1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Monday, January 24, 2005 9:00 a.m. Recessed and Reconvened Tuesday, January 24, 2005 3:45 p.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas ~~~J V,~ PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 r.,, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,_,,, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X January 24, 2005 PAGE --- Visitors' Input 4 --- Commissioners' Comments 8 1.1 Consider banking agreements with First National Bank Omaha for partnership with Kerr County and Mutual of Omaha and sign same 13, 142 1.2 Presentation by Guy Overby, President of Kerr Economic Development Foundation (KEDF) 14 1.3 Concept Plan for developing Center Point School property ,~~ j ~ ~ 25 1.4 Preliminary Revision of Plat for Holcomb Ranch, set public hearing, and list in publication that Hacienda Trail will be abandoned, vacated, and discontinued ,~ ~~ ~'~ g~' 48 1.5 Set public hearings for revision of plat for: 1. Rio Retiro, Lots 10 & 9 %~~~~1 i 50 2 . Live Springs Ranch, Lot 4 ~~~ i -~ 54, 192 1 . 6 Revision of Plat for Kerr Vista IV, Lots 29-35 ~2r~ ail 54 1.7 Open & consider bids for used excavator(s)'Z~ai~ 59 1.8 Consider requiring annual written personnel evaluations on all who work for or report to Commissioners' Court ,~a`~~i ~- 61 1.9 Resolution in support of Knipling-Bushland effort to cause U.S.D.A. to do feasibility study for funds ~7 3 z to construct replacement laboratory in Kerr County 66 1.10 Request by Hill Country Chili Classic for use of ~~ ~ ~ ~~ t~ Flat Rock Lake Park the weekend preceding Easter~ 69 1 . 11 Consider implementation of the Burn Ban o?~i(!~ -~ a~3'l 74 1.12 Consider renegotiation of the interlocal agreement between Kerr County and the City of Kerrville for animal control services ~~'`i~la' 94 1.13 Approval of resolution in support for funding the Texas Tech University (TTU) Hill Country ~~~~~~ Educational Network and the TTU Center at Junction 101 1.14 Consider status of Legion and Granada Tower contracts with LCRA ~~ CSC}C~~ 102 1.15 Consider beginning new County Court at Law Court Coordinator at Grade 19, Step 3, based on prior training and experience ,;t~l(°~1 110 1.16 Request authorization for an audit of the Hot Check accounts J `%~~'~ 112 1.17 Request starting salary deviation from recommended position step-grade chart %- ~'j C-~-~ 117 1.18 Approval of new hire at 12-3 and approval of promotion from clerk position to senior clerk 119 ~~/~c ~/ -C,5" 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 I N D E X (Continued) January 24, 2005 PAGE 1.19 Consider suspending water availability ~<~t~~" requirements of Subdivision Rules & Regulations 123 1.20 Consider reduction of registration fees for Rabies Drive 1 ~~C~'~` 127 1.21 Authorization to pursue interlocal agreements for placement of Kerr County MHMR patients in facilities outside of Kerr County J_%(Y~~S~' 128 1.22 Consider execution of Engagement and Waiver of Conflicts letter with County's bond counsel in connection with issuance of Certificates of Obligation by Kerr County to purchase Juvenile Detention Facility ~J `fC{'~ 143 1.23 Consider approval of Consent and Release Agreement with respect to Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility and outstanding bonds on same, authorize County Judge to sign agreement y~'~' rttti~~~t 152 1.24 Order authorizing the Issuance, Sale and Delivery of "Kerr County, Texas Certificates of Obligation, Series 2005", securing the payment thereof by authorizing levy of an annual ad valorem tax, and approving and authorizing execution of all instruments and procedures related thereto --- 1.25 Consider authorizing County Judge to execute any and all necessary documents on behalf of Kerr County to complete the purchase of Juvenile Detention Facility and issuance and sale of Certificates of Obligation, delivery of funds to existing bondholders, and obtaining any necessary or required releases --- 1.26 Consider and take action to appoint Supervisor of,~~ r~E~~p Kerr County Rabies and Animal Control Department 160 4 . 1 Pay Bills ;L `/C// 166 4.2 Budget Amendments ~~~1~'~iZ- 173 4.3 Late Bills --- 4.4 Read and Approve Minutes --- 4.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports --- 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments 178 5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 179 --- Recessed and reconvened on Jan. 25, 2005 197 --- Recessed 199 1 ,.,,, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 On Monday, January 24, 2005, 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: Let me call to order the meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled for this time and indicate, Monday, January 24th, 2005, at 9 a.m. It's that time now. Commissioner 2, I think today it is your day. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe so. If you'll please rise and join me in the prayer, and stay standing for the pledge of allegiance. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this point in the meeting, if there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard with respect to anything that is not a listed agenda item, they're privileged to come forward at this time. If you wish to be heard on a matter that is a listed agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a participation form; they're at the back of the room. It's not essential, but it helps me not -- not miss you when we get to that particular item, so that's why we ask you to do it. But for items that are not listed on the agenda, we'd welcome any member -- any member of the public that wishes to step 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 forward and be heard at this time. Yes, sir? MR. POPE: Judge Tinley, my name is Scott Pope. I'm here today representing Taxpayers' Watch for Kerr County. I want to thank the Commissioners for allowing me the time to give a brief presentation. My subject today is the proliferation of unregulated surface mining in Kerr County, the damage these mines are causing to the environment, and the local policy of granting these commercial operations agricultural tax exemptions. These unregulated mines are environmental disasters, and they are rapidly turning our pristine Hill Country into a pockmarked wasteland. This presentation is intended only to illuminate the problem. To fully understand the depth of the problem requires a presentation well beyond the time considerations of today's agenda. I'm available to give an extended presentation at a later date at the convenience of any Commissioner or interested party. There is a monetary aspect, as -- as these unregulated surface mines have a duty to report to the Appraisal District when lands are taken out of agricultural use. The duty lies with the exempt party. The remedies are -- are four-fold: rollback of taxes, interest, penalties, and there's a criminal aspect to it. So, what I'd like do is to show some aerial photos of these mines and discuss -- I'm a geologist. I want to discuss that there's four classes of mines that are 1-24-05 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 proliferating. We have an environment here in Kerr County that draws these renegade miners from all over Texas here because of our public policy. I have an article from Express News recently where Mr. Coates was interviewed. The gist of the article is they say we're turning a blind aye to this mining. We're not policing it, and we're just going to let it rip here in Kerr County. So, with that, I want to show you very quickly some photos. First photo I'm going to show you is a type of mining that's commonly called outcrop mining. I call it strip mining. It, in my mind, is the most sinister kind of mining, where rock is scraped from the surface with a bulldozer. This is a huge mine. A large part of it has a full agricultural tax exemption. This photo is 10 years old, so we've had considerable growth of this mine in the last 10 years. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you identify the location of these mines? MR. POPE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is that? MR. POPE: North of Interstate 10. I have a GIS file that identifies the -- the tax information, the location, the ownership. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just general. Just general. MR. POPE: North of I-10, northeast of 1-24-05 1 _. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kerrville. Second class of mine is kind of a conventional rock quarry. You may -- you've driven past this one a thousand times. You can see the roadside parks on Interstate 10. This mine's about 200 feet off of the freeway, but it's cleverly concealed from public view. This mine has had an agricultural tax exemption for at least the last 10 years, and it's grown. It's proliferated at a huge rate. If you drive Cedar Creek Road between Comfort and Kerrville and look to your right, you'll just see a series of strip mines. Pretty much all of them have ag exemptions. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cedar Creek or Cypress Creek? MR. POPE: Cypress Creek, excuse me. Cypress Creek. This is a quarry type of mine. Unlike outcrop mining, quarries can be reclaimed. Sunken Gardens in San Antonio is a -- is a rock quarry. San Antonio Zoo is a rock quarry. Fiesta Texas is a rock quarry. On the other hand, I've never seen an outcrop mine reclaimed. Generally, outcrop mines are -- are run by people that don't have an eye to reclamation of land. They're generally interested in getting the cash as quick as they can. So, if you look at an aerial photo of Kerr County, there's a tremendous amount of these mines. They're everywhere. And, again, because of our public policy, they're growing at a rapid rate. This is a third kind of mine. This is a pit mine. There's the 1-24-05 8 1 ,,,, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Guadalupe River here, 173. There's two kinds of mines here; there is a pit mine, and then you see they've gotten a bulldozer in down by the river and cut the bank out for gravel. That's a cut bank mine. Unregulated in the state of Texas. And this mine benefits from an agricultural tax exemption. I'm here to tell you -- to render an opinion, that when you strip the rock and the topsoil and the trees and vegetation off -- off the ground, there is absolutely zero agricultural value to it. While Mr. Coates maintains that we can't police that, we maintain that you can. It's easy to police. The first step is to go after these guys for back taxes, penalties, and interest. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate you being here today. Thank you. Commissioner Williams, what do you have for us this morning? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, thank you, Judge. Not a great deal, except stock show's behind us, and apparently it was a good one. I don't know what the final results were of the sale in terms of dollars and cents, but I do know that a lot of my good folks from Center Point went off with honors out of the swine barn. Commissioner Nicholson and I were in the swine barn for a couple days, and -- and we survived it. I saw a lot of little piggies for two days, but that's okay. But you may note that last 1-24-05 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 year we made a -- a major pronouncement that that sound system in the Ag Barn would be fixed, or it would be over my dead body. Well, sort of my semi-dead body -- is Glenn in the audience? Semi-dead body. This year it was somewhat better in the hog barn, but my understanding was it wasn't all that good in the arena. I'm sure Commissioner Letz would probably attest to that also. But, on balance, it was a good show, as always. It's always a treat -- special treat to me to see those young people who have stayed with their animals from early on, birth or whenever they acquired them, raised them, groomed them, know everything about them, and they're there to show them, and they do such a magnificent job. It's just a real treat to watch that take place. Second thing was, this morning the County Auditor mentioned to me just before we came on the dais that he has a -- about a half a dozen applicants for the Information Technology position, and it probably behooves us to figure out a time and place to begin some interviews. That's just kind of a general comment to the Court, 'cause we need to get that process going. I asked if he knew whether or not the -- the current occupant of that position would stay beyond January 31st, and he said he didn't believe he would. So, that's all I have, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Letz? 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment, it was a very successful stock show, from what I can tell. Due to my not feeling too well Saturday afternoon, I didn't make it to the sale. Although I think I bought something, I've been told since by one of my good friends. But overall, I think it was a big success. And, actually, I wasn't going to mention the sound system; I was just going to stay on a positive note, but since you did, it's a speaker problem. The interference problem has been cured in the large arena, but the -- I think -- my guess would be maybe that they did the sound test with an empty barn, as opposed to a barn with several thousand people in it, and it's a lot different. And I know I had quite a few complaints about not being able to hear, and the clarity as well, but I think we'll hopefully go through that this coming year and get that fixed. Other than that, I really don't have anything. We have a long agenda; let's get ready to go. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just quickly about the -- the youth livestock show. It was really a pleasure for me to see that -- see those children and see what they're doing, and learning -- building character and learning responsibilities and things like that. Out in my neck of the woods, there aren't any children, so I'm mostly dealing with old people. The other thing I notice is what 1-24-05 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you don't see out there. You don't see the tattoos, body piercing, purple hair. I think that might be the cream of the crop when it comes to Kerr County children. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 1? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. You might see purple hair out there, but you don't see it long. Don't last very long. No, sir, I just wanted to remind you all of the -- the meeting tonight, the Aqua Texas informal public meeting at Tivy at 7 o'clock dealing with the application to change water rates, and very important meeting. I think that we're blessed that the State folks and the Aqua Texas people are coming to Kerrville and give us an opportunity to speak. So, the day has just begun. It'll be a long day, and hopefully a good evening with them. That's all I have. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Back on the stock show, I think -- I'm not sure how many of y'all managed to make it out there; I hope all of you had an opportunity. But one -- one thing that struck me was the number of people that we had out there, and I'm not just talking about during the district show. There -- we had a huge crowd out there for the county show on Thursday, an even larger crowd for the district show on Friday. And, of course, there was a good crowd out there Saturday for the remaining portion of it and the sale. I -- I was very, very impressed by the number of people that have an interest in those activities 1-29-05 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 and that show up and support the children that participate in those events. And, as Commissioner Nicholson said, that -- that may be the cream of the crop of the Kerr County and the hill country children. I can say that, as juvenile judge in this county, if there are children who are actively involved in those -- 4-H and programs like they have going on out there, I'm not aware of any of those children having appeared before me as juvenile judge, and I think that's a good sign and is an indication that those are good programs that -- that mold children into good adults. So, I think it's an excellent facility to let them mature and learn what they need to learn about life in order that they can move forward. I was really impressed with the crowds, though. Let's get on with -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I might make one other comment, that while I wasn't at the sale, I'd like to thank all of the buyers. And I -- the report that I heard was that we had a number of people that have kind of stepped up that have not been around before. Some new people have come into the community and are spending a lot of money out there, and I think they should all be commended, all those. I mean, there's certain individuals like Mr. Jim Raymond has spent a lot for many, many years, and others in the canyon, but there are some new names, and it's really neat to see that happening, that there's the new 1-24-05 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 people coming in, new businesses coming in that have an interest in spending money out there to help the youth as well. JUDGE TINLEY: We -- we did have -- we had the strong support of the folks that have been out there for years, and we had some -- some new people that were really stepping up, and we were happy to have them. Let's get on with the agenda. The first item on the agenda is to consider and discuss banking agreements with First National Bank of Omaha for participation with Kerr County and Mutual of Omaha organization, and authorize the signing of same. Ms. Nemec? Is she here this morning? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. The County Attorney's going to handle this one, according to Ms. Nemec's -- JUDGE TINLEY: According to Ms. Nemec? MR. EMERSON: Well, I guess I'm making a presentation for Ms. Nemec. She forwarded the copy of the contract to me on January 10th. My only question is, not being sure of the relationship between the bank and the insurance company in the county, I'm not sure where we fit into the contract. Other than that, it looks like standard boilerplate terms for a bank. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To your knowledge, have we had a similar agreement in place with some other 1-24-05 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bank when another underwriter covered our insurance? MR. EMERSON: Not that I've seen since I've been down in the office, no, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't recall ever doing this before, but I'm not saying that we haven't. JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of the arrangement has been that the Treasurer's office would periodically make deposits into a predesignated account for the third-party administrator to handle the claims, and while I -- I don't know specifically that this is for that purpose, in that regard, I strongly suspect that that's what the arrangement is, but it may be well that -- maybe we're going to need to hear from Ms. Nemec, and possibly we can postpone action on this item and come back to it later on today if she's available. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second -- I agree. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Emerson. The next item on the agenda is a presentation from Mr. Guy Overby, who's president of Kerr Economic Development Foundation. Good to have you here this morning, Mr. Overby. MR. OVERBY: Thank you, Judge Tinley and Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning and to give you a kind of a first-quarter report. Kerr Economic Development Foundation starts its fiscal year every October lst and concludes September 30th 1-24-05 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of each year. So, we thank you for the opportunity to come here, and KEDF would like to, every quarter now throughout their -- '05 as we can go through, would like to come to Commissioners Court and kind of give you an update and presentation of what's going on with KEDF as far as our community. A lot of things have been going on. Of course, I've -- the last year, '03-'04, was a big year as far as change for KEDF, going from a -- starting off separating, as you know, from the Chamber of Commerce, going into a part-time position in '03-'04. We had several things that we were active in last year. We'll talk about '04-'05 year in just a second, but what I've given to you today is just kind of given you some updates. I wanted to give you, of course, minutes of our last Executive Board meeting that was held in January, and also a budget comparison report of what's happening with our organization as far as KEDF is concerned. Again, we would like to thank the County for your support in helping KEDF, and we thank you for your support for the '05 year that's coming up. We're really trying to make your money that you help in our organization be money that's well spent, and I can assure you that with our organization, for economic development efforts in our county, that we're going to definitely take and use that to -- to make that money work as best we can. 1-29-OS r s 16 1 ,... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KEDF this year has divided up into six working committees that I'm really pleased to make an announcement to you about. One of the -- several of these committees -- I'm just going to read them off. Of course, the Business and Traction Committee. KEDF, of course, has -- one challenging thing, as an Executive Director of the organization, we have 40 board members on there, so it's a big group to work with, but we have a lot of committees that we've worked on. We've organized them and they're working committees this year, which I'm really pleased to say. One of those is the Business and Traction Committee. One that I want to also address to the county -- to the Commissioners Court is the Business and Incentive Committee. Last April, this Court here had asked the Kerr Economic Development Foundation to look at and study business incentives in Kerr County. And, you know, this is something that -- and, again, in the past, that we've really have never looked at. And -- and to study about how, if we're going to be attracting or trying to help businesses in our community, in our county and our city to expand, how we are going to do that. I am pleased to say that all of our committees, and especially the Business Incentive Committee, has been very active in looking at and taking the charge of what this Court has asked very seriously, and we are 1-29-05 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 studying and looking at how best our county can look at attraction of companies or businesses to our area, and also helping businesses expand in our area. We do have a committee meeting with this organization tomorrow with Shannon Cantrell from the governor's office. Some of the speakers that we've had already come in have been with -- talking about 4B sales tax; Bob Beardon with 4B Sales Tax out of Austin and several other speakers have come in to -- again, we are looking at the incentives. I hope that later, sometime this summer -- I think we're targeting somewhere around late summer, somewhere in that area -- we'll be able to come back and have that report given to you. Roland Pena is heading up that Incentive Committee. I know that Commissioner Williams sits on this committee, but we've got several folks on there, and we'll be able to come back to the Commissioners Court and give a report to you on our findings and what strategies that we're wanting to go from there. Other committees that -- just basically that we want to kind of go over, we have a Business Retention/ Expansion Committee that's set up and working again. Obviously, businesses in Kerr County and Kerrville, we want to obviously see them continue to prosper and to grow, and those are areas that we are wanting to make sure that's what we're focusing on too, so we're not just going out there 1-24-05 i- ~~ __ __ 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 trying to get anybody to come into our area. Obviously, the companies that are here and businesses that are here are a primary concern for us also. Other committees that we have are Marketing and Public Relations and, of course, our Nominating Committee. As far as bringing in new directors on an annual basis, we have them rotating off KEDF and coming on again. Our first year we really did not have any working committees. Again, the first year was a year of just trying to reorganize and those things. I think we had a very successful year. Some of the things, of course, I just kind of want to highlight. Of course, KEDF was very much in support of, last -- 03-'04 year, the V.A. Hospital, and again trying to work with General Schellhase and the support for our -- our veterans here. One thing that we did as far as communication is get up our first web site. Our web site was set up for Kerr Economic Development Foundation in the '03I'04 year, and continuing to monitor those type of things that we do. In the '04-'05 year, our first quarter has been very busy. One thing that KEDF is taking the lead on is also with TexDOT projects that will be happening in the community, keeping businesses notified of what's happening in our area, not only in Kerrville, but Ingram area also. As they have projects that are planned out there on Highway 39, we want to continue to help businesses as those projects 1-29-05 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 come down, how they can look on our web site, how they can gather information on how that construction's going to go, when the projects are coming on, how they can plan and how they need to market and -- and do their different type of strategies they're going to do, as far as during those projects as they come up in the next few years. One thing I would also say -- and I want to thank Judge Tinley. This past October -- of course, with the Kerrville State Hospital, we all know that the V.A. Hospital and State Hospital, all the time, when cuts and things start looking around, they always like to look in the hill country area. We had a very good, strong representation go to the San Antonio meeting of the H.H.S.C. group that's looking at closures of facilities. We had a good, strong presentation go down and show our support for the Kerrville State Hospital. Judge Tinley was one of the speakers of several people that spoke down there that day in support of Kerrville State Hospital. Here -- in fact, as I'm even speaking today, there is a group that is here today looking at -- they have to make visits of the Kerrville State Hospital as far as that being done. I'm pleased to say that -- that we don't expect any type of closure in Kerrville, Texas of any State Hospital facility, in fact, at all. We're encouraging expansion, and to help this hospital here to grow, and -- and hope there there's not going to be 1-24-05 -- '~~ ~ 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 any state school or hospital closures in the state of Texas. I think the percentages have shown that they are completely maxed out in many areas, and so we're hoping that the State will look at trying to improve those type of things. We mentioned the committees. Other things that -- that KEDF has been strongly supporting, one thing that we just recently did is -- and, again, this is an ongoing project that's going on. I think everybody's aware of the Hill Country Shooting Complex here in Kerrville and the visit from the U.S.A. Shooting and Olympic Site Committee. Kerrville is one of the sites that is being strongly considered for this coming to Kerrville, Texas. One thing that we did in helping in the presentation of that project here was putting a DVD presentation together that was jointly used to help in all economic partners. It's from the Chamber of Commerce, from the C.V.B., and making a strong effort in trying to attract a possibility of this type of business to our community, and -- and tournaments that it would bring here, which would bring in a lot of dollars into our county, into our city. I'm pleased to tell you that this is an ongoing process. But all of our preliminary visits with them have been very positive, and we're continuing to move forward. One other thing that we've -- KEDF has been trying to do in the past year is to increase our 1-24-05 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 relationships, how we're connected in with our state officials, in developing relationships as far as over in the governor's office and letting them know about Kerr County, and I'm pleased to say that our relationship over there is building; is very positive. And so, as we continue to do that, they know about -- they know about Kerrville already, but we -- what we're doing as far as in our community. So, we're continuing to work on those relationships that -- one thing that we hosted in the fourth quarter was a fourth quarter meeting where we had all of our politicians, directors, representatives were here at the Knipling- Bushland Insect Lab here. We all know that that facility has been here since 1951. They have a lot of government regulations where they cannot go out and ask for funds to build a new laboratory. They have certain things that they can't do. But we know that one thing that they are -- the facility out there is wanting to look at expansion and trying to relocate somewhere, so KEDF took the lead as far as attracting and bringing in our -- our elected officials and representatives to let them know about the needs here and to see about the possibility of relocating them somewhere else in Kerr County. Congressman Bonilla has already said it's not moving from Kerrville. So, we're -- we're trying to help them in that situation to move. One of the things I gave you a copy of also, 1-24-05 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and something that I saw that -- that I'm glad that the Commissioners Court is looking at is a resolution to pass -- hopefully that you'll pass that in support of a new U.S.D.A. facility in Kerrville, Texas. They currently have 14 scientists out there who deal with so many important things as far as our agricultural business is concerned. They would like to expand that to 20, and so if you will -- we appreciate your consideration of that resolution. KEDF unanimously passed Resolution 2005-1 in support of a new facility in Kerr -- in Kerr County. We will hand-deliver these resolutions to Congressman Bonilla next week; we're having lunch with him, and so this is something that we'll be doing as far as we'll be taking the lead on. And, just briefly -- I know you have a lot on your agenda -- we have several prospects that are looking at our area right now, at Kerr County for several things as far as location and development here. We're continuing to lead in those type of things, as far as those concerns. Also, KEDF -- the last time that we had a new -- a strategic plan in Kerrville for -- with KEDF at that time was in 1991. We are in the process right now of -- since last quarter of last year, we have been developing a new strategic plan. We are in the process of going through the draft of it right now. I would hope that by the next time I come back and give a report to the Commissioners Court, I'll have a copy 1-24-05 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 of the new strategic plan in front of you as far as the direction KEDF is trying the help in our community. And at that, I'll stop, and if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer those for you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Mr. Overby? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one quick one. Guy, I want to thank you, first of all, for coming. Appreciate that. MR. OVERBY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Recently, the Airport Board met and set some policy with respect to the development of the airport property for both aviation and nonaviation uses. Are those policy directions now such that you'll be able to assist in the marketing of those properties? MR. OVERBY: Yes, sir. I was very excited -- and, first of all, I want to, you know, again just say that the Airport Board meeting workshop that was done last week was -- was very, very positive, and the decisions that came out of looking at the land -- we took a tour of that facility, looking at the different properties, as you said, Commissioner Williams, out there, and looking at land that will help out there, that we can use, and knowing what -- what land that we could use out there as far as some nonaviation development, and also for aviation development, 1-24-05 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and to encourage that airport out there. So I think, yes, sir, that -- to answer your question, I think that will help tremendously as far as how they'll be trying to help that area out there with the airport. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one question -- well, one statement first. I'm really excited about the strategies and activities I see here. I think that you've got a good chance of producing new taxpayers and new jobs for -- MR. OVERBY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- Kerr County. Does the KEDF have an opinion on the economic impact of the Uniform Development Code? MR. OVERBY: No comment at this time. You know -- you know, that's one thing that's great about living in America, is that we all have different opinions. And when you have 40 different folks, everybody has different opinions, but we -- we are in the best interests of what's going to happen in our community. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You fielded that one nicely, Guy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Politician. JUDGE TINLEY: Those opinions were expressed rather vigorously and rather freely at the last occasion 1-24-05 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 too, weren't they? MR. OVERBY: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for being here, Mr. Overby. MR. OVERBY: Thank you, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to the next item on the agenda, consider a concept plan for developing the Center Point school property. Mr. Odom? Ms. Ray? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me start it, Judge, if you will, please. JUDGE TINLEY: Surely. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About a month or six weeks -- just before Christmas, I guess about mid-December, just before the Christmas break, Ms. Ray, representing the Center Point Independent School District, contacted me with respect to a plan that they had in mind to assist them in a couple ways. First of all, you may -- may or may not be aware that C.P.I.S.D. has purchased a large tract of land off of Stoneleigh Road, and -- it's on both Stoneleigh and Highway 27, looking ahead to the future for expanded and new facilities. I think that's a bold move. It's a -- it's a great move on the part of the school district, looking forward to take care of the young people. And one of the things that I think is important is that, when we get down the road in terms of a sewer project for Center Point and 1-24-05 26 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 the eastern part of Kerr County, that will take in -- the lines are proposed to go down Stoneleigh Road and that area, which would be of assistance to the school district. Having said all of that, and this property -- there was a certain area of this property that lent itself to one other consideration, and that was that the school district thought about developing -- developing a small part of their 100-plus-acre tract of land for the purpose of doing two things; providing rental properties for school district teachers, I guess, and/or employees, affordable-type housing, and secondly, to offer educational opportunities for the tradespeople -- trades kids, so that they could be engaged in the development of their skills as they progress through high school. With that in mind, we have to talk about how this might come about. It was our purpose at that point to make certain that we could be of assistance to Center Point Independent School District and help them get this program underway, because it does benefit the young people and does benefit the area as a whole. With that in mind, they did develop a -- a site plan. We reviewed it a little bit, made some suggestions. One of the Commissioners and I talked about the necessity for platting, the complete platting process, and I conveyed back some thoughts as to some of the issues that they had to address, gave all of that to Road and 1-29-05 27 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 Bridge, and we're here today to find out how far down the road we have progressed or how far yet we must progress before we have something that these folks can act upon. Having said all that, Mr. Odom, we'll let you proceed from there. MR. ODOM: Thank you. Discussing this with Commissioner Williams and Mrs. Ray, what we looked at was they came in with an assumption that they would not have to plat this. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Given to them by me. MR. ODOM: That's -- that's true. And, basically, we took a look at this to see if this would fall under that exemption. We feel that -- that it does not; that they would need to plat this. We were concerned about drainage. One of the concerns was the highway. I believe that they went to Les Harvey to look at it, and I believe that -- I don't know if Les is here -- okay, then I'll turn that over to Les there to talk, and the school. But basically, we feel that this should be a platting process. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why? MR. ODOM: Basically, because it's in violation of 232.001(a)(3). COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which says? MR. ODOM: Laying out a street, a road, and that delineates any exemptions that you would have. 1-24-05 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me go back, just to make sure the Court's all on the sage page. Under the state law, there's an exemption for governmental entities of any type are exempt from platting, unless they are putting in roads. If they're putting in a road or right-of-way, that exemption does not -- MR. ODOM: Does not stand. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- does not stand. There's, like -- there's whatever, A through -- MR. ODOM: 3. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- H. I mean, A through H exemptions, and one of them is this, and there's many others. So if they, you know, put in the -- if they are changing a road to access these that are going to be public, that would trigger the platting. The other point is, you know -- and it's a gray area in a lot of ways as to what -- what they're doing with the road and what the long-range plan is. I think there probably is a way for them to plat -- I mean to not plat it, if they're going to -- if the school district intends to own all the property and the road. However, if ever they do go -- do go to sell it, that's going to trigger a platting at that point. They're going to have to go back -- MR. ODOM: Back. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- and redo everything. 1-24-05 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-.. 25 So, I mean, for the -- the cost involved, I would highly recommend they plat it now to get everything built to County specifications, get the school district a whole lot more flexibility, and doesn't cost very -- I mean, that much. The survey work is the -- and drainage are the larger parts. You're going to have to do that anyway. I mean, the fees are pretty small. So I think it depends -- and I've never been clear; I talked to Commissioner Williams about it and to Len Odom about it as to how they're going to handle -- how the school district's planning to handle the access. If they're going to just maintain the road themselves, it would be a school district -- like a parking lot, basically. It would not be platted. But if they're going to give some sort of access or make that like a road open to the public, it would be -- require plating. It just -- I don't think -- I've never heard the answer to that question, but the safe route would be to plat it, in my mind. And that would also mean the roads are built to -- you know they're being built to certain standards. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that issue will be dealt with this morning satisfactorily, Commissioner. There was some thought originally that there would be a driveway type of road or country lane type of road coming off Stoneleigh. The school district has engaged the services of a professional engineer for the purpose of 1-24-05 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 determining what is the best way to deal with that, given that everybody believes that six or seven cuts off of Highway 27 would not be an acceptable approach to the Texas Highway Department. So, let's find out where this takes us. I think there might be another solution. MR. ODOM: See, and may I also say that when you look at the master plan, what was proposed to us in our conversation, that in their letter it says, "The district also has the option to sell the house for additional revenue for the district." So that is -- this is one thing that, when you start to lay this road out, basically when you're looking at the overall concept, that it should be platted. That is the safest and easiest way to go about it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that point was made to the administration, that some -- some future board might at some time determine that they didn't want to be in the rental business, and determine that they wanted to disengage and perhaps sell these things, and it would be better to stay in the metes and bounds and so forth and so on. So, I think we've gotten past -- there's also another issue on the agenda today; I'm not exactly sure how it fits in. I want to reference it. I think it's one of the later agenda items. You had proposed abandoning the 5-acre minimum requirement for water availability. That's not on the agenda? 1-24-05 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The agenda item is to -- to suspend enforcement of the water availability requirements, nothing to do with acreage. And the -- and it's a Headwaters -- Headwaters doesn't have -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it doesn't have any applicability to the platting process here? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Just wanted to find out, see where this takes us. MR. ODOM: Let me turn the time over to Les Harvey. When we had this discussion to look at options as far as right-of-way, he was to coordinate with the Highway Department to see what they would be in agreement to, to help up front instead of coming off Stoneleigh, which is only 30 foot wide. So, I think there is another option for the school board to look at that, to come up off 27. So, I'll turn the time over to Les Harvey. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Len, before you -- you said something that triggered in my mind. Real quick, there are some things that -- there's some legislation in place that would affect some of these things in part, especially that -- and I don't know if it would -- MR. ODOM: Senate Bill 141. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, about the -- about the requirement that counties -- well, legislatively, to 1-24-05 32 r 1 ..~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 give counties the authority to require developers to upgrade existing roads. And, anyway -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What bill? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not Wentworth; it's Deuell, isn't it? Anyway, there's -- MR. ODOM: There's two bills, 141 and 142. One's water codes, and one has to do with -- with that option. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, it'll be interesting to track that, because -- from both the school standpoint and our standpoint, as to what that may mean to Stoneleigh, as to having to upgrade that road. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Let's move on. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As we deal with this issue, I'm going to be partially guided by a belief that one taxing entity ought to treat another taxing entity pretty well, so if it's something in the gray area, we ought to err on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt so that we don't drive up taxpayer costs. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Also, with -- and me wading through this, T want to -- when we get through talking about roads and bridges and gullys and cuts and all that, I want to -- I'd like to hear from Ms. Ray as to more of what the involvement of the students are. That's what I 1-24-05 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 want to know about, and I think that that is the important part. If we -- if we can kind of see what, really, the concept plan is here, I couldn't care less if you're building a bridge or a boat ramp to the thing. But, anyway -- so when he gets through, I'd like to hear from Ms. Ray, if we could, please. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely. MR. HARVEY: My name is Les Harvey. I'm with Harvey Engineering here in Kerrville. I was asked to review possible access options for these lots, and in meeting with Mike Coward with the local office of TexDOT, what he is comfortable -- I proposed to him, and he's comfortable with it, is that these lots that front on Highway 27, there would be two access points. One would be at the common lot line between the two easternmost lots. I don't recall them being numbered, but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're not numbered, but one is 1.42 acres and one is 1.94 acres on the eastern side. MR. HARVEY: And then the other access point would be at the common lot line between the two most western points -- I mean the two most western lots. And what we would essentially do is build a frontage road on school district property that connects the two access points, with a right-of-way width yet to be determined. I know the 1-29-05 J.~ __ rr. - i ~ ~ - 34 County's rules are 60 feet. We might propose a 40-foot right-of-way, because we're able to use the existing drainage ditch within Texas -- TexDOT right-of-way as the southernmost parallel bar ditch to this frontage road, so a full 60 foot right-of-way may not be necessary. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would eliminate any drainage issues that you might see? Stormwater take-off issues, using the bar ditch? 1 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. HARVEY: Well, no, sir -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be adequate to take care of it? MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why would you not want to go with the -- well, I guess -- I mean, if the school district never has any plans to sell any of this, I mean, it doesn't really make any difference; I don't think it requires platting. But why would you not go with a 60-foot right-of-way now, just to give the flexibility in the future? I mean, I can -- MR. HARVEY: Well, I -- I do not agree that the school district never has any plans to sell any of this. That option should be left open to the school district. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but what I'm saying is, if they sell one of these lots, that's going to trigger platting, and they're not going to be able to give 1-24-05 ~r~f\ ~. _ ~ .tea ~ 35 the County the access -- I mean, have access. MR. HARVEY: I don't think anybody is -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: So what I'm saying, why not do a 60-foot right-of-way to start with? That way, all the options are open, whether it's platted or not. MR. HARVEY: That's fine. I don't -- I don't have a problem with it. I'm just saying the discussion has come up that, when we're able to use the existing parallel drainage to this access road that's in TexDOT right-of-way, 60 feet may be unnecessary, simply from the width needed to construct a standard road and parallel bar ditches. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You talk about the -- the two cuts which are connected to an access driveway. Is that what you called it? MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would it be necessary for the future -- I'm really kind of directing this, I think, to Commissioner Letz or Mr. Odom. In the future, should the Board of Education determine that it did not want to continue renting and they wanted to dispose of the property individually, would -- would there -- would easements or right-of-way easements, access easements be required to get to that access driveway? I guess I'm looking forward to what would happen in the future. 1-24-05 - i 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if they were to sell, they're going to have to deed access to the people that buy the lots. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And when they do that, that's going to trigger platting. And that -- and the minimum right-of-way allowed by the County rules is 60 foot. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the -- so the better option at this point would be just to plat it showing the access road. COMMISSION] it. They can just do the just saying that it makes think of the County rules that you're going to plat plat it now or -- I think ~R LETZ: You don't need to plat 60-foot right-of-way, and then I'm a lot more sense to build -- to and do everything with the mind it at some point. Whether you it's -- MR. HARVEY: I think we're all in agreement here that the best long-term option for the school district, leaving all their options open, is to plat it and to dedicate some width to be determined for this access road. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. HARVEY: Dedicate -- on the plat, dedicate it to themselves. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. HARVEY: And it can be a private road, 1-24-05 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 privately maintained.' It gives the option to the school district, if they choose to sell off one of these tracts, they can sell it, and people have access to this marginal access right-of-way that the school district has granted to themselves. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. HARVEY: That won't be sold. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I think that's -- that's an ideal way. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, sounds like a workable solution. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And these are, I presume, going to have central water and sewer? Or are they going to be on septic? MR. HARVEY: I would assume that it's all going to have to be septic. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe Ms. Ray can go over those issues. MR. HARVEY: That's something I really hadn't been asked to dive into. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was not in the scope of your engagement, right? MR. HARVEY: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see Mr. Wiedenfeld 1-24-05 38 1 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 there; he'll probably have some answers about that, too. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ms. Ray, would you please address the young people before you address the septic tanks? MS. RAY: I sure will. Thank you so much for the opportunity today, for your time in considering our plans. With this, the kids is what initially drove this project. What can we do to enhance our vocational programs and expose our children to more opportunities when they graduate from high school to go straight into the work force, if that's their desire? They have -- we have about 10 students that are actively involved with this project. They have been able to design the house plan, the first house that we plan to build this year, through using computerized design programs. They have had the opportunity to work with a woman who changes her mind every other day about how many windows and plugs and double sinks in the master bath, so they're getting a real-life opportunity so that when they do go out and choose this as a profession, they're going to be well experienced. They have also worked with Bandera Electric in getting our meters out to the property. They have -- they're really itchy right now to get started. We're working on some slab issues, to get the cost low enough where we can begin that process, and our 1-24-05 39 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 goal is to have this house completed by the end of May. You know, some of these boys are seniors, so they're really counting on that, because I told them they don't graduate unless this house is finished. So, they're -- they're really wanting to get going on this, and they will be involved with working with the subcontractors. They will have the opportunity to do some of the -- the stuff themselves, like the framing, the -- working with the plumber, the electrician. So, it's a wonderful project, and we're excited that we've been able to do so much for the first time. And if everything goes according to plan, each year we will build a house on these design lots and improve our process and what we're teaching the children -- students. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the life application part of it is just hard to beat. The only drawback is that you don't have them in here today -- MS. RAY: I know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to beat on us a little bit. MS. RAY: I had thought about that, and decided they really need to probably not miss school. But we will report back to them. They have been kept up-to-date on this entire process as far as the different engineers that we've had to bring in, the roadblocks that have come up 1-24-05 40 I 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 that we've had to work through. It's not only been a learning process for them, but for us also, and I predict in the future it's going to be much smoother. JUDGE TINLEY: Now, tell us about the water and wastewater. MS. RAY: I have Charlie Wiedenfeld here who has been assisting us with that, and he will be happy to answer whatever questions and explain to you what we have in mind right now. MR. WIEDENFELD: Well, the septic systems are proposed for the plots to serve the wastewater. This is a clay soil, so we'll have just a little larger soil absorption-type system out there. I think we're going to try to stay away from anything that's aerobic -- surface application. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Each individual lot would have its own septic? MR. WIEDENFELD: Each individual lot would have its own septic at this time. The water system -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Charlie, I'm sorry, can you go back three sentences and say that again? You're going to stay away from aerobic? Is that what you said? MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes, I did. Surface application. Not aerobic, but surface application, because of the -- 1-24-05 41 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you get that down, Kathy? All right. All right. MR. WIEDENFELD: That's -- yes. I think for the -- for the high bill the school would incur, I think that's something that should not be -- it's not my recommendation. There is a well on the existing -- there was an old irrigation well that was on one tract that's out there, and they plan to use that well to serve these units that will be out there. It'll be considered a private shared well at this time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be done through the installation of sufficient holding tanks and pressure tanks that provide water to each of the -- MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- lots as they move down the line? MR. WIEDENFELD: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the test well? Didn't I read here somewhere that this was -- it's a test well? Headwaters? MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes, it has been used for water level monitoring for -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MR. WIEDENFELD: -- ten-plus years that I know of. 1-29-05 ~ s ~ ~ - -- 42 I 1 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was the old Mosty -- part of the Mosty property. That was the nursery property, right? MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't it out there for irrigation purposes to begin with? MR. WIEDENFELD: It was used for irrigation purposes, but I don't think it's been used in 15, 20 years, probably. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably under a central water system, so it will be the same, basically? MR. WIEDENFELD: Legally, I think we call it a shared private well. It's a private well; falls under the requirements that -- for a public water system, as you know, it requires 15 customers. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, public system. Yeah, public. MR. WIEDENFELD: Or already serve 25 customers. Yes, you could have five houses with five people in it, and they could push it close to the interpretation, but I believe in this case, we're -- we're going to go in and it will be many years down the read. And their long-term plans are, with the school on the rest of the property, that they do a central system -- water system, an approved central water system at that time. This is just an 1-29-05 r. ~ - 43 f r f 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 interim-type approach to get things going at this time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super. I sure do like it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure -- Mr. Odom, how would you like to proceed on this? Are we dealing with concept, or what are we doing here this morning? MR. ODOM: I would like to see some engineering done to look at that hydrology coming across there for the access and all. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to require a hydrology study? MR. ODOM: Well, drainage study. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what purpose? MR. ODOM: Purpose for platting. There has to be a drainage study done for platting. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would recommend that we go as easy as possible on those type of requirements, because I really don't think it's that much of a need, and I don't think they have to plat it. MR. ODOM: Well, if they don't -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 1-24-05 ~a a - 44 1 4 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 MR. ODOM: Well, what I'm saying is, the discussion we had was basically looking at a marginal road. That's optional, whether it's 60 foot or whether it's 40 foot, and I believe that you would probably need to do some hydrology to look at -- to see if you could do a marginal road at 40-foot easement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't we just hear that from Mr. Harvey? MR. ODOM: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did we not just hear from Mr. Harvey that that had been satisfied? MR. ODOM: I don't believe that it's been satisfied. It was asked to look at it for access. I don't think you've done any studies on that. MR. HARVEY: There hasn't been any hydraulics done at all. MR. ODOM: At all. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a necessity for a hydrology study, in your opinion? MR. HARVEY: In my opinion, no, sir, there's not. There's not that much area that drains to this point. And -- but it can certainly be done. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is all I wanted to hear. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, to me, the -- if 1-~9-05 45 I 1 ~.-- l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's going to be platted, the road should be 60 foot. It should be a minimum county road, whatever the standards are for two -- six lots. Which is -- I can't remember if that's, you know, paved or not paved, but it should meet our minimum requirements, whatever that is. Beyond that, you know, I -- I think we have -- probably want Mr. Harvey to put in writing what he just said; that he doesn't think a hydrology study is needed. MR. ODOM: I think so, if they're going to start building homes in there. I -- to make sure. Remember, you have that -- that old rail line coming down through there. I'm not worried about the water on the north side -- or the east side of that. It's what you're channeling down through -- through those lots, Lots 5 and 6 right there. So, that's up to the Court. But, I mean, if you do minimum, you definitely want to be sure that your -- that your hydrology is not going to flood somebody. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think we have reasonable satisfaction that that's not going to be the case. I think what we have before us is a concept plan being advanced by the Board of Education for purposes of -- for purposes as outlined, and I'd like to -- I'd like to address it in this fashion; that the Court approve the concept plan as presented by the Center Point Independent School District, and -- and embody in that concept plan a 1-24-05 46 1 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 60-foot easement for an access driveway, as determined by -- as outlined by Mr. Harvey, engineer, with access points to that access driveway coming between lots -- left-to-right, Lots 1 and 2, between -- on the property line of I and 2, and 5 and 6, and let it go at that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll second. JUDGE TINLEY: That was a motion, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a second. All right. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- I'm sorry. I think the -- the drainage issue has to be addressed, either waived by the Court, or a letter and then waived, or something to that effect, because it is part of our Subdivision Rules. If it's going to be platted, we can't "sort of" plat it; it's either plat it or not plat it. And I think that, you know, the -- I'm not sure what the cutoff is, Len, as to how many lots you have to have before you have to do a drainage study, or if it's total acreage. I'm blank this morning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you suggesting we address that in this motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not really. I think it can be at the preliminary plat standpoint, done at that point. They'll be doing some -- you know, contours and 1-24-05 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 things of that nature will be done anyway, so -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we may see other things at that time. I mean, you leave government in this long enough, we'll screw it up for you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I think the motion is fine the way it is, but I think we can't just, you know, look the other way. We have to follow our Subdivision Rules. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I think the Board of Education is amenable with that. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or discussion on the motion? 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: That motion does carry. Let's move quickly to -- 24 25 1-24-05 MS. RAY: Thank y'all. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate your help this COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just -- Judge, I just want to thank Mrs. Ray and the members of her administration for being here today, and Mr. Harvey and Charlie. Thank you very much. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 morning. Let's move to Item 4, consider preliminary revision of plat for the Holcomb Ranch, set a public hearing, and list in publication that Hacienda Trail will be abandoned, vacated, and discontinued. Essentially, what you're asking for is a -- a public hearing to be set on that? MR. ODOM: On -- JUDGE TINLEY: With the -- with the admonition that the publication of notice include mention that the road will be abandoned? MR. ODOM: That is -- you're talking about Holcomb? You're talking about 1.4? JUDGE TINLEY: Number 4. MR. ODOM: Okay. Yes, sir, that's what we're doing. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. When are you asking the public hearing be set for? MR. ODOM: Hold on, sir. I don't have my notes here on that. Let me see what I've got. Just a second. What we're doing with -- this is the preliminary revision of plat for Holcomb, and listed publication -- well, I'm going to say -- what did I have on the other one? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the required amount of time? 1-29-05 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: 30 days. And I believe that the next -- I think what I had on Retiro was February the 28th, and if we could put that at 10:20. JUDGE TINLEY: February 28th, '05, at 10:20 a.m.? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we schedule a public hearing to abandon, vacate, and discontinue Hacienda Trail, and that that hearing be held on February 28th at 10:20 a.m. JUDGE TINLEY: Would that also include the preliminary revision of the plat for Holcomb Ranch? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item, set a public hearing for February 28th, '05, at 10:20 a.m. Any question or discussion on the motion? 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: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I just want to 1-24-05 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 make one little quickie point here. Leonard, in the future, when you're styling these agenda items, while it's pretty easy on this one to determine it's in Precinct 4, 'cause it talks about old Ingram Lake and so forth, can we put in here, like we used to do, what precinct these things are in? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, we sure can. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Appreciate that. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Next, Item 5 is set public hearings on (1) revision of plats on Rio Retiro, Lot 10 and 9, and Number (2), Live Springs Ranch, Lot Number 4. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. We would like to do that for February 28th, Rio Retiro at 10 a.m. and Live Springs at 10:10 a.m. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to make a motion that we schedule that public hearing for revision of Lots 9 and 10 of Rio Retiro -- you said 10:40? MR. ODOM: I'm sorry, sir? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:00. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10 a.m. on February 28th, and then I'll have a comment. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Prior to that public hearing, the owner needs to work out with our Environmental Health Department whether -- whether or not Lot 10 meets the 1-24-OS 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 basic requirements to have a septic system there. Lot 9 -- according to my notes, Lot 9 does; Lot 10 may or may not meet the requirements for a septic system. MR. ODOM: Lee, do you require -- recall that in our discussion out there? Did it -- on Lot 10, did that meet -- MR. VOELKEL: I'm not sure I'm understanding what the Commissioner is asking. We're combining all of Lot 9 and the remainder of Lot 10. They've been rolled into one lot to eliminate that lot line, is what I was under the impression we were doing. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me read you my note; maybe that will help clarify it. Lot 9 meets the basic requirements for Chapter 285, but Lot 10 does not. Lot -- there is an understanding that Lot 10 is grandfathered, but according to our rules, Lot 10 is also being modified; therefore, must meet the minimum state standards for lot size and setbacks. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're combining lots? I mean, I don't know what we're -- MR. ODOM: That's what we're doing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we're making -- combining lots, even though we're revising it, if 9 -- 10 is being eliminated. What's the revision going to be? MR. ODOM: Do you have a plat? I didn't 1-24-05 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bring a plat. MR. VOELKEL: Part of Lot 10 has been sold in the past without the benefit of a replat, and that's been 20-some-odd years. There is an existing townhouse. There's a water system and a sewer system that serves those townhouses on the -- on that part of Lot 10. The remainder of Lot 10 is now -- which is about half, is being added to Lot 9 to make a larger lot for the purpose -- for the purpose of a residence that has been built on Lot 9. It was my understanding that the septic system was put near the lot line between the existing Lot 9 and 10, so it would eliminate that setback problem, which is 150 feet, from my understanding. We're removing that lot line between Lot 9 and 10 and making it a larger lot. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think my point is that we need to make sure Miguel Arreola has signed off on this. MR. VOELKEL: Correct. Now, he's in the review process. He has been -- application has been made with the Environmental Health Department for that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This -- this so-called subdivision does have a 20-year history of making revisions without -- without going through proper processes. And you can sure tell it, too. MR. VOELKEL: Probably the first time a 1-24-05 53 .- 1 L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 replat has been presented. A lot of things have gone on out there in the past. MR. ODOM: And when we come here in the public hearing, we'll be setting up a final plat anyway for that, and we will address that at that time. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The motion is -- motion and second is to set a public hearing on the revision of plat for Rio Retiro, Lots 9 and 10, for 10 a.m. on February 28, '05. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, it says Lots 10, 9, and 2. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, (2) is the second item of that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Agenda. JUDGE TINLEY: -- agenda item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. JUDGE TINLEY: Dealing with Live Springs Ranch. Right now -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. JUDGE TINLEY: -- the motion is for Rio Retiro. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on that motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 1-24-05 54 ~-. 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 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Now we have remaining the request that a public hearing be set at 10:10 a.m. on February 28th, '05, on Live Springs Ranch, Lot 4. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is that? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have any information on it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is Live Springs Ranch? We -- the information we have here to make decisions is very minimal. We have not a clue where this is. Where is the subdivision? MR. ODOM: Live Springs? I'll be honest with you. Off the top of my head, I don't know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can't do this. This is nuts. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's just pass on this one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It should be a separate agenda item anyhow. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move on to Item 6, consider revision of plat for Kerr Vista, Section IV, Lots 1-29-05 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 29 through 35. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is this? MR. ODOM: Kerr Vista is in Precinct 4. JUDGE TINLEY: Way, way out there by Midway. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, this is part of the old Weatherby ranch, I think. MR. ODOM: It's off Tatsch -- the old Tatsch right there, Reservation, Weatherby. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this final? MR. ODOM: Yes, this is for a final. Preliminary was done August the 9th, 2004. The public hearing was advertised and held September the 13th, 2004, and I've been working with Domingues, and all the requirements of platting have been completed. Therefore, I recommend the Court approve the final revision of -- of the plat located in Precinct 4. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. MR. ODOM: This has been dragging out. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's his. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll move to approve the revision of plat for Kerr Vista IV, Lots 29 through 35. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 1-24-05 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approval of the agenda item. Any question or 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: That motion does carry. The next item -- we're almost on schedule -- is a timed item for 10 o'clock. MR. ODOM: May I ask the Court something before we do this? I'm sorry, I'm not -- this cedar has got me down. I've been sick for several days. I did not -- I thought all this had been turned in to y'all, but on Live Springs, I don't have anything here other than a revision of the plat. And all I'm asking for is a public hearing, and which at that time I will submit to the Court any final plat that I have. So, all I'm requesting on this Live Springs is a public hearing set for February the 28th at 10:10, so I -- at this point, I don't have a whole lot. I will have that, or the final won't be -- we'll go to the public hearing and then I'll have probably an agenda item thereafter for the final. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How are we going to advertise a public hearing if we can't identify where it is? MR. ODOM: Well, I'm sorry, I just don't 1-24-05 57 1 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 recall where it's at. I'm sorry. I would imagine it's probably in Precinct 4, but I don't recall where it's at. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you familiar with it, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Name rings a bell, but I can't put a place. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I probably know -- I mean, if we think it's probably in 4, it's up to, in my mind, Commissioner of Precinct 4, but I think it's helpful for us to know, because otherwise, I mean -- MR. ODOM: I don't disagree, and I apologize to the Court. I thought I was assured all was turned in, and the platting for it. So I -- we tried to get all this together last -- last week and the week before, so I thought it was all together. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frankly, in this instance, that one should be a separate agenda item. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's been -- that may be partly my fault. I visited with Truby on this. She's asked before, and I said I don't know why they can't be combined. I actually think that the -- I'm not convinced that these even need to come to the Court. If there's an application for a revision, to me, that triggers the notice requirement. And I think they can probably just go -- you 1-24-05 58 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 know, could proceed with a public hearing without us even knowing about it. MR. ODOM: Without knowing about it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's better for it to be on the agenda so we are aware of it, but it's a -- I think they could try to save time, to probably combine them. That's probably -- I've told her I don't think it's a problem with combining them in one agenda item. MR. ODOM: Would the Court like me to do separate agenda items? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, not necessarily. It doesn't matter if there's 10 or 20 of them on there, but there will be separate court orders. I won't vote for a blanket list of -- my god. No, I won't do that. But it doesn't matter -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're talking about setting a separate hearing for each one. MR. ODOM: Separate. One's at 10:00 and one's at 10:10. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, again, the details are missing. Are we talking about a plot of ground we're making two lots of out one? Are we making four out of six? Are we making ten out of four? What are we doing? MR. ODOM: Well, right now, until I have a public hearing, you'll have that information for a final 1-?4-05 59 i 1 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 plat. I don't have all of it in front of me right now. It's not necessary. We're trying to get a public hearing set up. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need more information than what we have, 'cause we're actually voting on something here that is going to move a project down the road, and we need to know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's on the agenda, we need more information, though I personally don't think it needs to be on the agenda. But I think -- and the reason I think Truby and I -- we discussed it, that it's on the agenda is to coordinate, so everyone's aware of when public hearings are. Otherwise, there may be some confusion between us setting hearings on other dates, and different calendar. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- anyway, I think we -- if it's on the agenda, we need to have information. JUDGE TINLEY: Does the Court wish to offer anything further with respect to the Live Springs Ranch item on Item Number 5? Let's move on to Item 7. As I said, it's a timed item for 10 o'clock. It's after that time now. That item is to open and consider bids for a used excavator. 1-24-05 60 1 t 1 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: Judge, we have one bid. JUDGE TINLEY; One bid from Excel Machinery Limited. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One bid. Numerous bids in the one bid package, it appears, but it's from one company. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. The various items of equipment being offered by Excel Machinery Limited, one is a -- first one is a Gradall, G3-WD, $18,000. The last two serial numbers are 68. Next one is a Gradall G3-WD, last two serial numbers are 76, for $19,600. Next item is another Gradall G3-WD, last two serial numbers are 40, for 526,000. Next one is also a Gradall G3-WD, last two, 40, and a Gradall G3-WD, last two, 68, for a combined total of 43,5. Next bid is for Gradall G3-WD, last two, 40; Gradall G3-WD, last two, 76, for 43,500. The next bid is for a Gradall G3-WD, last two, 68, and a Gradall G3-WD, last two, 76, for a combined total of $35,000. And we have the spec sheets attached. It doesn't appear that those are broken down by serial number, but rather by model number. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I move we accept all bids and refer them to Road and Bridge -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- for recommendation. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 1-24-OS 61 t I 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 bids be accepted and referred to Road and Bridge for evaluation and recommendation. Any further question or discussion on the motion? 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: That motion does carry. The next item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on requiring an annual written personnel evaluation on all who work for or report to the Commissioners Court. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I put that on, Judge, because in the past we have required annual evaluations of employees who report directly to Commissioners Court, and we haven't done that in a while. I think we probably should do it. I don't have any process for when we should do it, but I think it's important that it's done. COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the past, we have done them -- each Commissioner and County Judge have done them and turned them in, and met with the employees, talked with the employees. Is that the same format, I mean, in the aggregate, or we're trying to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have no change in the format. I don't have plans for that. I just want to 1-29-05 62 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 bring it up for discussion to see where the Court would like to go with it. JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that probably the most important thing is a proper evaluation form, one which is comprehensive and objective and specific_ I don't know what format we may be looking at. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have one in the file, do we not, Ms. Mitchell? MS. MITCHELL: The Treasurer's office has one, yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've used one in the past. It was pretty comprehensive. We just haven't done it in a couple years. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's good to do it, but you always get into the problems that the -- fortunate or unfortunate -- people that report directly to us, however they want to look at it, have five bosses. And that's been where the -- the difficult part has always come in. You know, I may say one thing, Buster may say the opposite, and the employee doesn't know what to do, or doesn't know if they're doing a good job or bad job. So, you know, I think they're useful; you can find out where there's a problem between any one of us and an employee. But if there -- if -- that's all it does. It doesn't do much beyond that. And that's probably useful in and of 1-24-05 63 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 itself. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, and we -- I think -- again, and I've said this several times, I think that we should follow -- use the format that we have in the Treasurer's office and individually evaluate the employee, but I think that then we need to come together collectively to have the inter -- have an interview with the employee and express the numbers that we have evaluated to that employee from -- from the five of us. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. And that needs to be done before the budget process, or possibly during the budget process, 'cause if there's any salary increases, then that would be a part of the criteria to use to increase salaries, et cetera. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine with me. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner 4? JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me throw something out as a possible option. That the initial review -- the initial rating, as it were, be done by whoever has the liaison relationship with that particular department or function, because presumably that particular member of the Court's going to have better knowledge about what that individual is doing. Then bringing that to the Court, and the Court acting as a reviewing body, so to speak. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an interesting point, Judge, and I bring one -- bring one illustration to 1-24-05 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the forefront. Facilities Use and Maintenance, for example. I believe you're the liaison for the Court for basically courthouse and grounds; is that correct? JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's correct, yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner Letz and I are liaisons to the Court for the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, both of which are under the umbrella of Facilities Use and Maintenance, so help sort that one out for me, just to get your thoughts on it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think maintenance is a unique -- it's different than everybody else. It's -- I mean, it's one that almost has to be done by everybody on the Court, whereas I think Animal Control is the other spectrum; that I think Commissioner Nicholson probably has a better feel for how that facility is operating than I do anyway. So, I think you have to look at -- you have to kind of maybe look at it department by department. You know, on the maintenance side, I think you also need to bring input in from, you know, the Sheriff, Road and Bridge, Ms. Harris, I mean, everyone that uses that. So I think you have to kind of look at each position a little bit differently. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I like -- kind of like Commissioner Baldwin's idea that we set a timetable for having the reviews completed, and then we review them among ourselves, and with -- your thought was to -- with the 1-29-05 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 7 8 ~ 9 i 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 employee in question; is that correct? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And have that done before the budgetary process begins. And I kind of like those thoughts as well. So, I would move that we begin the process using the form that's available to us through the Treasurer's personnel office, and that the process be completed by the end of June of 2005, with any -- any review -- subsequent reviews that are required also to have been conducted by that time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any question or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Do you envision, as -- and Animal Control is an example. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that thought, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we can -- I guess in the initial rating, when we hand out the questionnaires, we can kind of outline -- or put a proposal maybe back on the agenda as to how we handle each department, 'cause I think you have to look at each one individually as to how we handle it, 'cause they're very different. JUDGE TINLEY: By "initial rating," you're talking about evaluation? 1-24-05 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 l5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's good, Commissioner. One other thought occurs to me. We get the form, perhaps, and get the Judge to spec out some basic guidelines and bring it back to the Court one more time, but get the process going today. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 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: That motion does carry. The next item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on a resolution in support of a Knipling-Bushland effort to cause the United States Department of Agriculture to do a feasibility study for funds to construct a replacement laboratory facility here in Kerr County. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Members of the Court, I put this on after Judge Tinley and I both attended a KEDF meeting at the Knipling-Bushland facility located on -- just north of town on Highway 16. I suggest that probably a lot of folks in Kerr County have never been out there to see just exactly what that site does do, and it's really tremendously interesting. This was the same -- that was the 1-24-05 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 resolution that was referred to by Mr. Overby earlier today, and what it seeks to do is to cause the United States Department of Agriculture to initiate the feasibility study necessary to get the ball rolling in that regard for funding for a new facility. They are in desperate need of a new facility. Those Quonset huts have been out there since before World War I. I believe they've been out there a long, long time, and it's just amazing what takes place. So, all this does is to help us get the -- help KEDF get the ball rolling for the good folks out at the lab with respect to a feasibility study which will be conducted by -- I assume by the U.S.D.A. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the resolution. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A comment, Judge. They talk about in here -- we talk about lime disease, and they talk about cattle fever, ticks and all kind of things like that, but in my mind, the -- the reason that this place is so famous is they were so instrumental in eradicating screw worms. Which -- you know, we can talk about screw worms. I'd rather do it over lunch, but -- 'cause Commissioner Letz and I have done that, talked about screw worms over lunch, and how you dig those things out of the 1-29-05 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 brains of cows, and very -- very interesting and educational. I just can't believe they don't talk about that. You know, I notice he didn't talk about it this morning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I noticed that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And not in here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They still breed the flies out there, however. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, they still have the flies. those buggers. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're breeding COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's something to see. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is. I mean, I agree with what Commissioner Baldwin said, but also with the resolution. That is a phenomenal facility, and it's amazing what they do in those old Quonset huts. I've been out there; a friend of mine works out there doing some research. I go out there occasionally. You go into these rusted old Quonset huts, and there's a real lab inside, and it's like going into a hospital lab. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: High tech. COMMISSIONER LETZ: High tech. It's quite amazing, the stuff that's out there. But it is truly a tremendous asset to the community. Unsung heroes, so to 1-24-OS 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 speak, of our area, 'cause not a lot of people know about them. But they do a lot of good work, and certainly anything we can do to help that facility stay here and expand, I'm in favor of. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? 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: That motion does carry. Moving on to Item 10, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on approving request of the Hill Country Chili Classic for the use of Flat Rock Lake Park the weekend preceding Easter, which would be March 18 through 20, 2005. Commissioner William? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I put this on at the request of one of the sponsors, Mr. Ferris, who's in the room. Mr. Ferris, come on up to the podium and tell us what the plans are and so forth and so on. MR. FERRIS: Thank you. Richard Ferris. We are requesting the Hill Country Chili Classic -- by the way, this will be our 25th year to be held at Flat Rock Park. We are specifically requesting the use of the park from the 24th, which is a Thursday, through the 27th. I don't have i-z9-os 70 1 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 calendar; I believe the 27th is Sunday. We'll be picked up by then for this use. Additionally, to coordinate with the personnel of the livestock -- junior livestock building for the use of 25 tables and 100 chairs. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You want use of the park what days, Richard? MR. FERRIS: Thursday through Sunday. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will be the 18th through 20th -- March 18 through 20; is that correct? MR. FERRIS: No, 24th through the 27th. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. MR. FERRIS: Easter weekend. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 24 through 27, okay. In addition to the use of the park, you need some tables and chairs; is that correct? MR. FERRIS: Yes, sir, 25 -- 25 tables and 100 chairs. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the past, we were told that the proceeds of this were used for the benefit of some nonprofit, not-for-profit -- MR. FERRTS: Beneficiary this year is the Hill Country Crisis Council. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hill Country Crisis Council? MR. FERRIS: They're the beneficiary. We are 1-29-05 71 1 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CASI, which is the Chili Appreciation Society. We're also going in conjunction with International Barbecue Cookers' Association events, and we're adding a new event this year to help Kerr County in general. We're having a venison cook-off. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Venison. MR. FERRIS: We're going to add venison this year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow. I would move we grant authority for the Hill Country Chili Classic to use Flat Rock Lake Park for the weekend preceding Easter, which would be March 24th through 27th, and authorize the use of -- how many tables and chairs? MR. FERRIS: 25 tables and 100 chairs. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 25 tables and 100 chairs. MR. FERRIS: Which we will pick up and deliver back to them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And return back in good condition. MR. FERRIS: Correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any question or discussion? 1-24-05 72 t 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 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Question. One, is this a request for exclusive use? And then the second is, is there an entry fee charged? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is no entry fee charged, is there? MR. FERRIS: To the people? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. MR. FERRIS: I'm sorry. To enter in the cook-off or to come in? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If I come through the gate on that day, am I charged? MR. FERRIS: No. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it a request for exclusive use, or will -- MR. FERRIS: No. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, that's good. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They do take over most of the park, though. MR. FERRIS: We are requesting your fees be waived, and that the park be allowed to be open for camping. MS. MITCHELL: Commissioner, I believe that is the weekend of Easter. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We -- well, change it to 24 to 27. We take out "preceding Easter weekend." 1-24-05 73 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? 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: That motion does carry. Why don't we take our mid-morning recess? MR. FERRIS: I would request one thing, Your Honor, since you all are here in front of us; that you come out and help us judge chili and barbecue. We need some good, qualified judges. And it would also be very nice if the county were to field a team to cook, themselves. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When is the judging? Is that on Easter Sunday? MR. FERRIS: Saturday. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The day before Easter. MR. FERRIS: Everything finishes up Saturday evening. It's just some of the -- some of the people don't leave till Easter day, but it's completed Saturday. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to come out and eat. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You want us to put together a cooking team? MR. FERRIS: Sure. 1-29-05 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, qet out while you can. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess until quarter till 11:00. (Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:44 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order for our Commissioners Court meeting. We were in recess. It's now approximately 10:44. Let's move on to Item Number 11, consider and discuss implementation of the burn ban. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda. I'm handing out some information -- additional information right now. This time of year -- I know Precinct 4 put a burn ban in last week, and I started -- after I talked with him, I thought about this whole process, and I know the process we had last year did not work very well. And that's -- by communication with NRCS, we put up -- pretty much put the whole prescribed burning thing on them, and I don't think they particularly liked the process. And we didn't -- it was just getting a lot of confusion. I guess, first thing, I handed out the new indexes that we're supposed to look at. The Keech-Byrum one is a current one, 1-24-05 75 1 ._.. 2 3 4 ~ 5 f 6 I 7 8 1 ~ 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and it shows that most of the county is in, you know, very wet conditions still. Parts of the far west, there are a few little dots in there that are getting into the mid to mid-dry range, but not very much. The other index attached is the Palmer Drought Index. Unfortunately, they haven't updated their web site since November, so it's not of much use. Anyway, but those are the two indices we look at, just as a reference that we tend to look at. What I am proposing, first of all, I'm proposing we put the burn ban -- 90-day burn ban back in effect for the county. That gives each Commissioner discretion to lift it in their precinct as they see fit. I am still very concerned about prescribed burning and allowing ranchers that do prescribed burns to continue. And I think -- I think it's a very important part of agriculture in this area to do that. The problem we have is how you do that. The State, in 2001, passed a new law that certified people to do prescribed burns, and that certification exempts them automatically from any burn ban. So, you know, if they're -- anyone who's certified, they can burn, you know, whenever they want, regardless of what we do as a Commissioners Court. The problem I see with that law is I don't know of anybody -- probably one person -- actually, I think he lives in Medina County -- that I know of is certified around here. It's been kind of a law that was 1-29-05 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 passed, and not a whole lot done to certify people that I'm aware of. Keith Blair, I think, is certified. He's the only one I know locally; he owns Red Buffalo Ranch Management. But I know people like Joe Franklin at the NRCS office and people at Parks and Wildlife, to my knowledge, are not certified now, and they're certainly qualified individuals. And there's others in the county. So, I visited with Rex a little bit to see if we could come up with a new way of -- of allowing prescribed burns, and that would be for this Court to set up a committee that would approve individuals and/or ranches, or a combination thereof, to do prescribed burns when a burn ban is in effect. Rex says he thinks we have the authority to do that. I'll let Rex speak for himself; he may have some other comments. But, typical attorney that starts thinking about liability, and he kind of wanted to narrow the scope of what I wanted to do originally a little bit, which I don't really have a real problem with. But what I would recommend is that we -- in the backup, there's a County Commissioner, a representative from USDA/NRCS office, County Extension Agent, Texas Forest Service, probably a member of the volunteer fire departments, and then a citizen knowledgeable in prescribed burning. And if Keith Blair would do it, I would recommend him for that slot. I think we'd have the committee put together -- most of these people 1-24-05 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are aware of my proposal, and they think would it probably work. The committee would put together the criteria that would allow people to do prescribed burns, and it would pretty much be -- you know, we'd authorize that committee to authorize people to do it, and those people have to follow the law, do burn plans and things of that nature. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, tell us once again what -- there's two things I think that we -- everybody needs to know. One is, what is a prescribed burn? And is it -- by law, do you have to have a certified person there to -- to have a prescribed burn? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The answer to the second part is no, you do not need a certified person present. During a burn ban, they are -- as I said earlier, they are exempted from burn ban under state law to do a prescribed burn. Prescribed burn is a burn -- and I'm going to paraphrase a little bit. I might not be exactly right, but basically it is a burn -- an intentional burn to improve rangeland, to get rid of a bunch of dry litter on the ground. You get rid of small cedar trees in our area, which is the primary reason we do it, but it is -- and it is done under a -- to do a prescribed burn, you really have to file a burn plan. The burn plan is very specific as to -- there's a lot of information. You have to fill out a form, basically. The NRCS has a burn plan form. 1-24-05 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that who you file it with, is the Soil Conservation -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't -- there's no requirement to file the burn plan with anybody, and I don't think we want to get in the business of requiring people to file with the committee or with us. I think they need to be required to do it. And if their fire gets out of control, they need to be able to say, "We had it." And I think that -- I mean, I really don't think it's that much of a problem. The people that are knowledgeable enough to get past the committee I don't think are going to be a problem, and it's pretty simple. I mean, you can probably -- or anybody -- myself and Joe Franklin alone, we can sit down with someone in five minutes and tell if they're knowledgeable enough to do an approved burn in Kerr County. There's some things that you -- equipment that you need to have. You need to know certain weather conditions, and those are the basic criteria. And I think that it's a -- I think it would probably work fairly well. The reason I want to give the committee the flexibility to kind of develop the criteria, I'd like to hear input from the others. I have not talked to anyone but Joe Franklin at great length. I've talked to Roy Walston a little bit, got input from some of the others that do -- that are very knowledgeable in this area, and I suspect we 1-29-05 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 may have -- I'd be very surprised if 20 -- if the whole county was under a burn ban, that 20 people wanted to do prescribed burns. It's just not that big a number. Most people are scared to do them, which is good; they shouldn't do them. They're -- you have to be somewhat -- very knowledgeable in prescribed burning to be able to do them and pull them off successfully. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, would the purpose of the committee that you're proposing be solely for the purpose of -- of advice and consent on prescribed burns? Or would it also be to gather information and advise the Court in terms of suspending the burn ban, vital information that's helpful to us? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we probably could -- it could serve in that function as well as to -- you know, giving feedback. The feedback I got from Joe Franklin is he doesn't want a burn ban, 'cause he has a whole lot of prescribed burns that's he's currently working on, and the conditions are great this year for it. I mean, they're also dangerous this year. If you do it on the wrong day, we could have a big problem. But the -- the weather conditions and the humidity are such, and the temperature, that it's an excellent burning year. You have to know what you're doing. So, I think it could be that. The idea of the committee is -- the sole purpose, in my mind, is to approve people to 1-29-05 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 burn, or individuals -- whether it's a specific burn or individuals, during a burn ban. Now, I don't intend on -- you know, I intend to vote for the county-wide burn ban today, but I also will suspend it in my precinct today. It's -- we're just too wet. It's just -- I mean, I don't think that it's warranted. But in Dave's area, there are some areas on the map that are beginning to show some signs of -- of dryness. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Couple comments, Commissioner. I like the direction you're proposing. I'd like to have some knowledge of the committee or group to be able to authorize or -- or coordinate with or whatever, prescribed burn plans. I also like the flexibility of each Commissioner having the ability to either impose or lift a burn ban, as we've done -- anyhow, the flexibility we've all had over the past year. I've seen some interpretations of state law that suggest that -- that a prescribed burn cannot be done during a period when the Commissioners Court has a proposed burn ban, but that's not correct. Prescribed burns can be done during -- during a burn ban. The one other thing I'd like to say is, I don't have a lot of confidence in the indexes. I know it's kind of stupid to be questioning the experts, but I can see that there are conditions where the ground is very wet, but the grass is very dry, and the wind's up. And, in fact, somebody pointed 1-24-05 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 out that wet ground and dry grass may be more dangerous than dry ground, because if you get your vehicles out there and get them stuck, then you can't fight fire. So, I think you have to use some judgment, not just adhere to the two indices. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One of the things I would like to point out, in previous years, we've had the question of whether we had the authority to put a burn ban -- or to stop prescribed burns, period, and the answer is yes. Rex looked at that, and we can. The County does have the authority to say no prescribed burns unless you're certified. Certified burn manager, I think they call it. Then we have no -- they can do it. But we also have the authority to -- you know, we can create a -- a committee and allow prescribed burns under, you know, the scenario I've basically outlined. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the makeup of your committee, Jon, you talk about volunteer fire department. Would that be just an individual from a random fire department, or would that be perhaps the KARFA head, someone who could gather the information from all of the volunteer fire departments and make some representation on behalf of all of them? How do you see that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't put that much thought into the KARFA aspect of it. It could be either 1-24-05 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way. One of the things is to find someone who has the time and is willing to serve. And that's why, you know, on the -- I pretty much have individuals for a lot of these slots that I have in mind, but I tried to make it as broad as possible. I just think it is important to get feedback from volunteer fire departments, because they're the ones that -- you know, if the fire gets out of control, certainly they're involved. And a lot of times in some counties, I'm sure -- I think probably some of them in Kerr County, they go out to prescribed burns and -- and get paid a fee to come out there and help, and it's a good training exercise for them. So, I think they need to be part of the process and be more knowledgeable about that than other committee members would be. The individual -- I'll go down the list. The Commissioner, it would be myself. And just -- mainly, I say myself because I'm knowledgeable in burning, and we do a lot of burning in our own property. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The NRCS would be Joe Franklin. County Extension Agent, Roy Walston. I have not talked to Texas Forest Service, but I'm sure they -- I suspect they would have someone that'd be willing to do it. And the volunteer fire departments, I'm open for suggestions there. And the citizen, if he'll do it, would be Keith Blair, because he probably is certified, I suspect. He's 1-29-05 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ` 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just -- he's been in court before. He owns a company that does it professionally, prescribed burns. And -- but I have not contacted him to see if he'd be willing to serve. If he wouldn't, we could probably find somebody else. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If he's not available, perhaps Chris Childs would be from Shonto Ranch. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Chris would be good also. And I would -- you know, I think the committee could get together quickly. I think the committee -- my recommendation would be that the committee select one of the many burn plans that are out there, and so that -- this is one of Rex's suggestions; that we say this is the form you have to file. You know, and I know that the NRCS has one; I bet TCEQ has one, 'cause they're the ones that do the certification. So I think that way, you say we want this one filed. But I really don't see the purpose in having them all filed with us, you know. I mean, I think you just tell the people if they're going to do the burn, they have to have these forms filled out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any penalty associated with, for example, doing a burn if you haven't filed an appropriate plan, or would there be any penalty associated with this, I mean, if a prescribed burn got out of control and they haven't filed a plan? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yes. I think the 1-29-C5 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-_ 25 answer is yes, if you're a certified -- one of the -- part of that, and there are people that are professional that they really envision. You have to have a million-dollar -- isn't it, Rex? -- million-dollar liability policy to be certified. The -- the courts have held traditionally -- I think that this may have changed a little bit, or may be in the process of changing. If you do a burn that's authorized, which this would be, or a prescribed burn in a period when you do not have a burn ban in place, that -- and you follow certain procedures, you are exempt from liability if it gets out of control. If you don't do a burn plan and you don't do anything, you just go out there and say I want to burn off this pasture today, throw a match out there, and that fire gets away, you are going to be held liable. It's more as a liability issue when you get to court, and it protects the person doing the fire more than anything else. But if you do burn, if you do a prescribed burn under normal conditions, have a burn plan, I think the courts have pretty much held that you're -- you know, you're not going to be liable for damage if it gets out of control. I can see we put Commissioner 1 to sleep. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, I -- I just remember the 427 million meetings and workshops I've been to as a Commissioner that the -- this particular issue kind of -- I'm trying to think of the state property out past 1-24-05 85 i 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 Hunt. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Experimental station. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The experimental station. They put on a burn occasionally out there, and they've had -- they've invited the public to it. I've been out there several times, and it's one of the mast interesting things. They -- they get down to the barometric pressure and lots of issues involved in it, and to get the best burn where they can almost control what they burn and how hot the fire's going to be and the whole thing. It's just -- it's really interesting stuff. So, I wasn't asleep. I was just -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just thinking. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Quite a long time ago, maybe 10 or 15 years, I went to the workshop on fire. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I learned a lot, how good fire is. But one thing I remember is the instructor started off the lecture with, "Smokey the Bear is a liar." He went on to prove burning is good and you need to burn. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And then, also, I can tell you that they burned a prescribed burn last Friday 1-24-05 _~ 86 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at the experimental station and two other places. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of the -- if you do a prescribed burn according to the -- the law, the way you're supposed to do them, whether there's a burn ban or not, notification of proper authorities is part of that burn plan. The other thing that I haven't mentioned -- this really goes toward our administrative assistant. In the past, we've had a fairly lengthy message that goes on the recording as to, you know, if you're in this precinct, this and this, all these different things. I think the easiest way to handle it is just to say if you, you know, are interested in doing a prescribed burn, call Kathy, and then she can get us in touch with the committee. I think it's going to be easier that way. I don't think there's that many calls that come in. MS. MITCHELL: Yes, I get a lot of calls. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we still -- we need someone for them to call. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's talking about prescribed burns. MS. MITCHELL: Yes, I get a lot of calls on those also. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But on the -- you know, and the prescribed -- for example, burning a brush pile can never be a prescribed burn. That's just not -- you know, in 1-29-05 -.. 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a burn ban, a brush pile's not going to be burned. That's just the way it is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN. What amazes me on the burn ban issue is that I don't see much smoke around -- I drive around the county and I kind of look for those kind of things, and I hardly ever see any smoke coming up. Letz, I think his ranch filled that part of the county a couple weeks ago. But you can rest assured, if we was to put the burn ban on today, our phone -- I mean, people have to burn today. I don't know if they wait for us to put the burn ban on or what so they can burn. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They anticipate we're going to put it on. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it absolutely happens. They anticipate, and it happens. The phone will be ringing off the wall tonight. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do we know about -- what do we know about conditions, other than the index that you provided us, I mean, current information from our volunteer fire departments, current conditions? What do we know today? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we know that if -- you know, if you're on an undergrazed pasture, with the rain we've had this year, there's a huge amount of very dry fuel on the ground. You know, we know that there -- and, 1-24-05 88 1 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 know, with a dry norther when it blows in, that's a dangerous situation. There's enough ground moisture that the humidity -- most of the days, without the northers coming in, the humidities are about 50 to 60 percent, ideal for burning, 'cause we have a lot of moisture in the air, which helps a whole lot with suppression during the burn, there's no question. There was a -- a guy was building a fence just on the east side of Lane Valley in eastern Kerr County, and a spark hit the grass on a day that -- a week ago Saturday, and that fire -- it burned, almost took two structures down. It took the Comfort Fire Department and the Center Point Fire Department to get it under control, and it was about 200 feet from getting into a cedar break, where it would have burned until the wind switched. But that was -- that's a -- you know, that was the wrong spark at the wrong time, and had nothing to do with prescribed burning or -- carelessness, I guess, from a spark from a welder building a fence. But, you know, the conditions are such that a fire on the wrong day is very, very dangerous this year. And that's the reason I think a burn ban is, you know, certainly warranted in parts; certainly in the -- from what I hear and see, out in western Kerr County probably more than any other area. Because the -- you know, you can't -- you cannot do prescribed burns and -- a weekend prescribed 1-29-05 ---. ~ ..... - .~. r ~ ~~ --- 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 burn; you can't say, "Okay, Saturday I'm going to go burn." You have to really look at the weather conditions, and you burn when you can burn, when the conditions are right. I know that Joe Franklin was going burn just past the Kerr Wildlife Management area last week; he was planning on it, but the winds never shifted to come out of the southwest, which is what he wanted. We ended up with southeast wind most of the week, and he called offer the fires. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Our expired burn ban was what, a 90-day? And it has expired, and we had a court order, I think, that enabled Commissioners to suspend the burn ban in their individual precincts for a two-week period? Or was that -- was that just an arbitrary figure? And what would we be proposing? Again, the same two weeks? A one-week? Or what would we be proposing? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you can do any amount of time, but you have to be specific in your order -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- when it goes on and off. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree. MR. EMERSON: 90 days max. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This proposed committee, it occurs to me that that's absolutely the right people to write the process and the procedures and rules. I 1-24-OS 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 think it's too big a committee to act on any individual request; that you probably ought to narrow that down to a couple of three people. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would suspect, you know, with the committee -- for example, I don't think the committee -- or I should vote to approve myself. I don't think Joe Franklin should vote to approve himself, or other people. So, I think that -- you know, one, if you're going to be participating in the burn, you should be excluded from the vote. And I would say probably if you can get three -- three people together -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Something like that, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that's enough to approve somebody, because it's -- these are time-sensitive. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: First I'll make a motion that we implement the 90-day burn ban in the same format as the previous order, which allowed the Commissioners to lift it at their discretion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any question or discussion on that motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 1-24-05 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: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that Commissioners Court establish a committee, as outlined in our attachment -- well, I'll just read the names. A representative from the Kerr County Commissioners Court, USDA/NRCS office, County Extension Agent, Texas Forest Service, volunteer fire departments, and a citizen knowledgeable in prescribed burns. Those individuals -- it would be to approve a committee and authorize those individuals to develop criteria for prescribed burns during a period when a burn ban is in place, and approving such burns. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any question or discussion on that motion? 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: That motion carries. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aside from the names that I went -- the individuals named that I went through earlier, I would ask the Court to give me discretion to ask other 1-24-05 92 r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 people to serve on the committee, such as the volunteer fire representative, and I'd welcome any input from other members of the Court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we take it one step further and officially appoint you on that committee, and then with instructions to figure out who the others are going to be. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine, too. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's just bless him. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second that motion. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to appoint Commissioner Letz to constitute the committee. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that include the blessing? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, you get the blessing with that. JUDGE TINLEY: Part of the second, wasn't it? Any question or discussion on that? 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: The motion does carry. Now, 1-29-05 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 let's move to Item 12, consider and discuss -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I may real quick, Judge, does that mean you have a 90-day burn ban now in effect for all precincts? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: IInti1 I suspend it as soon as I leave this meeting, for my precinct. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, while you're here -- I've seen you put your head around there. I do think -- it has come to -- I've been calling both your office and dispatch at K.P.D. just to make sure the word gets out, 'cause K.P.D. is the one that works with the volunteer fire departments. Do you recommend that that continue, calling both numbers? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Yes, I think our dispatch definitely needs it. We've -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both get a lot of calls, but since there -- since the K.P.D. dispatch is toning out for volunteer fire departments -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Been responding to a lot of fire calls in the last week. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You have been? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 1-24-05 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any particular area of the county, or all areas? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: East. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: East. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mine? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yours and his. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's his ranch. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Somebody's burning a whole lot of something down there, and half of them are getting out of control. I don't know what your humidity reports say, but after 10 o'clock, it changes and the fires get away. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we in a position to move on? Let's go to Item 12, consider and discuss renegotiation of the interlocal agreement between Kerr County and the City of Kerrville for Animal Control services. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have an interlocal agreement between City of Kerrville and Kerr County provided for the provision of animal control services. The contract was commenced October 1, 1998, and it will end on September 30, 2005. And -- but it would automatically renew unless one party gives notice of intent to -- to renegotiate. So, a lot of things have changed in 1-29-05 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 five years, and I think it's appropriate to -- that we take a look at that contract in connection with the people from City of Kerrville and come up with a new contract proposal. JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, Commissioner, I think there are actually two different contracts; there's one for the animal control services, and there's another one for the facility operation. And they're -- they basically have the same terms ending September 30, '05, if I'm not mistaken, with automatic annual renewal unless there's 90-day advance notice of intention not to renew. MR. ALLEN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they also have provisions for increasing the remuneration; is that correct? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the renegotiation would throw that open if you give notice of intent not to renew at least 90 days prior to the -- to September 30. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. ALLEN: Both contracts require the City to pay 40 percent of the shelter budget, and then 40 percent of the animal control service. JUDGE TINLEY: That's under the current contract. MR. ALLEN: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. That, of course, would be open for total negotiation if -- 1-24-05 96 t 1 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. ALLEN: They both end September 30th, 2005, but they're automatically renewed unless either party terminates, and just continues like it is. But it would probably benefit the County and the City to renegotiate and try to make it into one contract. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. So, my motion is going to be that we approve the renegotiation of the contract, the interlocal agreement between Kerr County and the City of Kerrville for animal control services and for operation of the Animal Control facility, and that we authorize the County Judge to notify the City of Kerrville of our intentions to cancel and renegotiate the contract. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what -- I agree with you. I'll second. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I have -- JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Questions or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What happens after that? When we notify the City and say, "Hey, we want to negotiate here." Do you and the Judge trot over there, or do they trot -- it doesn't matter where. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I'd like to see happen, Commissioner, is that they -- the City appoint someone or ones who have the authority to make a 1-24-05 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recommendation to City Council, and that the County likewise promote -- appoint some person or persons who has that same authority, so that we don't get bogged down -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- with multiple levels of approval, and that the two sides come to agreement on a good contract that they agree that they will recommend to the two governing bodies. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like that process, but I think it needs to be expanded. I mean, Animal Control -- it seems like we're doing it piecemeal. I know this one's up. Obviously, the fire -- the emergency service contract's up, because the City's putting us on notice. This one. Airport, we just took care of that one, so it's taken care of. What others do we have? Recycling. I mean, I think we -- it's probably good to look at all those contracts. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Library. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Library. And I don't know if maybe the -- I don't know the best process to follow. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Kathy is compiling those contracts now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one of the first steps would be, you know, to figure out all the ones that we 1-24-05 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have, then notify the City about all of them and see -- you know, probably get the County Attorney and City Attorney communicating, 'cause they're going to have to be the ones that approve the form, both of them. Before they really get involved, I would think we need to know what the contract needs to be modified to or what the new contract should look like. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I kind of like that approach. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The process we used on the airport worked very well, and it's probably going to take -- you know, on that one, a City Councilman, City Manager, and a representative of this Court all met, ironed out the agreement, and then got it to the legal authorities, and I think multiple of that same process would work very well. Like, Animal Control would be Commissioner Nicholson and whoever the City wants to appoint. So I think, you know, I'd like to see the letter from the Judge ask them to appoint a City Councilman for each of the contracts. JUDGE TINLEY: I think the only thing we can address now under the -- under the agenda item is the Animal Control. Certainly, I could do that, but -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, okay. I agree, 'cause that's the way it was posted. JUDGE TINLEY: But the concept certainly 1-24-05 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 is -- makes every bit of good sense. You know, we got to have a way to go forward. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask a question. Is there an imperative for doing the Animal Control today? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, one of the few things I've learned in the last two years is that it's a very short time between January and October 1. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I understand. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you don't start early, you don't get it done. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. I'm not trying to impede; I'm just wondering whether or not, by coming back at the next meeting, we can incorporate all of them as per Commissioner Letz' suggestion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It makes no difference. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No difference. We're still going to have to appoint somebody for this one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might just mention in your letter that the process we used on the airport seemed to work, so we ought to use that as the model process for this year. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 1-24-05 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It did work. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to see if Commissioner 4 comes back from over there bruised up before we get too far into this thing, before you start sending me somewhere. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to see how he does the Animal Control before he tackles the library. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm saying. See what kind of bruises he comes back with. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I`ll never miss another County Commissioners' meeting. I drug myself in here off my deathbed this morning. JUDGE TINLEY: In self-defense? Do I have a motion? MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a second? MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That notion does carry. The next item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and seek 1-29-05 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approval of resolution in support for the funding for the Texas Tech University Hill Country Educational Network and the Texas Tech University Center at Junction. I put this on here at the request of the publisher of our local newspaper, Mr. -- one of the local newspapers, Mr. Greg Shrader, who asked that this item be placed on the agenda. I think the resolution is self-explanatory. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move for approval. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the resolution. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is, why doesn't it include the one in Fredericksburg with Junction? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The resolution does? I know -- I mean, the earlier part, it did. I don't see Fredericksburg mentioned on the actual resolution. All I see is Junction. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, on the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Number 1 on the -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- "Be it Resolved," it refers 1-24-05 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to Texas Tech University of the Hill Country. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Parentheses, Fredericksburg and Highland Lakes, and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: -- Texas Tech University at Junction. Any further questions or discussion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd just say that opportunities for local people to get higher education close by are critically important, in my mind; that we shouldn't have to -- our children shouldn't have to be going off to Lubbock or College Station if -- if there's a local option. So, I -- I sincerely support these kind of efforts. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Me too. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? 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: That motion does carry. The next item on the agenda is to consider and discuss the status of the Legion and Granada tower contracts with L.C.R.A. This matter was brought to my attention by the L.C.R.A. people. Apparently, in 2002, there were agreements 1-24-05 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 entered into with the L.C.R.A. with respect to these two towers, which have been utilized by Kerr County. The Sheriff might have some more specific information about it, but the agreements initially provided, according to the motion given to me by L.C.R.A., that for the first two years, there would be no cost or fees required to utilize those two towers. Thereafter, the L.C.R.A. would give notice to Kerr County advance six months notice that those fees would commence to accrue. Fortunately, they went asleep at the switch, did not give that notice, but they woke up here a month or so ago and say they now want to do it, and they've given us that notice. Realizing that -- that we did not budget for it during this year, they're wanting to start the fees beginning in the last quarter of this budget year, July 1. Realizing that we did not budget for it, what they have consented to do is to not make the fees which would otherwise be due for the months of July, August, and September not due until after October 1, which would allow us to take that into account in our next budget year. Now, on the accrual basis, how the Auditor handles that I suppose is up to him, but for budgeting purposes, it certainly is going to benefit us, because we can fund a year and a quarter in the following budget year under that agreement. Strangely enough, I was only able to find a copy of one 1-24-05 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 those agreements. The Sheriff happened to have it. I don't know where -- where the other one happened to end up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I noticed, in looking through these agreements, in a couple locations it talks about the fee to be determined, or to be negotiated. When was it determined, and how much is it? I'm looking at the Sheriff; maybe he knows. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You can look at me. I can't tell you exactly. I know, in visiting with L.C.R.A. when this came up, there were two contracts. I think the main contract mentions both tower sites, and what it actually amounts to at this point is, starting in July, we will be paying approximately $1,600 a month for tower lease for two towers. Not each; total. That's about what it`s going to be for -- considering our budget. And then that will go up each year, and their percentage raise. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess my question is, are these arbitrary figures set down by L.C.R.A.? Are they negotiated figures between the two parties? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: These are actually -- in dealing with -- having a couple of meetings, these are actually a little bit low on what their normal standard fees 24 25 alternatives? 1-29-05 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we have any are. 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not unless Kerr County wants to build towers. Our radio system takes -- and if you -- I don't think you were on the Court -- takes in four tower sites, 'cause it's the simulcast system. Two of those sites are owned by -- or actually leased through Kerrville Telephone Company, and one's by -- owned by -- the land's owned by Mosty, and the other one, land's owned by Parker, and we already have been paying fees on those. One of them, we got out of the land use fees by putting up the fence and the building on that, if y'all will remember the one out west. The other one out east, we do pay a small fee on that -- monthly fee. That's paid three times a year or something like that. And these two, back when it was done, the Granada tower site, which is the main one out off Upper Turtle Creek, for years and years the County had that site at no fee; never did have to pay a fee for it. And then, when all this new equipment and new building had to go in, they wanted that renegotiated, and gave the first two years free 'cause it wasn't in the budget or anything for them to start charging. The other site is the Legion tower site, which is off Cypress Creek Road. That's a very large tower. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one is that? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Legion is the one off Cypress Creek Road, the very large tower by Red Rose Ranch. And, unfortunately, it's -- tower sites and lease space on 1-24-05 106 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 tower sites is not cheap. We have buildings at each of those towers. We have computer equipment, we have repeater equipment, we have security alarms, everything else. That all had to go in, and we had to qet -- work through negotiations with them back when the radio system was installed for the use of the tower site, without having to go out and build our own and take in the liability. There were some other sites, like one at Mountain Home on the Hall ranch that was looked at, but due to the requirements the F.C.C. would have had and everything else, it was not feasible at that time to go to that tower site. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are these towers that have other users besides us -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, yes, every one of them -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- hanging stuff on it? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- has space on them except one of the bigger users. 'Cause we also have a building at each one of those housing equipment, okay? So we had to also do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, Judge, we need an approval to do what? We're not going to pay anything to -- we're deferring payment this year, correct? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 1-24-05 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So what do we need to approve now that wouldn't be in next year's budget? JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure we have to do anything, except that in the event we cannot find that -- there's three different agreements. There's the general conditions of the license agreement, and there's -- then there is a specific agreement with regard to the Legion tower, and a specific agreement with regard to the Granada tower. The other thing is that the -- the charge that's being imposed, of course, needs to be brought to the Court's attention. The Granada is $1,030 a month. The Legion is $600 a month. And the -- we're being given notice that those will be imposed beginning July 1, 2005, but will not be payable until October 2005. I suppose that there are copies of these agreements somewhere, but if we can't find those agreements, we probably ought to authorize the re-execution, as it were, of those agreements so that we know exactly where we're at. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Back when they were done, I think they were probably filed -- the originals -- in with the Clerk's office somewhere. I haven't -- I have a copy of the master agreement which lists both tower sites and all the equipment and everything on them, and I have a copy of the -- it specifically mentions the Granada tower site. Now, the way you read that, you could read it two 1-24-05 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 different ways, and it gives one and two on it, which would have been when that was done, that it really was intended to take care of both those sites, 'cause they're both owned by L.C.R.A. But I agree with the Judge that -- especially since, like Commissioner Williams said, a lot of those agreements had in there, instead of dollar amounts, it was "to be determined." And now that it is determined, I think that's -- it would be wise to have agreements rewritten and agreed to and that and signed and put on file at the clerk's office. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, at this point, we're just on notice of it, and it will be addressed in our budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think that -- I think that we should go ahead and have something to let L.C.R.A. know what -- what we are agreeing to do, so -- for their own records, and so there will be an agreement. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could accept their offer to defer payments. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Accept their offer to defer payments and start in budget '05-'06. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was that a motion? JUDGE TINLEY: For a monthly consideration of $1,030 for Granada tower and $600 for the Legion tower. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 1-24-05 109 1 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: Second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just tower space? Or rack space also for the -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, everything at each tower site. We have generators, we have UPS, we have buildings, we have everything. JUDGE TINLEY: That was a motion by Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Letz. Any question or discussion on COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: and Granada Springs. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir. Second by Commissioner that motion? I think that's Legion It's actually just called Granada. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it? Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause it's not in Granada Springs; it's up off by Doyle, that area up there, right up on the very top of that mountain. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't get mad, Rusty. Just trying to clarify. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's Granada. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 1-24-05 110 1 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 motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. I now find that we had an 11 o'clock item we just got to. My apologies. Consider and discuss beginning the new County Court at Law court coordinator at a Grade 19, Step 3, based on prior training and experience. Judge Brown? JUDGE BROWN: Yes, sir. Well, it's all written down there. Barbara's going down to the County Attorney's office and work down there, and so I've talked to Kathy Gaulden about coming up -- coming down to work for me from the District Clerk's Office. She's got three years experience. She was in the system already. She -- she works with the family probate -- I mean the family law stuff up there, the domestic -- you know, the divorces and stuff, so she'd be a -- it would be very difficult to hire somebody that isn't familiar with all the -- what goes on here in the courthouse. It would take me six months to even get them oriented to what's going on in there. So, I think her responsibilities, she -- whoever -- whoever I would hire would start at a 19-1 anyway. That's what the job description calls for. With her three years experience and her knowledge of the family law matters and what goes on around here, and she knows all the people around here, I 1-29-05 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 25 111 think it's going to be -- it would be -- I think -- you know, I think she should start at a 19-3. I believe that would be fair to her. COMMISSIONER the -- as the position of t Was she also a 19-3? JUDGE BROWN: Barbara's a lot higher than • COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this the same as ~e previous holder of the job? I think she's higher than that. that. WILLIAMS: That's what I wanted to know, thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To be clear, I think 19-2 is acceptable because, I mean, of the longevity issue by itself. I don't have a real problem with 19-3. I'd probably prefer 19-2. That way it's more room for advancement. But -- JUDGE BROWN: Well, 19-3, there's plenty of room. There's lots more categories, if you look at those. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you look at it, three years experience -- I mean, that is not so much, is it? I mean -- JUDGE BROWN: It's not -- it's experience in what we do. See, I get a third of all the family law cases. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And this person has -- I know she's been in the District Clerk's Office. JUDGE BROWN: Yeah, she works up there and 1-24-05 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 she handles the -- whenever they have jury trials and stuff, she's over there handling the juries. We have -- as a matter of fact,. we picked two juries; picked one this morning, and we pick another this afternoon. So, she knows that end of the business, how you pick juries and stuff and all the paperwork that goes with that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We certainly have done it before. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or 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: The motion does carry. JUDGE BROWN: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Judge Brown. Appreciate your being patient with our delay here. Next item is Number 16, requesting authorization for an audit of the Hot Check account. Good morning, sir. MR. EMERSON: Good morning. County 1-29-05 113 1 2 ,.-. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attorney's office is requesting a formal forensic audit of the Hot Check Fund account. As this Court knows, that's a fund account that's generated by the fees that were statutorily designated. It's been in existence since the early 1990's. I can't find anybody that has any knowledge that that fund has ever been audited, nor can I find any annual reports relating to that fund at this point, although we have no reason to believe anything improper has taken place; I want to make that very clear. I think it's important to establish a base for me to be able to go forth and account to the taxpayers for those funds from this point forward with the annual reports. I've taken the liberty of having Gary Davidson come out and take a look at the documents and the paperwork that we have and give me an estimate on what he thinks it will take to do an audit. After reviewing that, he said it was basically impractical to go back farther than three years. He's recommending we go back to the beginning of 2002 and proceed from that point. To do a detailed audit from there will run an estimated $3,000 to $4,000, with $4,000 being the absolute tops. We do not anticipate going beyond that. Thus far, I think it's important for the Court to note that, thus far in 2005, that I have signed authorizations accounting for and transferring accrued interest of $5,800.25 from that fund to the County's general 1-24-05 114 1 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 revenue fund, where it was displaced funds that were never transferred over. Furthermore, on my line item budget itself for the month of January, the administrative secretary position that'll be discussed in the next line item has been sitting vacant, and even allowing for a slight amount of overtime that was accumulated from the transition, we should have about $2,100 available in that line item. And, as such, we'd respectfully ask the Court to authorize $4,000 maximum for a forensic audit. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm wondering -- we're in the process right now -- our outside auditors are doing the courthouse auditing even as we speak, and seems like to me a couple of weeks ago we asked the Auditor, I think, to visit with them about -- about the Juvenile Detention Facility and possibly broadening their scope of -- instead of doing their basic audit of the county and the juvenile facility, to broaden it a little bit further. I wonder if we couldn't include this operation and ask them to do that as well. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would be your thoughts on that? MR. EMERSON: My initial thought would be that I'm somewhat in a conundrum, for lack of a better word. We've already authorized a sub-account of the County's treasury to be set up to run from this point forward, but I 1-29-05 115 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 have an unknown amount of money sitting out here in the ozone layer. I need to be able to account for that as quickly as possible and move it over and run from that point forward. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. MR. EMERSON: Mr. Davidson has basically said that he thinks he can generate a complete audit in two to four weeks. I'm not sure if the auditors that are currently auditing the county can kick something out that fast. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They probably can't. And you said you've turned over, what, $5,000 to the general fund already? MR. EMERSON: $5,800.25 so far, and I would anticipate there being some more that will roll over. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, the way to proceed probably is the recommendation of the County Attorney; let him hire whoever he chooses. Doesn't make that much difference, but in subsequent or all future years, it should be included in the county-wide audit. And I think that's a -- and it should be whoever has that contract for that year, I think, if it hasn't been included in it previously. So, kind of do a catch-up year, and then it would go into the regular system. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, in future years, I think it automatically would be, because it's coming into the 1-24-05 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 general fund, so it will automatically be picked up there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I -- so the motion -- a motion would be to authorize the County Attorney to conduct -- have an audit conducted by an independent Auditor that -- of his choosing, the funds for that to be taken from the dollar amount that he's already turned over to the general fund? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have to declare an emergency to use those funds, because those funds are in our general fund already. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you said you had 2,100 in some other -- MR. EMERSON: I should have approximately 2,100 in the -- I guess -- I'm not sure what line item it is, but it's the personnel budget. Salary budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't you go ahead and proceed with the audit, and we'll take as much money as we can out of that, and the balance of it, we'll declare an emergency at that time to pay the balance out of -- you know, and not to exceed $4,000. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that's the way I would word it, is not to exceed a certain amount. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I accept that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if you were making 1-24-05 - _ -. 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 a motion, that's what you would say? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's exactly what I would say. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If I were seconding it, I would be in agreement with you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Having accepted it the way it was refrained, you may now feel free to second it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second the motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion was maids and seconded. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Work together. JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is tough work. JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next item is the requested starting salary deviation from recommended position schedule, step and grade and chart. Mr. Emerson? MR. EMERSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Barbara Holmes, who was Judge Brown's court administrator, has applied for, and with his permission, I would like to move her down to the County Attorney's office. She's currently 1-24-05 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at a 19-7 step/grade. Helena Hannah that was in that positions, who, as this Court's aware, retired last year, was also at a 19-7, so it will not have any budget impact on my budget. Barbara has been with the County since 1993 in one capacity or another, and has been with the Judge since 1996. Her knowledge of the legal system and specifically County Court at Law, which is the primary court of practice for the County Attorney's office, will be invaluable. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what you're saying is if she moves into a new position, she -- the rules say that she will start at a 19-1? MR. EMERSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you want her to just go in at a 19-7? MR. EMERSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item, lateral transfer at 19-7. Any further question or 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: The motion does carry. 1-29-05 119 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 MR. EMERSON: Thank y'all. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Let's move to Item 18, approval of a new hire at 12-3 and approval of promotion from clerk position, Vehicle Registration Department, to Senior Clerk in Tax Department, 13-5. Ms. Rector? MS. RECTOR: Okay. I have quite a sheet. JUDGE TINLEY: I gather these are two separate items here? MS. RECTOR: Two separate items, two separate employees. I have a new hire. Her and her husband had a car dealership here in Kerr County for over 20 years, so she's very experienced in car titles, which are very hard to find. And because of her experience, I would like to bring her in at a higher level than entry level, bring her in at a 12-3. JUDGE TINLEY: The employee departing that department was at what? MS. RECTOR: Pardon me? JUDGE TINLEY: The employee that she would be filling the slot, what was -- MS. RECTOR: Is a 12-4. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So -- MS. RECTOR: And, you know, that's this next item. I'm moving that person to my Tax Department. 1-24-05 120 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 LETZ: I move approval of the first part, starting an employee at a 12-3. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the new hire at Grade 12, Step 3. Any further question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: A11 opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Let's take up the second one. MS. RECTOR: Okay. I have moved one of my employees that has been in that vehicle department for five years over to my tax department. She is also my -- become my backup in my Ingram office when I need another clerk out there, if my clerk there is ill or on vacation. She's been with me for five years. She's doing an excellent job in the Tax Department, and I want to promote her to a senior clerk position. She's currently a 12-4. I want to take her to a 13-5. And because I've had a many-year employee retire at the end of October that was at a much higher salary, and I've had some positions that have remained open for several months, that I do have the additional funds in my budget. 1-29-05 1 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: What is the salary of a 12-4 versus a 13-5? MS. RECTOR: Let's see. 12-4 is $20,417 annual. 13-5 is $21,987. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's a 13-5 -- 13-4? MS. RECTOR: 13-4? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or 13-3, I'm sorry. MS. RECTOR: $20,928. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems that moving in at a 13-5 is pretty high. MS. RECTOR: Well, that's -- the position that's open is a senior clerk position. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's a 13. MS. RECTOR: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I have no problem; if it's a 13, it's a 13. MS. RECTOR: That position is a 13. The senior clerk position is a 13. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd be more inclined to start at a 13-3. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many years experience does -- MS. RECTOR: Five years. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- did this individual have with you? 1-~4-05 1 ~. 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 MS. RECTOR: Five years. She's one of the best employees that I have. Exceptional employee, fast learner, and since I've also moved her as my backup to my Ingram office, I feel that she is well deserving of the additional salary. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we hear a 13-4? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this a bid? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just seems that going up -- it's hard to -- I can see going from a -- into a new position at a higher experience level than you're currently at, and I look at the experience. MS. RECTOR: Well, she's also cross-trained, so that's an added plus there, because I can move her back into motor vehicles when I need her there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The senior clerk position calls for a 13. Does it call for a 13-1 or a 13-5? MS. RECTOR: It calls for 13-1 for beginning salary with no experience. But she has worked in my Tax Department off and on -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, if we put her in at a 13-1 she'd still be the senior clerk. She'd have that designation. MS. RECTOR: If you put her in as a 13-1, then she's taking a cut in pay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that wouldn't be 1-24-05 1 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 very smart. MS. RECTOR: That doesn't make sense to me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That wouldn't be very smart of her, I guarantee. MS. RECTOR: I'd want to stay where I was if I were her. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to start the senior clerk at a 13-4. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to authorize the senior clerk position in the Tax Office at 13-4. Any question or 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: The motion does carry. Thank you, Ms. Rector. Item 19, consider and discuss suspending Water Availability Requirements of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's come to my attention, after visiting with Len Odom and reviewing our rules, and also talking with Gordon Morgan, that the current way our Water Availability Requirements are written don't work, because Headwaters doesn't have the means to do what 1-24-05 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 25 124 we tell them to do on Water Availability Requirements. Plus, there's a question as to whether there's a real need for what we ask, which basically is a well has to be drilled for a subdivision over 75 acres in size. What I recommend is that we currently suspend them. Headwaters won't sign the plat, because they can't do what they are -- you know, what we're asking them to do. From a staffing standpoint, basically. And I've been in contact with the president of Headwaters, and he's in the audience, Gordon Morgan, and we're really looking at whether water availability requirements are needed at all. And the reason for that is -- and that's really -- and I've told Gordon that they should get together with Headwaters' board and ask -- I mean, for them really to look at it, and that I would recommend whatever they recommend, really. 'Cause the whole purpose of this rule was to get data on wells, hence the aquifers, to Headwaters so they could do a better job of evaluating the aquifers in the county. So, basically, I just think we ought to suspend it at this time, and then after they look at it, and while we're doing our final rewrite of our Subdivision Rules, we'll either include it or not include it at that time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would that make our minimum lot size be? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't change anything. 1-24-05 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 25 125 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Still be 5? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing it means is that developers will not have to drill a test well or get any of that evaluation. That's what we're suspending. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second that motion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, me too. It was -- in the beginning, it was set up to assist the Headwaters Underground Water District, and they -- if their desire is not to have it, I mean, why be cumbersome? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- bottom line is that, over time, Headwaters rules have passed up our rules, the water availability requirement, and they are already getting the data. The data that we were trying to get to them, they're getting on any well drilled. Now, there may be a benefit for us to come in with some -- some additional requirements that would be beneficial, and Headwaters can look at that, whether that's worthwhile from their standpoint. And then, if they want us to put some requirement in there, it will be up to us to see if we think it's a reasonable requirement or not. JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Since we're dealing with some of our rules, is there any requirement for any public notice, or -- because we're reducing or relooking. Public notice is not required? 1-24-05 126 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll defer to the County MR. EMERSON: Off the top of my head, I don't know the answer to that, Judge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that there's actually a legal requirement that we do a public hearing on our rules. We do it as a matter of public policy, to -- from an information standpoint, and to make sure that we get input from the community. JUDGE TINLEY: I can understand if we were increasing -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- the rules or -- or making them further restrictive, but because we're -- we're eliminating or suspending one, doesn't seem to make sense. We wouldn't need to do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will have no effect on lot size or anything. It's -- the only thing it means is that going out and drilling wells and doing certain tests on that well will not be required. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, bottom line is Dr. Morgan is one of those old geezers that just knows what's down there. He doesn't have to drill a well to find out what's down there; he just knows. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why did he just hire 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 127 his high-priced consultant to tell him what's down there? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't -- oh, I didn't realize you were in the room, Gordon. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: Furthermore, that old geezer won't sign the plats any more. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. He never would. MS. PIEPER: There's a motion and second. JUDGE TINLEY: Did you make a motion? Any further question or discussion on the motion? 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: The motion does carry. We'll move to Item 20, consider and discuss the reduction of the registration fees during the Rabies Drive. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hi, Janie. MS. ROMAN: Hello. The Animal Control Department is requesting that the Court reduce the animal registration fees from $5 and $10 to $1 during the annual Rabies Drive. It will be held February 5th, which is a Saturday, and then it will restart on that following Monday and will run through the 19th in the local vets' offices. Now, on February 5th, it will be held at four different locations in the county from 1:00 to 3 p.m. 1-24-CS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 128 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any questions or 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: The motion does carry. Thank MS. ROMAN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is authorization to pursue interlocal agreements for the placement of Kerr County M.H.M.R. patients in facilities outside of Kerr County. Mr. Emerson? MR. EMERSON: Thank you, Judge. The position we're in, gentlemen, is that the State of Texas has determined that the Kerr County mental health facility will no longer take civil commitments. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again? MR. EMERSON: The State of Texas has determined that the Kerr County mental health patients will no longer go to the local facility; they will be shipped to Bexar County, Travis County, or El Paso. It's an 1-24-05 1 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 interesting situation, because my understanding with local personnel is that they've been taking the overflow from Bexar County and Travis County, so I'm not sure where our patients will go. But the problem we have is that the County Attorney's office statutorily is responsible for representing the citizens of our county in those courts. What that means is that we can either work an interlocal with Bexar County, Travis County, and El Paso, or somebody from my office is going to be on the road three days a week traveling to all those other counties for a 10-minute hearing. It's not realistic. It's not financially feasible for a county to do that. Thus far, we have not been contacted by any of those counties, but I would anticipate hearing from them very shortly, and when they do, I need the authority of the Court to be able to try to negotiate an interlocal agreement to present to this Court. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, all these years we've been taking their patients -- their overflow patients in here because they're full somewhere, and now we want to send ours to them. I don't know how y'all do the math, but -- I mean, I'm behind you 100 percent, but that's goofy math. MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why are we having to do this? 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd love to address that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please do. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Kerrville State Hospital has been ordered by the State of Texas to take just forensic patients. That's your criminally committed patients that have not been found competent to stand trial. There are no other patients going to be out at Kerrville State Hospital. They have took in about 20 last week; they're going to be up to about 178. And which means my officers and Kerrville Police Department officers, anybody that has to be committed from this county, we may have to drive to El Paso to take them to a State Hospital to get them in. We took two this -- this last weekend to San Antonio, but my understanding also is those were the last two slots San Antonio had. And last week we tried to get one there and they were full, so all of them are full. But I think the cost to the County and police department of us having to transport these people to other counties is going to be horrendous, 'cause this is a constant occurrence, and people that need mental health hearings, you know, we're going to have to be hauling them all over the state of Texas to who knows where. And then I personally have a very serious concern as to whether this State Hospital is -- has the security to turn into a Vernon State Hospital, which is a maximum-security, criminally 1-24-05 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 insane, or criminally -- people. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is a decision made in Austin? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a decision made in Austin that is going to affect this county tremendously and be a financial burden on this county, and I think a very high security risk to the citizens of this county. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We begin to see that Austin is a hostile foreign government. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any appeal from this -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No appeal. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any appeal from this decision? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is done, far as I know. There's no appeal. And as far as I also know, I saw a memo that was put out by the State Hospital this morning that said this will be indefinite as far as time. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Parker, do you care to weigh in on this? MS. PARKER: Yes, sir, I do. Well, it's as bad as it sounds, but it can get better. And that's one of the things that we're going to be working on. What will occur -- or the justification for this, right, wrong, or indifferent -- I'm the messenger. I didn't create the plan, 1-24-05 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but Mr. Kenny Dudley, who is the director of state mental health facilities. What brought this on -- and I believe, Judge, you and I had a short discussion on this -- is the NorthSTAR area in Dallas has what they call a capitated rate where they are able to send people to a state hospital for psychiatric admissions, non-forensic, non-criminally committed, at a much more rapid rate than any of the other mental health authorities or community mental health and mental retardation centers. They have made Terrell full for about a year now. Terrell also houses forensics, just as K.S.H. does, so none of those beds turn over that are in the forensic category. So, what Mr. Dudley did was to transfer all the forensics to Kerrville State Hospital and to Big Spring State Hospital, and that would allow more acute -- acute admissions to come into Terrell, to San Antonio, and to Austin State Hospital. I'd like to give you a little history. And Commissioner Baldwin's been around a little while and he knows some of this, but there are several of us who, on many occasions, have gone to Austin to fight for keeping Kerrville State Hospital open. Those of you who were involved know that that was a real probability. There are three state hospitals within a 100-mile radius in central Texas. It's always been an issue that Kerrville may or may not stay open. The only way that Kerrville was able 1-24-OS 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to stay open was to bring forensic admissions into the hospital, and that is what Representative Hilderbran worked very, very hard to do, see that they were brought in. As inpatient populations shrink, even though we -- with the demand, when you're the sheriff and you're the police department, and we're the mental health authority, nothing feels shrinking to us. But it does, because community resources grow. State hospitals are more and more on the chopping block. There was a study. There is a group out there today at Kerrville State Hospital that's still looking at the closure of Kerrville State Hospital. With the possibility of it being forensic, the hospital stays open. Economically, that's a good thing for the community. But if -- if it's the sheriff, the police department, the county and hill country, it's not a good thing, because we can't send our admissions to Kerrville State Hospital right now. What we're going to do is look at some alternatives that will perhaps address your admissions to hospitals. I have a meeting with Mr. Dudley and Joe Vesowate, Mr. Dudley's boss, today to talk about the possibility of doing that. They're going to be over here at the hospital for the closure group that's here looking at it again. They're doing a second round in Kerrville and San Antonio and Wichita Falls are the group that they're looking 1-24-05 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- they're looking at today. So, all of this is to say that while it looks bad right now, I expect it to ease up in, say, the next 20 days. But it does mean that the Kerrville admissions from the Kerr County Mental Health Clinic will be admitted to San Antonio State Hospital, and so that is a -- that would require that you have an interlocal agreement, just as many counties did for you for a -- with you for a number of years to do their commitments. I would suggest -- it would be my recommendation, knowing the fees, that you try to negotiate down the fee of admissions there. But I'm only the messenger; I'm giving you the information. That's the most we know. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Keep in mind, I'm -- I only know what I've -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, do you see -- this whole thing looks to me like -- like the prison system 10 years ago when we started filling up, and the great State of Texas had to balance that budget, so they couldn't build as many as they needed. So, is there -- I don't know if this is a fair question to you or not, but there's a possibility of our -- our mental health facilities filling up -- filling up, and then we're going to start releasing patients a little earlier than we should, and they're going to be in our streets and in our emergency rooms and in our -- huh? JUDGE TINLEY: Jails. 1-24-05 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jails. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Be in our county jails. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: County jails that we need to expand. We'll get to that later. But all of our -- our system, and -- my god, do you see that? Am I -- MS. PARKER: No, sir, you -- you are seeing that correctly. There have to be provisions made. The reason -- it's very, very difficult for someone to be made competent to stand trial, which most of you know. And so the people that are in Kerrville State Hospital now, the percentage that would ever be released, it's not very big. So, if you have the forensics pouring in over here holding hospital beds, and you're having acute admissions coming in here, and they keep growing in the forensic number, you're squeezing down the acute admissions. So, it is -- it is an issue that the State has to grapple with. What I would recommend to you is that you look at all of that jail diversion legislation that will be coming out this session, make sure that that is the way you want people to be handled. The -- the way that -- maybe "handled" isn't the right word, but the dispensation of those individuals. Make sure that they're going into the right system. There are a huge number of people that do not belong in the criminal justice system that really should be in the mental health system, but when they commit crimes, there are laws in state 1-24-05 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hospitals that say, oh, no, they can't come here, and they can't live in the community, and they go to the county jail. So, there are some issues that that does rightfully need to be addressed. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And to actually make it worse than what we're seeing right now, there are a lot of people in Rusty's place that needs to be in the mental health -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, to give you an idea -- and the diversion she's talking about, I sent -- my Jail Administrator and Chief Deputy went to Maryland for some studies in trying to figure a way. They are trying to help, but right now what's really hurting everything is that out of, like, this last year, the 3,440 people we booked inside the Kerr County Jail, M.H.M.R. had already dealt with over 1,200 of those people. So, we had a third of our population that have history with M.H.M.R., okay? Now, my last comment I'll say -- and I don't blame the local state hospital. I just have some problems with the -- what Austin's doing to us without building up the security issues out there first. Because I can remember when they took down all the barbed wire around the fences out there, okay? I know last month we arrested one that ended up walking out or climbing over the fence or whatever, and was wanted for murder out of Austin. 1-29-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 ,.-, ~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 137 But my other problem that maybe the Judge or the Commissioners can help me with is, the way it is right now, we, as law enforcement -- if they're committed over there as a criminal and needing mental help, if they were in my jail, the public would have their name. Just like we have -- or public's had the name of the people that -- the one that's accused of killing the two people down at Comfort, okay? We know it. It's public record. But because they're over there, the way it is currently, law enforcement has no right to have the names or what these people are over there charged with until after they walk off. And I think that's a travesty. And trying to protect the citizens of this county, it's not getting to know who these people are. MS. PARKER: And I think what the Sheriff is saying and what I'm saying is that the population is growing. The issues surrounding them are certainly growing, and it behooves us all to stay informed and have input in the Legislature about what the laws are that govern these individuals and what our right as a public is to know some of these things. We have applied -- we are applying, and the proposal will be coming in -- or going in on February 15th for a Jail Diversion proposal that perhaps will ease some things. We're applying for that through the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. So, I know these are 1-24-05 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 25 138 not answers. I know it probably doesn't make you feel any better, but I want you to be aware that we are -- our Board of Trustees at Hill Country are aware. They've given me their blessing to try to do some things to ease the burden, because it's our job to represent you. You appoint our board, and it's our job to represent you in the local community to meet your needs -- your mental health needs. So, we're going to work to try to come up with a better solution. And today, if you feel as if I'm behind the 8-ball, I want you to know that this all happened -- we were in Austin in a meeting, and Mr. Dudley walked up to me and said yesterday, "I shut down psychiatric admissions to Kerrville State Hospital." So, I mean, it's harder to solve the problem once they close the doors and you have to build it. If they had -- they wanted to do this in September. They had planned on doing this in September. Had it happened that way, we would have had some time. We don't have any time now. We're making up time. So, thank you for your indulgence. I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a quick question. I take it that forensic patients are, generally speaking, more dangerous than acute patients? MS. PARKER: Well, criminal patients have been -- have been tried for a criminal -- or have been charged with a crime, and they have been deemed incompetent 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 139 to stand trial. Anybody else that we're screening and putting in the hospital don't have criminal issues. They've not had any hearing. They've not had any kind of -- they may have had scrapes with the justice system, but not regarding this psychiatric issue, so no. Many people have psychiatric problems with absolutely no criminal involvement at all, so yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's a more dangerous population that will be at the Kerrville State Hospital? MS. PARKER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Linda, if I heard you correctly, you sort of alluded to there might be some light at the end of the tunnel? MS. PARKER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could you expound on that just a little bit? MS. PARKER: Well, we -- we're -- we are -- Hill Country is going to submit a proposal to the department -- State Department of Health Services, and to ask for some local options so that counties do not have to transport a long ways away. I know this is a burden on Kerrville, but think about El Dorado that we cover. And Kerrville has been full for so many months that some of the county judges, when I call them, as Judge Tinley will tell you, because when I got back and we were dealing with this 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 140 mess on Friday afternoon -- which is a fun time, since the majority of our commitments happen -- or emergencies, crises happen on the weekend or at night. They rarely ever happen from 8:00 to 5:00. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: True. MS. PARKER: And I called the Judge to tell him. I had called many other judges who said, "So, what's so different? We haven't been able to get in Kerrville for months." So, I do anticipate that San Antonio State Hospital will ease up, but I -- what I will do, Commissioner, is once that proposal is submitted, I will be delighted to -- to present it to the Court, and would ask your support in going to our Legislature, because it is a rather novel idea of how we can have this taken care of locally. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be interested in looking at it. MS. PARKER: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Linda. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back to the agenda item, I'll make a motion to authorize the County Attorney to pursue interlocal agreements for placement of Kerr County M.H.M.R. patients in facilities outside Kerr County. 1-24-05 141 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question -- any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll just make a comment. We have some empty beds out at the Juvenile Detention Facility. (Laughter.) MS. PARKER: I'm ready to take them. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Don't have employees to take them more than anybody else. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or comments? 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: Why don't we break for lunch and reconvene at 1:30. (Recess taken from 12:05 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call back to order the meeting of the Commissioners Court scheduled for this time and date. We were in recess for lunch until 1:30. It's that time now. The next few items that we have -- number one, we have an item to go back to, and I think we're 1-24-05 142 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 attempting to get the County Treasurer here with respect to the first item of business, and then the other items of business, we're going to need the assistance of Mr. Tom Spurgeon, who's the County's bond counsel and counsel in connection with the Juvenile Detention Facility matters. I believe the administrative assistant went to try and secure Ms. Nemec; is that correct? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She wasn't here this morning; she was sick. JUDGE TINLEY: She's ill? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She was this morning. I went down there and tried to find her. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, in the alternative, we can go ahead and go to the approval agenda -- no, we don't need to. All right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I understand Ms. Nemec's input's valuable, but can't the County Auditor shed a little light on that bank account business and what -- JUDGE TINLEY: Possibly so. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- what we've been doing in the past with respect to how we fund this plan? Talking about insurance now. MR. TOMLINSON: Are we talking about the -- 1-24-05 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Banking agreements with the bank there in Omaha in connection with the insurance program. Have you got any knowledge about that? MR. TOMLINSON: I haven't talked to her about it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I went down there this morning to ask what this -- what it was, and she was not there. And then one of her people called me a few minutes later in my office and said that she's ill, she wasn't going to be here; that the County Attorney was going to handle it for her. JUDGE TINLEY: We heard from him, I think, didn't we? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We tried that. That didn't work. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's take up Item 22 on the agenda, and that's consider and discuss the execution of an Engagement and Waiver of Conflicts letter with the County bond counsel in connection with the issuance of certificates of obligation by Kerr County to purchase the juvenile facility. Mr. Spurgeon, this is a rather usual, normal, routine matter. We've got it this morning, and I included it with the -- to be distributed amongst the Commissioners. 1-29-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 MR. SPURGEON: Judge, let me sort of preface my remarks on this real quick. We don't have to remind the Court about the entire matter going on with the Hill Country Juvenile Facility, lease revenue bond issue and those things. There are -- as you well know, there are statements being made by primarily the bondholders in trying to hold certain people responsible for the losses that they might incur in connection with the lease revenue bond issue. We, at this point, don't believe that we are, you know, a party that they are attempting to want to sue us on point, nor do we believe we have any liability in terms of -- of any of that. But with any sort of litigation, those things can get fairly broad at some point and all that. As you know, I mean, as we -- if we are able to complete the certificate of obligation financing, which is another matter that's on your agenda today -- I know I'll be giving some updates on that -- the County's released, and all the County entities and all the County officials are all released and those type of things. So, the possibility of the bondholders of coming against the County would be gone. I mean, there's no way they would ever come against the County. There are other parties to the transaction that might end up being involved in a lawsuit with the bondholders, and if that happens, and if we happen to be one of those parties, there may be some matters where we we're 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 145 going to be required to provide information and testimony and those type of things or evidence, et cetera. And so what we're doing in this waiver of conflicts letter is essentially to allow you -- to formally inform you that we -- there may be a situation at some point where we're going to be compelled to testify. To the extent that they're attorney/client privilege matters, that we would -- should be able to, you know, not have to testify on those type of things. But the fact that we are involved in another transaction with you, in the C.O. issue, some attorneys that are actually sort of looking at things for us suggest that we seek a waiver of conflict letter from -- from the County. More -- again, more of a matter of information, as opposed to anything else. This is clearly not asking for release on our part from the County. We certainly have no ability to be bringing anything against the County. That's not what this is doing by any means. It's simply to let you know that we might have a situation where there's a conflict. Again, I think the County's totally released from the bondholders' perspective, and so I just don't perceive that there would ever really be a true conflict, but it's something that we were advised from lawyers that we're working with, we probably ought to get a waiver of conflict letter. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 146 something. The County -- and, as the Judge said, everybody on our side of the fence is -- is released. You know, we agreed to that at this table. Does everybody else agree to that as well? MR. SPURGEON: When you say "everybody," the only other party that is agreeing to that are the bondholders. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Is there anyone else that needs to agree to that -- MR. SPURGEON: Is there anyone else that needs to agree to that? The -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- i.e., the New York ,_.. 13 folks? ~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the trustee. MR. SPURGEON: Well, the bank -- actually, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Trustee. MR. SPURGEON: There's a couple things, and that's -- we're kind of getting into another agenda item now, but if you don't mind, I'm just going to qo ahead and do some of that. It's all related to the financing, to the consent and release agreement, which is another item on your agenda. Let me step back for a second. I mean, what -- MR. EMERSON: Can I raise one question real quick? If this has anything to do with potential litigation, it might be better served in executive session. 1-29-05 147 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. SPURGEON: I mean, I don't -- I don't disagree with that, so long as the Commissioners are okay with that. I mean, some of these things are -- I mean, that's certainly fine. I don't have a problem with going into executive session, myself. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If that's what he's recommending, that's what we ought to do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but this we can probably deal with before. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. This does not, I don't think. MR. SPURGEON: No, this is probably not an executive session item in terms of waiver of conflicts. And i f you -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty standard agreement by which a lawyer is advising the client that there's not in existence now a potential conflict -- MR. SPURGEON: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- but things could develop down the road that there might be a conflict, and you -- we'd want -- MR. SPURGEON: We're just trying to tell you that those things might exist. We enter into waiver of conflict letters, for example, sometimes when we're serving 1-24-05 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as bond counsel and underwriter's counsel. Doesn't happen very often, but in certain transactions we're requested to kind of serve on both sides, so we're serving two different masters, if you will, and we provide a letter to each party saying we've been asked to serve over here, we've been asked to serve over here. You know, there could be -- there could be a situation where there are certain matters that might be a conflict, and you'll have to seek separate representation in that case. This is slightly different from that, but in many respects, it's similar. We're just trying to inform the Court that that conflict exists. You certainly have the right to seek another counsel to do the bond counsel's work on the C.O. issue if -- if you're uncomfortable with that, and we can -- we fully understand that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is required of us? What action is required of us? MR. SPURGEON: The only thing would be to authorize the County Judge to execute the letter on behalf of the County. It would just really acknowledge the fact that the County has received the letter and agrees to the -- I wouldn't say agrees to the terms, 'cause there really aren't any terms. It's really that you've just acknowledged and consented. You've acknowledged the information in the letter; you've consented to our involvement in connection with the C.O. issue. 1-24-OS 149 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has the County Attorney looked at the letter? MR. EMERSON: I haven't seen the letter, but if it's a standard -- I'm assuming it's standard language. MR. SPURGEON: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have a copy with you? MR. SPURGEON: Yeah. I mean, it's as standard, I guess, as they come, and it recites the provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility in terms of conflicts and those type of things. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem with proceeding, but I'd rather wait until the County Attorney has a few minutes, so we can maybe come back. JUDGE TINLEY: Either that, or subject to the approval. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, or subject to the approval. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got one question on it. I can see where the bondholders have been injured. MR. SPURGEON: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I suppose I can make a case that the County has; we're spending some money that we would not have otherwise if this hadn't failed. Did 1-24-05 150 1 ~. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 any of these other parties -- have any of the other parties been injured? MR. SPURGEON: No one else has been injured yet, but there are some parties that the bondholders are attempting to hold responsible. And -- and, far an example, one of the parties has said -- it's the underwriter, frankly, has said that if we qet sued, I wouldn't be too surprised if we turned around and tried to sue everybody else. And, you know, we've been kind of through this with them and with you and others, that we think their -- their chances of prevailing are just slim. I mean, almost nonexistent, frankly. Your primary -- if there's anybody that had any sort of -- of claim for loss, I mean, directly between the County or the County entities, then that losing party or the party suffering loss is the bondholders. The attempts to subrogate and that would -- and I think your responsibility is far, you know, diminished in this case. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You made a comment that the bondholders are going to indemnify us or release the County, but if the bondholders go after First Security, can First Security then come back after the County? I guess they could; it's under -- MR. SPURGEON: Well, to the extent that Southwest -- or First Southwest -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: First Southwest, I'm 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .., 25 151 sorry. MR. SPURGEON: Right, being the underwriter. There's -- I mean, some of the -- of the words that they have used is that they would want to come back against others. I mean, they used an example that, you know, "They only sold the car; they didn't build the car" kind of thing. And yet there -- there are some other reasons that we -- we've talked about before where we think First Southwest -- I mean, their direct involvement in terms of responsibility is -- is -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. SPURGEON: Well, it has -- there probably are some errors claims the bondholders have against them. We haven't actually seen some of the written information that has been alleged to be out there and those types of things. But, from our standpoint as representing the County, representing the issuer and those things, we believe that the -- that the disclosure specified to the bondholders is very clear. You had the absolute right to nonappropriation. We don't feel that there's -- that any reasonable court would ever hold the County or the Juvenile Board responsible because of the -- we feel that you are clearly within your rights, as we've told you all along. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll move approval of the waiver of conflict as presented, subject to the -- 1-24-05 1 152 and authorize the County Judge to sign same, subject to the 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 County Attorney's approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval and execution by the County Judge, subject to the approval of the County Attorney. Any question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. That motion does carry. The next item on the agenda is consider and discuss approval of consent and release agreement with respect to Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility and outstanding bonds on same, and authorize County Judge to sign the agreement. This was the agreement that Mr. Spurgeon referred to between the County and the bondholders, and the trustee for the bondholders. And the latest draft that I saw has not been either approved or rejected by the counsel for the bondholders acting on the bondholders' behalf. Is that correct, Mr. Spurgeon? MR. SPURGEON: That's right. There is several points to that, Judge, and I'll leave it up to you if you want to go into executive session. There are some -- there are some points to that. JUDGE TINLEY: When we get into specifics, 23 24 .-. 25 19 20 21 22 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,.-. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 153 because of the potential for litigation there, I think it might be well if -- if we did talk about any of the specifics in executive session. But just as to where we are MR. SPURGEON: But your statement's correct, Judge. There are -- there are several points that -- that are still being negotiated with the bondholders' attorney and with trustee's counsel on the matter of the -- so it is not in a form that can be presented to this Court today for final approval. But, I mean, there's been a lot of progress made, but there are still some -- some points that are going to have some give and take before we get those two parties to agree to it. JUDGE TINLEY: Did you get any indication that you might hear something back maybe as early as this afternoon concerning the remaining points that are not resolved? MR. SPURGEON: Well, we're hoping to. I spoke with counsel for the bondholders, Herb Bristow, late yesterday afternoon, and his schedule was to speak with trustee's counsel this morning, which is one issue that's involved in this matter, following up with a call to the bondholders, because there are some things that the bondholders are going to have to agree to or those things in terms of making some concessions. I've not heard from him 1-24-G5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 154 yet, so I don't know exactly what that means, but I know that it's being pursued very vigorously by both parties. I mean, ultimately, we'd like to have all of this wrapped up and in bed and the C.O.'s issued by February 14th, which we think we can still do. And, Judge, I had a conversation with the A.G.'s office this morning regarding timing on that, and in terms of being able to recess the meeting coming on Wednesday till next week. And I guess, for information for the County Attorney and all, the issue -- and the Court, the issue that's involved in the timing of the issuance of C.O.'s relates to the fact that you -- that, under state law, Commissioners are only allowed to levy a tax during a regularly scheduled meeting. Now, this is a regularly scheduled meeting, even though it's actually a special term of the court. Doesn't have to be a regular term, just has to be a regularly scheduled meeting, so that's what this is. Now, the statute also says that you can take a special term and you may continue that meeting until the business is concluded. And that's -- that's really all the statute says. That's slightly contrary to what it says about regular terms, where the statute says you can continue a regular term for one week. So, there -- there are some distinctions under the law, and we were -- what we wanted to explore with 1-29-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,,-. 25 155 the Attorney General's office was, we were planning to sell the C.O.'s on Wednesday, but we have to have the consent agreement signed by all bondholders before we even post the official statement. That's not going to happen in time to be able to do a C.O. sale this Wednesday. It's just physically not happening. It just won't happen. But we do think that the consent agreement will be formalized or finalized hopefully within the next couple days, which will give Bob Henderson time to get the P.O.S. posted and go for sale next week. My call to the A.G. today was to see whether or not she would allow us to -- or to rely on that part of the statute that says you can continue a special meeting until the business is concluded. She didn't tell us yes or no, frankly. I mean, because she's never seen it before, she was -- but she was, frankly, and I kind of expect her to be a little bit conservative. She was not comfortable with the idea one way or the other. But what we can do -- well, let me step back for a second. If we don't -- if we didn't do it this Wednesday, and if we didn't get them to agree to this continuation till next week, our concern was we'd have to wait till February the 14th, which is your next regularly scheduled meeting of the court, which happens to be your regular term in February. What we can do, and what we've done on other occasions, is that we have approved C.O.'s on 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 156 sort of a -- in a two-step process. We award the sale of the C.O.'s and you approve all the final terms of the C.O.'s at one meeting, and then at the next meeting, which will be a regular meeting of the court, you would actually approve the levy of the tax. So, we think we can -- in fact, we know we can. If the underwriters are fine with this, if the Court's fine with this, we could proceed with the sale next week, award the sale of the C.O.'s to Southwest Securities at the interest rate that they would determine through a negotiated sale, and we essentially do everything that you do in your C.O. order, except for levying the tax. We'd come back on February 14th and levy the tax and literally close that day. We would have everything through the Attorney General's office at that point, and -- subject only to them receiving a final order that would be approving the tax. So, we do think there's still a way to close by February the 14th. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are -- I'm sorry. Go ahead, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Following that timetable, the remaining bonds would be -- the outstanding bonds would not be in existence on February the 15th, then. MR. SPURGEON: That's correct. That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: Which is the next due date. MR. SPURGEON: Right. That's the principal 1-2~-05 157 1 ..., 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .r 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and interest payment date on these bonds, right. Or on those bonds. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are, however, some details that are missing in all this. For example, what is the interest rate on the certificates of obligation? And, secondly, when does the first -- when does the first debt service payment come due? I have not heard those details. MR. SPURGEON: No. And, in fact, we won't know the final details on the interest rate until Bob has actually come with the -- sort of the proposed final form, if you will. I mean, in other words, they would go to the market next week, underwriters would actually price the bonds. Underwriters and the F.A. would agree, at least verbally, to the final terms, which includes the final interest rates, but all that's subject to the Court's approval next week. So, next week those final terms would be set. They would be -- they would be done. The only thing that would not be done yet is actually approving the levy of the tax, which would have to wait till February the 14th. So you will have all those final terms, Commissioner, at the time you come to approve the C.O.'s. Your first interest payment date, I think, is February 15th of 2006. I believe it's set up as a long coupon like that. I don't remember if he has an August 15th payment. 1-24-05 158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's important to this whole consideration, because it ties in -- when is that first increment due? MR. SPURGEON: I -- I don't have the draft of the O.S. with me. I believe he set up a long coupon on that because you've not levied a tax already for those C.O.'s, so I believe it would be a -- stand by. First interest payment is February 15th of 2006. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. SPURGEON: So you should be able to levy for that tax and pay that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That sounds reasonable. MR. SPURGEON: -- a year from now. JUDGE TINLEY: On the preliminary, I'm trying to -- MR. SPURGEON: Judge, it may be on the first page. A lot of times it's in that very first -- like, the second or third paragraph on the cover page. JUDGE TINLEY: It just shows a principal amount, '06. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are you looking at? MR. SPURGEON: If you go to the cover page, Judge, the first two or three paragraphs probably have 1-24-05 --~ _ ~ - 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 something about payment of interest. JUDGE TINLEY: Payment February 15, August 15 -- okay, commencing February 15, 2006. MR. SPURGEON: Right. That's what I thought he did. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that a document we have, this consent and release agreement? JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, I don't think -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have something we don't have? JUDGE TINLEY: That's on the -- the preliminary official statement for the full certificates. I'm not sure whether you've got it in your package there or not. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see it. JUDGE TINLEY: It's on the agenda for Wednesday. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. It's on for Wednesday? All right. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm. Yeah, it does say -- the preliminary does say February 15, '06. MR. SPURGEON: And that makes sense, because you've not levied a tax to -- to cover that interest payment for August 15th. So, I mean, it would make sense to have that long coupon. 1-24-05 r~ ~ ~ ~` ~ 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The Court, I suspect, would -- would want to be aware of what the difficulties there are with the consent and release agreement, I assume. Am I correct? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That being the case, because of those being potential litigation items, I think we'd need to cover those in executive session, be that now or -- I don't think we can go forward on any of these other items until -- until we have the rest of this one ironed out. That being the case, we will recess the open session at 1:54 and go into closed or executive session momentarily. (The open session was closed at 1:54 p.m., and an Executive Session was held, the transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll reconvene in open or public session. It's 3:02, it looks like. Does anyone have anything to offer with respect to Item 26, consider and take action to appoint a supervisor, Kerr County Rabies and Animal Control Department? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we offer the position of Rabies and Animal Control supervisor to Janie Roman on an interim basis, interim period of time being 90 days, and to make a decision about making it permanent on or about that time; that the interim salary be 1-24-05 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 $27,500 a year, and that we'll reconsider the salary at the end of the interim period of time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for appointment of Janie Roman as interim supervisor of the Kerr County Rabies and Animal Control department, such interim period to be for 90 days, at a salary of $27,500 per year, with salary to be revisited when the permanence or not of the appointment is revisited. Any question or 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: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to ask a question. We had deferred some items that are -- were attendant to the Juvenile Detention Facility. We deferred Item 24 and, I think, 25. My question is, are we under -- based on what we heard from Mr. Spurgeon today, are we under a deadline for getting these things done? Do we have to do this on Wednesday, like we had originally planned? Or if we're not under the same guidelines of timeframe of getting 1-24-05 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 these things accomplished, could we revisit that Wednesday meeting and move -- and not have it, and move it to Thursday and include a personnel item matter that really needs to be dealt with on the same agenda? We can repost for Thursday, as opposed to Wednesday. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aren't we going to probably -- JUDGE TINLEY: The one for this Wednesday is posted for this Wednesday, so we're going to need to take that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: -- that matter up then. Then, if there's any further recessing of that meeting -- which, depending upon circumstances, there may be further recess. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: If there's additional matters to be taken up on the C.O.'s, with respect to that, there will be an additional posting, probably for the following week. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Which would be knocking on the door to February lst, actually. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's really why I'm bringing the topic up. We have a need to be engaged in -- in going through resumes and perhaps setting up 1-24-05 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interviews for the Information Technology position, and the sooner we get that done, the better. JUDGE TINLEY: Now, what we -- what we could do is post -- post for Thursday or Friday a special meeting for that -- for that item alone. That is -- that would certainly be another option. But I think the way we're posted now on the detention facility C.O.'s, we're obliged to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: -- convene that meeting on Wednesday. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. That's the reason I put the question to you that way. That's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's probably a good idea to look at those resumes for the Information Technology. I think we probably don't have time to get somebody on board before Shaun's gone anyway at this point, but we still need to get someone on board way before our next regular meeting. JUDGE TINLEY: Some solution. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe we could ask the Auditor to prepare a packet of resumes for each of us to take a look at, and then we can determine when we're going to get together. 1-29-05 ~~ ~ ~_ 164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have -- they're in the Treasurer's office. I can get them to do it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: Make copies of them. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd recommend we do it -- well, we can do it this week. I'd say either -- Thursday is a difficult day for me in the afternoon. JUDGE TINLEY: I've got Friday. Friday, I'm open all day. Thursday, I've got probate in the morning, but I think late morning -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Friday's okay for me. How about you, Buster? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I'm open Friday. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dave is, if he's still alive. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If he dies, I get his watch. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a deal. (Laughter.) JUDGE TINLEY: We can do it around 11:00 Thursday morning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks like 1-24-05 `rimer I- i _. ~ _ ~- 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Commissioner 3 has -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 11:00? JUDGE TINLEY: Didn't you say afternoon was bad for you? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but -- 11:00 is not the afternoon. 11:00, I think, works. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On Thursday? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm busy Friday from 1 o'clock on. JUDGE TINLEY: We can't get it posted for this Thursday, though. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not till 3:00. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about Friday? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What time? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Morning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Morning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:00? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 8:00? 6:15? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 9:00 works. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 8:34. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 9:00. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 9:02. JUDGE TINLEY: 9:00? 1-29-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 166 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 9:00. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Friday. That means Sam will be with me. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bring Sam; he's okay. I like Sam. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, Friday with Sam. That's all right, he likes coming here. He can crawl around back here. MS. MCELHANNON: We'll take care of him. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you read that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got it to read. I'm going to take it home. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's get into the approval agenda. I think that's where we are, aren't we? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Payment of the bills. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to pay the bills. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the bills. Any questions or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, what's your question? 1-29-05 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 17, Juvenile Detention. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 171709, Caddy Shack Golf Carts, $850 for a golf cart. Can someone explain that to me? MS. HARRIS: It would be paid from donations. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many times that we are -- we just had a knock-down, drag-out struggle with our lawyer trying to figure out how to keep our heads above water, and we're paying 850 bucks for a golf cart? MS. HARRIS: It's being paid out of -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you get clubs out of it? MS. HARRIS: And the caddy comes along with it, too. It's being paid from donation money. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: That needs to come out of here, then, doesn't it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 76-572-499 is donation ~ money? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that comes off the list? MR. TOMLINSON: We had donations from -- actually, it was some community service people that made a 1-24-05 168 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 donation in lieu of community service, and for this purpose. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it isn't -- you got the money. It's not coming out of the County general fund? MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we have the funds. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. No clubs? MS. HARRIS: No clubs. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the donation came in and then it went right back out? MR. TOMLINSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is Fund 499? MR. TOMLINSON: That's miscellaneous. Miscellaneous line item. COMMISSIONER BALDWTN: Miscellaneous? MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten-four. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have to admit, that was a good question. JUDGE TINLEY: It was a good question. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got one, just not quite as expensive as yours. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 9. Why would we owe Back 40 Supply a $1 finance charge? My gosh. 1-24-05 __ _ `. 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 25 169 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is a tough one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a toughy. MR. TOMLINSON: I don' t know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, how could you? I thought we 've had these talks. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is that? And then also, t he bottom one there, coff ee pots. Walmart Community fo r coffee pots for the -- JUDGE TINLEY: What pa ge are you on? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- Youth Exhibition Center. I'm on Page 9. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, you hit the tough ones, I'm telling you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hit the big guys. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So , is your question as to why we're buying coffee pots out t here? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's one of them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we buying them for us? For the stock show? Who are we buying them for? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it's plural, "pots . " COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pots. And why are we buying them? Other departments don't take them out of County funds. 1-29-OS 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. You're right. Dang. Could we lump that in with that $1 deal and get Rusty to do an investigation? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Someday it will run into real money. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to do it that way, 'cause Rusty will want another deputy. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sounds good to me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good question. We don't buy coffee any more. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't buy coffee. Never seen pots, but we don't buy coffee pots. JUDGE TINLEY: I bought a bunch of coffee pots, put them downstairs. MR. TOMLINSON: I can find out. But I'm sure that if Mr. Holekamp was here, he could tell us -- give us a good answer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I suspect someone can give us a good answer. It may not comport with others we've had, but I bet we can get a good answer. JUDGE TINLEY: I've got a question on Page 1, under Nondepartmental. We're paying $1,649 for 65 cartons of copy paper; that's $25.37 per. And the Sheriff, over on Page 6, is paying $528.60 for 40 cartons, which is $13.20 per. I want to know how he's getting it so cheap, and why 1-24-05 r ~ _.._ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 171 we're not getting all of it at his price. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He owns his own paper mill. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Trade secrets. I can't say. JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Trade secrets. JUDGE TINLEY: I mean, if we're talking about 8 1/2 by 11 copy paper in both instances, you know, we -- we need to be buying it at the lowest price. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where do you buy yours? JUDGE TINLEY: It may be that the number of -- number of cartons is not correct on -- MR. TOMLINSON: It could be that -- well, I don't know if that's a direct payment. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't believe it is. I think all of our -- MR. TOMLINSON: We're buying it in bulk, and it probably is some paper that we already had that was a cheaper price that we charged his department for. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The County here buys all the paper, and then we get it from here and Tommy charges us. MR. TOMLINSON: We do interdepartmental 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 172 journal entries, and we -- JUDGE TINLEY: I can't imagine that the cost of paper went up almost 100 percent. MR. TOMLINSON: Could be a different quality paper, too. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy answered the question. We centralize our paper purchases. JUDGE TINLEY: I know it comes in downstairs and then it gets charged out. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: But if we're going to charge it out, we need to charge it out at a higher number instead of the lower number. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, no, huh-uh. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and second to pay the bills, excluding the golf cart? Is that correct? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has to be paid, right? Already got the money. MR. TOMLINSON: We have the money for it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Including the golf cart, all right. Any further questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 1-24-05 173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any budget amendments? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I have one. That's for the payroll for the juvenile facility. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: We need -- I visited with Becky this morning, and payroll -- her estimate is around 54,000. We have checks in today for 25, and so when I pay today's bills, less the 25,000, plus the payroll, we need $45,000 for -- for the 31st. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 45,000? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what you need? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we declare an emergency and fund the estimated cost up to $45,000, as presented by the Auditor. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded up to $45,000 after declaration of emergency for Juvenile Detention. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Where are we on finalizing the budget for that department? And -- so we 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~-. 25 174 can do this in one fell swoop, put it in the budget? MS. HARRIS: I was given the 2003/2004 grade and step matrix when I constructed the budget sometime before, and when I constructed this last budget that I had -- the very last copy that I gave you, that's just the two columns. I have since been given the 2004-2005 matrix, so I'm in the process of going back and trying to plug in all the employees in the 2004-2005 matrix. And I need the Court's guidance on how you want me to handle this. There is one group of personnel, my control people, that there is no grade, because the 2003/2004 matrix has grade groups 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. I've been informed that those no longer exist in the County matrix; that it starts at 12. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought 14. MS. HARRIS: Starts at 12. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we dropped the 12. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you have 12. You're going to work on that in the next budget year to get the 12's up. MS. HARRIS: Still have 12. My control people were previously in the Grade 7. Well -- yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are control people? MS. HARRIS: Handling my control room. 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-, 25 175 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. MS. HARRIS: They push a button and open a door. They handle the control room and they watch the monitors and they answer the phone in the control room. And, therefore, what I'm getting at is, I need to create a Grade 11 just for them. Just one more. Because they -- they do not get paid what the J.D.O.'s get paid, and the J.D.O.'s get paid 12 -- Grade 12, Step 1. And they don't receive that much of a salary. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any reason why you couldn't -- you couldn't create that line, based on -- MS. HARRIS: I can create that line. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And present that with all the others at the same time? MS. HARRIS: I called Barbara, and Barbara told me how to create that line, what I needed to do mathematically to create that line. So, I'll create that line and then plug the control people in there, and then plug everybody else in the best that I can and try to fit them -- everybody else into the existing matrix without having to create anything else. As soon as I do that, then it's done. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. HARRIS: In fact, if you want to put it 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 176 on the agenda for the next regular Commissioners Court meeting, I'll have it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is your salary going to do? MS. HARRIS: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is your -- how far down is your salary coming? MS. HARRIS: You don't have a pay group for my salary. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll create one. MS. HARRIS: I'll create one. No, I'm kidding. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to see it on next year's -- not next year's, our next meeting, so we can kind of set a budget and then authorize the funds into all those line items at one time. Hopefully, it will get us through the year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're setting the budget for, say, February 1st through September 31st -- September 30th? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. MS. HARRIS: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'd be setting whatever you determine, you know, your expenses would be; that, for example, from February 1st, budget through the end 1-24-05 177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the current -- MS. HARRIS: Fiscal year, September 30th. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. MS. HARRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then do it all over again. MS. HARRIS: So, instead of a nine-month budget, I'd be creating approximately an eight-month budget, correct? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then we'd know exactly what our funding's going to be for the remainder of the year. MS. HARRIS: I can do that. I can do that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further budget amendments? Any late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: No. MS. PIEPER: You have a motion and a second to declare an emergency to pay -- JUDGE TINLEY: We haven't voted on that? MS. MCELHANNON: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion and second to -- has been made. Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .-, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 178 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. No late bills. I have no transcripts or reports. Do we have any reports from any of the Commissioners? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We all got a report -- I think all of you did, the Kerr County Emergency Service District Number 2 annual report, as required by the Texas Health and Safety Code. They have enumerated some of their accomplishments, and they pointed out the audit done for the period Fiscal Year 2004 by the Kerr County Auditor, and received favorable results. They presented a budget summary showing that they took in $18,025, turned $11,000 over to the Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department, paid about $1,700 in expenses, and have reserves of $5,325. I think they did a terrific job of getting that running out there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Commissioner Letz and I participated in -- all day last Tuesday in a -- in a day-long -- almost a day-long workshop with regard to the airport and the policies of that board regarding 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 179 development of land and operation and other matters that are pertinent to that. And I can't speak for Commissioner Letz, but I thought the day was productive and very good. We had only one board member absent; everybody else was there. Only one absent was the mayor, and he may have had some conflicts. But I thought it was a day well spent. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Do you have anything you want to add to that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was a good meeting, and, you know, we got the City in line on the airport. Now Buster and I are going to work on ETJ. Very excited. Buster? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm excited. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then, when you get that one lined up, then we'll all together work on EMS. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other reports? MS. HARRIS: Go ahead. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You go ahead. MS. HARRIS: Nah, 'cause I'm going to end it on a good note. Go ahead. JUDGE TINLEY: She knows you. What do you want, and when do you want it? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't. I need your help from the Court. I need some guidance. As y'all saw in our figures and daily population with the jail and 1-29-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 180 everything going up -- and Buster mentioned it even earlier about expanding. I really would like for that to be a very last alternative. I think there is another alternative to taking care of the jail overcrowding, but I need this Court's help in pushing District Judges to have more court days in this county for criminal dockets. I think we could cut our inmate population down drastically if we had more than one court day a month, or more than four jury trials a year. You know, they say they don't have the funds for visiting judges or assistant D.A.'s or -- or whatever, but we have two very good courtrooms that sit empty most of the time, and then on their one court day a month, I will end up bringing over anywhere from 40 to 50 felons at one time, and maybe two of them will get heard, and all the rest of them get reset for the next month, and it's just a vicious cycle. And it is nothing any more to have inmates in jail over 300 days or over a year, just waiting for a court date. And I -- in looking at it, trying to analyze it, I visited with the judges some. Supposedly, we'll have a meeting to help move that along. But the reality is, you know, defense attorneys, the longer they let their client sit out there, the more likelihood witnesses have moved away, different things have happened, the better outcome for the defense attorneys who are getting paid, court-appointed by the County. And we need to find some way of speeding 1-24-05 181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 these court cases up. I don't mean just letting inmates out of jail. They shouldn't -- they ought to have their case heard. They don't have the backlog getting them in T.D.C. or anywhere else; they need to be getting the cases done. We're spending, you know, 100, 200 days of feeding this person, and then they turn them loose on probation. And the expenses of the County in medical costs, you know, run an average of about $6,000 a month, and prescription medication. A dollar a meal for every meal, and y'a11 saw those figures that I gave you, just day-to-day costs on keeping that many inmates in there. That's dead time, and I don't think we should have it. And I'm at the point where, if we want to keep from having to enlarge that jail, we need to be able to come to some kind of way of speeding up the court system, getting these people moved through court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a -- and I don't know the answer to this. Could the -- or how would an additional judge be brought in? Do the District Judges just bring in somebody? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, but under the current system -- the new system, the County gets to pay for them. Before, it came out of state funds. It now comes out of County funds. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, it wouldn't i-24-05 182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 take -- you know, well, it appears right now that we're losing -- it's costing us a whole bunch by not having a -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably cheaper to pay one judge to dispose of a bunch of these cases. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that the bottleneck? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is the biggest bottleneck, yes. And I think you'll see -- Judge Tinley may be able to put more input on this -- that, sooner or later, Kerr County's going to have to have its own district court instead of sharing with all these other counties. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a legislative issue. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we had our own district, that's a legislative issue that has to be done. The problem you have if you try and do it now, one of our two district judges would have to move or give up their judgeship, because they both live in Kerr County, and one of those courts would go away. But there's got to be a solution to this that -- and I've seen it for years. But in looking at it, that's our biggest bottleneck, is getting these people through the court system. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only time I can recall paying a visiting judge was three or four years ago, we had that knothead from College Station came down here and tried 1-24-05 183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to tell everybody what to do. We ended up picking up a motel tab or something for him, but we were all glad to get him out of town. But I don't -- we've never -- I mean, Charlie Sherrill has served here for almost 30 years and never charged a penny. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But part of that was paid, as Judge Tinley said -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- by the State, and then the last Legislature cut a lot of the judges' funding to be able to pay special judges. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like Jon was saying, though, it may be cheaper for us to hire a district judge -- pay a district judge than it would $3 million building you a new jail. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the point I'm at, and I agree with you. And I think you -- it's a systemic deal. Now, I talked to one of the D.A.'s about it, and I kind of have to admire what he's been able to do, but he's been in office 20 years, and he's added two personnel to his office in 20 years. We11, you know, you look at just law enforcement alone throughout the county. We've created Ingram Marshal's Office in 20 years. Between the City, us, D.P.S., nares, the task force, we've added over 100 law enforcement officers in this county alone in 20 years. And 1-24-05 ~ s -i 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your main felony prosecutor has only added two people to his staff, and they're overloaded and things aren't getting all the way through, and it's taking a lot longer. Last Grand Jury alone, to -- last week was 30 felony cases presented to the one Grand Jury. That's 30 new ones. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not real sure that if we asked the two judges, "Are you the problem? Do you have too much case load? Can't get to it?" That they would agree. They might say, "Well, yeah, I got too much cases, but the prosecutors do these things, and this happens and that happens." And -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And you're going to have that. And, in fact, they're in other counties, too. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It may be a systemic problem rather than just too many cases for each judge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wou~,d be in favor of looking, I mean, at criminal cases. On civil cases, I don't mind if they have to wait, but -- JUDGE TINLEY: Criminal cases have the priority anyway. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But have a District Judge for that. But the other part of it -- the equation is that these court-appointed attorneys, every time there's a continuance, we're paying them a bunch. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 1-24-05 a __ ~ ~ 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, you just look at our court-appointed attorneys each two weeks; it's unbelievable how much we spend on these guys. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What we complain about all the time is the court-appointed attorneys. Some of them do real well, but the majority of them will never see their client except on that court day when we bring him over here. And if it gets passed, they don't come out to the jail to see them; they don't take phone calls from them, and it's not unusual -- and there's a large majority of those inmates that would plead guilty today if they could get to court to do it, and they can't do it. And we're feeding them, paying medical. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bottleneck on the judges, bottleneck on the prosecuting side. JUDGE TINLEY: It could be some of both. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think it is an equal amount, some of both. One of the -- 'cause they share the counties. You've got them in different counties, and they only have one day here or four trial days here a year, and it is a big bottleneck. There's just got to be a solution to it. JUDGE TINLEY: I know -- I know since the system was changed, that the State no longer pays the visiting judges, T know our judges have been reluctant to -- 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 186 to appoint visiting judges to sit because of that. Tf -- if it were to be suggested to the judges that there's some other considerations -- your considerations about keeping them in jail and so forth, if the prosecutors could be made available, and if the County were willing to pay for the visiting judges, would they have any difficulty being a part of that arrangement? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, and this is the part -- JUDGE TINLEY: That would be a good start. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It does backlog some -- and I really admire what Rex has done. I got a letter from him late last week saying, from now on, if they arrest -- any law enforcement agency arrests a defendant, they have 15 days to get a case report to Rex's office for prosecution, because that is another problem. You'll have a law enforcement agency arrest somebody, especially drug charges, put them in jail. That person can't make bond. They take their time on getting the reports done. Then they send the drugs off to the lab. It's two months after that before they come, and by the time the guy even gets indicted, he's been in jail three months, and we pay for it. There's got to be a way of speeding up all this and working jointly with the -- with all the law enforcement agencies, the prosecutors, and everybody. And it's just causing a backlog 1-24-05 _ a ~. y _ - ~-, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 187 that, to me, is totally a waste of all of our funds on having these guys sit in jail. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But even if -- back to our District Judges. Even when either one or both are in -- in Kerr County, does that process work real well? I mean, do you haul all these guys over here, 25 or 30 bad people over here to appear, and they appear before the Judge, and they -- is that process -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: County Court does fair. District Court is terrible, because they'll only hear one or two motions out of 40 that we will bring over. So, the other 38 go back over. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hiring another judge may not help anything. MR. EMERSON: If could I add to that, the problem is you need more court days. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Need what? MR. EMERSON: You need more court days. You have -- you come aver for arraignments and pretrials, and just counting the number of cases that the 198th has -- the 216th alone, the docket may be eight pages long. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Easy. MR. EMERSON: And by the time you arraign everybody and then you get into your pretrials, where you're supposed to have discussion of your contested motions, it 1-24-05 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 25 188 doesn't take very much contested motions to take up the whole balance of the day, and then you just have to continue them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it the same way in these other counties? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why us? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Boerne and Gillespie, according to Bruce, is getting pretty busy, okay? Kerr County's always been a lot busier than the rest of the counties. You look at 198th; you're talking real small counties, Brady, Menard, all through that area. But our docket is just so much larger. You can see that in what we have in population of the county jail. It's just so much larger. But I think the leaders, the elected officials -- y'all, me, the judges -- we have got to sit down and come to some solution. Because, you know, the longer an inmate sits in jail, number one, the more medical, the more, you know, meals, everything else, plus the more lawsuits get filed, because they're just sitting there thinking up something to do, and that's what they're going to do. And I don't think -- you know, I've had one judge tell me, well, let's just turn them loose on bond. Well, that's not the answer. That's not what's going to protect the public. They need to have their case heard and go on down the road. And it's a 1-24-05 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 25 189 very large waste of money. I have the largest budget out of the County departments, and it's an extremely large waste of money, in my opinion, on what we do in that jail. MR. EMERSON: If I can add on to that, too, to give you more insight into what happens in jail, as a defense attorney, you get appointed to somebody, say, within a couple days of the time they go to jail. If you go out there and you talk to them, you're set for court a month later. Between the time you talk to them and you qet to court, there are over 35 criminal "lawyers" that are all locked up in the same jail cells with them that are experts. They have changed their mind, and they do something completely different, and instead of walking away 30 days later, it's nine months later and a trial. And you're -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And you're only having actually four to maybe six criminal jury trials a year. You can't do it. Can't keep going, unless we all want to build lots of jails. And I don't want a bigger jail, personally. But -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, as you know, none of us here -- most of us here are scared of the District Judges. We don't talk back to them. And I'm not sure how to handle it. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know. I had one tell my staff the other day to bring all 40 inmates over 1-24-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 190 here at one time when the holding cell up there, by Jail Commission, is only entitled to hold 17. And I had to go up and tell that Judge that will never happen again. The staff did it before I knew about it, but I said it won't happen again. I can't violate state jail standards just to have them all over here at one time. 'Cause a lot of the attorneys needed to be in another county, so then they're going to run those through real quick, so they want them all here at one time. And it -- you know, just to pass their COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I personally want to thank you, Rusty, for bringing us this problem today at 3:30. That's really neat. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're more than welcome. JUDGE TINLEY: Now for the good news. MS. HARRIS: The good news. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Becky Harris. MS. HARRIS: Real quick. It won't take long. I attended the Juvenile Chiefs' probation conference in Austin, their annual summit conference in Austin last week. And on one note, Vicki Spriggs, the Executive Director of the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, made the opening remarks on Wednesday morning. She announced that it's in a shell bill before the Legislature -- and she explained what 1-24-05 191 1 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 was; that if it's in a shell bill, that it's a done deal whenever it comes up for vote in the appropriations committee. That T.J.P.C. is going to get back their 5 percent that the legislation cut from their budget in the last session. They're going to get that back, which that's good news for probation departments, which is good news for facilities, because that money will funnel down through us for placement purposes. So that's a good thing. The next good thing is that while we were there, we picked up new contracts with Gray, Moore, Hood, Eastland, Hale, and the county that Tulia is in. JUDGE TINLEY: Swisher. MS. HARRIS: Swisher. And she also -- she also takes care of another county, so we picked up six brand-new counties on contract. And we have existing contracts with Midland, Montgomery, Brown, and Lampasas as we speak. We now have a -- Dawson County, which is Lampasas. No, that's Lamesa, sorry. Lampasas is going to be sending us kids. Brown and Midland. The Assistant Chief from Midland approached me and she asked me -- she said, "Are y'all okay? Are y'all staying open?" I said, "Yeah, we're fine." She said, "Good. I've got some kids I need to be sending you." I said, "Fine, bring them on." Bexar County, I spoke with the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer for Bexar County, had a really good conversation with him. 1-24-05 192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~-,, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We talked about a lot of issues that he had previously. Those issues were resolved. And he said, "Call me this week and set up a meeting." Because, see, they discontinued the contract with us, and we're going to get it back. We're getting our contract back from Bexar County. We're going to set up a meeting with him and two of his placement officers, and so we will have Bexar County back on board and start getting kids from there. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is good news. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exciting. MS. HARRIS: So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. Thank you. MS. HARRIS: -- just wanted to let you know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You bet. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else? MS. HARDIN: May I ask the Court something, please? This morning, y'all passed on an item to set public hearing dates because we had no backup material. In the past, we have not had backup material, but I have it now. Would it be possible to go back and revisit that item and set public hearing date? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You got -- MS. PIEPER: That was Item 1.5. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've thrown away 1-24-05 193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1.5. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Backup information. JUDGE TINLEY: 1.5. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; All we're asking for is where the thing is, and I think -- isn't that the one where you're combining lots, Live Springs Ranch? You're combining some lots? MS. HARDIN: Yes. Live -- okay, there was a meeting, and Mr. Odom and Mr. Nicholson were at it, but they didn't remember that this morning. But -- still, but it's -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't remember. We didn't -- sitting dawn here, I did not have enough information, did not know where the thing was, didn't know you're combining lots. He's been in a coma for a month and a half. MS. HARDIN: He and Len have the same problem, the cedar -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want the information. I got to have the information to make the decision. MS. HARDIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Please. MS. HARDIN: Henderson Branch. It's Live Springs Ranch just before you get into the Lazy Hills Guest 1-29-05 194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ranch. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From now on, when we get our document in here, tell us it's in Precinct 4. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or 3, 2, or 1. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, 1, 2, 3, or 4. Either one. MS. HARDIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- and a note of some sort in there to remind me that we're combining lots. I mean, we're sitting here -- MS. HARDIN: Well, it was not -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- dumber than hell. MS. HARDIN: It was to set a public hearing for an alternate plat process, which means one trip to the court. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, would you cut us some slack here and let us set a public hearing if we promise to get backup before -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just saying next time -- MS. HARDIN: I promise in the future I will do that, and I will appear -- and I will appear in court if there's a question on it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I'll second your 1-24-05 195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 motion. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To set a -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll go back to Item Number 5, which was -- the last portion of it was passed on this morning. Does any member of the Court have anything to offer with respect to the request for public hearing on Live Springs Ranch, Lot 4? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to set a public hearing on Live Springs Ranch, Lot Number 4, for 10:15 a.m. on February 28th, '05. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10:15 or 10:10? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10:10. MS. HARDIN: And the Rio Vista -- Rio Retiro? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Already done. MS. HARDIN: That one you did? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a public hearing at 10:10 a.m. on February -- on February 28th of '05 for Live Springs Ranch, Lot 4. Any question or 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 does carry. 1-24-05 196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARDIN: Thank you very much, gentlemen. JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have anything further with respect to any of the remaining items on the information agenda? Any other reports to be rendered? All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Report? JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm getting hand signals from down there, but he's waving them off -- he's waved me off. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have anything further, Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I do not. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Out of an abundance of caution, we're going to stand in recess until 3:45 tomorrow afternoon. We will reconvene then, and at that time, in all probability, if we don't have anything resolved, we will again recess and reconvene for Wednesday afternoon at 4 p.m., the meeting that's already posted. And then, of course, we need to post our special meeting for Friday morning -- at 9:00? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 9:00. JUDGE TINLEY: 9 a.m. for the consideration and review and appropriate action on applicants for the 1-24-05 197 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 Information Technology Specialist position. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, do you need a quorum here for those -- that 3:45 meeting tomorrow? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. JUDGE TINLEY: No. No. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll probably be in the vicinity. So will Commissioner Baldwin, more than likely. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: So, we will stand in recess until 3:45 tomorrow afternoon. (Commissioners Court recessed at 3:41 p.m.) (Commissioners Court reconvened on Tuesday, January 25, 2005, at 3:45 p.m. Judge Tinley and Commissioner Williams were present.) JUDGE TINLEY: Let me reconvene the regular Commissioners Court meeting that was posted and scheduled January 24, 2005. The meeting was recessed at approximately this same time on the 24th until today at this hour, 3:45 p.m., in order to consider at least two matters that were on that agenda, one of which was annotated on the agenda to be heard tomorrow afternoon at 4 p.m., Wednesday, January 26th of 2005. In addition, an unfinished item was Number 23 on the agenda the 24th of January, which dealt 1-24-05 198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with the consideration and discussion of approval of consent and release agreement with respect to the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility, and outstanding bonds on the same, and authorize the County Judge to sign the agreement. For the record, let me note that present today are Commissioner Williams, Precinct 2, and myself. Not present are Commissioner Precinct I, Buster Baldwin; Commissioner, Precinct 3, Jonathan Letz; and Commissioner, Precinct 4, Dave Nicholson. Having said that, all I can report today is that there's still been no resolution of the consent and release agreement. It's still being worked an by counsel, and we're therefore unable to take any action on it today, even if there were a quorum. And that, together with the annotation on the agenda that the Item 24 matter authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of Kerr County, Texas Certificates of Obligation, Series 2005, and related matters having been scheduled for Wednesday, January 26th, 2005, at 4 p.m., that in lack of a quorum, we're unable to conduct business. Therefore, we will stand in recess until 4 p.m. on January the 26th, 2005. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Recess? Or are we adjourning? 'Cause that's reposted, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: We're actually in recess, because it is a continuation of the -- the Monday regular agenda. And even though we did post it, having prior 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 knowledge, we posted it just to give double -- double assurance of notice to the public, but it'll actually be a recess and reconvening of the Monday, January 24th meeting. So, we'll stand in recess until 4 p.m. on the 26th day of January, 2005. (Commissioners Court recessed at 3:48 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 31st day of January, 2005. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk B Y : 1~~i ~ !'XUnALA~/ Kathy B~ik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter ORDER N0.28987 DEVELOPMENT OF CENTER POINT SCIIOOL PROPERTY. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the concept plan as presented by the Center Point ISD, with a 60' easement for an access points to that access driveway between Lots 1 and Z. The property line 1 of 2 and 5 and 6. ORDER N0.28988 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR PRELIMINARY REVISION OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 OF HOLCOMB RANCH SUBDIVISION. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to set a public hearing for February 28, 2005 at 10:20 A.M. for revision of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 into Lot 1R and to abandon, vacate and discontinue Hacienda Trail of Holcomb Ranch Subdivision. ORDER N0.28989 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVISION OF LOTS 9,10 & 2 OF RIO RETIRO SUBDIVISION. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to set a public hearing on February 28, 2005 at 10:00 A.M for Lots 9, 10 & 2 Rio Retiro Subdivision. ORDER NO. 28990 APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 29THRU 35 OF KERR VISTA RANCH IV SUBDVISION. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the final Plat of Lots 29 thru 35 Kerr Vista IV Ranch Subdivision. ORDER N0.28991 OPEN AND CONSIDER BIDS FOR USED EXCAVATOR(S). Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to accept all bids from Excel Machinery and referred them to Road and Bridge for recommendation. ORDER NO.28992 ANNUAL WRITTEN PERSONNEL EVALUATIONS ON ALL WHO WORK FOR OR REPORT TO COMMISSIONERS' COURT. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to use the evaluation form from the County Treasurers office and the process be completed by the end of June 2005. ORDER N0.28993 RESOLUTION Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 act on the resolution in support of Knipling-Bushland effort to cause United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to do a feasibility study for funds to construct a replacement Laboratory in Kerr County. ORDER N0.28994 HILL COUNTRY CHILI CLASSIC. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved the use of Flat Rock Park for the Hill Country Chili Classic the weekend preceding Easter, March 24th thru 27th 2005. With the use of 25 tables and 100 chairs borrowed from the County. ORDER N0.28995. IMPLEMENTATION OF BURN BAN. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to implement the burn ban for 90 days on all precincts. And give all the Commissioners the authority to lift it at their discretion. ORDER N0.28996 PERSCRIBED BURNS. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to establish a committee to develop a criteria for prescribed burn during a period when a burn ban is in place and appointing a representative from the Commissioners Court, USDA/NRCS office, County Extension Agent, Texas Forest Service, Volunteer Fire Departments and a citizen knowledgeable in prescribed burns. ORDER N0.28997 COMMITTEE FOR PRESCRIBED BURNS. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to appoint Commissioner Letz to form the committee. ORDER N0.28998 INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES AND OPERATION OF FACILITY. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to cancel and renegotiate the agreements. And authorize the Judge to notify the City of Kerrville to negotiate the contracts. ORDER N0.28999 RESOLUTION Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to support for funding the Texas Tech University (TTU) Hill Country Educational Network and the TTU Center at Junction. ORDER N0.29000 LEGION AND GRANADA TOWER CONTRACTS Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to accept the contract from LCRA in the amount of $1,630.00 per month starting with July 1, 2005, but not payable until October 2005. But to negotiate new contracts before the budget in October 2005. ORDER N0.29001 COUNTY COURT AT LAW COURT COORDINATOR. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to start Kathy Gaulden's salary at Grade 19 Step 3. Effective as of February 1, 2005. ORDER N0.29002 AUDIT OF THE HOT CHECK ACCOUNTS. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to authorize an audit on the Hot Check Account from January 1, 2002 to January 1, 2005. Part of the audit to be paid from the Personnel budget account and declare an emergency to pay the balance out of general fund. ORDER N0.29003 COUNTY ATTORNEY STARTING SALARY DEVIATION. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Lets. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to keep Barbara Holmes a Grade 19 Step 7 salary when transferring to County Attorney's Office. ORDER N0.29004 TAX ACCESSOR/COLLECTOR'S OFFICE. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 for a new hire at Grade 12 step 3. ORDER N0.29005 TAX ACCESSOR/COLLECTOR'S OFFICE. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the promotion from Clerk position (Vehicle Reg. Dept.) to Senior Clerk (Tax Department.) With a salary increase to Grade 13 Step 4. ORDER N0.29006 WATER AVAILABILITY REQUIREMENTS. KERR COUNTY SUBDIVISION RULES & REGULATIONS. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to suspend the water availability requirements on County Subdivisions Rules & Regulations. ORDER N0.29007 RABIES DRIVE. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to set the date of February 5-19th, 2005 for the rabies drive and reduce the registration fee to $1.00. ORDER N0.29008 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS FOR PLACEMENTS OF KERB COUNTY MHMR PATIENTS. Came to heard this the 24th of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0- 0 to authorize the County Attorney to pursue inter-local agreements with facilities outside of Kerr County for MHMR patients. ORDER N0.29009 CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION BY KERR COUNTY TO PURCHASE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the waiver of conflict as presented, subject to and authorize the County Judge to sign the same, subject to the County Attorney's approval. ORDER N0.29010 SUPERVISOR OF KERR COUNTY RABIES AND ANIMAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to appoint Janie Roman as interim supervisor for 90 days with salary of $27,500.00. She will be revaluated after 90 days. ORDER N0.29011 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: Expense Amount 10-General $135,006.40 14-Fire Protection 2,059.85 15-Road & Bridge 53,862.99 18-County Law Library 200.00 50-Indigent Health Care 62,722.14 70-Permanent Improvement 82,234.40 76-Juvenile Detention Facility 15,200.47 Total cash required $351,286.25 Upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0. ORDER N0.29012 BUDGET AMENDMENTS. JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to declare an emergency and transfer $45,000.00 out of the General Fund to the Juvenile Detention Facility for payroll. ORDER N0.29013 PUBLIC HEARING LIVE SPRINGS RANCH LOT 4. Came to be heard this the 24th day of January 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved to set a public hearing on Live Springs Ranch Lot 4 for February 28, 2005 at 10:10 A.M.