1
'	14
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
,..-.
f ~•
2
3
4
5
6
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, March 24, 2003
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
22
23
24
25
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
a
,.
IYM
~C'
"~.,
1
.-.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'.,,, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-.
25
2
I N D E X
March 24, 2003
--- Commissioners Comments
1 . 1 Pay Bills ~~Li'3
fjL 1 ;J ~cr ~ ~
1.2 Budget Amendments ~~ y "
1.3 Late Bills
1.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports ~b'C:z~
2.1 KEDF Semi-Annual Report
2.2 Approval of revised Airport Lease Agreement with
Kerrville Aviation and authorize County Judge to
sign same ~Z~L"~`~.
2.3 Approval of the Kerr County Emergency Management
Hazard Analysis ~ fjL~2.~
2.4 Audit report of financial data for fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, by Pressler, Thompson
& Company ,;~ ~'~~'-~
2.5 Request for waiver of immediate inspection of
septic system at 302 Ranchero Road ~ ~C'':Z5
2.6 Discuss Kerr County Sheriff's Department
applying for department credit card
2.7 Discuss final plat signature block requirement
of condominium plat of Stablewood Springs Ranch
2.8 Final revision of plat for Lots 43 and 44-A of
Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I :~ ~-~(-
2.9 Preliminary revision of Plat of Tracts 15 & 16,
Y.O. Ranchlands ~~'L":~"~
2.10 Variance to Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations for placing a water line in Cypress
Springs, Phase II ~~Y~~~
2.11 Discuss accepting H.M.G.P. Grant for Kerr County
to purchase 3 homes in 100-year floodplain
2.12 Adopt flood recovery maps to be used to determine
flood elevations on Cherry Creek, Cypress Creek,
and Verde Creek ~~~~~/
2.13 Discuss hiring consultants and design/build team
to assist with helping develop renovation and
construction plans for the Hill Country Youth
Exhibit Center ~S~`~3C
2.14 Approve resolution adopting waiver request for
local match fund participation for federal
off-system bridge program project
--- Adjourned
PAGE
4
7
8
14
14
24
46
48
56
65
72
87
89
91
98
112
116
128
131
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, March 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, ladies and
gentlemen. It's 9 a.m. local time. I'll call the meeting
of the special Commissioners Court scheduled for Monday,
March 24th, 2003, to order. I believe this morning we have
Commissioner Baldwin to open the meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; I do, sir. I want to
make a comment before we pray, though; is that in my years
on this world, I've had the opportunity to meet some
outstanding, great and wonderful people. I have met
President Reagan and dined with governors and senators and
congressmen, and just met some, really, people of integrity.
But I have a special guest today that's going to do the
opening prayer, and he is the finest man that I've ever met
in my life, and he's my hero, and he's my son, Jesse
Baldwin.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Jesse.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hey, back to school.
Straight to school. (Laughter.)
3-'9-03
4
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
29
2~
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Jesse. At this
time, any person who would like to address this Court on
matters which are not listed on today's agenda are welcome
to come forward and do so. I would remind any of you that
want to speak on matters that are listed on the agenda to
please fill out a participation form. It's not mandatory
and absolutely required, but it helps me to keep up with --
in terms of trying to allocate time and moving around from
item to item, and also so that I won't miss you when we get
to that particular item. So, I would ask that you do that.
But right now, if there's anybody here that wants to speak
on any item, anything that's on their mind that they want to
bring to the attention of this Court that's not listed on
the agenda, we'd ask that you come forward at this time.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Had your chance. All right.
That being the case, there being no one wanting to step
forward, we'll now move to Commissioners' comments, and
Commissioner 1, Mr. Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really don't have
anything, other than the young man that just left here, we
found out a couple of days ago that he's the number one 300
hurdler from Corpus to El Paso in 4-A. We don't know what's
going on in east Texas. Of course, neither do they.
(Laughter.) We don't know. We don't have any times of the
- 4 - 0 3
G
J
1
.- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dallas and east Texas area, but the west Texas and South
Texas area, he's the number one guy. So, we'll have to wait
and see. We're getting down close to district, and it's
going to be fun. I'm a little bit nervous. He's not, but
I'm a little bit nervous. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just returned from
Fort Worth, which they say is where the west begins, or as
the guy from McLennan said, where the east peters out,
whatever. An interesting place to be and visit for a West
Texas Judges and Commissioners meeting, but it's always good
to be home. And we'll talk about the other at another time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No comments this morning.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm glad to be back
in the hill country and away from Fort Worth.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all you've got this
morning? I've got a few items I'd like to mention. First
off, I would ask that all of us, irrespective of our views
of the political advisability of the current world
situation, would keep in our thoughts and our prayers all
the members on the -- of the armed forces of this country
and of the other countries who are involved in the current
effort. And as to those in this country, especially those
-~~-o~
6
1
^ 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 have been deployed to hostile environments, to keep
them and their families and their loved ones in your
thoughts and prayers and wish them a safe return and a
prompt peace to the current difficulties. Secondly, I'd
like to, in that vein, thank the Christian Women's Job
Corps. Some of you, as you came here today, may have
noticed yellow ribbons around the various trees around the
courthouse, and that was -- that was the idea of the
participants in the Christian Women's Job Corps. Ms. Patty
Crick called me late last week and said that her ladies had
come up with this, and it's something that they wanted to
do, and I was very pleased that she called and -- and gave
me this indication, and they wanted to do that, and so we
have them to thank for that. And so keep them in your
thoughts, too, along with their motivation for doing so.
We've also got the opening this week of the
Kathleen C. Cailloux theater. It's opening on the 27th,
this Thursday evening. That's formerly the old Municipal
Auditorium -- I say "the old"; it wasn't that old, but it's
been reconfigured and they're having their grand opening of
that facility with the San Antonio Symphony. The good --
that's the good news. The bad news is, I understand that
there are no tickets. I -- I attempted to make contact with
them last week, was unsuccessful, and when I checked this
morning, I was told, "Come again another time." So, that's
~-_~-~~
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,...,_ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the bad news. But those of you that were able to get
tickets, I urge you to go. Apparently, it's going to be a
full house. And, lastly, I would like to mention to you
that the -- the scholarship spectacular that's taking place
this Saturday night out at the Y.O. beginning at 6:30,
that's being put on by the friends and faculty of Ingram Tom
Moore High School, and that's a fund raiser that they hold
every year to -- to raise scholarship funds for Ingram Tom
Moore graduates, and it's a worthy effort, and I -- I bring
it to you for your consideration. Again, let's keep our
armed forces members in our thoughts and prayers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amen.
JUDGE TINLEY: With that, we'll move on to
the approval agenda. First item is pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by
Commissioners Baldwin and Williams, respectively, that we
pay the bills as presented by the County Auditor. Any
discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
- 4 - U 3
8
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
i4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
2~
2_
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. We'11 next
move to the budget amendments. Budget Amendment Number 1.
Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from
Constable, Precinct 3, to transfer $33.60 from Vehicle
Repairs and Maintenance to Miscellaneous, and it's for
upgrade on his radio, to change the frequency to the
Sheriff's Office frequency.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1 by Commissioners
Letz and Nicholson, respectively. Any discussion? All in
favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from Road
and Bridge to transfer $2,000 from Crew Salaries to
Part-Time Salaries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by
3-~~-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
9
Commissioners Williams and Letz, respectively, that we
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin, on that budget
amendment, is there a reason -- is there a specific reason
we used the part-time up so quick this year? Or do you
know?
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think we had -- we had
much in part-time to start with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $4,055.
MR. JOHNSTON: I trunk we have a retirement
coming up, and I think he's wantir_g to hire a part-time to
finish out the year. I think that's the plan.
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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is a request from
the Sheriff's Department to transfer $133.46 from Operating
Expenses to Radio Repairs. That's also for reprogramming of
radios.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
-~~4-~3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'' 4
L
25
10
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by
Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, respectively, to approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any further discussion?
All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: This request is from the
County Treasurer to transfer $20 from Office Supplies to
Books, Publications, and Dues. Tt's for a $20 invoice from
the County Treasurers Association of Texas.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by
Commissioners Nicholson and Letz, respectively, to approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any further discussion?
All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 5.
3-~4-03
11
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Amendment 5 actually
increases the budget. This $6,354 is the first
installment -- quarterly installment for our receipt of
Indigent Defense reimbursement. We will -- we will receive
three more payments of that amount.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand what you're
doing. It's coming in as an income item, and then it's
going over into the Court-Appointed Attorney item and just
increasing that category by that same amount?
MR. TOMLINSON: This is for -- particular one
is for Court-Appointed Attorney line item in the County
Court at Law. They are out of money in that. line item
already, and so we're -- with this, we're increasing that
line item and the total budget by that amount.
JUDGE TINLEY: But we're getting offsetting
state funds in?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: On Senate Bill 7?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: For that purpose?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that was the express
purpose of those funds?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
3-~4-0?
12
1
~-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by
Commissioners Williams and Letz, respectively, to approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 5. Any further discussion?
All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is for the 216th
District Court. This request is to transfer $59.98 from
Equipment Maintenance, $100 from Miscellaneous, totaling
$159.98, to Operating Equipment, and it's to replace a
printer. It's a laser printer. The total price is $655.95.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, it says "fax
machine" on here.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's both. It's a
combination.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by
Commissioners Baldwin and Letz, respectively, to approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 6. Any further discussion?
_-~9-G3
1
--- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,,,, 13
14
Z J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
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 7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is a request from
J.P. 4 to transfer $27.50 from Miscellaneous to Bond line
item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by
Commissioners Nicholson and Letz, respectively, to approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 7. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Tommy, do you
know what bond that's for? It seems like an odd time --
MR. TOMLINSON: Apparently, it's for his
clerk. It didn't give a name, but his was paid --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- in January.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? All
in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
-,~-~',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
14
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Do we have
MR. TOMLINSON: No, we don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Monthly reports. I
have here before me monthly reports submitted by Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 2, and the District Clerk. Do I hear a
motion that these reports be approved as submitted?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by
Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, respectively, that the
monthly reports of Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, and
District Clerk be approved as submitted. Any discussion?
All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Okay. We can
now move on to the consideration agenda. First item on the
agenda is the Kerrville Economic Development Foundation
semiannual report. Mr. Waller.
MR. WALLER: Morning, Judge, Commissioners.
JUDGE TINLEY: The current president and
chairman of the KEDF.
MR. WALLER: That's correct. I appreciate
3-=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
15
y'ap's time. I've got a summary report -- semiannual
report I'll give you at the end of my summary, and it's
going to -- this will be more of a synopsis. Sherry
Cunningham is -- couldn't be here this morning and asked me
to step in for her and just kind of go over these items that
we've done up to this point on a semiannual basis for this
fiscal year. The Kerr Economic Development Foundation, one
of the things we do, we deal -- we have an industry
relations team. That industry relations team is currently
in progress of -- of going out and talking to 44 different
companies that are here and in our market area. They will
prepare a report to identify issues and needs, and then KEDF
will basically develop a plan of action to address each of
these. They've come up with a list of major taxpayers,
approximately the top ten, and then also the top ten major
employers, and it shows the changes from -- from the last
fiscal year.
We also have a wage and salary survey in
progress. We mailed out 172 survey forms. We received back
44. We have reminder calls in process, and will review the
results of those surveys, and it just gives us a little
better feel of what the employment market is here in this
area. Statistics, the economic development packets, are
distributed monthly. We have a web site as well where these
updates can be found, with any revisions. The -- the
i - ~ ~ - ~ 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
16
S.B.D.C., which is Small Business Development Corporation,
that's in conjunction -- comes out of U.T.S.A. in San
Antonio. We have available counseling sessions for people
that are in business, people looking to go in business.
They help them with feasibility studies and putting together
financial plans and so forth, so that seems to be --
apparently, that's a relationship that's historic and is
ongoing.
Retention and expansion. That's where the
Foundation spends most of its time, retention/expansion of
businesses. We're currently locking for someone to do --
and there's a need for someone to do sales and marketing,
really, in that area. We need -- we do this really to build
the tax base, which helps everybody, to create better paying
jobs and to take advantage of opportunities that are before
us. Toyota is a good example of an opportunity that might
be there for some tangent-related businesses to what they
do. We're looking at that, and there are several meetings
set up already in the San Antonio area to take a look at
those. But we got to take care of what we do have, and we
do that under retention and expansion. We talk with
businesses in town and -- and help them expand. There are a
lot of legislative issues that are critical to our area
currently, a lot of things that are undergoing some scrutiny
as the State faces a fiscal challenge. Medicaid, health

1
°- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
P.,. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
care changes, state funding need to be addressed. We really
need to -- need to and are in the process on a continual
basis, of -- of helping to lobby against funding cuts, major
changes, and -- and hospital closures. We talk about the
V.A. specifically; I think we've got that covered pretty
well.
Just to bring to your attention, State
Representative Harvey Hilderbran i.s going to be at the
Business Before Hours breakfast this coming Friday, the
28th, at 6:45 at the Inn of the Hills. Should be a
newsletter going out this week with all the details. The
following week, in the same regard, lobbying with our
representatives, Senator Troy Fraser, who's the State
Senator that represents this area now, he'll be speaking at
the -- at a luncheon on April the 4th. We currently -- we
invite y'all specifically to attend. In regard to the V.A.
Hospital, retired General Schellhase is serving in a task
force that's reevaluating and continually evaluating that
situation. Basically, they took about 32 bids from V.A.
Hospitals around the state to put in an extended living
facility in or around those areas. We were basically told
through San Antonio that, you know, this was no big deal;
that it was a done deal. Well, of course, it wasn't a done
deal. I think one went to south Texas, one went to E1 Paso.
The prior time they had this out, we were in the top four,
?-~4-03
18
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
z~
25
and didn't make the cut. General Schellhase is -- has a
strong relationship with Princippi, who's the Cabinet
representative for veterans affairs, as well as the San
Antonio district office. He does a great job of keeping
them informed, and he probably heads up one of the strongest
lobbying forces for this area. They're one of our top ten
employers, so he continues to work in that regard.
Mooney Airplane Company. We want to thank
the Court for their willingness to consider the application
of the Texas Capital Fund on behalf of Mooney. We feel the
timing is right. I've had an opportunity over the last
month to sit in on three meetings with Nelson Happy, the new
C.E.O. out there, and he has a financial consultant, kind of
their interim chief financial officer, Jeffrey Sorrel.
Mooney, as everybody knows, went through a bankruptcy
situation. They were purchased by a company called A.A.S.I.
out of California. All the operations now are in Kerrville;
there are no more California operations at all. The company
has investors that were deep-pocket investors from A.A.S.I.
Venture, and they had put in 35 to 50 million dollars, and
they are continuing to invest in, quote, the new Mooney,
Mooney Airplane Company.
After visiting with them -- I think we had
several here. I think Judge Tinley was there; Commissioner
Williams sat in on a couple of those meetings. I feel
-~~-~~
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
L
'' 0
21
22
23
24
25
fairly comfortable that they've got their line up and
running now. They have three sales people that are out in
different parts of the country, and they're gearing up their
sales. Their goal is really to be a company that produces
about 100 aircraft a year. They're going to stay with the
successful Mooney; it's still kind of considered the Rolls
Royce of the private passenger plane business. Nelson
Happy's background is, he was an attorney by training, but
he's been involved in several turn-around companies, and
they seem to be addressing the focal points that -- that I,
as a banker, would certainly be looking at, so I think we
can feel comfortable. They've got about 160 people on board
out there now. I don't think they're going to gear up any
more to a 600 or so level. They found out a lot of those
things they were doing were really not profitable-type
segmented operations of the company, so they're going to try
to continue to do what they do best. I think their goal
their first year, this year, is tc do about 60-plus
airplanes out there.
The Alamo Workforce Development Board,
Sherry's involved in that, stays up on their board
operations. They're dealing with funding cuts, applications
for funds for incumbent workers. They deal with child care.
They deal with employer and job seeker services. There are
three basic points to economic development: Retention,
~ - _ 4 -
20
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,.,_, 2 4
25
expansion, and attraction. And retention and expansion is
where this board is -- has focused heretofore, but I think
we're going to -- we're making plans and doing things now to
get a little more active in attracting maybe the kinds of
businesses that would be -- that would fit in well with the
-- the demographics here in Kerr County. Legislation to
enable certain incentives has to be put in place before we
can go out and really go towards the attraction side. Mindy
Wendele and Ron Patterson are working on that now through
the City, putting together really a matrix of -- cf the
things that are available, maybe through the State, from an
incentive standpoint. And -- and the other side of that
matrix is really what has to be done legislatively before we
can pursue any of those. I kind of head up a committee, and
I guess I'd call it the local coalition, as opposed to the
Iraqi coalition that we have now, really trying to bring
together the County and City, the school district, Economic
Development Foundation towards common purposes and
standards. And I think we've been able to make some strong
progress in that regard.
We're putting together a web site now. When
people -- when businesses around the country are looking for
a place to go to either expand their business or to start a
new business, most of them now are going to the Internet.
If you don't meet certain criteria, you're pretty well cut
3-~9-U3
21
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
off the list. So what we're tryir_g to do, without being
over-committal on -- on our web site, is to put the things
that we do and the flexibility that we have to maybe
customize something for a company looking into this area.
We reevaluate this on a continuing basis. As Judge Tinley
said, I'm the chairman now of the Kerr Economic Development
Foundation. Cordell White resigned as chairman of KEDF. He
had a business opportunity to take over a brokerage area in
Los Colinas, and took that; he has a lot of family up in
that area. A couple of other changes. Jim Miller of the
Kerrville Telephone Company and Mike Lowe have been recently
appointed to the Exer_utive Committee of KEDF, and Bill
Taylor with KPUB has agreed to accept the vice chairman
position, with the addendum that he not be pushed up to
chairman at the first opportunity. But we appreciate him
doing that.
I guess, in summary, that's really all we've
got. We're moving forward, we think on a positive base, and
we have the -- putting -- trying to put the tools in place
to maximize the effort of what KEDF does. I'll entertain
any questions you might have. And, again, Sherry Cunningham
is -- I may have to defer to her for any answers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mine are pretty
simple, Mr. Waller. Thank you very much for being here.
Thank you for your service to our community. Where did you
-~~-o~
22
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come from? You and I haven't met.
MR. WALLER: Well, I've been here; I run
Broadway Bank here, and I've been here -- be two years --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two years?
MR. WALLER: -- May the lst. I came from
Austin. Beerr in the banking business probably 25-plus
years. I've started a couple of banks. I've been a
stockbroker. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, two years.
You're an old-timer.
MR. WALLER:
COMMISSIONER
group comes in every night.
said something about that t
different companies?
MR. WALLER:
COMMISSIONER
not sure if I follow. What
what?
That's right.
BALDWIN: Around here. New
In your opening remarks, you
~e KEDF was out visiting with 49
Mm-hmm.
BALDWIN: Now, what is -- I'm
44 different companies? To do
MR. WALLER: Well, they're going out and
talking with 44 different companies that -- and I can't tell
you the process where they put together the selected
companies, but it should be a broad representation of the
businesses here in Kerrville. They want to get a feel as to
how things are going. What are the things they need? Are
3-~ 4-~~ 3
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
they having trouble --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. WALLER: -- getting employees?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. All right.
MR. WALLER: Et cetera.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have -- do you
have a particular number of how many companies we have
visited with from outside to try to talk them into moving to
Kerrville? Do we do that?
MR. WALLER: Well, historically, all those
requests have gone through the Chamber of Commerce or the --
their cohort, the business and convention area.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Visitors' Bureau.
MR. WALLER: But we really have not been
proactive in going out and soliciting companies. I think
we're just now getting kind of a grasp on really what would
fit in here. Because you have to deal with the -- it's kind
of the chicken or the egg theory. You know, if you go out
and bring companies in, you got to have housing, you have to
have staffing. And I know that Lowe's and Home Depot have
had to -- at least the numbers I've heard about, at least
half of their people are not local, that they've had to
bring in.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just think the
public would be interested in knowing at some point, you
3-~9-n3
24
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
29
2_`
know, are we out visiting with companies, getting them to
move in? And I say this every year, so --
MR. WALLER: Well, we are doing that, but it
really comes from them coming to us. They like Kerrville;
they may like the demographics here, the proximity to San
Antonio, different things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. That's
all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Bob. I
know what you're doing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Appreciate you coming
this morning. Good presentation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Waller, we thank you for
being here, and my pleasure to serve with you.
MR. WALLER: Thank you. Appreciate your
time.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Court will next move to
Item 2.2, consider and discuss approval of the revised
Airport Lease Agreement with Kerrville Aviation, Inc., and
authorize signature of County Judge on the same.
Mr. Knippel?
MR. KNIPPEL: Morning, Commissioners and
Judge. We'll take another run at the Court this morning.
Hopefully, we've had an opportunity to provide you a little
bit better information, so this go around we're not --
3-~.9-03
25
1
.- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
73
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-~
2~
you're not being confronted cold with some of the issues
surrounding this lease document. Since the last time we
met, it's my understanding Joe Kennedy, the proprietor of
Kerrville Aviation, and the -- the prospective lessee here,
has met with a few of you. I know that I've met with one or
two of you also to discuss some of the points of the lease,
and we have gone back and made some changes to that
document. I think one thing that came out of the
discussions was -- and that I failed to mention in the -- in
the first go-round on this lease, is it's kind of an overall
philosophy of the airport, in that insofar as the airport is
not really viewed as a profit center. It's not something
that is there to generate revenue and build a large fund
balance for the -- for the County and the City.
So, what is it there for? I think that the
airport is -- is an asset to the community in that it
provides some services, and -- and a facility that is looked
for by potential businesses. As Mr. Waller was saying,
several industries or companies or anybody else that's going
to come to this area have a few things on their checklist
that they're going to look for, and I believe that the
airport is one of those things that some of the larger
players will look for, so they can get their corporate jets
in and out of here, for instance. I think there's other
services that are provided for existing tenants and proposed
3 - 4 - 0 3
26
1
~-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l2
13
14
l~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~,., 2 4
25
that -- that -- by the F.B.O., that it's important that
those services be provided at the airport if we're going to
make a go of the airport at all. We need to be able to
service large jets, need to have a place to put large jets,
need to have fueling facilities for them, so forth.
Another -- and also, what Mr. Waller
mentioned earlier was Mooney, Mooney Aircraft. That's just
another example of a large industry that's an
aviation-related industry that's on the airport property.
That -- that also serves as a draw to others who may look to
our airport. It's a recognized name, and it calls attention
to the airport as well. So, there is an overall benefit of
having airports and having a fully functional and
full-service airpert available to Kerr County. I think that
is the -- that's more of a qualitative benefit than a
specific quantitative dollar amount, revenue-generating
facility that we're looking for. And then -- and then one
last thing on that note is that if you have a profit center,
and you -- and you begin to generate income, that can become
problematic in that we've accepted a lot of federal money
over the years, and once you start using that federal money
to generate profits for -- for the spcnsoring government,
then that can backfire on you.
So, we can't really -- the idea with the
airport is to operate it on a -- on a narrow margin where
:-_ ~-~, ~
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
you're just in the black enough every year, it pays for
itself, it's an asset to the community, but that it doesn't
grow in fund balance extraordinarily. The changes that
were made to the lease from the last time we came,
specifically --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paul, I have a question.
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I understand
what you're saying about not trying to make a, quote,
profit, but at the same time, based on the matching funds
that are required for most of federal grants, we need to
make money out there somewhere. Otherwise, it's going to be
paid for by the general fund of the City and County. So,
building up a reserve should be, I would think, very much in
line with the purpose of the airport.
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, insofar as that reserve is
used to go back into the development of the airport.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. The other part
is, you know, I understand -- you know, I mean, again, I
understand what you just said, but at the same time, how do
you mesh not making money out there with putting private
.sector businesses out there and encouraging that kind of
development out there, which, as I understand, is part of
the Airport Master Plan? I mean, the purpose is for us to
generate -- you know, to do development out there in the use
_-~~-o^
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
of the facilities revenue, I thought. I mean --
MR. KNIPPEL: It -- to get us to a point
where we -- it pays for itself. I don't mean to be -- to
mischaracterize; the purpose of the airport is not trying to
make money. It does need to make enough money to keep -- to
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, even if -- for
example, I'm just going to pick on them because I know
they're out there; B.A. Products, who has their
manufacturing facility out there on the airport property. I
mean, hopefully we're trying to make money on that facility.
I mean, that's why we're leasing it.
MR. KNIPPEL: That's correct. And there's a
fair market value assigned to that facility as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. KNIPPEL: And -- and that is designed
to -- to make -- to make money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's just -- I
wanted to make sure we were on the same page.
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir. I just have a couple
more points, and then I'll -- I'll be quiet. The lease,
specifically, we went back and asked Kerrville Aviation
to -- to generate -- to show earlier recital on the blue
hangar specifically so that we could -- instead of having a
full 10-year gap we weren't drawing any income on that blue
3-~~-Ci3
29
1
~-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.._ 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
27
22
23
24
25
hangar, we went back and now we have a lease where we are
drawing income during that 10-year period. Also, there's an
agreement to have the self-service depot constructed within
six months, as opposed to being tied to the timeline of
the -- of the new hangar improvements that are also
guaranteed by this lease. So, that self-service depot is --
is an important feature, not just for our local-based
aircraft, but those who, for instance, may be traveling from
Houston out to El Paso, and they can stop here without
having to get hung up in San Antonio or -- or Austin at
the -- with the air traffic there. They can fly in here,
refuel, and be on their way. So, that's an important thing
that we'll have rather rapidly.
And then there was another issue that had
come up at one point about the -- having the Lot 3, which is
where the F.B.O. proper is, being -- that lease for that
property being conterminous, or ending at the same date with
this -- the Lots 9 and 10. That was a valid reason, so that
you don't have the F.B.O. owner with staggering ending dates
for their lease. We went back and looked at -- we feel like
the way that we have it now is actually conterminous.
The -- the F.B.O. proper lease for Lot 3 has two 10-year
options on it, which once those are both fully exercised,
that would end the lease in 2033, which is when this
proposed lease for Lots 9 and 10 ends as well, so we feel
-~4-0~
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
30
like that goal has been achieved.
With all that, we are here to request
approval by the Court and authorization of the Judge to
execute the lease documents as they are included in your
packet now. That could be also subject to some motion, and
vote could be subject to any revisions that may come out of
this discussion as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Paul, direct our
attention, if you will, to the contractual reference for the
obligation on the part of the lessor to build a new hangar
on Lot 9.
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir. In sections --
essentially, there's two and a half years to have that
improvement on Lot 9 complete.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Final?
MR. KNIPPEL: In Section 5.01, application
for a building permit must be made within 90 days. In 5.02,
the construction on the hangar must commence -- construction
on the improvements, which is the hangar on Lot 9, must
commence within 180 days. And then in 5.09, which is
failure to construct. improvements, that Part D there says
that everything's got to be done within the second
anniversary of the commencement of construction. So, you
run ail that out and it's a two-and-a-half-year window.
But, yes.
J - _ ~ - U S
1
~-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a couple of
You talked about we're a go on some rent earlier
on the blue building?
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What -- the last time
you were here, where did we stand on that? There -- there
was no rent due until what year?
MR. KNIPPEL: Until 2015.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2015. So, now we're
changing that to what?
MR. KNIPPEL: To 2011. That -- and beginning
rent at that point of $500 a month, and then graduating that
upward to -- to 2015. That's shown in the -- in the -- in
the column labeled "Blue Hangar Rental." That does leave a
time period from 2003 through 2009 when there's no rent
collected on that building. That's part of the give of the
lease, and part of the economics for -- for Kerrville
Aviation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You said 2011?
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir. That's -- yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The lessee, in his
letter, is requesting to do it in 2010, but --
MR. KNIPPEL: I didn't show any full revenue
until 2011 on this --
_-~4-03
32
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: Okay.
MR. KNIPPEL: -- model.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, fine. Tell
me about the -- the fuel -- the flowage fee. Who does that?
Obviously, we do not. Who -- who regulates that?
MR. KNIPPEL: I may have to get Mr. Kennedy's
help on that one. The -- there is a surcharge placed on
every gallon of fuel that's sold out there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. KNIPPEL: And it is up to the F.B.O. to
monitor their flow rate and pay a check back to the airport
fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does -- does
Mr. Kennedy himself actually set the rate?
MR. KNIPPEL: No, the rate is set here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In this room?
MR. KNIPPEL: By action of the Council and
the Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, just remind
me again what that rate is. We're at somewhere around five
-- a nickel?
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Fredericksburg is
at nine'?
MR. KNIPPEL: I don't know what
-~--o~
33
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
Fredericksburg is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to kind
of -- I can't read this thing. I'm sorry, I can't see it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Starts at 5, goes up
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes. Yeah. The -- that's
another mechanism of this lease, is that, heretofore, the
fuel rate was set based on what it is at five other airports
specifically.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. KNIPPEL: And I think it had a cap in
there; I'm not sure. It had a percentage cap in there. The
new lease now removes that cap. It removes reference to any
specific airports. It basically opens up our ability to
raise that. I built into the model an incremental upward
adjustment, but I think other places run eight, nine cents
on a gallon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask it this
way. I'm going to vote on this agreement today.
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the flowage fee
moving one way or the other in this agreement?
MR. KENNEDY: Paul?
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. KNIPPEL: It's not moving right now, not
3-~4-03
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 ~Z
25
by virtue of this document.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. KNIPPEL: What it does do is -- is put a
requirement that the fee be reviewed every six months. That
was something that the Airport Board recommended be included
in here, so there'll be a review every six months. Now, we
can -- that doesn't necessarily mean that there'll be an
adjustment every six months.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. KNIPPEL: But it will -- it will stay in
front of us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does the Airport Board
review that, or does it come into this room?
MR. KNIPPEL: I think the Court and the
Council would need to take the final action, but there would
be a recommendation by the Airport Board.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. I think
we're on the same page. That's good. A11 right, thank you.
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paul -- do you have any
questions? Going back to the construction of the new
hangar, I was looking through here trying to £ind the
reference for it, and I think I found it, and it's under the
addendum, Item 4. It says, "Lessee shall continue to use
the hangar facilities on leased premises and shall have the
_n~
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,._. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right to construct a new additional hangar on leased
premises..." Is that the only reference to it? I mean,
it's just -- I've talked to Mr. Kennedy. I know what the
plan is, but that seems like a -- a very minimal reference
to a -- a huge part of the lease. I mean, I think I'd like
to see some specifications as to the size, the nature, the
intent on -- I mean, the intent of what that hangar is
supposed to be, other than just say he's going to build an
additional hangar. That could be a one-plane hangar.
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not the intent. I
know it's not Mr. Kennedy's intent, but I think it should be
clarified.
MR. KNIPPEL: Okay. I think there's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe there's somewhere
in here that I haven't found more specifically.
MR. KNIPPEL: I can't think of where that
would be, off the top of my head. But I don't think
Mr. Kennedy -- I'm going to speak for him right now -- would
have a problem with this, putting minimal dimensional
requirements in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's, in my mind, a big
part of the lease package, is that hangar and the reason for
doing it at this time and the way we're doing it. And the
other item on this -- the spreadsheet that's attached -- my
~-~~-~~3
36
1
--- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
eyes are similar to Commissioner Baldwin's; I can't read the
writing on it. What is the -- I guess the total to the
City/County over the term of the lease?
MR. KNIPPEL: I apologize for that size. I
turned in one on 11-by-17; it's a little bit easier to read,
but I think it was reduced for ease of reproduction. The
total to the City/County would be in the second column to
the end on the right-hand side down at the bottom, and it
shows $1.4 million. And that's based on a number of
assumptions that are built in here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's, as I
recall, $100,000, $150,000 more than the one that was
presented previously? Wasn't that 1.32
MR. KNIPPEL: Roughly, yes, sir, about
$100,000 more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on the -- I guess,
going back to the fuel flowage thing, I was trying to find
the reference to the hangar and wasn't -- maybe you answered
this. On that fee, I guess the -- my thinking is that we
need the City/County or whoever sets this -- I'm still not
real clear how that is set, but that needs to be set below
the ether airports. I mean, we don't want to go to the max
everyone else is charging. The intent has been all along
for us to price things out there to get volume of traffic,
increase the fuel flowage fee, so we want to make sure that
;__,_,~ ,
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that's kept at -- like, if New Braunfels, Fredericksburg's
at eight, I think we should be, like, seven and a half
cents. I mean, it's not -- and I'm making that reference
because of what I hear about the T-hangars, you know, that
we're higher -- we're not renting them because they're too
expensive still. And I think it's a different issue, but I
think it's something we need to look at whenever we have our
joint meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Be competitive in the
marketplace.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be competitive in the
marketplace with everything we're doing.
COMMISSIONER BALD6VIN: I agree with
everything the Commissioner just said, except it should be
County/City, riot City/County. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was being nice today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson? Do
you have any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not at this time.
JUDGE TINLEY: N1r. Knippel, I -- the base
F.B.O. lease on -- I believe it's Lot 3 where the current
headquarters of operation is, on Katz Aviation -- Kerrville
Aviation, excuse me; I probably go back too far. But I note
that there's not a copy of that lease agreement in these
materials, and I'm sure we've aot one somewhere, but I'm not
~_~a-n3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
sure where it is. My -- my first knowledge of those two
10-year option periods on that lease was in these materials
in the -- in the explanatory portions of what you provided
to us. I would very much like to review those, as we71 as
possibly get with our County Attorney on that also.
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir. I can provide that
to you, certainly. I think from the time the request came
in to get on this agenda, we didn't have a lot of days to
get another meeting. We need to discuss that. The -- I
don't -- I'll get those to you for sure, but the language
does read such that it says that the lessee will have the
right to request an extension if he does so in writing ahead
of time. Then -- then the airport and the lessee will enter
into negotiation, and it says that the subject of that
negotiation will be the rate and the time -- or the rate and
maybe something else, but the language is that it's there
for the taking, in my opinion. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd sure like to review it.
MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: So that I'd have a grasp of
the total scheme of things. I think it would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, are you
suggesting that we hold up approving this today? Is that
what you're -- or are you talking about something separate
than this?
-~~-,~~
39
1
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: Well, I -- I think it would be
helpful to look at those particular options in the scheme of
things to have a better grasp on the entire proposal,
because that -- I think it all fits in one package. And it
needs to be in a -- more than one package in order that it
can be competitive in the marketplace when it's open to the
general public. That's my thought. And I'd like to look at
that existing lease agreement on the existing F.B.O.
operation. We had some discussions, as I'm sure Mr. Knippel
remembers, based upon the -- based upon the knowledge that
the F.B.O. lease term. ended in 2013, and there was not any
suggestion about two option periods of 10 years each beyond
that during the course of those discussions. So, cur
discussions were in large measure predicated on the aspect
that the base Kerrville Aviation lease was going to end in
2013, and we had some thoughts and ideas in that regard as a
result of that. Now we've got a different premise, is my
whole point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I see.
JUDGE TTNLEY: And I'd like to see exactly
what the terms of those options are and try and fit them
into the entire scheme of tYiings. That's my -- that's my
point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And I agree
with that. I think that's very wise. However, I want to --
3-~4-U3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,~
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4G
just let me say this. I think that Mr. Kennedy is somewhat
under the gun as far as, you know, getting his -- getting
his operation going, you know, dealing with his funding and
dealing with his commitments and those kinds of things out
there. And he is here, as well as his attorney, and I was
wondering, you know, if we're going to hold this up -- whole
thing up, can we try to do that right now? To get your
questions answered right now? Or are we going to put this
thing off for another month?
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- you know, it's your
pleasure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we do it subject
to --
JUDGE TINLEY: The chair will entertain a
motion, but I just think it would be prudent to see exactly
what the terms of those -- of those options are before we
proceed forward. I would point out that the blue hangar
lease that fits in this equation, the current lease on it
doesn't expire until 2005.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correr_.t.
JUDGE TINLEY: So we're not under a time
frame problem there. Now, I don't know what Mr. Kennedy's
current neciotiations are with -- with his financing sources
or his contractors regarding the construction of this new
building. As you see, he's got 180 days in order, I
-=-.-u~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
z4
25
41
believe, to apply for a building permit. Is that correct,
MR. KNIPPEL: He's got 90 days.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ninety days to just apply for
the building permit, and then his construction commences --
MR. KNIPPEL: Six months after that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. KNIPPEL: Or after.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, from a time frame
standpoint, I don't know. He might feel like he's under the
gun and there may be some things I don't know about it, but
my perception of the -- of the entire scheme of things is,
he's not that much under the gun that we couldn't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll let him --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- spend another two to three
weeks to review it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're probably
correct, and I probably spoke out of turn trying to speak
for someone else, but I was just trying to move this thing
along a little bit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It might be helpful
in that connection to hear from Mr. Kennedy what his plans
are and what, if any, other considerations he's dealing
with.
MR. KENNEDY: Would you like me to come up?
3-~'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
42
Excuse me. The time frame is really dictated by the people
that are wanting these -- these airplanes in the hangar. In
fact, I've got one aircraft that's going to be here in a few
weeks; I had to negotiate a temporary deal with L.D.
Brinkman Corporation to let us house an aircraft in one of
his hangars -- in his hangar, because we're not able to have
the hangar ready by then. The time frame that you're
referring to in the leases are simply there to put some
restraints on me so that I don't drag it out. My intention
is to move forward the minute I get these leases signed. I
have every intention of doing so, and I need to get it done;
I have to get it done quickly. But I did verify --
doublecheck the language in the lease, and the options are
there. I don't think Paul was really aware that they were
there at the time that you guys had your meeting, but I did
get with David and verified that they are there. I think
Use's also looked at those options. I've always been aware
of them, but I don't think that everybody else was really --
like I said, Paul got kind of thrown into this at the last
minute, since we lost our airport manager. But, other than
that, that's really all I have. I think he pretty well
covered it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Joe.
That's the least I've ever heard him say. This is great.
MR. KENNEDY: Been a long morning already.
3-~4-03
1
--- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~-,. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
'' 0
G
21
22
23
24
..---
25
43
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that, you know,
my preference would be -- I certainly don't want to hold up
Mr. Kennedy, and if we can do some kind of a -- if it would
help him in any way, some sort of a motion of intent or
subject to a few details, but it still needs to go to tree
County Attorney before we can get a final signature on it.
And if the City can -- you know, the one thing that I really
had in there regarding the, you know, specifications of the
new hangar, get those included, then we can get it to the
County Attorney. I don't have a problem with making a
motion and finalizing that subject to that being done, and
not -- and not authorizing the County Judge to sign it until
those changes are included. And if they're not, if he has
any questions, he can just put it on oux next agenda; we can
deal with it then. If it does come through, he's satisfied
that those -- the concern that I had is included, and that
his concerns about the other leases are satisfied, and the
County Attorney has it, I don't have any problem with
dealing with this today. I think it's -- I appreciate Paul
coming back. And, you know, I understand the situation a
lot better now, and I -- I think that scrutiny that we've
gone through the last couple weeks has improved the terms to
the City and the County -- or the County and the City. I'm
ready to move forward.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Supposing we try to
3-~4-03
44
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
frame a motion, Judge, that we approve it subject to the
favorable review of the County Attorney and the County
Judge, and if there are any problems that are evidenced as a
result, you will deal with them at a subsequent meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I gather that was a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that motion include
Commissioner Letz' concerns about a -- a delineation of the
type of improvements to be constructed?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does if it's
necessary. Yes, it does.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And your second,
likewise?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin,
respectively, that -- that the Court approve the revised
airport lease agreement with Kerrville Aviation,
Incorporated, and authorize County Judge to sign same,
contingent upon the lease document including a delineation
of the particulars and the specifics and specifications of
improvements of the new hangar to be constructed, and
further contingent upon the approval -- favorable approval
of the County Attorney and the County Judge of -- of the
-~~-;;~
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lease agreement in question, and also a review of the
existing lease agreement on Lot 3, I believe it is, where
the current Kerrville Aviation fixed-base operation is
located.
COMMISSIONER WILI,IAMS: And authorize the
County Judge to sign same if everything is okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And authorize the County Judge
to sign same if everything meets those conditions.
Otherwise, the matter could be brought back before the Court
at the next meeting. Does that fairly state the motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you repeat -- no.
JUDGE TINLEY: Being no 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. Gentlemen,
thank you for being here.
MR. KNIPPEL; Thanks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boy, you're getting
good at this stuff. Getting good. Just always put County
i-9-G3
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r..
25
first.
MR. KNIPPEL: Next time we'll bring this to
you ahead of time so we don't have to go through this in
open session.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Paul. I appreciate
it.
MR. KNIPPEL: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item is consider and
discuss approval of the Kerr County Emergency Management
Hazard Analysis. Mr. Spenrath, are you present here? Yes,
there are you are. Come forward, please, sir. Our fire
marshal.
MR. SPENRATH: Good morning, gentlemen. This
document's been drawn up at the request of the Texas
Emergency Management Commission. Ingram could have done
one, Kerr County could have done one, and City of Kerrville
could have done one. We spoke with all of the people
involved, and we decided that we couldn't get it all put
into one document. And we discussed this with the emergency
management people, and they were in agreement with it. The
tool is designed to help us in case there is a disaster, and
any of the three entities I've listed, that you would be
able to apply for and possibly get up to 20 to 30 percent
additional funding in a disaster situation. This isn't
something that's required to be done; it's something that
3-~d-U3
47
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,^ 24
25
we've chosen to do. And before you this morning is the
document, and it's not an adoption-type document. It's
strictly for -- to be read and approved by yourselves, and
authorize the Judge to sign same, so that it is written into
the minutes of the County Commissioners, and it's an
approval.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Spenrath, you indicate
that -- that this is not something that's required under
state or federal law; however, if we want to be eligible for
certain grant-type funding for disaster-type situations, we
are either not eligible or less eligible, are we not, for
those funds if we don't have this document in place?
MR. SPENRATH: Correct, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I commend you on the
document. It's a good document.
MR. SPENRATH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was going to say the
same thing. It was a great summary of Kerr County, all
different aspects of it. I move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Letz and Williams that we
approve -- the Court approve the Kerr County Emergency
Management Hazard Analysis and authorize the signature of
3 - ~ 4 - 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
48
the County Judge, if necessary. Any further discussion?
All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
MR. SPENRATH: And this is the signature
sheet, Judge. When everybody's signature is on it, we'll
provide you with a copy of that for your reference.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Next item, 2.4,
consider and discuss audit report of financial data for
fiscal year ending September 30th, 2002, performed by
Pressler, Thompson and Company. Mr. Sundberg, how are you
this morning?
MR. SUNDBERG: Doing just fine, so far. I'd
like to start on Page 2 of the audit report. Page 2 is not
necessarily the second page in there, but it is our
auditor's report, and we'd just like to hit on a couple
paragraphs. The third paragraph down, which reads, "In our
opinion, the general purpose financial statements referred
to above present fairly, in all msterial respects, the
financial position of Kerr County as of September 30, 2002,
and the results of its operations and cash flows," et
cetera, in essence being a clean opinion, as they refer to
it. The other thing, the last paragraph on that page is new
3-~'9 03
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--~ 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this year; was not there last year. That is a result of the
federal funds that you expended during this last year.
The Office of Management and Budget requires
that once a nonprofit or governmental entity expends in
excess of $300,000, they're required to have what they term
a single audit, which means we have to do additional testing
on those expenditures, the contracts, grants, et cetera, to
make sure you're in compliance. And, from our perspective,
that's what that paragraph alludes to. And those reports
are back farther in the report; we'll touch on those in just
a minute. On Pages 4 and 5 is the combined balance sheet of
ail the governmental fund types. I'm not going to go over
all of them, just a couple. ThP first one, the first column
on Page 4, which is the General Operating Fund, indicating
you have total assets of $4,693,000, total liabilities ~f
$1,044,000, resulting in an undesignated fund balance of
$3,649,000 for your General Operating Fund.
The first column on the next page, which is
Proprietary Fund, or the Juvenile Detention Facility, has
total assets cf $2,802,000, total liabilities of $1,977,000,
the majority of which is the mortgage on the facility out
there, giving them a Retained Earnings fund balance of
$824,852. On Page 6 and 7 is the combined statement of
revenues and expenditures of the governmental funds. I`ll
just -- and we can go over any of these that you want to.
3-~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
50
I'm just touching on a few of them here. The General Fund
on Page 6, total revenues are $10,176,000, total
expenditures of $9,762,000, giving you excess revenues over
expenditures for the year of $414,506. There were some
transfers in and out of the General Fund to other
governmental-type funds. This resulted here again in the
fund balance being $3,649,000.
Starting on Page 8 is the budget comparison
with actual activity for the year. As you can see there in
the General Fund, we had total budgeted revenues of
$10,008,677, actual revenues of $10,176,594, or you received
$167,917 more than was originally budgeted. Total
expenditures, $10,052,915 budgeted. Actual, $9,764,617, or
$288,000 less than budgeted, resulting in $400,000-plus
excess revenues over expenditures for the year. I'd like to
skip over to Page 15, which is the salient revenues and
expenses for the Juvenile Detention Facility. They had
total revenues of $1,714,000 for the year, total operating
expenses of $1,531,000, or a net operating revenue of
$182,000. They had some nonoperating income and expenses;
income of -- $5,000 of interest income, and $166,000 of
interest expended on the mortgage on the facility out there,
resulting in a net profit for the year of $21,605.
On Page 19 starts the notes to the financial
25 ~ statements. I'm not going to go through all those, just a
3- 4-n3
51
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
couple. I'd like to highlight on Page 26 and 27, Note D on
Page 26, which is a note detailing the long-term debt, bonds
and capital leases outstanding as of the end of the year;
shows the additions during the year, the retirements during
the year, and the debt service requirements for the next
five years on the long-term debt of Kerr County. Note E on
top of the next page details the outstanding debt of the
Juvenile Detention Facility, showing the principal payments
made during the year and the balance outstanding, and a note
indicating that after the end of the fiscal year, that
mortgage was paid off and the new one entered into and the
issuance of those -- of the revenue bonds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you go back to -- on
Page 26 under Note D?
MR. SUNDBERG: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see the 1998 tax
anticipation note and the 1994 general obligation.
MR. SUNDBERG: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's the -- the tax
anticipation note of last year? The 2001, I guess. The one
with the radio equipment.
MR. SUNDBERG: It's the last one there. The
900 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Oh, okay, so this
is a general obligation bond. Okay. What's the difference
3-~4-C3
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--~ 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
between a general obligation bond and tax anticipation note?
MR. TOMLINSON: There's statutory
differences. It has to do with a lot of -- some of it has
to do with the terms that are allowed by statute. Another
one might be that the purpose of -- of the debt could be
different between the tax note and a certificate of
obligation. I don't have those statutory revisions in front
of me, so I don't recall what those differences are, but
there are some.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the case of the
Juvenile Center, aren't those intended to be revenue bonds?
JUDGE TINLEY: They're revenue bonds, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the capital lease
obligations? Those are for?
MR. SUNDBERG: Mostly for -- for road
maintenance and the Sheriff's vehicles.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To vehicles and
equipment?
MR. SUNDBERG: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MR. SUNDBERG: From about Page 27 through
Page 80 is a lot of combining statements. They're all the
special revenue, debt service, and agency funds. Unless you
want to go through those, we'll skip over all those and go
back, starting on Page 82, which we get into the federal
3-"'4-03
53
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
area that I mentioned before. On Page 82 is the auto report
that we have to issue, reporting on compliance and internal
controls over your financial reporting in accordance with
government auditing standards. There's two sections,
Compliance and Internal Controls. We noted -- we do not
note any matters in either one that would involve reporting
in this issue. On the next page, on Page 83, is a new
report this year, here again regarding the federal funds
expended in accordance with O.M.B. Circular A-133, which is
the single audit requirement, here again reporting on the
compliance and internal controls over those -- those funds
and those programs, and we had no instances of noncompliance
or internal control issues in those -- in those areas that
are required to be reported here.
On Page 85 is a Schedule of Findings and
Questioned Costs. This is the area in which, if there were
items that we had noted regarding those federal programs,
that we would be reporting them on -- on this report. And,
as you can see in Items Number 2 and 3 below, the bottom of
that page, there were no findings that we noted. On Page
86, that, again, is a new statement this year, which is the
schedule ~f those expenditures on the federal programs,
listing each -- each program, each -- the total expenditures
in each program, and the -- the C.F.D.A. number in the
second column in there is a number that's assigned to each
-,4-p3
54
1
^- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
~~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-~.
25
one of those federal programs by the federal government.
That would tend to indicate what the requirements are if you
go to that number and so forth. Basically, that's it. You
have the management letter in front of you also for our
recommendations for this year. Is fihere any -- are there
any questions or anything you want me to go over that I
didn't?
JUDGE TINLEY: Where are we with respect to
the new government accounting standard?
MR. SUNDBERG: The GASB-34 reporting
requirements, Tommy and I have had several conversations
regarding that, and he is -- he's in the process of making
some changes, and so that that reporting will be -- we'll be
able to do that reporting for this coming year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Am I correct that it must be
in place October 1 this year?
MR. SUNDBERG: Technically, yes. October 1
of 'Ol -- excuse me, '02. Get my years right. That's
correct.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. Actually,
it's part of the statement of September the 30th, '03. That
will be the first time that we issue a statement under
that -- under GASB-34.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, it's transitioned in this
particular fiscal year, and by the time we get to the end of
3-~4-n3
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
this fisca] year, we'll have our first statement under the
new standard; then we'll start the next fiscal year on that
standard?
MR. SUNDBERG: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that where we are?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
MR. SUNDBERG: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. Any other
questions for the gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept the --
the audit report financial -- audit report of financial data
for fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, as presented by
Pressler Thompson.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by
Commissioners Letz and Williams, respectively, that the
Court accept the financial report for the fiscal year ending
September 30, as presented -- prepared and presented by
Pressler, Thompson and Company, be approved. Any further
discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Looks like
3-~'4-03
56
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--~ 13
14
15
16
17
i8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we're about at our mid-morning break point. Why don't we
recess until, oh, maybe a couple minutes after 10:30, and
we'll reconvene at that time.
(Recess taken from 10:21 a.m, to 10:35 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me call the meeting
back to order. We'll reconvene the meeting. It's a little
after 10:30. We'll now move to item 2.5, consider and
discuss request for waiver of immediate inspection of septic
system at 302 Ranchero Road. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I
put this on the agenda at the request of real estate --
realtor Beverly Buffington, on behalf of her client, and it
deals with a property on Ranchero Road, 302-A and -B. It's
not an unusual request. There is some precedent for this
Court having done that, but we did it on a commercial
property, as opposed to -- well, I guess this is commercial,
in a sense. And so I think what the Court needs to hear is
some discussion from either the prospective buyer, who is
Liz Price, and/or her representative, Ms. Buffington, as to
what's going to happen, and let the Court ask some
questions.
MS. BUFFINGTON: Good morning. I'm here to
represent Mr. Hunter, who is the owner. He's advanced in
years, and asked if I would be here in his stead. You will
3-~4-~~3
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
notice on Page 4 of the earnest money contract that you have
in your packet, Paragraph 11 states that the buyer is aware
of the septic system and is aware of the proposed public
sewer that is anticipated to be in there somewhere between
12 and 24 months. Has agreed that at the time the
connection is allowed, will immediately connect. If there's
a failure of the system in the meantime, will upgrade or
replace. Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, dealing with
failure, yes. That's mandatory. That has to be a part of
an agreement that would be executed between the buyer,
seller, and Kerr County, if the Court approves. And in
that, we have to deal with failure. If a failure occurs, we
want to know that that system's going to be taken care of
immediately. Secondly, I think the only other one that we
did gave the purchaser a rather large window of opportunity
after the sewer line was delivered to -- near -- on or about
his property, and having reflected on that large window of
opportunity, I think it probably, in this case, would be
appropriate to narrow that window, by -- by virtue of
commitment in writing to do -- to be attached to the sewer
within, say, 100 -- 90 to 120 days after his line is
certified having gone by, and the line is online with the
City. Not just that the line has gone past the property; it
has to be online -- the collecticn system has to be online
3-~9-n3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
with the City of Kerrville. That's just my thought. Other
members of the Court may have other thoughts about that. I
think the window needs to come down measurably in terms like
this, because we'll have people strung out all over the
place if we do this. This is the second one, and it's quite
likely there will be others as -- as we get closer to --
also, there are a lot of folks on Ranchero and the mobile
home park who, by reason of their economics, qualify for
hookup. I don't -- I'd like for you to address that. I
would venture to suggest that that would not be the case in
this particular property.
MS. BUFFINGTON: This buyer, to my knowledge,
would not be asking for assistance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. BUFFINGTON: Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that should
be embodied in the agreement also.
MS. BUFFINGTON: And when you say "narrow the
window," are you saying narrow the window to 120 days, or
down from 120 days?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To. Down from what
it was to a hundred --
M5. BUFFINGTON: To 120. I think that's
reasonable.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Other members of the
_-~~-,s
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
59
Court may have more specific thoughts on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else got any comments?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got questions,
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And Commissioner
Williams has probably got the answer to these. This Order
Number 27522 that was dealing with the same sort of thing,
more or less, for Rancho Oaks Mobile Home Park, that -- that
was put in here as an example or a precedent for this?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And they're very
close to tYie same thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That we're
essentially saying, since this service is coming up, we'll
grant you a waiver, and then you'll hook up when it happens.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And will hook up.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would you reasonably
anticipate that we're going to continue to see these kinds
of requests?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, I don't
know, but I would suspect there could be others. I didn't
-- I didn't have any advance warning that this was going to
3-~4-U3

i

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
come until Ms. Buffington called me, but it just stands to
reason there may be others that will come down.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And what -- I think
what I understand is that a nonntrusive inspection's being
done. There's no indication that this -- this septic system
is not functioning properly?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's ask Mr. Barron
right now. I don't know the answer to that.
MR. BARRON: Could you repeat --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have you looked at
the property?
MR. BARRON: No, sir, not this property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's talk to the
realtor.
MR. BUFFINGTON: We'll make a formal request
that Mr. Barron visit the site.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. I have no
problem with doing the -- I believe it's a waiver, but
who's -- who are the parties to the agreement to make sure
this is done? Is this between the County and the purchaser,
or -- I mean, how are we -- how do we track these? If we
have -- you know, this will be the second one, you know, and
then we end up with -- they're all going to have potentially
different dates when these have to be hooked up. What's the
~-~~-o~
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
mechanism that you envision to track these?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good
question, Commissioner, and I think -- I think we need to
establish that mechanism and identify what it is. I would
think that since U.G.R.A. is the partner in this, that once
a waiver is granted, the O.S.S.F. Designated Representative
would have a file card that says "Waiver granted," and the
period of time that this has to take place after the system
is online with the City of Kerrville, and to make certain
that that's done. Otherwise, if it's not done, the County
Attorney gets a telephone call. And can we depend on you to
set that up?
MR. BARRON: Yes. We'll have to wait till
the clock starts ticking when the sewer comes available, or
when everybody -- when it's hooked up through the City, and
then the time will start ticking, and we'll just check them
off as we go by.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think, in
response to your question, Commissioner Letz, you're
probably going to have three parties that are a party to
that agreement. One is the current property owner, who's
the seller, because under the current existing Section 10
rule, the obligation is on that party -- the compliance
aspect of Section 10 is on the seller, as that rule is
currently written. Secondly, the buyer, if the buyer's
3-~4-03
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
2~
going to assume that responsibility or take that off of the
seller's back and also assume the responsibility. And,
thirdly, it would be Kerr County, insofar as granting the
waiver or the variance, as the case may be, and specifying
terms upon which it's granted. That's -- that's what I see
as the parties to the agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree, Judge, and I
would ask a couple questions. Who will represent the
purchaser and the seller to develop a contract that would be
presented for review by the County Attorney and the Court?
You have to -- somebody has to know.
MR. BUFFINGTON: We'11 have to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You'll have to make
that decision.
MR. BUFFINGTON: We would have to go to an
attorney to have something drawn up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has to be -- the
formalized agreement has to embody the seller, purchaser,
and Kerr County. And, secondly, Stuart, I think that it
might be appropriate, upon inspection of this premises, that
you report to the Court your findings, so that that if there
has to be a trigger earlier, that we know what that is.
MR. BARRON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that
agreement's -- to me, it's a one-page -- I mean, I don't --
?4-G3
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2?
24
2~
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a simple -- just --
we don't need a lengthy --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't have to be
like the airport agreement, 90 pages long. Doesn't have to
be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- and,
Stuart, you need to set up some sort of a system so as soon
as it's eligible to be hooked up to the system, that you
send a letter to whoever is designated to say your clock's
starting to run now, so that they -- you know, they're
clearly aware of when that clock starts.
MR. BARRON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the name of
the seller?
MR. BUFFINGTON: Felix Hunter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move
that the Court approve the request as presented that would
enable Felix Hunter and Liz Price to enter into an agreement
with Kerr County for a waiver of -- of action on a septic
system at 302 Ranchero Road, with the clear understanding
that the quid pro quo for that waiver is hooking onto the
sewer system within 120 days of it becoming available, and
that the contract be presented for review to the County
Attorney, and that Mr. Barron, O.S.S.F. Designated
-_~-~~
64
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Representative, inspect the system as quickly as possible
and report back to the Court his findings. We're really not
doing a waiver of inspection; we're doing a waiver of
hookup -- or of improvement. That's -- you're asking for
inspection.
MR. BARRON: Yeah, that would be the
difference.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're waiving the
issuance of a license, technically, are we not? Let's think
about it here for a minute.
MR. BARRON: Maybe not so much the license,
but just the -- we're going to do an inspection. If I
understand what y'all are saying, we have to still go out
there and do the inspection, but if we find something wrong
with the system, but it's not causing a nuisance condition,
we're allowing it to remain operating until the time that it
can be hooked onto the City -- to the sewer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's a surface
inspection. We're not doing an intrusive inspection.
MR. BARRON: Yes.
22
23 Judge.
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my motion,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by
?-~4-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
Commissioners Williams and Baldwin, respectively. Any
further discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you notice how
cleverly he didn't repeat that motion?
JUDGE TINLEY: You noticed that, did you?
MS. BUFFINGTON: May I ask one more question?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
MS. BUFFINGTON: After that document is
presented and after our noninvasive inspection, this is to
be presented back to the County Attorney? Or --
JUDGE TINLEY: County Attorney will -- one of
the requirements of the motion is that the County Attorney
approve it. Upon his approval, well, then I'll sign it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Beverly, if you'll
bring it back to me, I'll send a cover note to the County
Attorney.
MS. BUFFINGTON: Thank you. Appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, 2.6, consider and
discuss approval for Kerr County Sheriff's Department to
apply for a department credit card.
-:'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
66
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Before we get started, I
first want to say thank you, Judge, and to the Court and the
ladies group that put the yellow ribbons around. I think,
being a father of a military man, it does mean a lot to me
too. Secondly, to keep my own preservation, 'cause I do
enjoy being Sheriff, and my wife will kill me if she gets
too much more of our personal credit cards over $1,000 to
$2,000 charges on them, and having to wait and get that
money back, I'm trying to find a way that we can get a
blanket, or two, Sheriff's Department credit card. We are
having a real problem. This last week, when I deployed two
officers to California, of course, we had to make those on
credit card reservations, 'cause we don't have that type of
cash around. And then you also -- we ran into the problem
that once they got there, they had to rent a car, and you
cannot rent a car with a credit card unless the person
that's named on the credit card is actually renting that
car. And then you have financial, you know, differences
with employees that may or may not qualify for one of those
other types of credit cards that the Court went to before.
So, I don't know if there is a way that we
can apply and get permission to get a corporate-type card
that is just in the Sheriff's Office name, to where I can
keep it and issue it out in those type of circumstances, or
when we're having training and things like that, to where
_~-c;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
these people can use it. I know my personal credit card got
several thousand dollars worth of expenses put on it this
last week. My chief deputy's personal credit card got
several hundred, if not close to $1,000 expenses put on his,
and it's just kind of hard to be able to operate when you
have one of those type circumstances. And then, of course,
our day-to-day stuff on training and trying to schedule and
reserve hotel rooms and that is really making it difficult
without a department credit card.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll give my annual
canned speech. County expenses should not be put on your
personal credit card, period. However, you come up with a
plan, and I'll vote for it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I need --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the plan?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know if we can
check with, like, American Express or one of those to where
they will do a corporate card in the Sheriff's Department
name itself.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to ask
you, what's wrong with the American Express account --
corporate account. system that Kerr County already has set
up?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because my understanding
is, with that system, each individual has to apply for their
3-='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
68
own, and I have a lot of people that cannot do that, and
they're the ones that have to go on these trips and -- and
make these trips and do the investigations and the different
schools and that, and they can't get them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's ask them again
if we can get a corporate card witYiout a specific name being
on there. Kerr County Sheriff's Department.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's try that again
with them. They are really, really flexible in all other
areas.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's just been a hard
problem getting --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've not heard of
anybody that's had a problem with American Express cards, in
terms of using it, in terms of accounting for their use of
it, in terms of paying it in a timely manner. I've not
heard of any problems. Have you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. It's just
they're -- not all County employees can get one. That's the
problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Let's ask.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Their personal financial
status has a lot to do with that.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: As opposed to a credit
3 ~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
69
card, could we look into doing a -- setting up a debit card?
And have it in -- you know, we could set up several. Seems
to me to be an easier way to do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Debiting what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Set up a separate
account. You set up --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know if I'd --
and I -- don't get me wrong, Jonathan. I definitely trust
all my guys, but I don't know if I would personally like the
idea of a debit card, to where it's automatically debited.
I want -- because I do scrutinize my people's expenditures
on those cards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's the same thing,
though. As soon as you give them a county credit card, the
County's liable for that expenditure, same as with a debit
card. We got to pay that bill, and then if we have to
take -- either way, we have to pay it, and we have recourse,
maybe, against the employee, but I don't see any difference
between a county credit card and a county debit card. And
the debit card is something that I think we have a lot more
control over, 'cause if there's no money in the account,
then they don't get it. I think the local banks can
probably do that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As long as it can be
accepted and is the type that would be accepted, you know,
3-~9-03
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
throughout the United States. 'Cause I never know where my
people are going to end up, and we have to be able to have
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because the Visa's, I
mean, a lot of -- a lot of, you know, college students get
debit cards, and I would say they're used just like a credit
card. You don't know the difference, except that if there's
no money in the bank, it's denied. And that's something
that I think we have a lot more control over, and it gets us
out of the problem that we -- you know, with American
Express, and you're, you know, relying on the credit, you
know, of an individual, which some of them have a difficult
time qualifying for that, possibly. I don't -- it may just
be something to look at. I don't see that it would be that
hard to set up through Tommy's office an account that --
that if you or he or a combination can have very strict
limits to how much money is in that account, so you don't
have to worry about -- you know, you certainly don't want to
give someone a debit card with a $10 million account.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just give to it me,
please.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, we could
put, you know, $2,500 in it or something like that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You know, and whatever
will work, I'm open to anything that we can actually make
-~_-o~
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
work. I'm just really having a hard time making it work the
way it is, because -- such as when the man was arrested in
California, he got arrested at 2 o'clock in the morning, and
I had people on a plane, you know, within just a few hours
going to California, and we had to make all those
reservations and that. So, of course, it's -- you know,
when my wife sees that I was supposedly here somewhere, and
yet my credit card was going to California, y'all may not
have to worry about a Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I agree, Commissioner
Baldwin, we do not expect or want any County employee to
have to use their personal funds f_or doing County business.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, I think you
need to go out and find a plan, come back and let us approve
it, and let's go.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As long as T have the
authority to look at that and find one, that's what I was
wanting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the meantime, you
know, if you run short of cash, you know, the County
Surveyor is always lending money. (Laughter.) One of the
highest vote-getters in Kerr County. He's flush, man.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will find one quickly,
because otherwise I'm probably going to be six foot under if
my wife keeps getting credit card bills.
-~~-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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can understand that,
too.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the bottom line is, we
want to help you solve your problem. We just all got to
find out what the solution is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's --
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll find a solution,
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I appreciate that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect the County Surveyor
will sign on, too. Keeps him from being a local bank. Next
item, 2.7, consider final plat signature block requirement
of condominium plat of Stablewood Springs Ranch.
Mr. Johnston.
MR. JOHNSTON: The plat attached is the one
submitted for the final plat for Stablewood Springs Ranch.
It doesn't name any -- any signature blocks, and it's
apparently a misunderstanding. I had assumed that we were
having it the same as we do, you know, on regular plats.
They understood it to mean that they were doing it as a
condominium plat without signatures, and I just wanted to
straighten it out before we come to the final plat, probably
next time. David Jackson probably has more information
about what -- what he thinks it should be. I just question
whether, you know, out of -- you know, as the -- as a court,
3-:4-03
73
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~
25
it's all the entities that have approved it. You know,
U.G.R.A., the O.S.S.F., 911 and all the other entities that
usually sign off on a plat.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the -- this plat
does not have a signature block on it, and -- and because --
they say it's because that is a condominium plat, not a
subdivision plat?
MR. JOHNSTON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A regular subdivision
plat. And so you want to know, does a condominium plat
require sign-off blocks?
MR. JOHNSTON: I thought we discussed --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're the expert.
MR. JOHNSTON: I thought we discussed it
meets the requirements of the Subdivision Rules, except for
a couple items that didn't apply to condominiums. Maybe I
misunderstood that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think the -- we
want to file -- and I don't know -- I'm thinking through it
as I'm --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I make a comment
while you're thinking?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Go ahead, make a
comment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If I were the sole
3-~4-03
74
1
-- 2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
decision maker in this thing, I would require a signature
block to make sure everybody's in the game; that we're
complying with all the rules and regulations across the
county, and I will stand by that until the Attorney General
comes and hauls me off. That's just the way -- way it
should be. Now, if there's -- and that's what I mean. If
there is a -- if Lhe state law says condominiums are exempt
from that, you know, if I was still here by myself, I would
require it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me make sure I
understand what we're talking about here. I -- I assumed
we're talking about some procedural matter, but apparently
not. In Part 6 of our Subdivision Rules, there are some
eight or more certifications that are required.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's what we're talking
about.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what we're
talking about, okay. And now we're -- is the question
because this is a so-called condominium, that certifications
are not required? Is that the reason?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's what the owner's
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, they're
24 required.
25
3 4- ri3
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- the -- I
contending, yes.
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7 J
think they should be required, and I think the -- you know,
the reason is -- and David Jackson can probably explain this
better. It's -- condominiums don't fit the -- I guess the
rules for a subdivision plat exactly. I mean, it's a
different animal. You know, I think -- you know, I think
I've said it before, that to me it still triggers platting,
so it needs to be signed off so we can get it filed.
Because I think it's a -- you know, I have a -- probably a
broader reading of our Subdivision Rules and state law, and
I think it still triggers the platting when you do a
subdivision. I think you need to do both. And my
recollection is that we agreed to -- to use this as the
plat, but I think that we do need the signature on it. But
I think just the same document, really, just with the, you
know, certifications so it can be filed in the county
records.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. And it's more
than just the signature. It's -- we need to know that that
work's been done. We need to know that the hydrology
report's been done and that this alteration of this terrain
is not causing damage to its neighbors. And I -- I think
there is reason to -- to make sure that we get a good
hydrology report, for example, as well as the other seven or
eight things that are required.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me weigh in here, if I
3 ~4-3
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
76
might. I think the difficulty arises because, under the
condominium law in the state of Texas, there's a required
mandatory document there that must be filed, to which
reference is made when those properties -- condominium
properties are conveyed. Is that not correct, David?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's a totally separate
statute. On the other hand, we've got a -- a subdivision --
a set of subdivision rules that require the issue of roads,
drainage, water availability, addressing, street name,
various and sundry things of that nature, to be addressed
and signed off on by various entities in order that -- in
order that that plat receive final approval to go on record
as part of the plat records here in Kerr County. Now, the
document that's being proffered here, is this your
condominium document?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Were you intending to submit
another plat document with reference to roads, drainage, all
of these various and sundry other issues that the
Subdivision Rules require? Or are you wanting to do all of
it in one document, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: My understanding of where we
were was that this particular map would be attached to the
condominium and would serve to create the legally identified
3-~9-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-_
25
~~
piece of property that's conveyed in the deed; that the
other issues of compliance, which I think we've done all of
that, would be as a matter of submitting each of those items
for the approval, first by Franklin and then by the Court.
We've given him the water availability. We've provided him
the changes in the map that we needed to provide. We
provided him with the drainage study. We provided him a
dedication document, all of which is copied to the County
Attorney since January or February, and so I think where we
are in our mind was that we're dor_e. And it perhaps is a
procedural issue. You remember, we began our discussion
with the notion of whether or not condominiums are regulated
at all under the rules. We said that we will try to comply
as much as we can with the fundamental issues of a
subdivision, but it's always been my position, I didn't want
to record a subdivision plat, because these are not lots
under a subdivision plat. So, if I'm to -- if we put
signatures on it and if we record it as a plat, there will
be a confusion as to whether or not I'm conveying based upon
the plat or whether I'm conveying based upon the condominium
document, and I would prefer to be under the condominium
document. If you look at all the other condominiums, both
in the city and in the county, nobody's ever recorded a
subdivision plat for each individual unit. And there -- I
mean --
3-~~-0~
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
78
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me --
MR. JACKSON:	-- there must	be	20 of them.
JUDGE TINLEY:	Excuse me.	I'm	sorry.
MR. JACKSON: I was finished.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me pitch something out
here. And I -- I appreciate your concern, and what we've
got here is a much larger piece of property, and there's
going to be smaller pieces of improvements constructed on
smaller portions, excuse me, of this property that will be
conveyed pursuant to your condominium declaration.
MR. JACKSON; Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: But the sense I'm getting from
the Court is, as to all these other issues, there's a desire
that the -- that the Subdivision Rules be complied with.
Would it be possible to handle it as a plat under the
Subdivision Rules, but put a disclaimer on there that this
is not a plat to be utilized in connection with conveyance
of the property for reference purposes -- for that purpose,
but rather to comply with the Subdivision Rules? And if you
want to enumerate them, that's fine, or just refer to a
section, and indicate that conveyances of the property will
be pursuant to the other document.
MR. JACKSON: Let me check. Charles, can we
24 do that`?
25
MR. DOMINGUES: Oh, yes.
-~~ ~~
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
MR. JACKSON: I think we can do that. And I
think there is some confusion there. I'm worried about it,
Judge, but I'll go with that. I mean, it's not --
JUDGE TINLEY: I can understand your concern.
MR. JACKSON: But the disclaimer --
JUDGE TINLEY: You're not referring here,
you're referring here, but here's something else of record.
MR. JACKSON: If the Court otherwise approves
it and the disclaimer is all we need subject to getting that
done, we're ready to go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, as I understand it,
we'll have a -- you're going to take this document, add
signature blocks, and put a disclaimer on there?
MR. JACKSON: I'll be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And bring it back for
approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what does the
disclaimer say, again?
JUDGE TINLEY: Basically, that because it is
a condominium regime, that the conveyance of the property
will be pursuant to that document, which will be -- is or
will hP filed separately. This document is filed to comply
with those portions of the Subdivision Rules -- you may just
want to refer to a section or refer to roads, drainage,
whatever, and that conveyance of the condominium interest
-~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
r 24
25
80
will not be pursuant to this document.
MR. JACKSON: Well, and to pick up on that,
Judge, I think what I'd do is go ahead and record the
condominium document so I've got a volume and page or a file
number. Then I'll put it on the plat.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: But that's great. I'm good to
go with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually refer to the
conveyance; it will be made in accordance with the
condominium declaration filed such-and such. Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Are we ready, then, to vote on
it? Do we really have to come back?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Better convince the
guy on the other end of the table.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the issue now is,
where are we on the hydrology? I know we've got at least
two other people that have -- that have requested to be
heard on this issue, and I want to give them the
opportunity. I don't know where we are on the hydrology
issue. I know that one's outstanding.
MR. JOHNSTON: We have the report and we're
going over it, and by next meeting we should have it totally
digested and be able to recommend -- make a recommendation
on it.
3-~ .-~3
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, you've not made
your total review and --
MR. JOHNSTON: That's why it wasn't on today.
I didn't have it totally finished by the time --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're only talking about the
signature block here.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is the issue before us today.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On whether it needs to be
included, then, the answer is yes, with the disclaimer.
But, you know, the broader question -- you know, at some
point, I think we need to get it resolved -- is whether a
condominium falls under the jurisdiction of our Subdivision
Rules. And, as I read it, it does. I mean, it's -- it's
dividing the tract, you know.
MR. JACKSON: My position on that,
Commissioner, is that it could be, if you do your rules
correctly. And nobody else has ever complied. All the
other condominiums in this county haven't done it, because
it's not in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- you know, and I
agree, but I think it's something that, you know --
MR. JACKSON: I'd urge you -- we're already
into this, so that's not -- we're not going to quarrel, but
3 - _ - 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
82
if you wanted my observation, as somebody who does a lot of
real estate work in a lot of different areas, you need to
have a section that articulates how it is you come to
regulate the condominium in light of the condominium
statute. I think I fully concede, it's possible that you
can do that. It's just, it's not in there right now.
MR. JOHNSTON: Seems like in the condominium
statute itself, there's a section in there that says this is
a form of -- form of ownership; however, it doesn't exempt
it from a bunch of things. Subdivision rules are one of
them.
MR. JACKSON: Absolutely correct. So it
gives you the opportunity to draft a regulation that says,
if you're a condominium, here's hcw we want you to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: And we already know the other
people that have done this have said, well, it's not in
there, so I don't have to do it. And they haven't.
JUDGE TINLEY: Were those within the
corporate limits of the city of Kerrville?
MR. JACKSON: Both.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Well, only -- I'd add, I
respect your position. I understand the signature will
resolve that. These ladies are here to address it. If
3 2 9-~~ 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
there were a way in which you could approve it conditioned
upon whatever's outstanding, and apparently it's only the --
your reviewing the plan -- I mean, I don't -- I'm going to
guess that the Court doesn't want to -- as long as Franklin
signs off on it, to come back and go through the details of
the plan. And I -- I'm just trying to get as much done as I
possibly can today. And with -- with all due respect, if we
could get as far as perhaps approving this subject to the
signatures, subject to the efforts -- we've got letter of
credit, we've already got that subject to sign off on the
drainage, then we'd be good to go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The verbiage in the
agenda --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm having some problems with
the -- with the agenda item as stated, Mr. Jackson, in that
it addresses signature block requirement only. And I -- I
appreciate your concern and your frustration at this point,
and -- and I sympathize with you, but --
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- at this point, I don't know
that we need a -- a formal motion on this. I think Franklin
understands what --
MR. JACKSON: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the Court is -- I don't
think there's any misunderstanding what the Court's position
3-~4-03
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-~ 13
14
1~
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is.
MR. JACKSON: Good. Well, I appreciate the
clarification.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you very much for
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I want to go
back to Commissioners Letz' comments.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At some point, we have
to -- we have to get down to the bottom line of this thing
at some point in our lives. What is the vehicle or the tool
that do you that? Do you -- is the County Attorney to make
that decision? Or do you -- is Commissioner Letz going to
sit down, write a whole brand-new paragraph to incorporate
into the subdivision regs?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I thought he'd do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, actually,
there's a couple of other areas we need to make some
changes; one in the area of commercial developments as well,
to clarify those a little bit more. And we'll probably do
that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, are you going to
write in there, though, that the developer is required to
3-~9-~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
85
plat it, so it will be -- can you legally do that? That's
my -- really my question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, as I read it, it
is -- and based on what David Jackson and whoever the other
person was that we just mentioned, you know, there is a
vehicle or way to get, you know, clearly, condominiums under
our subdivision rules. We just need to add some language to
do that. I think, you know, it's just a matter of adding,
really, a paragraph and proceed. I think we need -- I think
it needs to be clarified, both there and, like I said, and
also commercial developments.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Frost? I'm sorry.
Ms. Frost? Ms. Hart?
MS. FROST: Ms. Frost and Ms. Fox.
JUDGE TINLEY: Fox, excuse me. I used both
of your names. In light of the limited -- what we're
addressing today, being relative to addressing the signature
block requirement, do either one of you wish to be heard on
this issue before we move on?
MS. FOX: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY:
All right. Please come
forward, Ms. Fox.
MS. FOX: Yes. My name is Catherine Fox.
Thank you for hearing me. I had a concern, and that's why I
was here today. I felt as though this might be a rush
-~~-., .
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
job -- pardon my laymen's terms -- but to go ahead and push
this through, and I just wanted to be here today to make
sure that didn't happen. And, as I understand it, correct
me if I'm wrong, but I understand it to mean that you wi71
not be approving anything today, subject to blab, blab,
blab, as Mr. Jackson requested. Is that correct?
JUDGE TINLEY: The only action that we've
taken today is to give the County Engineer and the
developer's attorney guidance that it's the feeling of the
Court that the signature blocks with respect to the various
issues of 911, the County Engineer, and others, as required
by the Subdivision Rules, will be required on this
subdivision plat. But, beyond that, no action is being
taken on this plat.
MS. FOX: Okay, thank you. And then I also
wanted to express, as Mr. Jackson did and Commissioner
Baldwin, that the Court, for future reference, get more
specific with this, because I believe that you will be
seeing a lot more of this in the future as more and more
developers get legal representation to come in here and try
to use this approach to not plat. And that concerns me
greatly, because most of this type of particular development
will be uphill, because that's where the beautiful views
are, and those of us that live below need to be protected as
much as possible. Thank you very much.
3-~4-G3
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
i8
19
20
21
22
23
,.... 2 4
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, Ms. Fox.
Ms. Frost? Do you wish to be heard?
MS. FROST: Yes. I just want -- thank you.
I'm Mary Hart Frost; I live in Bumble Bee Hills. I just
want to thank you for limiting today the discussion to the
signature block requirement. That was the right thing to
do, and thank you very much for that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Is there anybody
else that -- notwithstanding the fact that wasn't signed up
for this, or that would like to be heard? Okay. We'll move
on to Item 2.8, consider the final revision of plat, to plat
Lots 43 and 44A of Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I.
MR. JOHNSTON: Last meeting, I was called
away; I was a witness in a court cause, and Truby was here.
And I believe she said that this was on, but the mylar was
sent to the owner to be signed, and it was lost in the mail
somewhere, so they had to redo the mylar and have it signed.
So, this is the same one. It's just the signed document,
ready for the Judge's signature.
MS. SOVIL: We had the public hearing last
time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm?
MS. SOVIL: Public hearing last time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Had a public hearing, but we
did not have a formal court action, because the mylar wasn't

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
'' 1
L
22
23
24
25
88
here.
MS. SOVIL: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, the matter is now
before us formally for approval, or not, of the final
revision of plat.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think it's actually a lot
combination, so it's a simple one to approve.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody got any questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you roll it out so we
can --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is just a case
of turning two smaller ones into one big one.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This one. The next
one is the same thing. I think, as a matter of policy,
we -- we don`t object to that sort of thing, and we probably
encourage it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I make a motion to
approve it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion was made and seconded
that the Court approve the final revision of plat for Lots
43 and 44A of Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I. Is there
any further discussion? All in favor, signify by raising
3-^4-03
89
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Court will
next call for consideration the consider the preliminary
revision of plat of Tracts Number 15 and 16, Y.O. Ranchlands
in Precinct 4.
MR. JOHNSTON: This one is the other way
around; there's a tract of 124 acres that's being divided
into two lots. And the third lot involved, 16, it actually
moved the right of -- the actual boundary of that lot over a
few feet.
AUDIENCE: Five acres.
MR. JOHNSTON: Five acres. Just to gain
access easier from the -- from the road. That involves
three lots. This one will require a public hearing and a
notification, 'cause it is dividing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: O.J., could you turn
that thermostat down or up or whatever so the A.C. goes off?
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is on here
simply to approve the public hearing?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, this is an approval of
preliminary plat and set a date fcr public hearing.
-~~-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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we
approve the preliminary plat and set a date. What do we
need, 30 days?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thirty days.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So it will be the
second Commissioners Court meeting in April.
MS. HAMILTON: April 28.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: April 28.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: At what time? 10:00? 10:15?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10:00.
JUDGE TINLEY: 10 a.m.? Motion has been made
and seconded that the Court approve the preliminary plat of
Tracts 15 and 16 of the Y.O. Ranchlands, and set a public
hearing thereon for April the 28th at 10 a.m.
MR. JOHNSTON: This one requires notification
by mail, so they need to submit the list or whatever of the
surrounding owners of that portion of it to the clerk as
soon as -- 30 days, right? As soon as possible.
MS. PIEPER: As soon as possible.
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.
(No response.)
3-:'9-~~3
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. JOHNSTON: That subdivision or a part of
that -- identifiable part of that subdivision. I don't know
if there's phases to that or sections, tracts.
AUDIENCE: There was phases, I think, wasn't
there?
MR. DOMINGUES: I think there's a couple
phases, but there's a -- there's, I think, eight other pages
to the subdivision plat.
MR. JOHNSTON: Smallest identifiable part of
the plat.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, are they
discussing Commissioners Court business?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure what's going on
here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Borrowing money from
each other?
MR. JOHNSTON: Trying to determine what
they're going to submit as names for notification.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move on to 2.10,
consider a variance of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations for placing a water line in Cypress Springs,
Phase II.
MR. JOHNSTON: On this one, the developer,
-<4-03
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
Dale Crenwelge, called me requesting a variance after the
ditch had actually been dug, and it was actually a part of
the roadbed instead of being in the 0 to 4 foot part of the
right-of-way, and that's away from the road. And I went out
and looked at it and took some pictures in there for you to
look at. The reason we have the rule, 0 to 4 feet to keep
it away from the roadbed, is that the very last picture in
your document shows an old road that has it in there, and
every time they have a -- have a water tap or a leak, they
have to dig up the road and put a patch. And the patch,
obviously, is not as good as the original pavement, and it
always causes maintenance problems, especially if there's a
big water leak. You know, big maintenance problem, so
that's why we discourage that. A lot of people ask that,
but we routinely try to get them r_ot to do it. We usually
give variances for terrain. I looked at the area out there,
and it looks like they could have dug it on the side. Looks
like it's just easier to dig it down the middle of the road.
If it was a county road, I'd vigorously object. This is a
private road, but should be the same standards on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The water line ditch
is actually out in the road? You know, I can't necessarily
tell that by these photographs. Personally, I can't.
MR. JOHNSTON: It will be part of the road,
in the road. And just on that section, not the whole
-~~-~.3
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
..-- 2 4
25
93
subdivision. Just on that hill right there. The rest of
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the 4-foot area?
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I took a look at
this also, and I -- Franklin, you'll know -- I mean, I'm not
sure I got my facts right, but the water line was not
planned to be in the road bed. When they got to digging it,
they encountered some sort of problems there in getting
their equipment where they needed. Maybe the terrain was
too rugged off the side of it or something, and that seemed
to be -- seemed to be the -- the possible viable solution.
And the part of it that's in the roadway is only 100 feet or
something like that. It --
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, it's not -- I'd say it's
closer to 100 yards, probably, or more up the hill.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you talking about in the
example at Japonica, or are you talking about --
MR. JOHNSTON: No, actually talking about the
actual one, the Cypress Springs.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I agree with
Franklin. If this was a -- a County-maintained road, we
sure wouldn't want this -- it lends itself to this kind of
damage over time. Considering that it's already there
and -- and it's a road that they're going to be maintaining,
3-~4-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
at least for the current, I'm willing to go along with a
waiver on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let me throw a
little wrinkle in it just for fun here, something to talk
about through lunch. Instead of coming -- once they saw
this problem happening, instead o= coming to the Court or
coming to the County Engineer or whatever to get permission
to break the rules, they go ahead and break them and then
come along and ask us to say it's okay.
MR. ERLUND: It's not completed yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm looking at the
photographs here.
MR. JOHNSTON: The ditch. Water line's not
in and everything; it's just the ditch is done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is that what you meant?
MR. ERLUND: Yeah, the water line is in
there, but it's not completed.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I hear what you're
saying, Commissioner, and as a general rule, I think that's
exactly right. You shouldn't -- you shouldn't learn that
you can break a rule and then come get it covered later. In
their defense, they did call. They did run into a problem;
they did call the County Engineer and -- and their County
Commissioner and talked about it. So, it's not like they
3-~'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
95
just went ahead and did it. It's, "Let's take a chance that
we can go in there and get a waiver."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was the problem
MR. ERLUND: Problem was terrain. And we
still have another -- we have to put the telephone line in
there besides that. That -- the 'ndividual cutting that
ditch cut that ditch without our knowledge; really went
ahead and cut it, and he told us he just couldn't go
where -- where you wanted or where we needed to go, so he
moved further in towards the road. And that's how that --
when we went out there and saw that that's the way it was,
we called -- or Dale called Franklin. And, in turn, Dale
also called the County Commissioner, so we didn't just go
ahead and keep doing it.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. ERLUND: That line is imbedded properly.
It's going to be compacted. It's got a pressure test on it.
It`s actually the -- exceeds the depth requirement that you
require. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a private road?
MR. ERLUND: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm asking the
Commissioner down here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir, private
3-~4-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
96
road. I've been out and looked at it, and I can see where
it would have been more difficult to try to get -- keep it
from going under the road. And, again, that's not -- not
always going to be a good enough reason not to do that, but
in this case, I think it's probably at least morally one.
MR. JOHNSTON: The reason we try to hold the
line is -- is we get these requests all the time. People --
it's obviously easier -- cheaper for the utility to put them
down in a road rather than going off in the -- on the edge
where they have to clear out trees and do things, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It appears that,
actually, it's kind of still over on the edge of the road.
I mean, it's not like it's right out in the middle of the
road, though.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's on the edge. Right where
people drive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it not possible to
move the road over? I mean, it's a 60-foot right-of-way.
There ought to be some leeway to move it off -- move the
road. I mean, I don't --
MR. JOHNSTON: Might be possible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: By the pictures, I don't,
you know, see that the terrain is -- I mean, I see it's a
hill.
MR. JOHNSTON: Looks like they could have
-24-Q3
97
1
,-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,...
25
went on the other side of the road or done some options
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, if it's hard to
modify the road a little bit through that section to get it
-- I haven't -- I'm looking at the picture.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. ERLUND: It's not actually under the
pavement. We measured that. It's very close; it's right on
the edge. It's -- it's right there. It's not in --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm going to do
what the Commissioner in that precinct asked me to do. His
confidence.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll move that we
grant them a waiver on this road as requested.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Williams,
respectively, that the Court grant a variance to the Kerr
County Subdivision Rules and Regulations for placing the
water line in Cypress Springs, Phase II, as indicated in the
photographs. This is not going to be something that they
can just -- I assume it's not just anywhere?
MR. JOHNSTON: It's not a blanket -- it's
just for that one area.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just the one area as
?-_z-03
98
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,A. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
indicated? Okay. Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- well, the only
comment I would have is that -- even a little more emphasis
than that; that any future ones in the subdivision need to
be cleared ahead of time, I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: If any.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If any.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. All in
favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. We'll now
move on to 2.11, consider and discuss accepting the H.M.G.P.
grant to purchase three homes in 100-year floodplain, with
the FEMA/Kerr County match to be ?5/25. Mr. Barron.
MR. BARRON: I'm here today to update us on
our -- our application with the Department of Emergency
Management. After the July flood of last year, I came in
before the Court; you told us that we were eligible for some
moneys that FEMA would make available to buy homes that are
in the 100-year floodplain. I was then instructed t~ fill
out the application and send it in, and there is a letter
that we received back which I have in your packet there,
saying that we have been accepted -- or our application has
3 - _' 4 - U 3
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
been accepted, and we have been -- or we're eligible to
receive this -- this grant. It is going to cost the county
anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000 that we will have to come
up with those moneys somehow. We can do in-kind services.
I have to talk to the -- talk to FEMA; they've said that
that is acceptable. So, we could possibly get somebody from
the Road and Bridge Department to tear down the houses, and
we car. bill FEMA accordingly to -- against our 25 percent
match. We will have to appraise the values of the homes. I
talked to the Kerr County Appraisal District. They don't
have anybody that's licensed to appraise -- appraise the
homes prior to the flood. There's some licensing
differences that they have from appraisal district to a real
estate transaction license, according to Mr. Coates this
morning. So, we would have to have somebody go out and
assess the costs of each house, and that would be the value
of the house that we would pay against.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The lady sitting here
on the O.S.S.F. matter from Ranchero Road is a registered
appraiser, Ms. Price.
MR. BARRON: Okay. There are -- there's a
bunch of them in this county that we couldn't get --
basically, what I'm wanting to know, is the Court wanting to
go ahead with purchasing these properties? These properties
will belong to Kerr County. We cannot sell them. We will
3-~4-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--, 13
14
15
16
17
1~
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
have to tear down the houses. We'll have to pump out the
septic systems, crunch and fill the tanks. We'll then also
have to keep up the lots for the remainder of -- as long as
we own them, which will be forever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where -- where are they?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pretty much in my
precinct. Two of them are, for sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: Start out at Elm Pass there,
right there on the right where it goes up Verde Creek.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Exactly where are they?
I mean, are they, like, landlocked, or they're on the road?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They'rP not
landlocked.
MR. BARRON: They're right there on this
100-year floodplain, right here. There's arrows going
towards them, Jon. I think this is what -- I don't think
that's the one right there. I think one of them's just a
slab, and I think it's that house and that house.
JUDGE TINLEY: As you go out Center Point and
you start on --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me see that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going out Elm Pass?
JUDGE TINLEY: Just before you -- just before
you get to the creek, there's a road that angles off to the
-~~-n~
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
right. It's called Riverside Drive or something to that
effect, and it's down there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the left.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Franklin, are these
the only three residences in Kerr County outside of the
municipal city limits that are similarly situated? These
are the only three that -- that were damaged beyond the
extent that they couldn't be rebuilt and had to be
abandoned?
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
that people filed on; I can answer
there's some in my precinct, and t
of, a neighbor bought the property
property owner bought the tract of
moved away.
They're the only ones
that question. I know
~e one that I'm thinking
-- or, you know, adjacent
land, and the guy just
MR. BARRON: Yeah. These are the only ones
that people wanting to move away from the 100-year
floodplain -- they said that, "We are willing to take money
for our homes so we can get out of this 100-year
floodplain." Some of them said, "Even though we were
substantially damaged, we want to rebuild here," and we had
to allow them to do that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can we -- do I
understand that the amount of money that we'll get from FEMA
3-~4-03
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
102
will pay the total costs of purchasing these three
residences?
MR. BARRON: No, sir, it's going to be a 75
-- we'll have to match 25 percent of their 75 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said we could do
it in-kind?
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir, we could.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we going to buy these
people out, if we got to pay them cash and we're doing 25
percent of it in-kind?
MR. BARRON: We have to report to FEMA
every -- everything that we do out there, we send it in and
they send us money. We don't get a lump sum; we get a
portion of it. And we'll get it all eventually, but we have
to bill them as we go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So these property
owners, then, have to understand that the amount of cash
they're going to get is limited to what FEMA will give; is
that correct?
MR. BARRON: They'll get it all, but we have
to bill FEMA as we incur our expenses.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to design
it, because I've dealt with FEMA a lot over the years.
We'll put into the project cost the cost of the house and
cost of the cleanup. So, you know, the two -- there's more
?-_4-03
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
L `i
.r-
25
103
than one component. We file $100,000; out of that $100,000,
$75,000 is the cost that we're paying the property owner.
The other part is the other obligations that we have. And
that's the part that we can do this in-kind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, you're
answering the guestion just a little differently. Property
owner's limited to what FEMA puts out in cash. That's all
they're going to get.
MR. BARRON: Not necessarily.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How are they going to
get the rest?
MR. BARRON: If it doesn't cost us 25 percent
of our match, then we'll have to pay them cash for those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They get paid the
appraised amount,
MR. BARRON: We can only -- we can only
charge FEMA against whatever it costs us to tear down the
property and have it assessed, along -- and if that doesn't
equal our 25 percent of the match, then we have to come up
with funds to -- to round it to 25.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Stuart, can we apply as
part of our match -- does the match have to be on these
properties? You know, right in that area there, it's very
trashy still from that flood, and a lot of debris.
3-~4-G3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--, 13
14
i5
16
17
i8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
MR. BARRON: I believe it's going to have to
be -- I'm not 100 percent, but I would think it would have
to be for each property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My other question is, the
other state grant that we have, I mean, been kind of
stringing along, does that not pay our 25 percent?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. I'll
call Grantworks and ask them.
MR. BARRON: There is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did that, 'cause
that's, I believe, how the City's buying out their property.
We went along for two reasons; one, in case we had any, and
two, if the City ran out of money, so we could help them
with their 25 percent match.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll find out.
MR. BARRON: We can apply for that grant.
I've talked to the individual. The Road and Bridge has
their -- their application in already. He said that we can
tack on a little bit; it will take a little bit longer for
Franklin to get there.
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, I have two things on
that supplementary grant from -- I think it's called OCER,
OCRA, or something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: ORCA.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okra.
- ~ 4 - ; 3
1
^ 2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--. 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~
25
105
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okra's good.
MR. BARRON: It's almost lunchtime.
MR. JOHNSTON: The -- he sent an e-mail back
a couple days ago, said it only applies to projects that we
haven't started yet. Well, we've nearly completed
everything, so I'm not very optimistic we'll get any -- much
of any reimbursement out of that. It's been nine months,
and we've been working on it the whole time. And now
they're saying they won't pay unless we haven't started the
cleanup and the project yet. So, it's a catch-22, if we
don't get paid for that. The other item I'd like to bring
up is, I think I heard the term "in-kind" and Road and
Bridge in the same sentence. We don't have an extra $50,000
laying around to, you know, do extra work. We're strapped
right now from all the other work we've been doing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, you can't
go out and work on that until you own it, anyway. You
couldn't go out on someone else's property.
MR. JOHNSTON: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Until we own it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I
think --
MR. JOHNSTON: But I bring that to your
attention, 'cause that may be -- if you want us to do that,
that may be a line item in next year's budget or something
3-~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
106
to do that, but this year we don't have the money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think the other
issue comes in as to whether Road and Bridge can go into
house demolition as part of their authority.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean --
MR.
COM
have, Stuart, that
property forever.
a -- a restriction
and sell it to the
grazing?
JOHNSTON: That's another issue, yeah.
~IISSIONER LETZ: And the other question I
I have on -- ycu said that we'll own this
Can we not sell that property and put
that no construction can be done on it,
neighbors so they can at least use it for
MR. BARRON: No. What they told me is that
the reason the County is purchasing these properties is
because it's a 100-year flood hazard, and the County has to
retain ownership. They don't want anything going in or
being in this area. They're all in a subdivision. The
biggest -- the concern that I have about these three lots is
they're not contiguous. There's a lot of houses in between
them, and so if you buy this house, you still have two or
three houses before you get to your next lot -- to your next
vacant lot. And, so, we're really nit -- it will help, but
it won't -- it won't cure the whole problem in that area by
any stretch.
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
107
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it reasonable to
assume that the floodplain is the same for the houses that
are still there, and just grandfathered in? Is that a
reasonable assumption?
MR. BARRON: To assume what?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got a vacant lot here
on one; come down, got a house, house, vacant. Is the
floodplain the same for those two or three houses that
remain?
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if another flood
comes along, we got the same problem over again.
MR. BARRON: We will have -- probably have
the same problem over.
JUDGE TINLEY: The alternative to the
property owner at this point is, if we don't become the
owner of that property, they remain the owner. They're
under a mandate that they cannot rebuild any improvements
without erecting those improvements above a certain base
flood level, and they're stuck.
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But they were the ones
that put the improvements there, anyway.
MR. BARRON: They can rebuild on those lots.
Anybody can rebuild on their lot. They just have to elevate
3-.'4-i!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
108
their structure to be above the 100-year floodplain.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we know if any of
these three property owners had flood insurance and
collected on it?
MR. BARRON: FEMA doesn't share a lot of
information in our governmental -- they don't tell you
anything, basically, so no, we're not aware of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my -- my
question is probably, I guess, to the Judge or the County
Attorney back there I just saw walk in; probably missed this
whole conversation. But, I mean, how does this benefit the
taxpayers of Kerr County? I mean, what -- if Mr. and
Mrs. Smith can't build on the thing, we can't either. I
mean, what is the benefit to the taxpayers of the county by
us purchasing something that cannot be used?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it can be used.
That's up to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we're going to own
forever and is not contiguous. I don't get it, personally.
But. I guess what we're doing is just helping three families
out by expending taxpayers' funds to do that. I mean, let's
be real about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, in reality,
that's probably pretty accurate, but I think the intent is
that we're getting property and construction out of the
3-~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
109
floodway, which helps all residents in the county. That's
the big benefit. But, as Stuart says, consider that there's
other homes. If we were able to buy the whole strip through
there, I think that's -- we truly would be helping. But I
think, because we're only buying three lots that are not
contiguous, you summed it up pretty accurately, that we're
helping three families get out of a bad situation, and
likely not substantially helping the flood situation in the
floodway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stuart, was one of
these properties at the corner of -- right at Verde Creek at
480 right there?
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a rental
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir, it is. They said that
property can -- will be eligible. It will not be as high on
the priority list as the other properties, but it will be
eligible for the buyout program also.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just don't
understand owning something that you can't use. I mean, I
don't get it.
MR. BARRON: There will be a cost associated
with it. Maybe -- Franklin, I think y'all own two other
lots outside the city limits y'all have to maintain?
-~~-~z
110
1
.-1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
....
25
MR. JOHNSTON: It's my
way back, we own two lots in the city
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
(Mr. Johnston nodded.)
MR. BARRON: And y'all
those lots either, 'cause they're the
the 100-year floodplain.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We
understanding, from
for some reason.
City of Kerrville?
can't do anything with
same type of lots, in
maintain them.
They're over there past --
MR. BARRON: They got them back for taxes,
and then --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the deadline
for the Court making a decision?
MR. BARRON: They have not given me a
deadline.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2012.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think first thing we
need to find out is if O.R.C.A. will help pay for the
County's part, because, clearly -- I mean, that makes it a
little bit more palatable. I'm pretty close to Commissioner
Baldwin; it's hard to expend funds, and whether it's in-kind
or cash, it's still expending funds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the amount that
Road and Bridge or somebody estimates it would cost to do
that --
- ' 4 - 4 3
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 LETZ:
MR. BARRON: I have
say that we are eligible to put in
that grant, but it will hold Road
to -- while we're doing that.
MR. JOHNSTON: Wait
Yeah.
talked to O.R.C.A. They
for -- to tie it onto
end Bridge's grant up
till we're all finished
and then say, "Oh."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, since it's in
my precinct, I suggest we take another look at it, gather
some more information, find out about the O.R.C.A. piece,
in-kind, see if we can identify the costs associated with
cleanup and any other pieces of information that would be
helpful, and come back another day. Can we do that?
MR. BARRON: Okay. Would you like for me to
get the cost of the cleanup?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so.
MR. BARRON: Try to find somebody that could
give us an appraised value of those houses?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. BARRON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I gather that some of
these numbers that you're using -- that you were putting in
here, massaging the Appraisal District numbers, I guess,
trying to bring it to market plus the cleanup? Is that what
you were attempting to do, Stuart?
-~~-,, .
112
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2~
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir. And the -- they
instructed me to do that when I made out the application,
'cause you can always take less money than what you've
applied for, but you can very rarely get more than what
you've applied for.
JUDGE TINLEY: I remember that conversation.
I appreciate it. Thank you. Let's move on to the next
item, 2.12, consider and discuss adopting the flood recovery
maps to be used to determine flood elevations on Cherry
Creek, Cypress Creek, and Verde Creek. This is a related
item, at least in part, because of those structures on Verde
Creek. But this deals also with some others in that same
area, I believe, don't they, Stuart?
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir. There's -- that was
on Verde Creek. We also have Cherry Creek and Cypress
Creek.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BARRON: I don't know if anybody's had an
opportunity to look at the maps there, but what these maps
are going to do -- they will not take the place of FEMA's
maps. These maps are the ones I have to use at this point
to determine flood elevation heights. If a person wants to
build a house, say at that last property that we were at,
I'd have to use a graph and scale off how many square miles
of drainage they have, and use a scale that says roughly how
3-24-u3
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'' 3
L
24
25
many feet above the -- the stream bed flood waters will be.
As we can all kind of walk out on a creek in our mind and
say, okay, well, this creek has a -- has a bluff on one side
and has an opening hill on the other, or you can walk out on
some where they're just flat on both sides, that graph is
not very accurate, but it is the best information that we
have, until now that we have these maps. These are the
flood recovery maps.
After the -- after the 100-year flood event
of last year, they called me. I believe it was the -- I
want to say it was FEMA. There's another division of FEMA;
they called me and asked me, do we have any 100-year flood
events I thought that we needed new maps for? I said yeah,
if we can get free maps, we're going to apply for
whatever -- wherever we can get them, arrd they sent me the
application. I only applied for three areas. That was all
they had on one sheet; I figured that was all they would let
us apply for. And I went to the west side of the county --
or, excuse me, the east side of the county and just picked
out those streams that were over there, because that was the
closest to the 100-year flood event that we had. The west
side of the county did not experience as much rainfall as
what they did in Center Point and Comfort and areas. And so
what they did is went out and shot the debris line up and
down the streams, and they've given me flood elevation
-~- 03
114
1
2
3
4
5
6

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-~
25
heights, and that's what these maps are for. They will not
replace FEMA's flood maps, but they will tell me how high to
let people -- or what elevation to make people build at.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see if I
understand, Stuart. If we have another big flood like
that -- not if. When we have another big flood, then these
maps will be used to determine whether or not people will be
allowed to rebuild and where they'll be allowed to rebuild?
MR. BARRON: No, sir. If we have an
individual that comes in to my office, regardless of a
flood, and they say, "I want to build on Verde Creek right
here. How high is the flood waters going to be?" These
maps don't tell me. They just have a gray area on them.
ThPSe maps tell me it's going to be, you know, 1,500 feet
above sea level.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. BARRON: Then I can put that on their
application. Say you have --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if you build a
new house, you can tell them you got to raise it up to "X"
level?
MR. BARRON: It's got to be at this elevation
here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, it's not a
matter of whether or not those maps are -- those maps will
3-~q-r3
115
1
,,.~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~.
25
be more accurate than what you've got now?
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir, extremely more
accurate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For those that were at
the -- or attended the workshop on FEMA in Fort Worth, you
may recall there was a question from a gentleman in San
Angelo complaining about not getting maps. 'T'hese are the
maps that he was -- that he wanted, and they're extremely
expensive. I mean, I just happen to know, on Cherry Creek,
the detail on -- it probably took those guys two weeks on
Cherry Creek alone to survey. And, anyway, that's what
these are, kind of relating back to what they were talking
about there. And I think it's -- you know, it's -- we were
fortunate that FEMA paid to get these maps done, because if
we were to ever get it done, we could never afford it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Our role in all of
this, if I understand, we're -- Commissioners Court has
floodplain administration responsibility, and we have
delegated that to our Designated Representative. That's --
MR. BARRON: Yeah. You wouldn't use that
title in this particular -- I'm the floodplain administrator
also. If would be the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No D.R.'s here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're doing this
under the authority of the E.P.A.?
3-~9-03
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2G
23
24
cam. J
JUDGE TINLEY: FEMA, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we adopt the flood
recovery maps on Cherry Creek, Cypress Creek, and Verde
Creek, as submitted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As per the
recommendation of the floodplain administrator?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively,
that we adopt the flood recovery maps as presented by and
recommended by the floodplain administrator showing flood
elevations on Cherry Creek, Cypress Creek, and Verde Creek.
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. Next item,
consider ar:d discuss hiring consultants in design/build team
to assist with helping develop renovation and construction
plans for the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center and
authorizing County Judge to sign same. Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, as we're moving
along at our -- at our not-so-rapid pace --
~ _ ~ ~ _ ~i ?
117
1
„_. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Snail's pace.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Snail's pace on the Ag
Barn, again, we have in the packets a summary from DRG which
reflects their and Huser/Adler's fees, based on what we
discussed last time. I think now where the Court needs to
go is to have a workshop to make sure that -- you know,
exactly where the Court is on the facilities out there,
which we have not done since the bond election failed. And
after that, if we can reach a consensus, then I think we
need to go to the County Attorney to see if we can still
proceed under the design-to-build, or whether we want to
proceed under design-to-build format and make a decision at
that point. So, really, I mean, I think we received the
motion we needed, but I don't see that we take any, really,
action at this point, other than set a workshop for the
Court to figure out if we can agree on a plan out there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, what -- would you
mind including in your workshop -- and I agree with
everything you said so far. Just include the County
Attorney in that workshop.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To kind of guide us,
so we can really come out of there and --
JUDGE TINLEY: Makes sense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I think
3 ~4-03
1
,,~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 "J
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
there's -- I mean, you know, there's two questions I think
we need to answer, which is, one, can we agree? And two,
can we continue under the design-build thing? And, you
know, Mr. Gondeck has said that he thinks we can, but he's
not our attorney, and we need to hear that from our attorney
and look at the overall scope of the project after we -- if
we can reach some kind of consensus.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're proposing that we
take no formal action on 2.13 at this time, other than
schedule a workshop to see where we are, if there's a
consensus to be reached about basically what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where we're going.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What direction the
Court wants to go out there at that facility, and determine
the legalities on that from the County Attorney. Anybody
wish to offer a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At this point, Jon,
when did you see a workshop, possibly?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think sooner rather
than later.
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- you know, late
this week, early next week. Next week starts getting a
little bit -- I have two days that I know of -- one day next
week I will not be around, but -- I will not be here
3 - ~ 9 - 0 3
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Tuesday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thursdays are a bad day for
me. Monday afternoon I have -- I have juvenile hearings.
Tuesday morning's mental health. Thursday's morning and
afternoon, I have hearings. So, Wednesdays and Fridays are
generally my better days.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wednesday's good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about next Monday?
Monday or Wednesday. Monday's usually good for the morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Works for me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or Wednesday.
COMMTSSIONER BALDWIN: Wednesday the 26th?
That's the day after tomorrow here in Kerrville.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think we --
MS. SOVIL: We can't. Doesn't give me 72
hours.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, fine. We've
talked about breaking the law here several times this
morning. You don't think I'm above doing that, do you?
Monday -- we can't do it on Monday?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Monday, the 1st?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Monday, the 31st.
JUDGE TINLEY: Morning? We can do it Monday
morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 9 a.m.
3-~4-03
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that for people
who may want to be here? For people to present information
from San Antonio, for example?
JUDGE TINLEY: Don?
MR. BONNER: Sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: You or David, as far as you
know, would be available for Monday morning at around 9:00?
MR. BONNER: I'll be. I don't know what --
whether he's going to be able to. I can be here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you -- you've gotten
immersed in a lot of these things. You know generally
what -- what we're thinking about and so forth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have a copy of
the -- I guess the RFQ and the -- do you have a copy of that
design-to-build stuff? I mean, the reason --
MR. BONNER: I don't have a copy of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't either. The box
has got lost at one point.
MR. ADLER: I've got all that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have all that? If
we can get a r_.opy to get feedback from the County Attorney,
it would be helpful if he had the documents. I'm sure he'd
like time to review them prior to Monday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He has to review the
statute --
3-~9-U3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- also.
MR. BONNER: What statute are we talking
about? The bid --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The statute that
permits the Court to do design-build and what's involved in
that.
MR. ADLER: In the RFQ, there were a list of
all the statutes, and I downloaded and printed them.
There's a whole bunch, as you can imagine, but I have that
-- at least a document that indicates those. I should think
you could look them up on the Internet, as required. And
you -- you have contracts which have everything in it except
that document, but I could send that document to you, fax it
to you, whatever you need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably be easier to fax
it, get in touch with the County Attorney's office.
MR. ADLER: Okay.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. ADLER: You don't want the -- the RFQ for
your meeting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want the RFQ, but I
don't -- I want the RFQ, but I don't want the --
MR. ADLER: Oh, the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- all the legal
3-~~-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
122
references.
MR. ADLER: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, he's got those available.
MR. ADLER: Okay. I'll just give you the
RFQ, because it has them listed very clearly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think -- Jon, I
appreciate you saying all that. I think we're heading in
the right direction, and I really believe that if we -- if
we can sit down at a table, the five of us men sit down at a
table, and if we have time to spend, that we're -- we can
come to some kind of conclusion. I really and truly do. We
-- I think we need to come prepared to lay out what -- what
we think is the right thing for the county and go from
there. And I just really believe if we spend a little
time -- five good men here, and I think if we spend a little
time, that we can come to a conclusion of what is the best
thing for this county to do out there, and then we can move
forward with these other guys.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On location here or out
there? Or in the Ag Extension office?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't have a
Commissioners Court meeting outside this room.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a workshop.
3-~4-~~
1
-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
123
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's saying here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It would be good. You
know, I think, personally, I'd like to see us get the old
Commissioners Court table we used to sit at down here so we
can, you know, be down there and be able to swing at each
other and that kind of thing, and -- and a little closer
together. So we can pass papers and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My other --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- jokes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Reach out and touch somebody
around the neck?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By the throat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My other comment, just
more for the people that are maybe coming in from out of
town, or maybe may not be coming in, is there -- I mean, I
don't see a whole lot of -- of input being requested from
other people, other than us just sitting around figuring
out -- I think we know the facility. So, I mean, anyone's
welcome to attend and listen, but I don't know that we're
going to need any -- other than County Attorney's office,
any --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- additional information
3- 4-~i 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
124
at this time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I looked
at -- at least I thought I heard you saying that your
workshop is being put together so that we can decide what we
want to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I don't -- we've
had plenty of •input, in my opinion. I'm ready to do that.
I'm excited about that. Monday at 9 o'clock.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on 2.13?
We'll move -- thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate you being
here.
MR. ADLER: You bet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move forward to Item
2.14, consider and discuss approving resolution adopting --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We didn't vote to do
that, to have it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The workshop?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't --
JUDGE TINLEY: Point of order. Commissioner
2 suggested maybe we need to vote on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we set a workshop
to discuss the Ag Barn at 9 o'clock Monday morning,
March 31st.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'' 3
L
24
25
125
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded --
MS. SOVIL: Hill Country Youth Exhibit
Center.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that we have a workshop at
9 a.m. Monday, the 31st of March, here at the Commissioners
Courtroom, workshop to be for the purpose of discussing the
Court's desires with respect to the Hill Country Youth
Exhibit Center.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. -- our administrator
was trying to tell me something, and while I didn't
understand what she was saying, I think she was saying
that's not an agenda item, but I think we can call a
workshop. I don't think it is appropriate to vote on it, so
I'm going to withdraw my motion. However, I think that the
County Judge or we can call a workshop without having a
vote, where the vote is on a very specific agenda item.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're withdrawing your
motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm withdrawing my
motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been withdrawn.
Okay. Anybody desire to offer anything further on 2.13?
COMMISSlUNER BALDW=N: Just a second. Let me
look at it. 2.13? That would be like 13, wouldn't it? I
~_„~_,~
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
think I probably would take an opposite view of what you
just said.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It could be done. I
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I
having a workshop without an order, and
an order without an agenda item. Well,
broken. I think we ought to have a wor
on what authority do we post this thing
mean, you got to have -- to me, you got
order to do that.
mean, I can't see us
I can't see Having
laws are made to be
kshop, and so on --
and all that? I
to have a court
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, okay. I mean, I
think, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't you think? And
we pass court orders all the time -- we're going to have to
hire trucks to haul all the court orders out of there
sometime that are never on the agenda. We just blow and go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess. It
doesn't make ar.y difference to me either way, if we have an
order or not. I can say that we could broadly read this and
say that, in an effort to get to the point of hiring a
consulting team or deciding whether we hire a consulting
team, we need a workshop.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a fine
3 - 9 - n 3
1
~. 2
3
4
5
6
i
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--
25
127
interpretation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I make a
motion we have a workshop next Monday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively,
that we have a workshop on Monday, ttie 31st of March, at
9 a.m. --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Will the rest of you
guys show up?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to consider alternatives on
the Hill Country Youth Exhibit facility, and the question of
whether or not to proceed on the -- under the current
design-build proposal that's before us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct. And I
might add that this is a required element under that agenda
item to help them with their construction plans.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We'll adopt that
into the motion. Any further discussion? All those in
favor, signify by saying "aye." Raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: See? Caught you. All
opposed, signify by raising your right hand.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. We'll go down
3-4-"3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
to 2.14, consider and discuss approving resolution adopting
waiver of request for local match fund participation for
federal off-system bridge program project.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: T can sum this up real
quick. Under the construction project under the
off-bridge -- off --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: System.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Off-system bridge
program, we're required to put a matching in that. We can
do in-kind services for our match, and this is what this is
doing. This is saying that we're going to pay our
25 percent in-kind, and it will be work on the road and the
work we've already done out there, work we'll be doing out
there, things of that nature, as I understand it.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the resolution requires
that we identify the projects, the participation -- they're
called equivalent match projects; that we identify the
projects in here. Is Road and Bridge in a position to
identify those in this resolution and request?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have talked with
Leonard about it ir: general; I've not talked about it on
specific projects.
MR. JOHNSTON: The actual bridge contract,
they only build the approach for a tew hundred feet, and
then we have to build the road on out to tie in. Is that
-_ = o~
1
,~-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--
25
129
the part you're talking about?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, what I'm looking at,
there's nothing identified on here as the -- as the
equivalent match project or projects. Would the road
portion that's not covered by federal off-road project --
weulcl that amount to approximately $110,000?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I don't know. I don't
think we put numbers to it yet. I don't think we even have
the survey yet, do we? We actually have that -- the
drawings. We can start putting, you know, dimensions on it,
getting estimates on it, but I don't think anyone has that
available yet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I would recommend
that we pull this until next meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: So we can identify those
projects. I think we've got to identify them in here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: The way I read it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think bring it back
next time. I don't think there's anything that urgent on
this one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems like that, in
the past, we have used the road leading to the actual bridge
as that -- I mean, you can use that as part of the in-kind
program.
3- 4-(i 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,~-,
25
130
MR. JOHNSTON: And the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And right-of-way. A lot
of other costs get rolled into it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bottom line is, they've
estimated our -- our portion of the cost to be at $110,000,
and so we need to identify equivalent match projects that
are at least equal to that, or they're going to ask for us
to haul out our checkbook.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does Road and Bridge have
a copy of this letter from Mike Howard? Do you know?
MR. JOHNSTON: Leonard's been doing most of
that. I'm not aware of it; I haven't seen it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thea, if you could
forward a copy out to Leonard? And I think -- and Mike
Howard with the highway department is -- you know, I think
he will clearly assist Leonard in identifying the projects
and what qualifies, what doesn't qualify. And then we can
bring it back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. No action on 2.14. I'm
not aware of any matters that need to be taken up in
Executive Session, and no one else does either. Do we have
any reports under Roman numeral V to be received? Being
none, I assume we've got nothing further to consider, and
I'll declare the meeting adjourned.
? ~_-03
131
1
,.._ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:07 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 28th day of March,
2003.
15
16
17
18
19
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __ _ `
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
20
21
22
23
24
25
-~.-~~:
ORDER ~ICi. ~=8~1._,
CLA T MC araD pCCOIJhl'Ta
On tt°~is 'the ;~d'+tt-~ d~n;J of hr1~~r~•r~~t~j, ~:~~~,, dame ~to be considered t_y
the Co~_~r-~t vario~_~s C:ommissioner-~s pr-er_incts, wi-~ir_~I-~~ sail Claims
Arid ~cco~_~nt s are o
1~-Ge7-,eral for ~'~~, ;~~7. 7 a; 1~~-Road ~ Dridye for~• ~"L~, ~8~. 7~,y
~~~-Tr~~digent Healtl-~ C<~re fore ~~:~, ~.~1. 11 g ~:~~-Lal-;e I:r°~yr°~{m East Rd
Dist "Q~1 L~aT~ds for ~t~'T~.~~; 7i:,~-J~_~venil.e De~Nentior~ f=ac:i:lity
for ~117.3t:.
TOT4~L_ C~Sk-I REG~tJ T RESD, aLL FIJI~ID a c ~~ 1 C~~:, ~7G. '3(3.
Upon motion made by Commissioner L~aldw:in, SeLGnded b~,~
:.-, Commissioner l~Jil'l~.am~s, t:t-~e Co~_~rt ~_~nanimo~asly approved by a
vote of 4-Qi-Q~, to pay said aC'cGi_iYlts.
ar3I7ER hiCl. ~'~ii<<14
RIJDGE"f Fa1'~EItiII?~1EtdT III
cans-rF~~L~ F~Rtrc I Ivc"r ~~
an 'ti°;is •tl~e c:4•tl-i clay of ~1ar-ch, ~'~~~;, ~_t~on motion made tay
Commissioner, Let v, seconded l:,y Comm:issioner- Nicholson, 'the
Co~_ir°t ~_~nanimo~_~sly approved by a vote of 4-Qr-~, to 'transfer
~~~;.~. G~+ 'r'r'~om L_ir7e Item I`do. 1~__~fJ~7J~.:7-';}JA'I' Vte~hicle Repairs £:•
I~laintenance •to Line Item No,. 1~G~-JJ..~`-i1~~7 t*liscellaneo~_~s.
^RI7E~R IVC3. `I~~i 1 ~
~1U~GET ~1C~1EhEI]I*1Ei~l'1" IIV
f~CJpI) AI`dD L-1F? I DC.;E
{7 r', this? t t-, e ~' 4th d ~ y a 'f f+1 ~ r-~ r_ h , ~: ~ t~l.~, ~_~ p a n ~n o t i c? r, !TI ct d e ~.~ y
Cammi=_{siariEr Wil1i~-tms, seconded by (=t~mmi~~sianer~ Let-., the
Co~_trt ~_rnanimausly approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, to tr-~~~nsfe~r~
~c, ~+Z?~. ~~ fr~r?m l_ir7e Item I'~laa i~-E,11-...i:li C~.'r ew S~-i1~.~trie~ to Line
Item haa. 1~--X11-1~E3 Fart-T:iirie ~~~larieso
ORDEf'. iVO. ~'E3+~1~,
Nl~~DGFT Ah~1E=I~D1~IEIVT Ilu
SHER:[FF' ~ DE[~~A[,TI~ENT

On this ~th~~ :'~~tti i3~y aF i~1~ar-~ct~~, ~~-~.:.,, ~_~t~an matian m~~LiE Ly
Camrnissianer-~ Lets, SEC=OTit~etj by CamITi:LSSianEr' Rlichalsan, the
Ca~_~r~t ~inanimo+_tsly ~ppr,oved by a vate of 4-~-Qi, to tr~ansfEr~
'~1~3.46 1~ram LiTi~~ Item Ala. 1~- r~~--.~,.:,~ C?~~er~~tine~ Expenses to
i_ine Item IVo. iK.'__J~~--~FJ~ R~dia Rep~iir,s.
ORDEI~t h10. ~8~Zi17
E~UDGE"f Fil'+IEIVUIyIEIVT I ~
f~UtJt~ITY TRf=ASUF~tEF2
On this tP-~e ~~4ttr day of hear°c:h, ~~~;1, ~_~pon reiiJ'Glo7-~ made by
Commissioner, Nir_•~~-~nlsor;, seconded la y° Co~nmic>sianer L~~tz, the
Gc;~_ir~t ~_~nanimo~.isly appr oved by a vote of 4-Qi-Q~, to t•~~ans•fe_r~
'~E~.~~ fr°•am Line :[tem I~Io. 1~._r+~7-~,1i7_s OfficE G~_ipFalies to Lair°~E
Item IVo. 1tZi._-497-G1~ Uoot<s-~-F'~_~blication-U~_~e<s.
(J i?DE R lti10. :~BsZ~ 1 t3
~UDi3E"f AMEhIDMEI~T I N
CQUhITY CCJIJFtl" AT LAW
GEI~EI~AL_ FUh1I? REVEI~UE~
Qn tF-~is the 4th cJ~~y o~f r*1r~r°~cl~"~, ~'~'~s~::;~ ~_~~nn i~~otior7 m~:~cla ~;y
t;GiYtfY115Si;Jiler" bJi.Ili~~ms, sec:oncJecl ~iy Commis~~ior~er Letd9 ti°~~e
Co~_ir-~t ~~n~nimo~_~sly approved by a vote of 4-Q~-~, tt~ tr^~ansfer
~E9 ~~~+. ~~ fr"orn Line Item i~ia. 1~.-.3~'~°°i:,:_,~ fJtl7er~ f~eve~~i~_ie--S1_t7 to
Lime Item t~lo. 1~--~+~7-4~~ Lo~_~r~t Apiao:inted A~ttor~ney.
,.,-.
aRn1=R rao. ~e~-~~?
BUDGET AMEI~DC~IEC~IT II`d
`lETH DIS-~'RICT COtJR'T
On tr,is ~tr,e '4th day of C~larc.h~,, ~~~C, ~..~pan ma~tiar~ made by
Carnmi~~s:iar,er i,~alda~ir, seconded by Cammissianer~ Let,, tl-,~ Ca~_t~~~~E,
~.~nanimo~isly approved by a vote of 4-~-QJ, t:o t,~ans~Fer ~ik'14"~.4'~~r~
from Line Item Na. 1~--4:~ ~-4~~ Mi<.~c_all~-~nEa~_!s ar~d ~5~. ~l3 ~fram
i_ine Item C~c:a. i~__+ .._.4C~ E~~_~iprner-.t i*1:_-~i.n~tenance 'ta 1_ine T'tem
C~fa. 1.~-4:~C-~C~'3 Cl~.,er~atir,~ Ey~_,ipment.
r.
orzn~~? iva. ;_~~~ ~~
~LJDGFT At~lEl`JnMEI~T Il~f
JUCT I CE Of= 7"HE F'E~aCE #k4
Cln ~Lhis ttie c'_4th day of hlar~t~7, ~:~+~~~.:~, E_ipon mc;tion m<~ic~e by
Commi<,~sior~er~ lVic.hol~~on, <sec:ancJeci by Commissianer-~ LE~t~~, tt7t~
Coi_tr~t ~_~nanimo~_-sly approved by ~ vote of 4-0-0, to t7~~~~jrrsfar~
ir~:'7. C~ fr-~o~r~ I_ir~e Item Flo. 14?~--4~8--~r~"J i*liscellaneu~_~s 'Lo ~.:LTIE
I~!.em I`•{o. 1~+--~-~1~.....~:~G Pt:,r7rJs.
L7RDER ItiIQ. 1=8~c_1
ar-'F'RQ4'E ar~ll7 aCCEF'T hr4Qir(TI-~1LY REPORTS
Qn this tt-~e ~=4t1-r rJay of (~1ar-~c~h, ~~i~.3, +_~pon motion made by
Comiriissi.or-~er~ Let~~, ser_:car7ded by C:ommissionE~r• I'J:ict~olson, the
Co+_~rt +_tnanimo+_tsly approved by a vote of 4-~-Q~, t:o ~:rc~~op~L ti7e
fallowing reports and dir-e~.~t that they be Filed with the
Co+..inty Gler'k for f+_~tt_ir~e a+_idit d
Linda Uec(•«r~, Qistric:t Cler-•k
rebr~_~ar'y, ~'~Z-~3
L)awr°~ Wrigh~~t, .7. F'. ~#c:
I~ebr~~..~ar-~y, ~:~~~
.~
O ~zn~~ ~ roc tl ~a~~~r
~~~~=~=~0~~ a~UZS~.t~ ~z~F=OFZT ~.Eas~. aGr~~~r~~r~~r
On this tt-~e ~~+'Lt-~ d~=.y o~t` M~r~wi..i, `~~w~, ~..~pun motion m<_~cle by
C:amnfissionei~~ W:ill:iafnt~, <.ecoi~~ded (ay Commissiorier~ ~saldwin, tl-tr=
C'o~_ir~t f_Lnanima~_~sly approved by a vote of 4-~-~+, the r~evie>ed
fa:ir(~or~t Lease agreement aaitt-~ i-:er~r~vi11e N'~via~Gion, Inc., ~~nd
a~_ftt'ior~i~e Co~_frity J~_fdge to s:LgT'e ~-~afife, coT'it:ingent ~_FF~on the lei:-use
dcic~_~ment inc:.l~_idiTig ~ delineation of the t~~-rr~'tic~_L1ars and thie
specifics and specifications of im~r~ovemeTFt~ of the new h~~iigar~
to he c:~Tis'l,r'~_fcted, aid f=_frti-=er~ cf~n'tir7geri'L- =_~pon the favorable
ap~rov~~l of th,~ C'u=..~r'~ty f'~t~tar~T'icy ~_i'r~d 'l;t'ie ro=_~'i'ity J=_fi:lge of ttie
1eac~e itgY"'eefTlENiI~:~ 1n f~lle'~'~:;1Oil, aTld a1<ar] cl r~e'Ji(?W (:Vf '~tl~-' k?'t(1S'~:;1ng
lease agr~ec~ment on L.o't G wl-Fere the c::=..tr-•r~ei-~t Kerrville Aviation
fixed--ba~ae aper~it:LOn is .located.

LJ f[LG.1C f4iJ• L_i?~1~.4J
-~~~~~RO~~ ~;~:~~ cour,~T~r t=r~~'r~o~~c~~
1~1AI~At~C=t~IENT ~i~1Zp~D ~I~r=~L'Y~If3
on thi=, the ~=4th clay o"F 1+1arc_t;, ~~~'~~;, ~_~pory motior-~ made by
Commissione7•"~ Lc"t:., SeCO"t"1C:IeC' t:,Y commis<.a:ioner~ L,~ilii~.ams4 t{"~e
co~_~r~t ~_manimo~asly approved by a vote of 4-~-~, the H.er-~r~ co~_~r-~"t:y
I~iar"~agemerrt Fla~ar°~cl ~lr-~alysis a7~d a~..tthi~r'~i~'.e the slgTla"t:~_11'"'C o~F the
Go~_~r~ty J~_~dgc.
~RDCR IdCle ~'~1~~4
pF'F'i~D~JE f~UDI+i" F~E~'QP."f ~Y
PFdE5SL.E~R, 'T'HOtr11=' ~Olu i~t~IS3 (=~Ib
On tt;is tt-~c ~=+ti-~ dray of i'~1ar c:~t-~, ~:~~~, ~..tpor~; motior7 made by
~~orarni~slonei~ i_et~, sracor°~cJecl i•~~y Comm:i~~7iontar~ G~Jilliamt.>p tl-;~~
C: c;~_tr-•~t t~nanimo~_~sly appr^oved by a vote of 4-Qr-Q~, tf~;e a~..~riit
r~epor-~t of finar-~cial data for f:isc~al ye4-~r~ eridi~ig ~iep~F~emtae~r ti:,~,
~~'~~~, ~~~ I:,r,eaer~tc_dg by F'r~es~5lc:~r-9 TI-pomp<~on, and Coo
ORDER r~o. ~c~~,~~
APRROVE WAIVER Of~ SEF~"fIC: 5`r'STEh1 IMF~ROVEMENTS
- On this the c4i;h day of t+lareh, ~~c'~~+._,, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner-~ Williams, seconded t:~y Commissicyner E~aldwin, the
Co~_ir~t ~_~nanimo~asly approved by a vote of 4-~-~, the req~_~est as
presented that; would enable t=elix H~_~nter and Li: F~rice to
enter, into an agreement with F~,err• Co~.inty for a waiver, of
improvements if it's not ca~_ising a n~_iisance r_ondition to
remain operating ~_~ntil the time it can be hooked onto the city
septic system, at ~+~~ Ranchero Road, with the clear
~_tnder~~standirig that the q~_iicl pro G~_~o far th~-tt waiver is hooking
onto the sewer system within 1~~ days of it becoming
available, and that tt-~e contract be presented for review to
the Co~_tnty Attorney, and that Mr. Damon, 0, S. a. E. Designated
Representative, do a s~.trface inspection and report back to the
'1 Ca~_trt his findings.
t~RDER t~~It?e c:~l~c'
AF~'F'ROVE F I hdAL. RCV T S I OhJ 01= F'L.A7
l_Ql"S 4~ & ~='+-A DF C4'F-'RE~r ~F'RIhlr,-~i Eal"A7FS
~" F'I-{ASC I
L?n tI"1is 'CC-.e ~'4•l:h clay ai~ M~r•c:h9 `~~.3, ~_~~~or~~ inc~tian m~d~ by
Com~niGssiar7a~r• h~1(_tilJ~.san, secc~ncleiJ t;y C'un7n~iss~:i;:~r~~c:r Leta, the
Co~_~r°t ~_-nanimo~.isly approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0s ~!,h-~e f:ir~t{1
r~ e v i~ i a 7°~ o fi W .l ~~ t Far L a •L r, ~+,_, a r ~ d ~~r Lr -~ A a i~ [~ y ~~ r~ e s s ~ ~r i•' i i-~ ~ s
E=states F-'i~-~ase I.
,--
or~~ER rlo. ~_~~~ r
7F'fr''RO~JE F'P.ELIMII~ARY REVISIOrJ OF E='L_AT
END SC'T F'U1aL:tC HI~f~F?IIVG
On this the ~'4tl-~ clay of i~lar~cti, ~'~~;.~, ~a~aan motion made hey
Carnra:L<_~s:LaTler- r~I:Lr^nalsany secancled L-~y Cam~niss:ianer~ Levi:-~~ thT~
Ga~_Tr-~~t~ t~nanimo~_TSIy approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, the_ I.~rel.iiniTir~r~y
r-evis:i.urT o'F F'Iat of i'r--acts hla. 1v and 1%,, i'`.0. Ran c:F-.1and_:y
and sot ~~ ~~_Tuiic hear-in~ Cher°ean far, 1z7~a~P~ o'clack a.n~. an
orxDEr~ rio. ~:~~~~~
ka>='F~'HOVE: Vi~Rlr~rdCE F-(Jf~ W~`~TE:h L.II~a~ ICa C','F'RESC SF'RThdi'aS
on .t t7:i~~ tf°~e ~:_41;1-i z1w~y of Mar~~c.hY ~'rZr~,;9 ~_t~on motion made t,y
Cumnr:i.<_;etior~er• raich~~ulsor~~a ~>ec:~;r'.<<!ed try Cornnri~.__>irrr~~:r wJilli~~ir;•~, 4!-~r~
Co~_ir~t ~.~nanimo~isly approved 6y a vote of 4-Qr-~~ to ~r~ant a
v a r°~ i s ~~~ z_ e t c:, I: t-. e t~ e r- r- C o ~_i r. t; y s ~_r !~ d i v i s i o r-~ R ~_~ I e~ a Ti d 1? e g ~_i l a t i c3 r i s
f~r~ ~'Iar~i.n~ ~~ w~i•tie'r^ Tine ir7 Cy~~:•e<,s C~~;r~ir'.~~s, F'hi~,~,~~ :[I, <:,~
indicated in the l~hotogr'c"1~7t15.

f~~iOF~'T Ft_OOI] R[=GOVERY f*1AF'S
~"' FOR f"LOC)L~ C:LEVw1TIOr~1S Ol~I CF-IEF?RY GF2EF.E.,
CYPRESS GREEN., r'-1C•aD VEf?DE GREE}~;
Or; tl;i~s tF°.e ~:~+?,i-; d<zy of 1~1arr_t;, c_~~Z~G4 ~_~Nan oration made ~.,y
Gamr•aissierner• L.et-:~, seconded lay Carnm:i:~siar;er ~alejw:iT,, tr;e Co~_~r•t
~_-naimo~_~sly approved by a vote of 4-~-0, adapting tl°;e F.load
Recaver~•y h1G~ps as pr~esen~ted kay ct'rid rer_ommencleri by tl~e
flaadplair; ~~dmin:i.stratar• showing flood elevations an Gr;ei•~ry
G.reelt, Cypr°•ess Gr••eek, and Verde Creek.
~~ET WQI~F!Sl-iQt"' TCl LISCUSS ~Et~IC]Vi=1°i'IClta i'1t~IL1 t"Ot~ISTRI_JGTICII`~I
F'L_.pP~IG EDR Tt~iE F~iILL GQUPdTEY' YOUTI-I EXF-1I)3IT GEMITE!;'.
Qr~ tt-~i ~ 'the 4th day a F t~1r~r~c•t-~, c'~~.~,, ~..~par~ mat i ari made L;y
Camm:i<.ss:iar~e~r~ Let:, ~aec~•anded lay Cammiss.ianei^ k~~~ldrair°,, tF~~e
Ca+_rr~t ~_inanimo~_~sly approved by a vote of 4-0-~, to ~~et ~t
wark~st-~ap ar•~ 1;larct•7 .:, 3.4 ~~~~~ at ~J:~-~ a4 m. ir7 tt•~e Damn+is3ior~~c~r°.aq
Co~_ir~tr-~i~am to rant~icJer~ ~~lterr~G~•tive~_ an thaw= Hi..ll [~a~_~ntr°y Yn~_~th-~
E.:~:t~r:itait Geriter• ~~nci tl-7e c~~_resGian o~F wt•yeti...~er~ ar~• rat to lar~aceed
~_~rtder tt-ie c~_-r~rerit dc.si~i~--b~..~ild har-•aE~aa~~1u