming in
and out of an airport? Do they have a tower? Do they not
have a tower? That sort of thing. Population it serves.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Mr. Jackson may have
a comment.
MR. JACKSON: I hate to interrupt the
discussion. I believe the flowage fee is an added on
charge, and a component of the price that's paid.
JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly.
MR. JACKSON: And what we're talking about is
comparables of what other facilities and airports charge for
that fee. Not --
JUDGE TINLEY: Fuel flowage.
MR. JACKSON: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not the price of fuel itself.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Price of fuel could
2-24-03
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2d
21
22
23
24
25
modify -- it could be different, I suppose, depending on
what area, just like you have different charges for
passenger vehicles in different parts. This is just the --
if San Angelo, for example, has "X" and we're charging "Y,"
the cap goes to what "X" would be, so that there's not any
-- so that the City/County revenues are treated the same.
But it's not the price -- it's not adjusted based upon the
price, itself, of the fuel. It's the fee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Nor does it control the price
of the fuel.
MR. JACKSON: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: He can charge anything he
wants to for his fuel.
MR. JACKSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But out of each gallon, he's
required to -- to rebate to the airport fund a nickel or six
cents or whatever that fuel flowage fee happens to be per
gallon.
MR. JACKSON: That's my understanding.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. KNIPPEL: The lease documents -- the
proposed lease here also has a requirement for review of
that fee every six months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For competitive
purposes?
2-29-03
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes. Doesn't say necessarily
revision, but it is a good look. Be part of our operation.
JUDGE TINLEY: The thought being that
hopefully, by a periodic review, we can try and be
competitive with other areas and try and get increased fuel
flowage out there, and additional activity overall?
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a -- one real
quick comment. This is a -- you know, and I commend whoever
negotiated the lease, because, I mean, this is a big
departure from where we were 20 years ago, when many of our
leases out there were virtually at no revenue to the City
and the County. And there is a -- you know, a potential it
will yield $1.3 million over the life of the lease, and I
think it's -- you know, it`s -- that's where we should be
going. The airport should be more or -- trying to get more
self-funding -- or self-funding, and I think this is a step
in that direction, and I'm in favor of moving in that
direction.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Jackson had signed up to
speak on this matter. Do you have anything else that you --
MR. JACKSON: I really don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- would like to offer?
MR. JACKSON: We'd be happy to answer your
2-24-03
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
questions, and I appreciate you staying late, and so I don't
want to add to that. I think that the only thing I would
add to the discussion is what this is is an intertwined
issue lease and amendment, and that is the F.B.O. -- and I
think Megan has said this. I know Paul, in our discussions,
has said this many times, and that you want to be sure that
you have an arrangement that provides for the growth of the
airport by making sure that you sustain the F.B.O. We've
had trouble over the years. I know she's said that to you
more than once, with having more than one F.B.O. and being
able to sustain that operation. We are moving in the right
direction with more competitiveness in these negotiated
items, so my client certainly is in favor of this approach.
Not in favor of bidding out each component, and you have to
look at this as a total package. It's not just the blue
hangar. It's the new hangar, it's the development of the
airport, it`s the self-storage fuel, it's the increased
revenues of the fuel flowage. It's all of those components.
It's the package that's before you.
If you break down any package, you probably
can find a component that, if you competitively bid that
component, it might be higher or lower. I'd submit to you,
it won't be higher. But let's just, for argument's sake,
say it is. That's not the total package. And once you
tinker with Item A, Items B through Z get adversely
2-29-C3
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
affected. It adversely impacts the F.B.O. who's operating
successfully at this point, and that's why it's been
proposed. When this all began, Megan sat down and said, "I
need a quid pro quo." She said, "In order for me to be able
to feel good about promoting this lease, I want you to build
a new hangar; I want you to do this, I want you to do that,"
and that's why it's the way it is. I've got more to say,
but you've heard more than you want to hear at this point.
Do you have any questions? My client's here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one quick
question, David or Paul, whomever. It has to do with the
C.P.I. Your -- your analysis here is based on the C.P.I. of
3 percent, which triggers in the lease; is that correct?
MR. JACKSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question is, if
the C.P.I. unfortunately should rise beyond 3, the trigger
also protects the County and the City in terms of that
increase as well; is that correct?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all the questions of
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Stephen King has also asked to speak on
this item. Mr. King?
MR. KING: Thank you, Judge. Well, I -- I
want to present a little different view of the situation. I
2-29-03
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
am a resident of the county. I do own an aircraft. I own
three aircraft, actually, one based here in Kerrville for my
business. We own an oil and gas exploration company in west
Texas, so I use this as a travel point. The overall
proposal -- and I do business with Mr. Kennedy, so I'm in a
sort of a little bit of a bad situation here, opposing him.
But the proposal as -- as out -- as it's been laid out, I
think you have to look at the financial benefit to the City
of this deal, of what they're going to receive by giving up
a 14,000-square-foot hangar that they're going to take
possession of in two years. An important point is the lease
is not out on either one of these, on either one piece of
property. The lease is ongoing; it has two years left on
the Lot 9 and 10.
What you're doing is, you're basically
renegotiating the lease prior to the end of the term. The
legal concerns, I'll let the County and the City Attorney,
if they -- if they feel there's no legal -- legal concerns
as far as discrimination. I've checked with the F.A.A. this
morning through the A.O.P.A. They're -- they are not going
to answer back on it yet as to whether it's -- does cross
any of the discrimination clauses. I feel like -- and I say
discrimination, in that only one person can sign this lease
today, and that is Kennedy Enterprises. I can't sign a
lease. If I want to lease Hangar 4, I can't. I have to
2-24-03
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
wait two years to sign that lease. I may have an interest
in signing the lease and making a proposal, but my proposal
is two years away. You're -- you're giving one person a
right that no one else in your -- in the county has the same
right, because it is an ongoing lease. He has it for two
more years. He's not going to lease it for two years. He
stays with it for two years. And then I think you have to
look at the -- the precedent you're going to set by -- you
know, how are you going to do business on a property -- do
business on airport property? You know, are you going to
make deals and exclude everyone else that may be interested
in cutting a deal? And how -- you know, how that's going to
be carried forth?
Now, the -- you know, when I looked at this
deal, I thought I -- I couldn't ever understand why this
proposal was not laid out in two separate parts. I mean, he
wants to build a hangar. If the hangar's to be built on Lot
9, that's fine. I think that's great. It's a storage
facility. It will -- we need -- probably need more storage
on the airport. If -- if you want -- if an airport -- if a
hangar -- if a 30-year lease needs to be given on Lot 9, and
a 30-year lease would -- would help him pay out the cost and
everything, I have no problem with that. The problem I have
with -- is with the City allowing this Hangar 4 to be tied
to Lot 9. It's currently with Lot 9 now in the lease, but
2-24-03
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
in two years, the City will own Lot -- the hangar on Lot 10.
And, like I say, I have no objection to building a new
hangar on Lot 9 at this time. I think the City is giving
him a -- an advantageous right on the ground lease. The
ground lease for Mr. Drane that y'all approved several years
back was at $200 per acre. He was given a 20-year lease to
pay out his cost. You're giving a 30-year lease on this
property at a -- at a much lesser rate, around $134 per
acre. When it comes to Lot 10 is where I have a problem.
With the existing hangar, the City's giving
up -- the City/County is giving up revenue that they're
going to be -- they're going to own a piece of property in
two years, and they're basically saying for the next --
until the Year 2016, we're going to forego all revenue from
that hangar. And I do -- I did some -- some comparables on
what that property should lease for. You're leasing the
Gibson's hangar. That Gibson's hangar is the property on
the other -- on the outside of the -- behind this hangar.
Same type of deal; it went back to the City/County. Y'all
put it up for bid, leased the property out. You leased it
out for about 15 cents a -- 15,000 or 10,000 square foot
hangar, you leased it for $1,500 a month. B.A. Products
leased it. They've got about 25 people working out there.
They're blowing and going, you know. They're making money
for -- making money for their -- for themselves. They have
2-24-03
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
156
employees. It's a perfect deal. It's the way it should
work.
I checked with Hondo. Down at Hondo, they
have a building down there, 10,000 square foot hangar built
on a government contract, came back to the City. They took
possession of the hangar, leased it out to an aircraft
interior company. They're paying about 13 cents a foot,
paying $1,300 a month. They're employing about 12, 15
people, and the City's receiving income and everything's
working fine. I -- I think that -- I think you have to look
at what this storage facility brings to the airport. I
mean, it's not going to bring any jobs. It's going to bring
some -- it's going to bring some more airplanes to be stored
there. Sales tax is variable; there will be no sales tax,
'cause there's no one working in the hangar. It's basically
airplanes being stored. The ground lease payment will bring
in, like I say, $134 per acre, probably less than $175 a
month revenue just off that piece of land that they're going
to use.
The property taxes, they're going to build a
$450,000 to $500,000 hangar; a lot of money. The property
taxes are basically the main revenue output on this -- on
this hangar facility, but you have to look at the property
taxes in a different way also. This is property taxes on
leased -- on a leased hangar. On a lease. The value of the
2-24-03
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lease is always declining, all the way to the end of the 30
years. It's not like you're building a house or a
commercial building, a $450,000 commercial building and
every year the value goes up. If you look at the Hangar 4,
perfect example. Hangar 4 is a 14,000-square-foot building.
It's on the books for about $208,000 with your appraiser.
It has two years left on the lease, and its value currently,
being taxable value, is $20,000. Total taxes being paid on
that hangar at this current time are $518 per year, of which
the City reaps $204 a year. The City/County, you guys are
getting $204 a year off that property tax on a $200,000
building.
You look at the hangar next to it. That's
owned by Dugosh Aviation; it's a different deal. They own
their building. They have an older lease where they
actually own their building. They lease the land from the
City/County. They have a $208,000 -- around $208,000
building -- excuse me, $210,000 building and facilities in
the area. They're paying -- because they own it, it's not a
lease, they're paying roughly $5,100 a year in property
taxes to the City/County, versus what I said, $518 on a
$208,000 building on a lease. So, it's a misconception that
this lease -- and I've been trying to get to Fourth Coates
for the last week to get some clarification on how this is
going to -- how this lease and revenue stream is going to --
2-24-03
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
158
is going to drop. But it's a misconception that taxes are
going to just continue in a flat rate. They're not.
I mean, if you look at the -- the total
property leased right now by Kerrville Aviation, counting
the Hangar 2 and 3 of Lot 2 and 3, with the big facility on
one side and Hangar 4, all of their total facilities are
valued at $610,000. It's on the tax rolls at 600 -- about
$604,000. They're actually being taxed at about $60,000, or
10 percent of the value. The total tax on that facility is
around $1,100 a year, of which you guys are not reaching
39 percent. So, the main revenue source from this storage
building -- this storage hangar is -- if you're looking at
it as property taxes, is a really a nebulous figure. It's
not really going to be that much money. My feeling is that
what -- really, what should have happened on this deal was
they should have negotiated a deal to build the hangar on
Lot 10, give him a 30-year lease, a low rate on the -- on
the ground lease and everything, and if it's -- if it's
advantageous to build that hangar and he's going to make
money off it, it should stand on its own. I don't see tying
Hangar 4 and throwing Hangar 4 in as a gift for the next 11
years.
The other thing -- the other point I think
has to be brought out is that the facility on 2 and 3, the
lease runs out in 2016 on that. In 2016, that lease
2 ~ 4 0 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
159
expires. What you're doing by -- by extending Hangar 4 for
30 years, you're giving it up to 2016 and then you're going
to collect market value in 2016. Well, then after 2016, you
negotiate with Kennedy Enterprises an extension onto the
rest of the terms on the end of the 30-year term. What
you're doing is you're -- in 2016, when the main facility,
the F.B.O., comes under renegotiation, now you have this
Hangar 4 sticking out another -- to the end of another term,
so the leases are not running concurrent, and the City
doesn't have a good package -- the City/County does not have
a good package to offer to anyone who may be interested in
the facility.
I -- the flowage fee, I mean, I think
that's -- you know, that's something that's been pointed out
already. It's a -- you know, we'll -- what will be in that
hangar? Will -- will there be two, three large jets that
actually use a whole lot more fuel? That's -- you know,
we've looked at these things. I've been here 10 years.
We've looked at these things in the past. There's been a
lot of deals on the table that jets were going to fly in;
they were going to fill up here on the way to California,
and it was -- all this was going to happen. So far, none of
it's happened. I think Commissioner Nicholson was right; we
need money in the airport. The airport needs funds. They
don't have enough money to apply for grants. They always
2-29-03
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,..._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come back to you. The City comes to you looking for this
money -- grant money. There's a lot of great grants out
there, but we have no income. And what you're doing here is
you're giving up income, I think. I mean, you can do all
the flow charts you want, and you can throw in tourism and
how it's going to affect motel and hotel and, you know, you
can get up to $10 million if you want to. But when it comes
down to -- it's just a big storage building that's going to
hold some airplanes, and you're giving up at least 10 to 11
years rent on a hangar that I -- you know, I think -- I know
will be leased in 2005. I'll make a proposal in 2005. I
would make a proposal today, but I can't. And I think
that's all I have for right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody got any questions for
Mr. King? Thank you, sir. We appreciate your interest, and
we appreciate you being here.
MR. KING: You're welcome. Have a great day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Finished with
questions. We're now down to what we're going to do, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: If anything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to move
approval of the recommendation of the Airport Advisory Board
to approve the revised airport lease agreements with
Kerrville Aviation, as presented by the interim airport
manager.
2-24-C3
161
1
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: Run that by me again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Moving approval of
the recommendation of the Airport Advisory Board for the
extension of lease -- extension and modifications of -- or
the revised lease agreement with Kerrville Aviation as
presented by the interim airport manager.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made by
Commissioner Williams to approve the recommendation of the
KerrvillelKerr County Airport Advisory Board and approve the
revised airport lease agreement with Kerrville Aviation, as
proposed by the interim or acting director of the airport,
Mr. Paul Knippel. Do I hear a second?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Being no second, I declare
that the motion dies for lack of a second. The -- let's go
back and pick up --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before we leave
that topic, I think Mr. King raised some questions that I
need answered, bottom line. And I need -- you know, and I
don't know really -- you know, I don't know who negotiated
the lease and/or -- you know, I presume Mr. Jackson did for
Mr. Kennedy. I don't know what the -- you know, on the City
side, really what was done and what was looked at, if some
of these things that Mr. King has brought up were looked at
and felt this -- you know, this is still the best deal, you
2-24-03
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
know. I just need more information. But I think that he --
based on -- you know, I didn't see -- hear anything to
refute what Mr. King says. I didn't second the motion. I
think Mr. Kennedy's done a real good job, like I said, but
the bottom line is, we're stewards of the taxpayers'
dollars. We need to try to maximize our revenue, and I just
need more information at this point. And I don't know if
this is -- you know, it's recommended we put it back on the
agenda or have a workshop or see what the City does
tomorrow, or all the above.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's going to
require some more discussions between the airport
leaseholder and the representative who represents both the
County and the City, the interim managing the airport.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, what you said
is right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'm going to go back
and pick up Item 2.10. I think it's a very quick item.
Acknowledge receipt of copy of the 2002 Racial Profiling
Files submitted by Precinct 2 Constable, Joel Ayala.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's just what it
says, Judge. In terms of a requirement of the law, is that
the governing body, in this case Commissioners Court,
acknowledge receipt. Nobody seems to know what we do with
them and under which file we place them or why we're taking
2-24-03
163
1
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, but it says "acknowledge receipt," and so my
comment -- my constable presented his report. I asked the
Sheriff what he knew about it. The Sheriff says,
"acknowledge receipt." So I just -- I'm moving that we
acknowledge receipt of them, and if the County Clerk has a
special file for them, that she place these forms in there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded that we acknowledge receipt of copy of the 2002
Racial Profiling File submitted by Precinct 2 Constable,
Joel Ayala, to be delivered unto the County Clerk to be
placed by her in a special file, if any, maintained by her
office for that purpose.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have just a quick
question. It says racial profiling, and I'm -- I glanced
through the report information here, and based on, you know,
what kind of -- I don't see there's any profiling here.
There's men, women, people of -- you know, by surnames, you
know, different races. What's the -- how is it racial
profiling? I don't understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. I
think the law leaves a lot of questions unanswered like
you're posing. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm guessing someone
wants to build a database so that they can analyze it
2-29-03
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
several different ways, and see if some local law
enforcement agencies are
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the Sheriff
will be in here with a similar report soon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, all law
enforcement -- I don't -- this is one of the most -- it
ranks up there in the top 10 ridiculous things I've seen in
the last 24 hours, actually. But you can rest assured that
you're not to provide the names of these people. You can --
can go to the bank on that. That's a no-no. But, you know,
there's got to be some way -- you know, I mean some kind
of -- they're looking for -- you know, "I made 25 stops and
there was seven Hispanics, three African-Americans, and two
Indians drinking firewater" or something. You know, that's
what they're looking for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A summary of the
activity.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just seems weird.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is. I mean, why?
And who cares?
JUDGE TINLEY: Y'all are not drawing me into
this deal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kept trying,
throwing a little bait out there. What about --
2-24-03
165
1
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: Any further comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- pizza?
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pizza.
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.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to eat.
JUDGE TINLEY: We now move on to Item 2.16,
consider and discuss future renovation and construction plan
for Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, and hire consultants
to assist Kerr County Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not going to go
eat?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Look at all the
people sitting out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if we can just
get somebody to call and order some -- order us some pizza,
maybe we can eat and talk, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody could call
over to Green Grocers and get us a sandwich.
2-24-()3
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
JUDGE TINLEY: By the time that happens, we
could be through with this item. Let's either adjourn, go
to lunch, or let's get with the program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- you know, if we're
going to have a lengthy discussion, I want to go to lunch.
If we're going to deal with this in five minutes and not do
anything, then let's deal with it. I have no idea where the
Court's going on this one.
MS. SOVIL: Kathy's running out of paper.
JUDGE TINLEY: She just give us a good
excuse.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're out of here.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess until --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2 o'clock?
JUDGE TINLEY: 2 o'clock? All right.
(Recess taken from 1:14 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting -- the special Commissioners
Court meeting posted for Monday, February 24th, 2003, which
commenced at or about 9 a.m. this morning, local time. It's
now 2 o'clock, and we're ready to get on with the -- I think
it's the final agenda item of business, 2.16, consider and
discuss future renovation, construction plans of the Hill
Country Youth Exhibit Center, and hiring consultants to
3-29-03
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
assist the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Commissioner
Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this back on the
agenda, try -- hoping to take another step towards getting
something solved out at the Hill Country Youth Exhibit
Center. And I think the -- probably the best way to
approach it is, y'all -- Wayne?
MR. ADLER: He just stepped out for a second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the -- the way I
thought we could approach it was first to have Wayne give us
an opinion as to where we are with the contract we currently
have with DRG, and where we are with the selection of --
selection the Court made with the design/build team of
Huser/Adler, and kind of figure out where we are with that
and what options we have. You know, just continue with
that, or close it down and start a new -- whatever we're
going to do. And then the next item that we -- to talk with
Mr. Gondeck about is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, before you leave
that, what about our attorney being on the ground floor of
this conversation?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would be good
for him to be here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, personally, so
we don't have to go back and re -- talk.
z-?~-n~
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See if he's there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This morning you
couldn't find a chair for lawyers, and now we can't find a
lawyer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plenty of chairs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because there are some
legal concerns, and there's also appearance concerns
potentially, in my mind, and I need to make sure that we're
above-board, in my mind, on both issues. Once that's -- we
kind of know where we are with that, a separate but related
issue is what our relationship is with DRG and Associates.
They were originally hired to assist the County in
developing the scope of work and developing the criteria for
the design/build team. They've performed their requirements
under the -- our agreement with them, and they were paid
$10,000 for that fee. So if we're going to continue, you
know, the next -- based on our last Commissioners Court
meeting, it became apparent that there was somewhat
consensus, if not total consensus, that we need some
expertise from somewhere to help advise us as to cost
figures, you know, and what it's going to take to get things
done. And I've mentioned -- I've talked with Mr. Gondeck
and -- on the phone, and said we may want to use his firm
for that purpose. We may not. We just really hadn't
discussed it, but kind of to help us with our relationship
z-24-o3
169
1
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 DRG, if we're going to rehire them or what we're going
to do. And I'll turn it over to Wayne, but I'll give him a
brief update as to -- Wayne, if you could first give us your
opinion on where we are with the -- the last agreement? I
mean, you've fulfilled your responsibilities under it, but
kind of, is our agreement, in your mind, dead? And then
what do you think our relationship is with the design/build
team that we selected, being Huser/Adler?
MR. GONDECK: Commissioner and Judge --
Commissioners, as far as our agreement as the consulting --
or independent consulting architect, for us to take it any
farther, other than the construction phase of the project,
it was contingent upon the project being funded. It was not
that it was to be, you know, abandoned or automatically
abandoned, from our reading of it, but it was not in any way
obligatory on the County to continue it on without, you
know, funding of the project. So there really -- you know,
to us, there needs to be some action on the County's part to
either continue it on, ratify it, or amend it in some way
that we want to continue on, irregardless of where the
funding structure stands at this time. So, as far as it
being dead in the water, I don't -- I don't think it is.
But as far as there being any obligation on the County's
part to utilize us any further, no. If you tell us, "Thank
you very much. Go away. We don't want to see you any
2-29-03
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more," we understand that too.
Secondly, as far as the process that the
County has gone through up to this point, from our
understanding of it -- and, again, it's not a legal
understanding; it's just a practical standpoint or a
professional application of it -- is that our understanding
is that the 90-day period that we asked the contractors to
hold their proposals was that it was obligatory on their
part to hold their proposals for 90 days, and it was not,
you know, in any way one of those issues that we could not
mutually extend that between the selected party and the
County. The County did reserve the right within the
advertisement to waive any irregularities or informalities,
and also that today is that 90 -- 90th day, as far as my
count, for the County to take some sort of action as to
whether or not they wanted to even enter into some level of
negotiation, and what that negotiation actually would be.
So, to me, there's quite a bit of latitude here as to how
the County wants to proceed.
I think the first question is, what does the
Commissioners Court want to do about the project? Because
there -- there's a lot of ideas that we could come up with
as far as professional knowledge, as far as design,
construction, costing, scoping, everything of the project.
But I think what we need to know is that, one, are there
2-29-03
171
1
--- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
funds available? If not, you know, when would funds be
available? Is the process that you've decided to go on this
far, such as the design/build, is that still the process
that you want to continue on with? If it is, is there any
reason that you would not want to continue on with the
present, you know, selected team and process that you've
gone through to this point? So, without having some sort of
input as to where the Court is right now, to what funds may
or may not be available and where you want to go, it's very
difficult for me to say, "Gentlemen, this is the track that
I think you should go on."
I think very well that all the elements that
are within the scope that we have right now, whether they be
in separate buildings or combined into one structure, still
represent the renovations and additions to the Youth Exhibit
Center, so therefore, to me, still express the -- the intent
of the original project. So, whether or not it's in a
separate outbuilding or whether or not it's incorporated
into the barn structure itself, we're still dealing with
that same project. Just that the scope is somewhat modified
to meet the scope -- or to meet the budget restraints that
the County may have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we know one
thing. We know that the voters said that they didn't like
what our plan was that was on the table. So --
2-24-03
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that's all I know
for sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me pose
something here, if I might. One of the -- one of the things
that I heard frequently, Wayne, was that the -- part of the
proposal that was on the table and presented to the voters
contemplated the demolition and rebuilding of the current
area that we'll call the exhibit center and the hag barn
area immediately behind it. One of the -- one of the
consistent comments and line of thought that's been given to
me, some prior to that time, but more since that time, is
that why in the world can't we use at least that front
portion? The thought being, is it economically feasible to
use the existing concrete area, walls and floor, for
example? Is that a possibility? Is there something that's
salvageable there in that portion, rather than just
demolition and -- and starting over all the way front to
back on the west side there? And, if so, you know, what are
the variables on that? Will there be an ability to have a
-- for example, a clear span area, or what will the cost
savings be? And -- you understand the analysis that I'm --
MR. GONDECK: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- trying to lay in front of
you?
-~4-03
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
MR. GONDECK: Those are some of the issues
that were discussed, and some in more detail than others.
As far as the demolition of the total existing exhibit hall
and barn, to my knowledge, there was no doubt in anybody's
mind that the existing barn should be and still should be
demolished and rebuilt, that portion -- the back portion of
that facility. That -- as far as trying to renovate it to
any point of meeting any nowaday codes and making it totally
functional is not financially feasible. As far as the front
portion and salvaging portions of it, I think that was even
brought up during the interviews by more than one of the
teams, that that may be an option to be looked at during
that actual design/build phase by the proposers, to look at
as a cost-saving measure, to actually save a portion of
that -- or that front portion, to reuse portions of that.
So, that was an option to -- that was thrown out, and has
not been something that has been ruled out at this point.
As far as the initial program, the program
that, you know, we developed and put out initially was for
them to consider the demolition totally of that and
rebuilding that. We did, however, you know, within that
interview process, ask them to come back with discussing the
feasibility of all the program issues and to -- to give us
options within that, and they did for -- you know, several
of them did talk about that there may be some salvageable
2-24-C3
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
portions, such as that front exhibit hall area.
JUDGE TINLEY: Were there any specifics about
that one, other than to say that there --
MR. GONDECK: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: It may be that you could
salvage --
MR. GONDECK: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- economically some of the
front portion?
MR. GONDECK: No, sir, because at that point
in time, that process dealt with selecting a team --
designlbuild team based on qualifications, and the cost
could not be a factor at that time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. GONDECK: So that's -- that's why
everybody was sort of -- was with their hands tied behind
their backs, as far as asking some of the questions, and
really couldn't get to that point of, "Where are we with
dollars and cents?" Because, according to the statute, you
know, dollars could not be a portion of that.
JUDGE TINLEY: In terms of generalities, how
difficult and expensive would it be to determine whether or
not the front portion, the exhibit hall, exhibit -- exhibit
hall area could be utilized in a -- in a renovation similar
to what was under discussion, merely adding additional
2-29-~3
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
space, new space onto the back where the hog barn area is to
make that comprise approximately 50,000 square feet?
MR. GONDECK: If that is the direction that
you want to look at, the most feasible thing that I would
say, if you're going -- okay. Let's say one option, if
you're going to retain the existing team that you have, is
to negotiate a -- and compartmentalize, you might say, an
agreement with them to go through a -- you might say a
schematic design or a preliminary design that sets down the
actual structure and all the elements physically to that,
and come up with a guaranteed maximum price that the
contractor says, "This is what we can do." This is what the
price on it -- you know, the architect of record will say,
"This is what we can design." The contractors say, "This is
what the price will be." We will look at it for the program
elements and make sure it looks -- you know, it works within
the statutory requirements. But, you know, utilizing that
design/build team to come and give you a cost design
proposal. But that is -- is what we would say, you know, to
go forward on. As far as the actual dollars and cents on
that, I -- I probably can't give you a hard, fast number,
because that's really a negotiable thing that would have to
be, you know, proposed if the Court chose to go that
direction. That something would have to be proposed from
the design/build team, and either accepted or rejected by
2-29-03
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
176
the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, it seems -- I
mean, we've gone back to what I think needs to be answered
first, is the process we're going to use. I mean, if -- and
I don't -- you know, the proposal -- you're talking about
renovating the current exhibit hall, adding an Ag Barn
behind it or, you know, something along that line. If
that's -- if the Court is in full agreement with that,
that's what we want to do, to me the next question is, can
we use the design team that we've picked under the current
scope of work and RFQ that we did to do that? And then, if
we can, do we want to use that, or do we want to hire an
outside consultant? Or -- you know, to give us that
information.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think where I'm coming
from is, based upon Mr. Gondeck's knowledge of the property
and the project and its varied components -- you know, and
I'm willing to concede, and I don't think anybody in their
right mind could concede otherwise, that the rear portion of
the hog barn area, you'd be throwing good money after bad to
try and rehab or renovate that particular -- particular
area. But would it be -- from a professional engineering
standpoint, how complicated and how expensive, in general
terms, to ascertain, number one, if the front portion there
could feasibly be utilized -- feasibly and economically, and
2-24-03
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
if so, what the limitations on that would be; i.e., could
you have a clear span area, for example, if -- as opposed to
one that's got these various support structures in there?
I'm trying to find out if we ought to even be thinkinq about
utilizing that front portion. That's really where I'm
coming from at this point.
MR. GONDECK: Judge, if you're going to reuse
the front portion, what I would recommend, from what I've
seen in looking at the facility, that you would use it
pretty much saving, or -- or saying that we could upgrade
interior finishes and things of that nature. Structurally,
you would keep it pretty well arranged the way it is. There
are some portions in the office area and other areas that
have to be fixed up, but as far as going in, changing
anything structurally from what it is now, as far as column
placements, any more clear span than it is, no, sir, you
wouldn't want to get into that. That would not be
structurally feasible. If you wanted to take something
behind it in that next bay and do a clear span back there
and have a solid floor in lieu of a dirt floor, that would
be more feasible. But as far as just a space up front,
you're going to want to utilize that pretty much in its
current structural form, and -- and see if that works within
your program. But if you -- if you need a larger clear span
than that provides, you would want to do that in the next
2-~9-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
178
portion behind that. I mean, I -- that's pretty
straightforward.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That -- you've --
you've answered my question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to follow
up on the Judge's question. You could, however, in the
scheme that was -- was put forth, you could use the concrete
portion of that front part and integrate it into the
remainder of the big barn so that, in effect, you had the
one-third concrete that we talked about and two-thirds dirt
floor in the new facility?
MR. GONDECK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct?
MR. GONDECK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the walls go and
all the low supports and that go, but the concrete flooring
could be salvaged, possibly?
MR. GONDECK: And you may be able to, you
know, keep some of the actual superstructure itself, and
even go with some sort of, like, light-gauge roof grating to
bring back the roof structure to match up with the other
behind it. And that way, you make it -- sort of make it all
look like one building structure.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Someplace in this
process -- picking up on what Jonathan said, I'm not sure
2-24-03
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
what our process is either, but at someplace in it, I think
we need to have a more basic discussion about the future of
the Youth Exhibition Center. I would like to usually be
guided by the majority interests of people in Precinct 4,
and on this issue, I've -- I've gotten a lot of feedback on
both sides. Quite a few are supporters of doing something
to improve the Youth Exhibition Center, and some of them
are, of course, adamantly opposed to it. I don't have much
guidance, 'cause this recent vote came out exactly
fifty-fifty in the vote.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In your precinct,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, I guess that
gives me some freedom to use my own judgment. That's scary.
They give me good guidance on things like water management.
There's no proposal in here, but it's just trying to get
back to basics. Should we be in the business of providing a
Youth Exhibition Center? Have we made a promise to people
who began that and built it and put their -- their label and
their money and their signed notes to build it? Do we have
an obligation to them to rehabilitate this?
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you asking that question?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm asking a series
of questions.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: I'll be happy to answer that
2-24-03
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
180
question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'm -- I'm not
-- again, I'm not saying we don't. I think we do.
JUDGE TINLEY: I agree with you 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Should we sell the
Youth Exhibition Center? Should we bulldoze it and sell the
property? Should we bring it up to some minimum standards
that keeps our promise, or should we go beyond that to be in
the -- in the tourism and convention business? That's, from
my point of view, the options available to us, now that
the -- the voters, albeit not very many, by a majority sent
us back to the drawing board. Should we be considering all
of our options?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you consider what you
like, but in answer to your question, do we have an
obligation, I don't know that there was any specific promise
or assurance given back when that facility was handed to
Kerr County after what's essentially there now was put there
on the backs of a bunch of hardworking people in this county
over almost 50 years. But when we took it from them, even
if we didn't give them any express assurance that we keep it
and maintain that -- that trust that they'd handed us, I
think we have an obligation to do that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You said it like I
would say it. My question, then, is that's a place to build
2-24-03
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
from. Is there a consensus on this Commissioners Court that
we do have an obligation and we need to provide a self -- a
safe and useful facility for the youth?
JUDGE TINLEY: I just spoke for myself.
Everybody else can speak for themselves.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll pick it up. I
agree with the Judge. I think we have a -- a moral -- a
moral equivalent obligation to operate that facility in
terms of the type of agricultural and related programs that
we do now. In my opinion, it is totally, totally valuable;
100 percent valuable to our young people, and I would hate
to see us going in a different direction. I also think --
and this gets the ice a little thinner under my position,
but I also believe we have an obligation to the community to
provide a venue of some sort for all sort of other things
that the community has a need to have a venue for. The
question is, how far do we want to go? We've been accused
-- or it has been suggested that we don't need or want to
get into tourism as such, or economic development as such.
Well, I would remind those who are critical of that, that
tourism is our number one industry. Absolutely. Pours more
money into this county than anything else that goes on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The county or in the
city?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the city's in
2-24-03
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
182
the county, and I'll say the county. I really do. So, I
think there's an obligation.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: These youth camps
bring in more money than anything else I know of in Kerr
County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking about
agricultural, youth. I'm -- I'm 110 percent; we have a
commitment. And we need to -- if we don't have a
commitment, we need to make a commitment to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. The thing that
I would, you know, say and kind of be a little bit -- or
kind of, I think, differ slightly from what the Judge said,
that the facility was built, you know, by a bunch of
hardworking -- primarily ranchers and other people, but they
built it not 100 percent exclusively for the stock show and
for kids. I mean, that was a large part of it. That was
how they raised a lot of money for it, but they also built
it for agricultural uses in general. And I think the -- you
know, if you look at -- I mean, the reason the arena is
built the way it is is because there was some people that
were using that facility, and -- for a while, and I think
that they -- you know, and it fit very closely with the --
the youth side of it, and they were all very -- you know,
very big supporters of the youth stock show and other youth
organizations, but they -- I don't think they ever
-24-~3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
183
24
25 to start.
2-29-03
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good place
contemplated, or in their reason for doing it, that it was
exclusively for youth. It was for agricultural; I think
exclusively for them, pretty much. And I think that -- you
know, that doesn't say, you know, as to -- you know, you
can't -- we can't say we're only going to commit for youth
or we're going to go further. I'm saying that the history
of it was not 100 percent youth.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It sounds --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Dave. I
can't put words in Judge Neunhoffer's mouth, because he's
long gone, but one of his longtime friends and supporters
assured me the notes were written in the Judge's hand, in
which he said when the -- when the restrictions on the
facility and the property were removed, it was for all those
things in the community, including amusement. Right. Well,
we don't do much -- I don't think we do much that's amusing
out there. There's a carnival every now and then, but --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to go out
there cooking in a couple weeks. That's amusing. It sounds
to me like that there's -- there is general or unanimous
agreement that, at a minimum, we need to bring that facility
back up in good shape, safe and usable for the purposes that
it was intended for.
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All it takes is
money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that gets us
to -- I mean, back to, you know, I guess, what the Judge
asked Mr. Gondeck about, because that was, you know, could
we -- could it be renovated or -- you know, and add a barn
to the back? And that's basically what we're talking about,
and the answer is yes. The question that we have then is,
we don't have any money to start with. I'll make that real
JUDGE TINLEY: Wayne's leaving.
MR. GONDECK: Not the first time I stood up
here and heard that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we -- at the same
time, we need -- we need expertise to tell us, you know,
one, what is the most cost-effective way to do something out
there? And, two, to give us real cost estimates. You know,
I would say, you know, I don't see any reason that we can't
legally use the design team that we've picked and figure out
a way to compensate you to be a consultant to us, why we
don't continue. I think there needs to be some parameters
set that within -- and I haven't talked to Huser, if
Huser -- if they want to continue down this road or not.
But, you know, maybe 90 days to have them give us some
advice and see if we can come up with a plan that we can
2-24-03
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
agree on. And if we can, we'd be committed to using them;
if we can't, you know, let's go on about our business. I
mean, I don't think we need to rehash this over and over and
over again.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Beginning with the
end in mind, if -- if we come up with another plan that says
it's going to cost "X" dollars, are we then saying we're
going to go back to the well for those dollars? I'm going
to be very reluctant to support going back to -- to the
voters on another bond issue. Is it -- if we're going to
start down this path, we might as well decide now how we're
going to fund it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That brings up my
thinking. What I would like to do is, I'd like the County
Judge to ask the Auditor, being the chief financial officer
of the county -- ask the Auditor to provide this Court with
the balance of the Fund 10 reserves. Fund 10 reserves.
And, as well -- you know, that number, that overall number,
as well as the number that he would use for a six-month
operating budget. And if we could get those numbers in --
you know, it's just my thinking, is that that is an avenue
that we could take. And I'm not -- I'm not proposing that.
I just think that that is something that we need to consider
and get out on the table so we can all at least know what --
where that is.
-24-03
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What does that mean,
Buster? Fund 10 reserves?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the General
Fund and what we have in reserves.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said six months.
Doesn't he typically talk to us about what he likes to see
is a three-month reserve? Or is it six? I thought --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know what he
says. Is it three? Is that what we do? I thought we
always did six.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three is the State
recommendation, I believe, but we have traditionally always
had -- at least long as I've been on the Court, been closer
to six.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Six has always stuck
in my mind, just whatever the County Auditor -- and he stays
in tune with that pretty regular, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He does.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To see what our
three-month, six-month operating fund would be, and compare
those numbers and see where we are. And I just -- I just
believe that -- that if we -- if the County could afford to
have "X" amount of dollars to lay on the table, that would
be the seed money, and then invite the foundations -- local
2-24-03
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
foundations. And I understand that there -- in a recent
luncheon I had with some folks, that there may be some
national-level money, grant money out there that does this
kind of thing. So, you know, we could plant the seed and
then let the foundations come to it. I mean, no, I won't go
to the -- back to the taxpayers. But there is -- you know,
and that may not be a feasible way to do it. I don't have
any idea, but I think it needs to get on the table and let
us look at it as an option.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster, I think I agree.
I mean, it's a good -- a step to figure out how much --
first we got to know if there's even any money there that we
could use as seed money. How do we develop a plan to go --
to raise -- I mean, to try to -- how do we put a plan
together, I guess, to go to the foundations, local and
national, to try to raise the money?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I was just
piggy-backing on the -- Commissioner 4's comments. He
said -- you know, he started talking about funding, and I
threw that out there. I know you keep bringing us back to
square one, and our funding thing is over here on square
six. I understand that. You know, I -- I kind of like the
idea here of leaving that front building like it is, and
building another barn. Now, how much does that cost?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you asking?
2-24-03
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's exactly
what I'm doing. I'm asking the question. How much does it
cost? How much money do we have in reserves? Let's go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can give you a ballpark
based on what I think it's going to cost, but that's not --
it's just a ballpark. The only way we're going to get a
number for that is to hire someone to tell us. And the way
I see that we have to hire people, we can either -- and if
we can use the design team that we've had, you know, if it
-- and they are agreeable, saying it would cost this much,
and we're going to tell you, if we -- you get the job if we
raise the money. Or we can hire a third party to tell us
and just say we're going to give you $10,000 to tell you
what it's going to cost to -- hopefully be less than $10,000
for that -- give you $5,000 to give us a price and act as a
consultant. I mean, those are the two approaches -- well,
two new approaches. The other approach that we've used is
just to ask for estimates, but then they're not, you know,
detailed enough.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I agree with
Jonathan. We've got to come to grips with that. How do we
arrive at a number, and what does that number build for us?
And is that going to satisfy the needs that -- as we try to
define them? So I think we're kind of back to square one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Can you get Tommy?
2-24-03
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
MR. GONDECK: Can I just interject a few
comments?
JUDGE TINLEY: Come on. We need to listen.
MR. GONDECK: Just going back, again,
historically, the last several months, and my understanding
of the -- of the rationale to hire me, and maybe to flip
over to -- to the other side from that. Even if y'all tell
me to go away, I won't be too far away, 'cause I'm still
working for the County on the juvenile facility. So, as you
may well know, my interest is in doing whatever Kerr County
needs here. I'm working for Kerr County anyway, so I do
want to make sure that whatever y'all do here, it is done
the right way, or that y'all make as much of the right
decisions as is practical. But I was not hired to be your
independent consulting architect 'cause I'm the best hog
barn builder in all of central Texas. I was hired because I
understand the process, as far as how it was established, as
best as it can, because it is new legislation, and I
understand the working process with county government. And
I think also because the County had some faith in me as to
my reputation of working with counties.
I think you all have selected a team that
does have some experience in these type of facilities, both
from the design end, and then secondly, someone that locally
does have the construction experience, that is dependable
2-24-03
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
190
and can give you good, hard numbers. If you choose to go
forward in -- in getting a design and hard cost on that, to
me, it makes sense that you put more effort -- more dollars
into that team than looking at your independent consulting
architect. However, if you do that, yes, we still need --
by statute, need to be retained, at least on some
contingency basis, if that -- if that goes forward. So, I'm
very amenable to staying around on the periphery. But I
think if you're going to go forward with coming up with some
more hard facts, that your best dollars spent, if you're
going to spend dollars on -- on designs and hard costs, or
hard budgets and hard proposals, is to go with your
design/build team. And if you choose not to do that, I'll
still say fine. I'll put together a design for you and put
together a cost proposal, but it's still just going to be an
estimate. But if you want a hard cost, to me, the best way
to do that is to utilize the team that you have selected
based on qualifications, that you've gone through the
process, and get a -- you know, a good, solid, preliminary
design, and get a good, guaranteed cost to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wayne, I don't want
to put you in a position of practicing law, 'cause we got
one of those sitting here, but from your understanding of
the legislation that permits us to engage in the
design/build concept, all right, having gone through all
2-24-03
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
that and done what we've done, and we're here today talking,
by your reading of the law, we could proceed and continue
with the same design/build team? Again, I don't want you to
practice law if you're uncomfortable answering it.
MR. GONDECK: I do not see any -- nobody has
shown me anything as to any reason why we couldn't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. GONDECK: Because we're still talking
about the same project. We're still talking about the same
project elements. We're still talking about the same
process. We're still talking about going, you know, forward
with it, the same designlbuild construction. Now, if you
decided to say, okay, we don't want to do designlbuild any
more, then the game's over, or the -- the process is over.
If you decided to go off-site, the process is over. If you
decided, you know, that you`re going to do a swimming pool
instead of a hog barn, to me, that's a definite change. But
you're still looking at, you know, exhibit facilities.
You're still looking at hog barn or, you know, livestock
facilities. You're still looking at improving the
restrooms. You're still looking at making sure we do the
A.D.A. improvements. Yes, you may not be able to do the
parking right now, but those are all scaling down to meet
with your budget, which happens on every project.
Whichever -- every project that we've ever done, it all
..-24-U3
	1
r-~	2
	3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
192
comes down to -- even if you go and design a project and
then you take bids, open a design bid, if you get bids in
that are too high, and if you scale back the project and
have to take out the parking or take out the paving and you
go down with chip seal, it's still the same project, even if
you have to scale back the project, so I don't see any
difference with that and what we're doing here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. GONDECK: And that's not a legal opinion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy, the question has been
asked, what is our Fund 10 reserve balance, number one? And
number two, what figure do you -- do you give as an estimate
of a three-month operating fund reserve and a six-month
operating fund reserve?
MR. TOMLINSON: Our estimated -- let me stop
and ask for a definition. As far as -- are you talking
about General Fund as it relates to general M & 0 tax funds?
Or -- or just the General Fund?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The area that you use
as -- when we talk about if we had a flood and the entire
county washed off, or all of our roads and bridges washed
off, how much money do we keep in there to operate on? You
know, what -- is that M & O, or is that L & M? Or --
MR. TOMLINSON: Let me give you what our
estimate is for -- for 9/30/03, for -- for all the funds
2-24-^u3
19~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
combined that are funded by the general M & 0 tax, and that
includes Fire Protection, Library, Indigent Health, and all
the interest and sinking funds. And we estimate that at
about 4 million, 1.
JUDGE TINLEY: Reserve?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, there's
another -- is there something you were going to say?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I was going to tell
you, I mean, what the total expenditures for -- for that --
for those funds is almost 14 million. So, a fourth of that
is about 3.3 to 3.5 million. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: 3.75.
MR. TOMLINSON: So that's -- so if you're
asking what is three month's operating money, then that
would be an estimate of what we'd have to have to operate it
for three months, is about
JUDGE TINLEY: $350,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 350.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. The -- the rest of the
dollars are either for Road and Bridge operations; that's
restricted, or special revenue funds that are -- that are
restricted. So, our total -- our total cash reserves for
9/30103 is almost 5 and a half million. But I only -- only
?-29-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
194
four point -- 4.1 we can use for general purposes. They
aren't restricted for some other reason.
JUDGE TINLEY: We can't use the restricted
funds anyway, can we, unless they fall within this
particular purpose?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY:
effectively, we're looking at
MR. TOMLINSON:
JUDGE TINLEY:
three-month reserve, which is
$14 million.
And none of those do, sc
the 4.1.
That's correct.
All right. Less the
about one-fourth of
MR. TOMLINSON: Right, that's correct. Of
course, that -- you know, that depends -- that number
depends on, you know, what your budget is for -- for '03/'04
also.
JUDGE TINLEY: 3.5, so it's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 600,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's how much we
can spend?
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we could spend
about 600,000 and still meet the state-recommended reserve?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
-29-03
l Q S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we chose to do
something like that, Tommy, what would you say about that in
terms of fiscal responsibility?
MR. TOMLINSON: The only thing that I'm
concerned -- really concerned about is if -- if -- if we're
going -- going beyond that, you know, to reduce our reserves
below that point, or if we attempted to -- we have -- we
have some debt obligations that -- that, you know, the
County -- the County has, you know, general obligations and
revenue obligations that we -- we have given the purchasers
of our debt, you know, financial statements that look better
than that. And I think the County has an obligation to
maintain that -- that -- that strength in order to satisfy
the -- the requirements of the debt holders. And that --
JUDGE TINLEY: What are the minimum
requirements of the -- of the owners of that debt, insofar
as reserves?
MR. TOMLINSON: There's nothing written --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- in those agreements. But
I -- I think it's just good business to maintain what --
what we had when we obtained that debt or when we sold that
debt.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, we committed
2.08 cents for the amortization of the debt on the
2-24-03
~-~
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
courthouse and annex, correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many more
increments of that before that is satisfied?
MR. TOMLINSON: Two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two?
MR. TOMLINSON: Two more years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two more after this year?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two after this budget
year?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have it right here. The
last payment is -- is $430,000 in '05.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
MR. TOMLINSON: And we still -- we do have --
we have payments that average $150,000 per year for the
contractual obligation that -- that we sold this last year
for the radio --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just was talking
about the annex and the courthouse renovation.
MR. TOMLINSON: And the jail's paid off in
2012.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
2-24-03
197
1
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: Any other questions, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you,
Tommy, very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it, Tommy.
MR. TOMLINSON: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask one more question.
The -- at the time of the issuance of this debt that was
acquired by purchasers, do you recall what our approximate
fund reserves were?
MR. TOMLINSON: We've maintained a minimum
of -- of three months for the last 8 or 10 years, so it was
either -- either at that level or better. We've never
fallen below that level as long as -- in the last 10 or 12
years.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, in your eyes, that's
really -- that's really the base line that you think is --
that's the point of -- of not going below?
MR. TOMLINSON: I just -- you know, I'm a
believer in having the operating capital to -- to operate
with, at least for that period of time.
JUDGE TINLEY: But with -- with regard to --
at the time these assurances were made that you mentioned
and these debts were incurred, is it your belief we had a
significantly higher --
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
2-24-03
198
1
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: -- reserve balance?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think it's
significantly higher. I know it was, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- not -- not a material
amount.
JUDGE TINLEY: I wasn't suggesting whether --
that we ought to go below that. My inquiry went to the
point whether or not they had an expectation that maybe we
should be sitting there at six months --
MR. TOMLINSON: No. No.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- operating reserve.
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, another thing. This
has -- this number has -- has been significant in the
County's maintaining their -- their bond rating. I mean,
for -- you know, our bond rating in this county's been A,
A-plus for a number of years, and -- and our -- our strength
and our ability to collect taxes have -- have been the key
to maintaining that rating. And I think -- I think that's
important, 'cause, you know, if we do -- you know, the
difference in -- in a B or triple-B to an A rating could be
as much as, you know, a half of one percent in rates, you
know, if we ever borrow money again. So I think we need to
2-24-03
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
199
strive to maintain that rating.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very smart statement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what's the next step?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do we got left
in Professional Services right now? Anybody know? Tommy?
MS. SOVIL: About $4,500.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Professional Services?
MS. SOVIL: About $4,500.
JUDGE TINLEY: $4,500?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. I don't have
my monthly report.
MS. SOVIL: We hit it today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if we were to use the
design team that we pick -- since they're here, I can ask
them a question. At what point would you quit providing us
free service?
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Can't you do better than that,
Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yesterday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's late today.
MR. ADLER: The contractor passed the ball to
the architect. As I know this project, and having
thoroughly been through the RFP and -- with Wayne, and what
all of y'all presented, I understand what y'all are trying
-24-Q3
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
to do now, I think. And the normal next step to me would be
to make a thorough examination of the program today, and you
started that process right here today. I mean, you've sort
of ratcheted back and you've said, this is -- this is what
we want to try and accomplish, at a minimum. The next step
would be, as I think Wayne mentioned in the beginning, the
schematic design, and that would be the normal process. If
everything had gone forward, we would have given a fee, and
we would have gone forward with telling you the best way to
design this, and giving you all kinds of options and
everything else, which is what I hear you searching for.
That's exactly what we do in that phase, is
we go through it and we say, do we tear down or do we keep
it? We have engineers who look up there and say, all right,
what's the best way to ventilate this building? And I went
through it, you know, two or three times during the last
livestock show, and I think I know why you're looking for
additional help. And -- but it was -- it was a fun
experience, too. I mean, it's not -- it's a -- it is a
worthy project. I mean, I echo what you're saying. And I
saw a lot of children there, and even in the -- in the
auction at the end. You know, that was pretty neat, too.
But that would be what we would do next, is -- is I would, I
think, sign on for a schematic design package with you and
give you all the answers.
2-29-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
201
And if -- if it came down to funding, and --
from a foundation or something, we would obviously help and
interject the proper amount of documentation for that. I
see that as the normal process. I mean, I hear what you're
saying. I mean, I -- where does the free and being paid to
do this start and stop? Would it typically be paid for? I
mean, I can only tell you that we would like to do it, and
we would like to do it as inexpensively as possible to help
you make it happen. But I don't know if we can do it
totally free. I mean, 'cause at the end, you're going the
have a guaranteed maximum price, and not, as Wayne said, an
estimate. So, you got to do some hardball design, hardball
engineering, and cost estimating to get you the real thing,
and you'll have all the options and you'll be able to sit
here and make the -- make the right decision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could it be structured,
though -- I mean, since it`s the same process that we would
have gone through if the bond issue passed, seems to me that
if we go through it and get the funding, that we should get
a credit for whatever we've paid you.
MR. ADLER: Oh, definitely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Against the construction.
MR. ADLER: Definitely. Oh, yes, it's just
the first phase of the process. That's all it is. And you
can -- and you can saw it off and say, "Nope, no more," or
2-24-03
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
you can say more, or you can say go another step. I mean,
we can go one step at a time; we don't have to do the whole
thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever fees are
paid go to the total architectural fee and engineering fee
for the project --
MR. ADLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- no matter where
you abort it, right?
MR. ADLER: Right. It's not an independent
study. It's the first one, unless you change and say, "I
want a swimming pool." I mean, or you -- say you go back
and change it. But if it's just a matter of going from that
point on, oh, no. I mean, that's definitely --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The contractor wants
to say something.
MR. GONDECK: Scott wants to jump in here,
too. But there -- there's not an actual architectural
engineering fee until after there has been an agreed
guaranteed maximum cost based on that preliminary design.
It's really a two-part contract that you would sign with the
design/build team. You know, one is for that first phase,
which is to get you up to that guaranteed maximum price.
And then from that guaranteed maximum price, then that would
go through the rest of the engineering and everything from
2-24-03
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
there, and that's what -- that's where we would jump in the
middle of it, sort of, after that, to insure that all that
their -- all their architectural design, all their
engineering and everything, meets all their -- their
schematic design, all the codes, all the other requirements
of that program. And that's sort of the -- that's sort of
that whole design/build process, that it allows you to go --
to get more guarantee, more commitment with doing less of
the -- the total design work up front, in other words.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I'm understanding
what you're saying, though, as opposed to what I heard Alan
say, we've got to get ourselves past the design issues and
options before we can ever get to an ironclad guaranteed
maximum price?
MR. RAIN: That's correct.
MR. ADLER: That's correct.
MR. GONDECK: But you continue to have all
the engineering done. You won't be paying for a full,
complete set of contract documents, as you would from a
standard design/bid/build type project.
MR. ADLER: The very structure of the
design/build process allows for a clear separation of what
I've just called schematic design. I mean, that -- and it
just stops it there, but you can stop a regular contract
there, too. I mean, it's just a different way of saying it.
2-29-03
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
MR. RAIN: To answer Jonathan's question, the
timing would be critical. Since the County doesn't have
money, how far will we extend before we've got a job?
MR. ADLER: Good point.
MR. RAIN: If we're willing to donate some
services conditional upon a bigger project, how far out is
that project and how far legally can this contract
arrangement extend if we don't have a contract? If we write
a contract, we can certainly write in whatever time
extension there is or that the Commission needs, but to
donate services conditional upon something happening, we
need a little more. You know, what is that something, and
when?
MR. GONDECK: To me, it would make more sense
if the Court would instruct us to work with the design/build
team to come up with a proposal back to the Court as to what
specific services they could provide, at a -- a cost
proposal at this point to be structured based on a revised
scope to be presented back to the Commissioners Court, where
you can really see what would be some terms and conditions
of the project. 'Cause right now, we're talking about some
very loose figures and everything else, and without being
able to say, you know, they can provide some services for
whatever dollars and cents, I don't think you're going to
get much farther down the road. And, honestly, I don't
2-24-03
205
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think that you're going to get much free -- free work.
You're going to get about what it's worth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Been there.
MR. GONDECK: Well, and that's where --
before you went to this process, that's what you had. You
had a -- a lot of -- of good advice, but it was still -- it
was a lot of free work. And a lot of people put a lot of
time and effort into it, but it was -- you can't get that
level of commitment. And, again, knowing that there's not a
funding mechanism in place, you still are working through
that issue, I think. You know, one, they need to make a
proposal on what type of services -- and there -- you know,
services they could provide at this point, and that needs to
be meshed somehow with what levels of funding can be done
for the project, both on services and construction. That's
the best that I can offer right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems like a good step.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think it's -- it's the
next logical step of the process, itself, that's already in
place.
MR. ADLER: That's correct.
MR. RAIN: Regardless of whether it was -- if
the bond issue was approved, we'd be doing this.
JUDGE TINLEY: You'd be doing the same thing.
MR. RAIN: We'd be starting right where we're
2-24-G3
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
206
starting, which is to gather information, confirm the design
and concepts with the Court, and then put a price on it that
we guarantee.
JUDGE TINLEY: But with various alternatives
also?
MR. ADLER: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's what --
MR. ADLER: A shopping list.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what our real problem
is at this point, is the alternatives. And it's hard for us
to deal with the alternatives without having a little bit of
ballpark on price.
MR. ADLER: You need a shopping list so you
can just --
JUDGE TINLEY: We sure do.
MR. ADLER: After, T think, parameters are --
are well established, we just need to give y'all thoughts
and options.
MR. GONDECK: And just in case there's any
skepticism on anybody's part about my contract, anything
that's decided today, I'm presuming that there's no action
being taken on my contract, even though you're
instructing -- or would possibly instruct me to work with
them. So, until some future date, we're -- I'm just working
with them, but I don't want anybody to think that, "Well, we
2-29-03
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
207
told him to go forward; now we're obligated to him." We're
still at the same point we were before I walked in this
room.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate that, Wayne.
MR. GONDECK: If we can figure out what in
the heck we're doing. 'Cause I don't know where we're at
until we know -- so --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the next logical step,
anyway. Do we -- do we need to -- other than to -- do we
even need a motion and a vote on telling them to proceed?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so at this
point. I think that, you know, the next step would be for
them to, I guess, come back with what they're going to do or
-- you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: An agreement, I guess. A
contract for us to get -- enter into the -- with the
design/build team, and at that point the contract with DRG.
MR. GONDECK: I will move forward, based on
the discussions and consensus of the Court today, to give
instruction to the design/build team to develop a cost and
services proposal to be presented to Commissioners Court for
a reduced-budget version of the project, to be presented at
whatever date that the Court deems appropriate, and we will
go from there. Is that --
2-24-03
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
208
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We appreciate you
gentlemen's patience, and -- and -- and also your
appreciation of the predicament we're now in. When you open
up your checkbook and suddenly you find out that you've got
very little balance, it does kind of throw you into a little
quirk.
MR. ADLER: When would you like --
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your
cooperation. We really, really do.
MR. ADLER: You're quite welcome. When would
you like the proposal?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next meeting?
MR. ADLER: When is that?
MR. GONDECK: The second Monday in March.
10th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10th? March 10th. If
that's too soon, it will be --
MS. SOVIL: 24th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 14th, right? First
meeting?
MS. SOVIL: 14th is the first meeting in
March.
MR. ADLER: March 14th? Sure, that's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, no, no. It's 10 and 24
again in March, just like it was --
2-24-03
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
209
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, that's right.
MR. ADLER: March 10th? Is that it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If possible. If you
want --
MR. ADLER: No, that's fine. No, that's
fine. That's great. That's no problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: We realize you guys have
probably got to figure out a way to make a living on
something else between now and then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll bet they have
some paying jobs out there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I sure hope so. They haven't
done too well by this one yet.
MR. GONDECK: Thank y'all for your time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Wayne.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate it, Wayne.
Thank you so much. Okay. Any further discussion or any
proposed action on 2.16, other than as discussed? Okay. Do
we have any reports to consider? Any further action?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't want it to
last much longer. I'm still thinking about the Ag Barn.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, still there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm probably
thinking out loud. We can't do nothing. Double negative.
It can't set there like it is.
2-24-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
210
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can't continue to
use it very much. There's a cost of not rebuilding, to tear
it down, board it up, something. There's costs associated
with that, so that not -- doing nothing is not an option.
I'm just jumping out. We've got three, that I know of, very
capable grant writers in Kerr County. Does any of the
organizations we're a member of provide grant --
COMMISSIONER WILLTAMS: R.C.& D.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: R.C.& D.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they can and they
will at the proper time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or we can hire somebody
else, you know. I mean, there's -- I mean, I think
you're -- the direction you're taking is correct; that at
which point we're ready to do grants, we need to get someone
to do it for us. Because --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Especially if we're going
to national grants, because there's lots of things that you
need to go through, and it's a lot of paperwork and takes a
lot of time. And I've written quite a few grants for other
organizations, and, you know, it's something that, for a
governmental entity, it's even more complicated.
2-24-03
211
1
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: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And as Commissioner
Baldwin mentioned, I agree with that. I think there --
there ultimately are dollars out there through U.S.D.A.,
programs of that nature, of that type.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Far as I'm concerned.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand adjourned, then.
Thank you.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:08 p.m.)
2-24-03
212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
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 5th day of March, 2003.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : ___ _ _____C_' ____________
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
2-24-03
DRDER ND. ~'7~7E
,- CLA 1 hIS AND ACCOUNTS
Dn this the 4th day of Febr~_~ary, ~~0.?,, came to be considered
by the Co~_~rt vario~_~s Commissioners precincts, which said
Claims and Acco~_ints are:
1-~--General far X113, ~89..~ca 14-Fire F~rotect ian for X9`1. ~~;
E,i 1-Road ~ Laridge for X51, X74. 1`=,; 5~-Indir~ent Health Care for
~5~°, 549. 48; 7~-F~ermanent lmpravement for ~1+~7, 18G. 76;
71-Schreiner^ Roaci Tr~_~st f'or X95, 6~1. 4i2-.
TOTAL CASH REG?U T RED, ALL FUNDS : ~ 4c'~, 54c. 1 1.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Lets, seconded by
Commissioner Paldwin, the Co~_~rt ~_~nanimo~asly approved by a vote
'~"' of 4-Q~-+Z~, to pay said acco~_ints.
ORDER NO. c'7`777
BUDGET AI~ENDI~ENT I N
ROAD AND BRIDGE DEF~ARTmENT
On this the '4th day of Eebr~_~ar~y, L~Q~,?,, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissianer~ Williams, seconded kay Commissioner, Lets, the
Co~_~r~t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-0, to tr°ansfer,
~~, 776. ~-~ from Line Item No. 1~-611-~'+~4 Ins~_~rance-Wor~ker,s Comp
to Line Item No, 15-611-4~$~ Ins~_~r,ance-Vehicles. The Ca~_inty
A~_iditor and Co~_tnty Treas~_~r~er ar,e hereby a~_ithorYi~ed to write a
hand check in the ama~_~nt of ~~, 776. ~~ made payable to JT
Special Risks.
GIRDER <uO. 27'78
PLJDGET AMEIVDI~EI~T I H
„_. JIJ5T I CE OF THE REACE # 1 -- IVOhI--DEF~ART~IEhITAL
On this the 24th day of Febr+_iar~y, 2~iZ+~?,, +_+pon matinn made by
Commissioner^ Paldwin, seconded loy Commissioner Lets, the Ca+_irt
~n~ttima~sly approved by ~ vote of 4-0-Q~, to transfer ~4~8.15
from Line Item Igo. 10-4~~-~71 Contingency to Line Item No.
1~-~+~5-58~~ Operating Eq~_-ipment. The Co+_-nty A+_iditar C~nd Co+_~nty
Treas+_~rer are hereby a~_~thori~ed to write a hand check in the
amo+_int of ~4'~8.15 made payat~le to C:DW-G.
ORDER NO. X7979
FUDGE"f f~l+'IEIVDMEI~T Ilil
,._. COI~mISSIOh1ERS COURT - COUNTY COURT
On this the :4th day of Febr,+_iar°y, ;~~~3, +_~pon motion made by
Commissioner IWicholsan, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
Ca+_~rt unanimo+asly approved by a vote of 4-0-~, to transfer
~~2i,°,.75 from Line Item hlo. i~-4~1-~fBP F'rofessianal Services,
with ~14~.0~ to Line Item hia. 1+~-4~E,-4t~5 Conferences-D~_ies and
~E,.:,.7,°.+ to Line Item IWa. 1~-~++~1-~1~ Paoks-F'+_tblications-D~_ies.
QRDER ~f0. ~:798~
BUDGET AmEIVDMEh1T IlV
198TH DISTRICT C(7URT
On this the	'4th day of	Febr~_tary,	~~-~,.:,, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner	Williams,	seconded by	Commissioner t~licholson, the
Co~_trt ~-nanimn~asly approved by a vote of 4-~--~, to transfer,
~£75~t.80 from Line Item ~Io. 1~-4~6-4~-c Co~_irt Appointed
Attorney, with ~1~~.6~- to Line Item 1'Jo. 1~-45,6-497 Ca~_irt
Transcripts and ~6~~. ~~+ to Line Item Flo. i~-436-4t~1 Co~_irt
App'td Services.
ORDER N0. ...'7901
AP'P'ROVE AND ACCEF='T h10N"fHLY REPORTS
.--
On this the 4th day of Eebr~_iar^y, EtZi~?,, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner^ Let z, seconded by Commis=_>iorier Nicholson, the
Co~_trt ~_~nanimo~.isly approved by a vote of 4-~-~, to accept the
following reports and direct that they be filed with the
C o ~_~ m y C 1 e r^ k for f ~_~ t ~_tr e a ~_~ d i t
Linda Uecker, District Clerk
Jan~_~ary, L~~3
Vanr_e Elliott, J. F'. #1
Jan~_~ary c+~03
aRD~~ Na. ~~~aL
AF~F~RaVE RESOL.UTIaN FOR
FUNDING REG!UEST
an this the 4th day of Febi^~_tary, ~'~~3, ~_ipvn motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-0, to aciopt the
resal~_ition in s~_ipport of the f~_inding r~eq~_~est s~_~bmitted to the
Texas Legisla~t~_~r~e s~_~ppor~ting the Texas Tech University - Hill
Country.
~--
orzn~~ ova. ~~~eW
AF'F=~ROUE GAF=ETY Ih~tCEM17IVE F~ROGRAM
r~
On this the '4th day of Februaryq ~'~2-~,a upon motion made Ioy
Commissioner Let:, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Ca~_~r~t ~ananima~.isly approved by a vote of 4-~-~, to appr,o~e a
resolution to .join in the Safety I~~~centive F~ro~ram offered by
Texas Association of Ca+_~nties, the F'.er~r Cos_~nty Workers
Compensation carrier.
QRDER IVO. c"T984
AF'F'RdVE N,ERR Et'~IERGENCY 9-1-1 hlE7WdRl'~
r
ADDREaSII~IG PROJECT E~~3
do this the `4th day of Febr-~+_tary, `+Z++Z+~?,, +_~pon motion made by
Commissioner Paldwin, seconded by Commissioner Let:, the Co+_ir^t
unanimo+asly appr^oved by a vote of 4-t~-~, to appr^ove Kerr
Emercdency 9-1--1 hletwor^k - Addr^essincd 1='roject ~'~~3.
ORDER NO. ;x'7985
AF'RROVE LETTER OF SIJF'~ORT
OR RESOLUTTOhI FDR HB 83~
On this the 4th day of Febr~_cary,~:~~3, ~_cpon motion made by
Commissioner Paldwin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Co~_crt
approved by a vote of 3-V~-1, with Commissioner Williams
abstaining, a resol~_ctinn in s~_cpport of Ho~_cse Bill 63~ relating
to the designation of State Wighway 173 between F'.errville and
.3o~_crdanton as the 1?3rd Airborne Pr°igade Memorial Highway, and
a+_-thor~i e Co~_cnty 3~_idge to write a letter of s+_cpporYt and attach
the Co~_~rt ^rder.
ORDER NO. ~79E3E
CONSIDER PRELIMINARY REVISION OF FLAT
OF I~ERRVILLE COl1tdTRY ESTATES
AND SET F'L-BL I C MEAR I NG
On this the ;4th day of Febr+_iary, ~2-~3, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the
Co~_~rt ~ananimo~asly approved by a vote of 4-~-~, to consider
Preliminary Revision of Plat of Tract Nos. 48 and 49A of
Kerrville Co~_~ntry Est. Section Twa as shown in Val~_ime 4, Page
131, and set p~_~bl is hearing far Apri 1 14, ~~'~~.?, at 1~;~-~ A. M.
ORDCR ISO. c7987
COt~ISIDER F'RELIMII~IARM REVISTOhI OF FLAT
,.-... OF J. L. ~! I CHOLS SUE1D I V I S I OfV
AhID SET RUPL I C HEA R I IVG
On this the 4th day of Febr~_~ar~y, ~~~~, ~_-pan mation made by
Cnmmissianer~ hlicholsan, secanded by Cammissianer~ Let:, the
Ca~_~r,~t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-~, ~L-o r_ansider,
Revisian of Flat of Site 15 of J. L. ~lichals S~_~bdivisian,
Val~_~me ~, Page 5~, and set p~_iblic hearing far AprYil 14, ;~~~~ at
1~:3~ A. h1.
ORDER NO. O7'388
AF'F'ROVAt_ FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE DERARTMENT TO
INSTALL ROAD SIGNS IN F'RECTNCT 4
On this the :4th day of Febr+_iary, ~:~~L,, +_~pan motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Co+_trt +ananimo+asly approved by a vote of 4-~-~+, tl-rat Road and
Bridge Department be given the a+_tthor~ity to install new rand
signs for, new road names in F'r~ecinct 4, as follows:
EXISTING ROAD NAME
Lal{eview
S+_immit
Valley View
East Hi Top
West Hi Top
West Hi Line
East Hi Line
So+_tth F'ark
North Gar~k
T+_irkey R+_rn
REG?UE5TED NAME CHANGE
Maryrneade
Skylar
Meagan
Caitlin
Clayton
Laaker
Hi Line
G+_i 1 ch Ranch
Co+_rgar F'ark
R+_rn
~JRDER NO. E7989
AF'F'RgVE NAME CHANGES
IN ACCORDANCE WITH 911 GUIDELINES
Dn this the ;4th day of Eebr+_~ary, c~~3, +_~pon motion made by
Cammissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the
Co+_irt +_~nanimo+_~sly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to approve the
name changes far, privately maintained roads in aceor-~dance with
911 g+_tidelines, as presented:
Existing Road Name
17~~
~,~C7
.J~.JO
v~36
-,~
.:v~,.tJ
Req+_iested Name Change
S Th+_inder Rd
N Kara Rd
N Amber Ln
N Sharon TrYl
N Newberr^y Hi 11
ORDER NO. ~7~~~
,.--
AP'P'ROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST
FOR CONSTABLE, F'RECINGT #1
On this the :~~ath day of F'ebru~~ry, c~~.?,, ~_ipon matian made by
Cammissianer Baldwin, secanded by Commissioner~ Wi11i~~mSs, the
Co~_tr~t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-~, the B~_~dget
Amendment req+_test by Rober~t A. "Bobby" Pickens II, Constable,
F'r~ecinct 1. B~_idget amendment as follows : ~~, ~~+~. ~~
transfer~r~ed fr~om Line Item Na. 1~-55i-1~1 Official Salary,
with ~5~~. tZi~ to Line Item Na. 1i~--551-.?,1~ Office a~_ippl ies,
$5+~~.+~0 to Line Item Na. 1~--551-515 Baoks, F'~_~I~lications, D~_~e5,
~S~V~.+Z~~ to Lien Item Na. i~-551--4~~ Telepl~~ane, ~StZnZi.G~ to Line
Item Na. 1~-51-454 Vehicle Repair R Maintenance.
.-~
QRDER IVO. u79~1
AF'F'RQUE iNTERGOVERI~IMEIVTAL AGREEh'lEIVT
,,.,., ~1ETWEEIV I'.ERR COU~fTY Ah1D U. G. R. A.
Cn this the '4th day of F•ebr~_iary, c~2~?,, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner, Williams, seconded by Commissioner L~cldwin, ~tl•~e
Co~_~rt approved by a vote of 3-1-0, with Commissioner Nicholson
opposing the motion, the intergovernmental Agreement for Texas
Comm~_inity Development F'r°ogr-•am, Texas Colonic Constr~_~ction ~'+_ind
awards relative to Contract N~_~mber 74:c411, cnd c~_ithori~e the
Co~_~nty J~_~dge to sign same.
.--
DRDER itilO. t'.7`3r~c
AG'F'ROVEi? REUISEL~ AIRPORT LAYOUT FLAN
On this the ~'~+th day of Febr~_iar°Y, ~:~~~.~, ~_~pon motiaf~ made by
Cammissiarrer Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Co~_~r~t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-0, the Revised
Airport Layout Glan, and a~_ithar•i~ed Co+inty J~_~dge to sign samee
~--
ORDER N0. ~'7'~9~:,
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF RACIAL F~ROFILING
''~' On this the c4th day of Febr~_~ary, ~~~~,, upon mat ion made lay
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the
Co~_~r~t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-iZ~-Q~, acknowledgement
of the E~~t~~ Racial F~rofiliny Files s~_~bmitted by Precinct ~`
Constable .7oel Ayala, to be delivered ~_tnto the Ca~snty Clerk
to be placed in a special file, if any, maintained by her
office far that p~_~rpose.