1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,~~.. 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Regular Session Monday, April 11, 2005 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas `Y GJ -~ ~^^ ~cJ PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 I N D E X April 11, 2005 PAGE --- Visitors' Input 5 --- Commissioners' Comments 11 1.1 Purchase of land owned by the Hill Country Juvenile Detention Facility Corp. 26 1.2 Request permission to display children's art ~qf/~ project in lobby of courthouse week of Apr. 18 34 1.3 Proclamation declaring April 24 - May 1, 2005 a9i2o Soil and Water Stewardship Week in Kerr County 36 1.4 Discus authority for Clerk to attest to accuracy of Commissioners Court Records 36 1.5 Final Plat of Audubon Place, Precinct 4 Z`j12o 40 1.6 Concept Plan for development of 14.76 acres on Hwy. 27 & JJ Lane, Precinct 2 41 1.9 Consider funding for First Responder education Z,`j~'ZZ via Internet 68 zq/23 1.7 Declare April 23, 2005 as Earth Day in Kerr County 77 1.8 Consider appointing Ambra Freeman and Pam Peter to Kerr County Child Welfare Board Z9~z~F 78 1.10 Discuss moving J.P. 4's office 79 1.11 Discussion of Hart Intercivic eSlate Electronic Voting System 90 1.12 Consider approval of contract for medical health , services at Juvenile Detention Facility ZRl2 s 94 1.13 Consider rescinding Court Order 25722 and approving new court order for agenda request rules for Z9~Z~P Commissioners Court 102 1.14 Consider Commissioners Court organizational chart 104 1.15 Discuss automobile insurance requirements for all County employees that use personal vehicles 112 1.16 Discuss Subdivision Rules and Regulations 121 1 2 ,--, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 I N D E X (Continued April 11, 2005 PAGE 1.17 Discuss Water Availability Requirements 130 1.18 Consider status of Juvenile Board's internal investigation of Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility 138 1.19 Consider reappointing Commissioner Letz for Zq~Z'~ two-year term on Joint Airport Board effective June 1, 2005 144 1.22 Public Hearing on proposed Kerr County Nuisance Abatement Program 145 1.20 Consider employment status of Manager of Rabies Z~jf2$ and Animal Control Department 175 1.21 Discuss remodeling to allow access to windows Z~(Z~ currently located in exterior wall adjacent to the County Attorney's office 181 4.1 Pay Bills Z913~ 185 ~-3~ 4.2 Budget AmendmentsZ9~3 186 4.3 Late Bills --- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly ReportsZ-Ri3~ 202 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments 203 --- Adjourned 210 1 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, April 11, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court posted for this time and date, Monday, April the 11th, 2005, at 9 a.m. It's that time now. Commissioner Williams, I believe you have the honors this morning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you please rise and join me in a moment of prayer followed by the pledge of allegiance? (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard on a matter which is not a listed agenda item, you're privileged to come forward at this time. If you want to be heard on an agenda item, we would ask that you wait until that item is called, and we'd also ask that you fill out a participation form at the back of the room. It's not essential. It helps me to make sure that I don't miss you, so that's why we ask you to do it. But if you want to be heard on an agenda item, please get my attention, if you've 4-11-05 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 not filled out a participation form, when that item is called. But at this time, if there's any member of the public or the audience that wishes to be heard on a matter that's not a listed agenda item, feel privileged to come forward at this time. We'll be happy to listen to you. Yes, sir? If you'd come forward and give your name and address. MR. HENDERSON: This is for you, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: All right, thank you. MR. HENDERSON: If you'll hand those out. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Appreciate it. MR. HENDERSON: I'm Aubrey Henderson, 4035 Junction Highway, Ingram, Texas. First I'd like to ask about -- and I guess Mr. Williams -- the status on the committee that we had talked about two weeks ago. If you could give me any advice towards that, how we are -- JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Henderson, let me interject, if I might. MR. HENDERSON: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: On this particular portion of the agenda, we -- we're happy to listen to anything you have to say, but because it's not a listed agenda item, the Court can listen, but it cannot interact -- MR. HENDERSON: Okay, that's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: -- or pursue anything or take 9-11-05 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 any action. MR. HENDERSON: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: I hope you understand that. MR. HENDERSON: Okay, that's fine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can I make a comment, just -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to you real quickly? I'll be glad to make a status report during my comments in a few moments on the committee. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. HENDERSON: Okay. The -- what I just handed you is from the County Auditor, and I'll just talk briefly about this. My concerns were -- this is the last 11 years, I believe the latest from the County Auditor, the money that we have -- we have revenues and disbursements. You've seen these figures before. It has a ditch out to the side, which is this deficit. I think we all understand, Judge, that that is a deficit. You only have through '03, but I went to the County Auditor's. We are now up to 1,550,000. Of course, the figure that you're looking at right there is just through '03, is 1,302,000, roughly. And I am not here to discuss this, but I would just like the Court to know that if it would be possible for a workshop or a meeting where we don't have to be interrupted with other 4-11-05 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 court business, there's a possibility that we could have a forum meeting -- open forum or a workshop after hours in the courthouse, upstairs or here. I would appreciate if y'all would discuss that, and -- in a couple weeks, and come back, and maybe you'll have an answer for me about where we could go and the direction, and discuss this and many other matters that have to do with that. That's all I have, Judge, today to talk about. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We appreciate you being here today, Mr. Henderson. Is there any other member of the public or audience -- please step forward. Give your name and address to the reporter, please. MS. HAWKINS: Teri Hawkins, P.O. Box 911, Ingram, Texas. I know that it's not on the agenda, but I had submitted some questions in writing at the last Commissioners Court, and I didn't know if y'all had a chance to respond to any of those. Okay, I guess that's no. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks like we're one short. MS. HAWKINS: COMMISSIONER MS. HAWKINS: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER MS. HAWKINS: One short? WILLIAMS: We can make a copy. Here we go; I have a spare. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Baldwin. BALDWIN: Thank you. And I'm just, again, following 4-ii-os 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 up, 'cause one of the questions was what discussion, if any, has the Commissioners had in reference to leasing of the County's outdoor arena? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you repeat the question, please? MS. HAWKINS: One of my questions that I had submitted back on Monday, March the 28th, I just was wondering if there's been any further discussion from the Commissioners in reference to leasing the County's outdoor arena. JUDGE TINLEY: There hasn't been any -- any meeting posted to consider any item except this particular meeting, and it's not on this agenda, I think. MS. HAWKINS: Okay. That was just one of the questions I had asked, because we were trying to get the outdoor facility. I was reading the minutes and stuff from the last Commissioners Court, and on March the 28th of 2005, Mr. Walston stated that he felt that the multiple leasing of the outdoor facility for multiple events during the year would conflict with some of the possibilities of scheduling dates for the kids. So, at that time, which is the date of his letter -- which was March the 25th, which, of course, was after I was already told that we could lease the outdoor arena on March the 1st -- they decided it would be best if we just did not lease it outside of the 4-H use. And I 4-11-05 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 9 didn't know if the community was aware that for every outdoor date the 4-H has for a rodeo, they have the indoor facility booked as a backup arena for them, thus tying up both facilities on the same date. So I was wondering, why couldn't the 4-H just plan on using the indoor arena for their scheduled events and let the public that wants to lease the outdoor facility take their chances with the weather? Mr. Walston also stated that the facility was built for 4-H leaders -- was built by 4-H leaders and volunteers, and it was his impression that it was a 4-H facility for them to use as they felt necessary. In response to Mr. Walston's reference to the facility being here today, for the record, I was a 4-H youth member. Along with my mom and my dad and a lot of my friends, they were also in the club, and their parents as well, and we worked and we donated, volunteered, and, of course, we benefited from those facilities. I was told by the 4-H Coordinator on March the 15th that we could not volunteer our time or equipment at the 4-H outdoor arena to paint their concession stand or weld one of the bucking chute gates back on that was broken when the county fair had their event back in October of '04, or do any other repairs for them that was needed before they started their summer series of invitational rodeos. 4-11-05 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 I only mention this because I keep hearing over and over that these facilities were built, maintained, and the general upkeep is from volunteers, adult leaders, and donations. So, y'all excuse my aggravation at being told that we could not volunteer time or equipment or do anything for the 4-H kids because they had to do it themselves. Remember, I was one of those 4-H kids, and I'll always be one no matter what my age is. Mr. Holekamp made the comment at the last Commissioners Court that they needed commitment from the Court to fund the employees, what it takes to change over one event to another overnight. It just doesn't happen. He said if we had a group of people that are willing to put self-interest aside and try to come up with a policy that is fair to the youth primarily, and then the citizens' groups and other organizations. I have for your review a breakdown, which is what I gave y'all. I received from the Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center reservation receipts. Please note that we hardly ever charge for a setup fee. Yet when we inquired about the indoor arena and the possibility of leasing it on a Friday, before a scheduled Saturday event, we were told that no one could lease the facility because it took them all day to prepare the arena ground using the tractor to plow and water and the process to work it just right for each event, be it barrel racers, team ropers, or cutters. 4-11-05 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 11 The arena had to be prepared just right depending on that event. I do understand this, and appreciate Mr. Holekamp and his manpower, making sure that this is done properly. Judge Tinley asked Mr. Holekamp, do we have a setup fee? And Mr. Holekamp said yes. My question is, why do we not consider this process as a facility setup? Even though the arena is up, we are still having a county tractor, water, and manpower that is working a full day before an event to prepare it, thus locking out another income-producing date and costing taxpayers in equipment, time, and man labor. I've reviewed the receipts, and only a selected few are charged a setup fee. I am saying this because I believe that this should be an immediate policy change. Once the county tractor or any equipment is started or used, even if it's a water hose to spray to keep the dust down, there should be an automatic setup fee charged to all income-producing venues each and every time. And I thank y'all for your time. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Is there any other member of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter that's not a listed agenda item? If so, please come forward at this time, and feel free to give us your comments. Seeing no one else coming forward, we'll move on in the agenda. Commissioner Williams, what do you have for us this morning? 9-11-05 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll reserve any comments I have to coincide with Commissioner Letz on this topic, and let him deal with it. Presumably, he's speaking for both of us, I'm certain. I just wanted to call to the attention of the Court and the public that the first of two consecutive advertisements and invitation for bids for construction for Phases 2 and 3 of the Kerrville South Wastewater Project were published. We anticipate again this weekend, this particular ad will appear one more time. We'll have a preconstruction conference here in the courthouse on April 22nd, and we anticipate receiving and opening bids on, I believe, the 25th. Is that right, Ms. Mitchell? (Ms. Mitchell nodded.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the 25th, so we're moving forward with that. Part of the delay has been that the lift station had to be moved and redesigned, but now we're ready to kind of rock and roll. And these two phases of the -- of the project will take in all of Loyal Valley, George Muck, and there's another street in there in that particular area, and a couple hundred homes will go off of septics when this is finished and onto a centralized sewer system. So, we're pleased that this is moving along. Anticipate getting that construction underway in May. That's all I have, Judge. 4-11-05 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 13 JIIDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: First, let me make a brief comment regarding the airport. I think everyone on the Court's aware of -- and probably most of the public, about a terminal that was in the budget to be built, and it's been kind of delayed a little bit. As I understand it, that will be before TexDOT's board, national -- state board the end of this month, and once that happens -- it's been held up trying to get on their agenda to approve the funding. Once that happens, which is anticipated -- I think it's April 30th, towards the end of the month. In May, that should go out for bid, and so that should start sometime in the next couple months. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And TexDOT will manage that process of bids -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and so forth? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I just wanted to update everyone on the Court that that is working. It's just been held up in Austin. Related to the Ag Barn issue, an update as to what Commissioner Williams and I have decided with regards to committee and where we are on it, there are a lot of issues out there that are kind of, you know, not open for discussion, so to speak, such as the -- the Stock Show Association. They have their dates. There 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ^--. 2 4 25 14 are 4-H issues. There are nonprofit issues that we've dealt with in this court before. We are relooking at a -- and it's a huge undertaking to look at everything from the policy to who's using it at what rates, what the rates should be, gather information from other facilities. And, in our mind, it was not productive just to call a meeting and just basically have what I think would turn out to be a bitch session about what was wrong out there. What we decided to do, and are doing, we've met with Roy Walston and Glenn Holekamp. We're reviewing all the current policies and rules, and we are looking at other facilities. And we are in the process of drafting draft policies, costs, and everything else. Once that is done -- which I would anticipate within the next, you know, two to four weeks; it's not an easy undertaking -- everyone who has given us their name, they'd like to help in this process, will be given that draft and will be -- and we'll solicit comments. We'll probably send the draft out, then have a meeting, will be our guess, with anyone that wants to show up and give us any comments, or they can respond in writing. Because of the interest, we felt that we wanted -- we didn't want really to limit it to a -- a select few of those that wanted to contribute. And by sending out a draft to everyone and then have it open to the public as a whole, I think we get more input from a wider spectrum. So, that's 4-11-05 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 where it is. I mean, this is a -- you know, we met last week, and we'll probably meet again this week, I would suspect, on some other -- at least Commissioner Williams and I will on this topic. That's where it's going, you know. We are proceeding. Everyone that requested input will be receiving a draft before it comes back to the court, and that's where we are. Anything else to add? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that covers it. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Last Thursday we had the dedication of the hister -- historical -- almost said the wrong word. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Faux pas, Mr. Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- marker in Hunt celebrating the founding of Hunt, and that was sponsored by the Hunt Garden Club in participation with the Historical Society, and had a real good turnout with -- with music from the children at the -- at the Hunt School, so that was good. And, Commissioner Williams, the -- the Baylor women's basketball team did play since we last met, didn't they? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sick 'em, Bears. National champs. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And on the -- on to 4-11-05 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 you, Commissioner, I hope Jesse's healing up. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you. I wanted to report to the Court and the public that I'd gotten a call over the weekend; Brad Alford is in the hospital in Fredericksburg. I think I'm safe to say heart problems. Don't know how serious. Don't know -- I checked on him this morning, and still don't know anything, but he's a pretty sick little boy. There is a public hearing today at 2 o'clock in Austin, Texas, on the issue -- Hilderbran's introduced a bill requiring -- you know, particularly with our water issue, our utility issue that we've been dealing with for a couple of years around here, they -- companies can -- now can increase their rates every year if they so choose. And this bill that Harvey's introduced is -- would require them to only increase or apply for an increase every five years. So that is -- that's a positive -- large positive step. And it just kills me that I can't go to Austin, Texas today, in all the traffic and all the people, and testify at 2 o'clock. But if you -- any of you gentlemen would like to go, I just wanted to alert you to that exciting moment going on over there. Last, but certainly not least, this -- this issue between the Commissioners Court and the Kerrville City 4-11-05 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 Council, the co-owned properties and budget issues, this -- the ambulance service and the library and all of those things that we do with them, and for years have worked fairly well with them and sharing in the cost of those issues, I see -- we've tried; we sent a letter to them saying it's time to sit down and start working through it. And they have sent us a letter back now saying that -- that they would rather not; that they would rather sit down and work out what the process is going to be. And that's fine. I'll sit with them all day long and work out processes and all that. What I'm interested in is numbers and taking care of the people's business. You know, personally, I mean, this is good. I mean, I'll be happy to do this. If you guys want to do it, I'm happy to go over there, or they can come over here and we can sit down and visit all day long; I don't care. But what I think we should do is, we need to have a -- very soon, have a budget workshop and we decide what we want to do, and send them the numbers, period. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When did this exchange take place, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is confidential information. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you tell me, you'd have to kill me? Is that right? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it's worse than 4-11-05 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 that, Bill. Death is easy. (Laughter.) You're welcome to it. I'm not -- not sure where I got it. But, anyway, that's the bottom line. And I'm sincere that we need to have a meeting and us decide what we want to do, and let the City know what we want to do. I say that every year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. In our letter, did we not -- didn't we have a process outlined in it? Didn't we? JUDGE TINLEY: I -- in the letter that I sent out, I suggested a process. That letter, incidentally, went out March the 3rd, at the direction of this Court, after our last meeting, and suggesting to them a methodology that I thought would -- would start things rolling on a -- on a pretty effective basis at the Court's suggestion, and that was that each of the governing bodies appoint one or two members to a committee as to each joint function or jointly-owned facility to -- to work on that particular function or facility, and come up with a proposed draft of -- of the operation and the funding of that facility. And then each of those -- each of those committees could present the proposed draft to a joint meeting of both bodies, and any fine-tuning or other changes could be made, and we could get it resolved and go on down the road. The -- the response I got from the City Manager was that he did not feel like that would be effective, and hence his 4-11-05 19 1 2 ,-, 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 subsequent response of -- of coming up with a process. There was an indication that he had -- he had responded by letter, and it came as a surprise to Ms. Mitchell that -- that -- I don't know. It was approximately 25 days later, I suppose, we finally got a copy of -- of a letter which he had -- well, it was further than that. The letter was 25 days later, that we never received. And, so, it -- there's just been some serious difficulty in communication. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- if we have to meet to figure out a process, I'll do it, but that seems like a total waste of time. I mean, I don't know -- either we sit down, the two bodies, lock ourselves in a room and hammer out these details, or we go with the process like we had. I don't know how else you can do it. You know, those are the two options that I can see. You have a -- committees assigned to these various functions, and, you know, let the committee come up with a recommendation to both bodies, or we sit down as a whole. I don't see much purpose in meeting to develop a process. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the reason here for not wanting to do it the way that we've always done it is that they have provided us with tons -- was the word "tons"? -- tons of information, and we always say, well, we're not receiving enough information to make decisions. And that's probably true. There's some truth in that. You 9-11-05 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 know, they -- they give us books and -- and then when we sit down with them, we argue some points, which is exactly why the -- what the people elected us to do. And I guess that's the point that -- this arguing thing, or working through details and disagreements on numbers may be offensive. I'm not real sure, but I'm really not interested in anything. I think that we need to build our own budget, send it over there, and let's get on down the road with life. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Part of the problem goes back to my querying the numbers at the library a couple years ago. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I made the point that, while I recognize that we -- we receive the books and all the information they've put together by City staff, what I didn't know in that particular instance, and I think it applies to everything we do across the board, we don't know what's behind those numbers. And therein is the difference in the process. We know what's behind our numbers, because we -- we work with it from the base up with every department head, and we know what goes into the making of the budget. What they present to us is their product which has been done by their staff, and so they are comfortable with the numbers, but we still don't know what's behind the numbers. So, I don't think it's unfair if we ask what's behind the 9-11-05 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 21 numbers. And therein lies the difference, and therein lies the problem, and I'm not sure how we're going to get -- get COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think the -- I have used -- and I think the Court has used the way the airport issue was resolved as a model that we should work on other areas we have questions. And, evidently, they didn't like that process, because that's what we're proposing, and they've said no. So, I mean, I -- I thought it worked very, very well. I mean, we came to an agreement; we met on the policies, the direction, we generated the budget, and then both bodies, City Council and Commissioners Court looked at it, made some changes, and went on down the road with a good arrangement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It did work well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- and that's what we propose for the rest of the other areas such as library, Animal Control, other joint ventures that we have with the City, and they evidently don't think that process worked very well, so I don't know what to do. I mean, I think Commissioner Baldwin's -- you know, I agree with it, except I don't know how we develop a budget for a library when we don't have any of the numbers for the library. Other than just pull one out of the sky. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we could put a 9-11-05 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 cap on what we're spending right now. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We did. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is what we did last year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, let's lower it. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what we did last year. JUDGE TINLEY: If I might allude to the library issue, the -- the not having adequate information, Commissioner Williams' request for additional information last year with respect to the library, in fact, disclosed -- and this information was not contained in the information which they furnished to us -- that they had cash reserves of approximately $200,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: And that, obviously, was quite pertinent, and I appreciate Commissioner Williams asking that question, because we needed to know that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: But we need that information. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, as a separate issue in the budget process, about -- excuse me -- about two months ago, after court order, you sent a letter to the City saying that it was our intention to cancel the Animal 4-11-05 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 Control contract as of September 30th, and we were going to renegotiate, and I agreed to renegotiate. We haven't had a response to that either. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We also have the EMS contract and the fire contract. We have a lot of these contracts that have been -- one party or the other have notified the other that they're all going to be canceled September 30th, the end of this budget year. And we have requested meetings with the City just to, you know, start negotiations on a new contract, and we've received no response. So, I mean, I don't know if they're waiting until after the elections coming up or -- or what, but that's -- that's too late. I mean, that's -- we're getting ourselves in the same situation we have in prior years, that we need to have these policy discussions now before the budget is started. And, you know, I don't know how you deal with a partner that won't talk to you. That's basically what it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the urgency of needing information and coming to some resolution prior to budget discussions by both entities, I pointed out in my initial letter to them that I was hopeful that we could get this process going as soon as possible because of the need for both of us to have that information. I wish I had a definitive answer, but I -- 9-11-05 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 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin, is that a recent -- I don't want to read it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did it -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Last Thursday. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last Thursday? But they didn't outline a process? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They said they didn't like our process. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't like either of the ones we've used so far. So, the only thing I can -- Judge, I guess, you know, in response to their e-mail, if you could send them a letter possibly on behalf of the Court saying please recommend a process. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we -- JUDGE TINLEY: We have to. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we promise we'll be nice. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Tell us how they want to do it, and I think we can figure out a way. Somewhat reasonable. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't say I promise I was going to take a bath. I said I'll promise I'll be 4-11-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nice. Which we always are perfect gentlemen. The bottom line of this, this is the business of the people. This is a lot of taxpayers' money and services that are on the table. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it needs -- it's got to be dealt with. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the bottom line -- well, I'm not sure what the bottom line is, but it appears the City does not want to deal with these issues. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not. JUDGE TINLEY: Think you've opened a large enough can of worms there? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pandora's box is open. JUDGE TINLEY: If I might take just a moment, a little over a week ago, I had the honor and privilege of being a guest at a dinner sponsored by and hosted by Ranch Radio in conjunction with our local army recruiter and the -- and the area recruiting command. The featured speaker was the Command Sergeant Major of the 1st Cavalry Division, which has its home right up here at Fort Hood, as I'm sure most of you know. Special guest at that dinner were several members of the 1st Cav, some of whom were still 25 ~ recuperating from wounds and injuries received -- as I'm 4-11-OS 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sure most of you know, the 1st Cav is just recently returned home from deployment in Iraq. And the -- all of those soldiers that were there from the 1st Cav were enlisted. I didn't see a single officer there. The Command Sergeant Major was, of course, speaking for the Command, his general, and essentially what he did was give a report to the civilian community. The bottom line of some very candid and emotional remarks was that morale is good, the resolve is strong, the focus is intact, and the soldiers are committed to finishing the mission. There are some -- at least one in this room I know that was there, and I was very, very pleased to hear the remarks, and I would urge all of us to support our men and women in uniform, and when we see them, thank them for their service to our country. Let's get on with the agenda, if we might. The first item on the agenda is purchase of land as shown on plat as owned by the Hill Country Juvenile Detention Facility. Mr. Davis? MR. DAMS: Yes. My name is Bill Davis, 150 Hilltop Drive, Kerrville, Texas. My lack of knowledge of this body and the way it operated, I don't have enough copies for all of you, so I have two here. The proposal is very -- very brief. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. MR. DAMS: Sorry about that, Judge. If 4-11-05 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you'll notice on the plat, on the second page there, that the Juvenile Detention Center is off to the right of that body of land, and directly behind it is the V.A. Hospital. This land is bordered on Legion Drive. It amounts to approximately 100.79 feet -- excuse me -- by 210 feet in length. The owner of that property, the property that adjoins that, would like to purchase that from the Hill Country Juvenile Detention Corporation. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any other remarks? MR. DAVIS: That's it. Very simple. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I think -- I think we may have a number of issues. One is the ability of this Court to summarily sell property. That property, of course, is in the process of being transferred to Kerr County. Once all the remaining title issues are worked out, I think there's some legal issues on under what circumstances we can even dispose of property. Beyond that, I'm not sure what -- what thoughts and ideas for the future that Ms. Harris may have about the use of that property, and I saw some anxiety on her face when you were mentioning a desire of the adjacent property owners to purchase this property. So, we -- we have the benefit of what your request is, and let's see where it goes. MR. DAVIS: My understanding, Your Honor, was that this property first had to be decided whether it was a 9-11-05 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 28 surplus piece of land. My question is, do we wait till this transfer has been made? Or -- I'm looking for ways to proceed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is, what's the purpose? Why do you need the land, or why -- or the -- MR. DAVIS: This piece of land, if you'll notice, is really landlocked there, unless we have either an easement across that property for water line and sewer line to go up there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the tract of land -- MR. DAMS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that you're trying to get the easement to get to? MR. DAVIS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Legion -- and where do you need the -- where do you need 30-foot easement? Or -- MR. DAMS: We're open, as long as it's along that area up to Legion Drive. It really wouldn't -- wouldn't make that much difference to the owner. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused exactly what we're talking about. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I am too. JUDGE TINLEY: On the 2.61-acre tract, which 4-11-05 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 would be on the southeast property line, of the 2.61-acre tract, it indicates there along the area where the driveway is that there is a 30-foot-wide private access easement. Is there not, in fact, that easement? MR. DAMS: Yes. The owner is interested in eliminating that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You -- MR. DAMS: Because it will no longer be necessary for this piece of property. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The -- the 2-acre tract upon which the improvements are shown, the house and the barn -- MR. DAMS: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: -- are presently served by that 30-foot-wide private access easement; is that correct? MR. DAMS: That is correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So that easement is intact? MR. DAMS: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: And the owner of that 2-acre tract upon which the house and the barn are located does have access to that tract via that access easement? MR. DAMS: That is correct. JUDGE TINLEY: What I'm hearing from you is that the owner of the 2.61 adjacent tract would like to 4-11-05 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 eliminate that easement in the hopes that the 2-acre tract owner would find some other access. MR. DAMS: That is also correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Being across that small 100 by 200-foot tract owned by the County. MR. DAMS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you're interested in purchasing that small piece of land that fronts Legion Drive and is contiguous or is a part of our tract, but it's kind of in front of -- it fronts Legion Drive; is that correct? MR. DAMS: Yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much land is that? MR. DAMS: It's approximately 100.79 feet by 210 feet. JUDGE TINLEY: About half an acre. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About a half acre. MR. DAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, really, I mean, that's if you purchase that whole corner, but all you really need is a 30-foot easement on the -- MR. DAMS: We would like to purchase the 9-11-05 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 whole -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but -- excuse me. But a 30-foot easement -- MR. DAMS: Would suffice, if that's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's next -- I mean, next to, probably, that 2.61 acres. MR. DAMS: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. DAMS: Thank you. Appreciate your time. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Harris? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. That's the site that we had plotted off for our community service garden. JUDGE TINLEY: The site that was cleared last week? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. DAMS: Would an easement disrupt that garden, then, too much? MS. HARRIS: That would be the decision of -- of these gentlemen. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I recommend our liaisons go out and take a look at this and come back with a recommendation whether we need to pursue it or -- or not. MR. DAMS: I'll be glad to meet with them 4-11-05 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and answer questions if it's deemed necessary. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: An easement for the purpose of establishing a driveway? MR. DAVIS: Correct. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which, in effect, then removes the utilization of that part of the land as it's currently being planned; is that correct? MR. DAVIS: Yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. DAVIS: Also, that would give us, for water line and sewer line, to go up to Legion Drive. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Okay, I have a better understanding. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Is there no ability to use the adjacent 30-foot easement for water line and sewer line purposes? MR. DAVIS: Not at this time. MR. ODOM: Would the County be able to utilize or hook into that sewer and water should they have a need to? MR. DAVIS: This is a private line. My understanding -- excuse me -- it's a private line now that runs from the juvenile facility up to the loop there, but that I understand -- my understanding is it's a private line. We were first interested in a sewer line -- first 4-11-05 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 33 interested in tying into that line until we found out it was a private line. Am I correct in that? MS. HARRIS: Sir, I'm sorry, I don't have any idea. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll take a look at it and come back. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. DAVIS: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, just for my education, if we move forward on this and we declare that property surplus, does that open the -- the opportunity for anybody else to try to purchase it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's my understanding that it's -- there's some fairly large legal hurdles you have to get over to even -- to sell public-owned property. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- selling it, to me, is not even on the table, but an easement may -- you know, if the price is right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go down between the tomatoes and the carrots -- MR. ODOM: And utility connections that they provide to y'all. COMMISSIONER LETZ: May be a -- may be not a 4-11-05 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 34 negative to the County. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At least we know what it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that agenda item, gentlemen? Okay. Let's move on to the next item, a request for permission to display a children's art project in the lobby of the Kerr County Courthouse the week of April 18th, 2005. Ms. Meng? Thank you. MS. MENG: I'm Lynn Meng. I'm the program director of Kids Advocacy Place, 1300 East Main, Kerrville. We're just asking, in recognition of Child Abuse Awareness Month, which is April, us, Crisis Council, K'Star, Kids Advocacy Place, CASA have put together -- gathered artwork from some of the children in the shelters and put together a display with statistics and stuff about child abuse prevention. So, we're having it in Bandera this week and Kendall County the last week, and we're hoping to have it in Kerrville next week, on the 18th. Ms. Mitchell and I went and looked, and we were thinking -- there's a big display box with nothing in it; put it in front of that. Or if you think it would be better in front of the courtrooms upstairs in the open area. It's big; it's, like, 8 feet. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 8 feet by 7 and a half feet tall. MS. MENG: Yes. 4-11-05 f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 JUDGE TINLEY: You've seen it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. I can read. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's better out here where the -- the public -- MS. MENG: I think so. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where the traffic is. And I think it's a super idea. MS. MENG: Yeah, it's neat. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: These are all children that are in counseling and are victims of either sexual or physical abuse. JUDGE TINLEY: That was a motion for approval, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, if I can also add to get with Ms. Mitchell to find the proper location. JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second 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.) 4-11-05 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 36 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you very much, Ms. Meng. MS. MENG: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is consider and discuss approval of a proclamation declaring April 24th through May the lst, 2005 as Soil and Water Stewardship Week in Kerr County. This was forwarded to me by the Soil and Water Conservation people. Mr. Holekamp, as most of you know, has been a longtime east Kerr County resident, and has been very, very active in -- in this endeavor, and he asked that we adopt this resolution. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move adoption of the Soil and Water Stewardship Week proclamation and authorize County Judge to sign same. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. 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 on the agenda is discussion in accordance with Local Government Code Section 81.003, that the Clerk shall attest to the accuracy of the Commissioners Court records. 4-11-05 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 37 Ms. Pieper? MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, I'm sure you've been wondering why I have not been bringing in the minutes for approval. The law changed back in -- I believe it was 2003. It was September 1, 2003, that says the Clerk can attest to the accuracy of the minutes. Therefore, I'm not bringing them in for approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You contested the accuracy of the minutes? Is that what you just said? MS. PIEPER: Right, that is correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Contested" or "attested"? MS. PIEPER: Attest the accuracy of the record. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER MS. PIEPER: that. That is correct. COMMISSIONER all of this other stuff her MS. PIEPER: COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. BALDWIN: Attest. LETZ: Attest. BALDWIN: I'm sorry. And Kathy, as my deputy, does WILLIAMS: Question. What is ~? This is just showing -- WILLIAMS: H.B. 2931? 4-11-05 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 38 MS. PIEPER: This is just showing where the Legislature changed. Actually, it's kind of buried on further down. I don't have it marked. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this just an informational item, or legal requirement for your office, or do we -- do we need to take any action? MS. PIEPER: No, there is no action needed. This is basically just for your information, to understand why I'm not bringing the minutes in for approval. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why aren't you bringing the minutes in for approval? MS. PIEPER: Because you are no longer required to approve the minutes as the Court. However, if you see that there is something incorrect, then you can talk with Kathy. I mean, they can still be corrected, but we just -- we just don't bring them in for approval any more. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I thought we voted on them every -- every meeting. MS. PIEPER: You haven't this whole year, so I thought I'd better let you know why. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, wait. I have a question about that. The Court approving and you attesting are two different issues. q-ii-os 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 MS. PIEPER: The County Attorney has reviewed this also, in case have you any questions for him. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. County -- Mr. County Attorney, will you explain to this poor layman up here the differences between the Court approving the minutes as submitted or amended or corrected, as opposed to the Clerk attesting? MR. EMERSON: The Court can still correct and amend as needed. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How are we going to do that if the Clerk doesn't bring them to us? MR. EMERSON: Because there's still -- I believe the procedures are that it's publicly posted on the web each week after the -- after the court hearing. Statutes allow for both paper and public posting via electronic, which is what Kerr County does. From what I can tell from reading the statute and the changes there and talking to a few people, it was done as an efficiency measure for the Commissioners Court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, certainly, we should be receptive to that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, I mean, I would prefer -- and I think they still are. Aren't they circulating through our office still? MS. PIEPER: Yes, they are. 4-11-05 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ._-_ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,-. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as the hard copy's circulating through for a while, because it's -- with my computer, it's very cumbersome to do it off the web. I like the hard copies that come through. I don't care -- JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Banik -- as soon as she completes the transcript of a particular meeting, her copy is furnished to our office for -- for our review. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on that one, gentlemen? If not, we'll move on to the next item. Consider final plat of Audubon Place in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Good morning. As an Aggie, I want to congratulate Baylor, without unsolicited coercion. So, that's a compliment from me to say that I'm proud of Baylor. What I have before you is, we've gone through the preliminary. I have a final plat, and ask the Court to accept this final plat and authorize the Judge to sign the same. I'm open for any questions there may be about this. This is in Precinct 4. It's straightforward. There's no roads in here. It's divided off Witt Road -- I mean Wren Road. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve the final plat of Audubon Place in Precinct 4. And then I'll have a question. 4-11-05 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. Any questions or discussion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Len, the Lot Number 2 has 195 feet, approximately, on Wren Road. Does that require a waiver or an exception? MR. ODOM: Sorry, I just put that up. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Less than 200 feet? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It shows 200 there. Or did you -- MR. ODOM: Lot 2 is -- if you look, Commissioner, it's got 194.36, and then it's got a point and then it's got 71.57. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further 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: That motion does carry. The next item is to consider a concept plan for development of 17 -- or 14.76 acres on Highway 27 and J.J. Lane located in Precinct 2. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll defer to 9-11-05 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Odom, and I believe Mr. Machann is here to speak to this issue as well, right? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I believe he is. And Mr. Voelkel, I think. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Mr. Voelkel, of course. JUDGE TINLEY: You pass the ball to Mr. Voelkel? MR. MACHANN: I'll pass the ball. I'm here only if I'm needed. MR. VOELKEL: Good morning, gentlemen. As you were told or maybe know, this property is located right outside of Center Point on Highway 27. I assume that everybody's got a little sketch in their packet? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did. MR. VOELKEL: Mr. Robert Mosty owns this property. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be Robert, Jr., would it not? MR. VOELKEL: I'm sorry, Robert Mosty, Jr., yes, sir. And he lives down near Conroe. This property, just so y'all can kind of orient, it has been used as a pecan orchard for years. And, of course, the trees are still there. He's got almost 15 acres, and he'd like to divide it, as we've shown, into two tracts that front along 4-11-05 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 43 Highway 27, and at the bottom down by the river, produce that as a well tract, which is a little more than a third of an acre, which is where he has pumps now that pump water out of the river for irrigating his property north of Highway 27. So, we'll try to preserve that as a well tract, if you will, something along those lines. The issue that we have before us would be the tract size on one of the tracts that fronts on Highway 27 being less than 5 acres. There is not a water system that provides, at this time, the water for this proposed subdivision. In talking with Road and Bridge and Commissioners prior to today, we thought a plat note which would restrict any development of that lot as far as residential purposes. It would not be able to have a water well -- individual water well; that would have to have some type of water system to be developed. The other issue that came up was the existing easement along J.J. Lane. As you see on your plat, J.J. Lane is a private road easement that's 30-foot wide, and privately maintained. The owner of the property would like to plat it as-is. There was some discussion about what might be done down at the end of J.J. Lane, and I've made a little sketch this morning that might be helpful. The owner would be willing to add a cul-de-sac down at the end of the road -- if you'll pass those around -- the cul-de-sac area 4-11-05 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 44 being the green that I've highlighted there. The pink is the existing easement along J.J. Lane, which is 30 feet wide. As far as being used to access either one of the tracts along the highway, J.J. Lane will not be used for that purpose, although it does -- it's contiguous with the property and does adjoin the property there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I met with Mr. Voelkel and Mr. Machann on this and brought up a whole issue on J.J. Lane. Originally, I asked -- and probably a little bit unreasonable -- to expand the easement on J.J. Lane to make it a little bit wider. And it really doesn't affect the subdivision, and I think there's some objections to doing that. And as a -- to try to better that situation, I thought that putting a cul-de-sac in at the end at least provides emergency services a place to turn around at the end of J.J. Lane, and they've agreed to do that. I think that at such -- if they ever do develop that 12.6-acre tract, I think at that point the Court should require that easement to be expanded, but that easement is not being used for access in this subdivision, so I really -- I think it's -- and we're probably hard-pressed to require them to expand that easement at this point. But I think the -- and the cul-de-sac, I think, actually is a -- is voluntary as well. I don't think we can require that, but I think they've agreed to do that. That's my opinion on it. 4-11-05 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 45 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The first meeting that I participated in on this with Lee, we talked about the possibility of expanding that easement. The easement as it exists now goes to all of these lots; is that correct? MR. VOELKEL: That's correct, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Individual lots all contribute to that 30-foot -- is it 30? MR. VOELKEL: That's correct, 30-foot-wide easement. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What you're talking about is that cul-de-sac would be on the tail end of the 12.60 piece of Mr. Mosty's property; is that correct? MR. VOELKEL: That's correct, at the end of the existing private easement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that the only way that Mr. Mosty was able to access the well tract at the bottom? Or is there a road that separates -- on the eastern side of the 12.6, is there a road that separates that from -- I believe it's the orchard next door to it? MR. VOELKEL: Correct. And I asked Mr. Mosty that question, and there is no easement there -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is no road? MR. VOELKEL: -- for access off the east adjoining property. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 4-11-05 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me again how you're going to get by the 1.82 acres and not being 5. You're going to just assure us that there's not going to be a water well drilled? MR. VOELKEL: Well, I will do that, but also some type of note on the plat itself to that effect. Some type of plat restriction. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How does the government know that you didn't drill a well next to your... MR. VOELKEL: I don't know that you will know 11 ~ that. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we do -- MR. VOELKEL: I guess Headwaters will be the one to govern that or police that, so to speak. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Following up on the Commissioner's question, do I not remember correctly that the 1.82 split is going to be purchased by one of the owners contiguous -- of a lot contiguous to that? MR. VOELKEL: That's correct. It's my understanding that it's already under contract, that an adjoining property owner of one of those existing lots off the Stone-Lea Ranch River Tracts is purchasing that tract. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And -- and is it just -- is this just being acquired just because they want 1.82 acres of land, or do they have some plans for that? 4-11-05 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 47 And if he has plans for that, does he intend to extend water from wherever he gets it on that lot of his? MR. VOELKEL: I don't know. I'm not sure I can answer that, Mr. Williams. I don't know of any plans that he has for the tract. I would think that if he does decide to develop it, he would have to extend water from his present water system on his own lot, with there being a restriction for no wells. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do these -- the lots along the river, those small lots, get their water? Do they all have individual wells? MR. VOELKEL: It's my understanding, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's no central system that serves that? MR. VOELKEL: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is no central system that serves all those lots? MR. VOELKEL: Not to my knowledge. Each one of them have wells, individuals wells. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does the -- what does the regulation say about a road -- what happens to a road when there's a subdivision developed? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think -- I mean, 4-11-05 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 our rules do not have any language that allows us to require someone to improve a road that's not part of the subdivision. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not part of the subdivision? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, in other words, J.J. Lane is not part of the subdivision. It already exists. The subdivision is on the side of J.J. Lane, and we don't have any requirements in our rules that allow -- now, Kendall County does have -- has done that in the past, I'm aware, but we have never required a road to get to a subdivision to be upgraded. MR. ODOM: There's -- the exception -- the Attorney General's opinion says that you can't make contractors -- Leonard Odom, Road and Bridge. Attorney General's opinion says that if they were separate once -- let's just say J.J. Lane extended on down -- stopped, extended down, and the developer wanted to do it. We have no right to make him upgrade J.J. Lane. However, an individual on J.J. Lane, which is debatable -- which I would like to point out to the Court, the reason I had some objections to this is that you cannot make them take a separate subdivision and make them upgrade an existing one. Taxpayers have to do that, is what I've read in the Attorney General's opinion. So -- but since we have one thing, I 4-11-G5 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 don't see why we could not upgrade it. The point being, is that we've looked at this piece of property down here. What I found -- I don't know if this in your packet, because we didn't put this -- we just put it down. Hopefully you have this sheet. Did y'all receive this? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. MR. ODOM: Let me pass this around to you. You can take a look. What that is is floodplain, how we overlay everything and take a look at floodplain. But you'll see that this road on J.J. Lane comes out. There's Lots 26, 27, and 28. What is proposed -- what was proposed to us was this right here that shows going through 26, 27, and 28. It says it goes down there. I went down there last week and drove it. That road is in -- it's just like what you see on that floodplain; it -- it curves. To my knowledge, you have no right-of-way down through 26, 27, and 28. If you did have that right-of-way, then that might be an argument. But, to me, you're turning back before you cross 26, 27, and 28. Maybe you're into 26. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I -- MR. ODOM: And that piece of property -- you know, that piece of property is Four Seasons property that we're talking about dividing. Four Seasons Growers owns all this, as the Appraisal District's got it. So you've got a 4-i1-05 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 separate piece of property other than this 14 acres up there. They're trying to add to it, and you have to extend that road. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're not a subdivision. What you're talking about is not in the subdivision. MR. ODOM: This is part of that subdivision. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wait. Is this a platted subdivision, or were these lots all set up by metes and bounds years and years ago? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Metes and bounds. MR. VOELKEL: Metes and bounds. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not a platted subdivision. MR. ODOM: And it's not part of that road. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. ODOM: It's not part of that 30-foot easement. MR. MACHANN: That's not true. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The easement's on the map. The road nay not be in the easement, but the easement's here. MR. ODOM: The point is that the road does not go through to the end of 28. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any difference. It's the easement. 9-11-05 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 51 MR. ODOM: If that road is extended, then you're in violation of 1.02; you're laying out an easement or a road, and you must bring it up to standards. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this plat shows an easement all the way to the railroad tracks. MR. ODOM: That's what this shows. That's not what I'm showing on another piece. This -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you looking at that's different? MR. ODOM: This is off the appraisal. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I'm not going to go by the appraisal records. I'm going to go by the legal -- MR. ODOM: I'm showing you where the road is when you drive. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does it show where the easement is? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. MR. ODOM: That's the point. Where is the easement? Does it go all the way through 28? COMMISSIONER LETZ: This plat says yes. This diagram shows an easement all the way to the end. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it shows. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't know -- I mean, the fact that the road is not in the easement, that's a private property issue. That has nothing to do with us. 9-11-05 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 52 MR. ODOM: Whether -- well, that would be the question I have. Does that road go all the way down? I guess Lee can answer that. That's not what I'm showing. I'm showing that that road turns just as you drive it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But the easement -- it doesn't make any difference where the road physically is. It's out of the subdivision. MR. ODOM: Then maybe he can -- if that's true, then you could put the cul-de-sac down there. But if we're extending -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're not -- MR. ODOM: That's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excuse me. They're not -- they're not building a cul de sac. They're providing property for the cul-de-sac, as I understand it. MR. VOELKEL: I'm confused. May I look at that map where Mr. Odom is saying the road ends before it gets to the end of those tracts? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's off the Appraisal District's computer system. MR. VOELKEL: I got a deed for the property at the end of the road, and it's subject to the easement all the way. MR. ODOM: 28 is? MR. VOELKEL: Correct. This gentleman owns 4-11-OS 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26, 27, and 28. MR. ODOM: 27 is one owner. MR. VOELKEL: And he's got the easement going through to the end of his property. MR. ODOM: All right. MR. VOELKEL: Which gets us to where we've got it drawn on our little concept sketch. JUDGE TINLEY: The easement does cover what are known as 26, 27 and 28? MR. VOELKEL: That's correct. That's what this deed here is showing, and to the present owner, it's -- the easement is reserved. And, of course, all the maps I have of Stone-Lea Ranches, even though it's not recorded, it shows the same thing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, the issue is that that's all out of the subdivision, though. The road's out of the subdivision, so it's not part of this discussion. I mean -- MR. VOELKEL: Right. Those tracts are not -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- it's like a change in Highway 27; it's irrelevant. We may not like J.J. Lane. That's why I tried to get the easement expanded to 35, 45, 60 -- to any amount. Which, you know -- but because of the amount of acreage it would take out of that -- out of the subdivision, they declined to do that. I think that there 9-li-os 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 -- we have a precedent under previous court orders in other subdivisions to do well sites that are less than minimum lot size and to allow lots that are not on -- usually we have land where there is not developable -- develop -- whatever that word would be. Cannot develop on those tracts. You know, we've never really had a situation -- and I would think that you -- that to be consistent, you cannot develop the 1.82-acre tract. That's what we've always done in the past. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does 1.82 have 280 feet -- 200 feet of -- linear feet of frontage? MR. MACHANN: Yes, sir. MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir, it does. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the 12.60 obviously does. MR. VOELKEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if I might -- excuse me for interrupting. One comment. My logic on providing the property for the cul-de-sac, at some point, if this J.J. Lane is made a county road, then we'd have to come up with additional easement at that time, but at least there would be a cul-de-sac that would be kind of set aside down there. And even now, for emergency services, it would be a -- provide -- you know, if the residents upgrade it, it would 4-11-05 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 55 allow a spot for them to have emergency service vehicles turn around. Right now, there's no -- there's no property for them to -- no easement for them to do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The 12.60 is going to remain in Mr. Mosty's ownership? It's -- MR. MACHANN: No, sir, he has contracts on both tracts. We have existing contracts on both tracts. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's acquiring the 12.6? MR. MACHANN: I didn't -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't know? MR. MACHANN: It's an individual from out of town. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. ODOM: How would you get the 60 foot easement in that 1.8 acres if that 12 acres is developed? If you don't get it now? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's going to be up to that person that's buying from the individual. But we can't -- I don't see how we can, in our Subdivision Rules, require anything to be done on J.J. Lane. I mean, I don't see how it's part of the subdivision. JUDGE TINLEY: Right. I mean, any more than going out to Lane Valley and saying if someone wants to put a development on Lane Valley, and we say we want a 60-foot 9-11-05 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 56 easement -- you got to buy a 60-foot easement all the way to Highway 27. MR. ODOM: By Attorney General's opinion, we can't do that, but that section that that individual has, Jonathan, we could make them give 60 foot there. And then the next person over and above that can. But that individual developing can get the 60 foot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. MR. MACHANN: If I may -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? MR. MACHANN: I'm Dwaine Machann, 222 Sidney Baker South, Suite 436. I represent Mr. Mosty. I met with Mr. Letz -- Lee Voelkel and I did -- the other day to discuss this easement issue of J.J. Lane. My understanding in talking to Lee, and I've not reviewed all the title records, is that J.J. Lane is a private -- it's an existing private easement. It has been there for -- MR. VOELKEL: Thirty years. MR. MACHANN: -- 30 years. It's reserved in all the deeds to these tracts. It's reserved in the 15 acres. It's 15 feet on the 15-acre side, or 12.60 acres. It's 15 feet on the lot side. It's a private road. We're not laying out lots on the private road and developing that and using it for access. The only lots that we're anticipating that will be used for any purpose front on 9-11-05 - - - 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 57 Highway 27. They have public access. They exceed your 200-foot minimum, and we're not developing a subdivision on J.J. Lane. So, I -- with all due respect to Mr. Odom, I have some familiarity with that area, and I've done, as a preface to me meeting Mr. Letz, some further investigation, and I really think that Commissioners Court would be hard-pressed, with precedents in the past where you've approved well tract lots. This .34 acres is not going to be developed. It's a diversion point to take water out of the Guadalupe River. The 1.82, put a restriction on the plat, no water well. That solves that variance request. It has 200 foot of frontage. I think it would be very difficult to require this owner to grant right-of-way for a road that he's not laying out a subdivision for. Our access is on 27. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I couldn't disagree with you more. You are developing property on that road. Whether it's on the north or the south or the east or the west, it is developed on that road. My only problem here is -- you know, and I'll go along with that. I wouldn't argue with you, anyway. Former city -- City Attorney. This 1.82 acres -- MR. MACHANN: After listening to y'all earlier, I don't know if that's a positive a negative comment. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we going to grant 4-11-05 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 58 a variance? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a nondevelopable tract. MR. MACHANN: I don't believe there's a variance issue here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not 5 acres. MR. MACHANN: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about the road. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm off the road. Y'all are going to beat me back on the road; I can see that coming. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, the only reason for the 5 acres is water availability. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. Which we're going to talk about later today. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we fix it on the plat plan that they can't drill a water well there, then there's no reason for the 5-acre -- MR. MACHANN: And the purchaser of that property -- excuse me -- owns the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we start going down a real slippery slope if we take that approach; that if you don't put a well on it, you don't have to have a 5-acre minimum. 'Cause all of a sudden they're going to say, "I'm using a rain catchment system. I'm going to put it on a 4-11-05 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 half-acre lot." I think our minimum lot size is 5 acres. I think what we have done is, you cannot develop a tract -- if you have a smaller lot, you can't develop it. That means you can't build a home on it either. If they want to do that at the time they have a community water system that they can hook up to, then they can come back and do a replat and get -- you know, that become a buildable tract, but at the moment it is not a buildable tract. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, you're -- what you're saying is the plat should not say no water well; it should say no development? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No development. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that satisfy your concern? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Just -- I'm not totally convinced that that can be tracked by the government, you know. Just -- I -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that, but we've done it before, is the problem. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. Well -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think probably, Leonard, your concern is not what happens here with respect to splitting the tract into two, 12.6 and 1.82, and segregating the well tract. Your concern is downstream -- MR. ODOM: Downstream. 9-11-05 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 60 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- as to what happens with -- MR. ODOM: And before, when this was brought to the concept when we were there, Commissioner, this was J.J. Lane; it wasn't developed off 27. I encouraged development off 27, but that's not what was presented to us. It was presented off J.J. Lane there. And so that -- you know, you can do that. But the other thing, you're still going to need a variance, because you need it divisible. You can have those sizes, but you only have 14.76 acres, and it has to be divisible. The average has to be 5 acres. And you don't have the average of 5 acres on these three lots. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That doesn't apply for less than four lots. MR. ODOM: You know what? You're right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is true. MR. VOELKEL: I was -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Currently, but that's about to change. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Want to bring it back this afternoon? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Come back later. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm real interested -- and, really, this is to Rex. Can we require additional easement on J.J. Lane? I mean, whether or not 4-11-05 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they're saying it's -- it is access. I mean, I agree, it is access. I mean, it does provide access to these lots. MR. EMERSON: I think it's a real gray area, because your easement that's there is split between the land that's proposed to be subdivided and the other lot owners. MR. ODOM: That's right. It's a 15-foot easement. MR. EMERSON: Part of that easement runs down the land that's being subdivided. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I mean, I've discussed it -- probably about an hour, we've talked on this, met with them about this. And my original position was I wanted a 60-foot easement, and he's about to have a coronary over there, and beat me back on that, and said that's not -- you know, and I think -- I mean, I -- I don't think we can require it. But I still would like to require it, and if we can, I think we should require additional easement there, because I think it is the time now to get that, which helps the -- you know, the lots along the river that are out of the subdivision, and also helps the subdivision from an access standpoint. But I just don't -- I don't think we can require it, as I understand it. But if the County Attorney says we can require it -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what you're saying? We can? 4-11-05 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He said it's gray. MR. EMERSON: I think it's somewhat gray. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How gray is gray? MR. ODOM: What are they willing to give us? Are you willing -- at the last discussion we had, that -- Lee, you said you felt like that they would. MR. MACHANN: No, sir, we're not. MR. ODOM: Okay. MR. MACHANN: I hate to appear a little agitated, but I am. I've been involved in this for several weeks; I've never heard of Mr. Odom. I've never heard of any objection from Mr. Odom. Maybe he's made them privately, but to show up at this meeting and be shown a bunch of maps and so forth and receive this type of a -- of a treatment without any telephone call or anything, I think is -- I don't appreciate it. And so I just thought I'd let y'all know that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you know, I can understand what you're saying, Mr. Machann. And, by the same token, the Commissioner was excluded from your meeting, this one, so I'm kind of new into this discussion as well. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you hot? MR. MACHANN: I thought you already had a meeting. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did, but I didn't 4-11-05 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 63 have a meeting with you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This needs to be tabled. JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- let me interject something else, if I might. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're lined up. JUDGE TINLEY: J.J. Road, that's a private road easement. It may run only to the benefit of those various lot owners down there by metes and bounds. The owners to the north or east of that easement, may not run to their benefit at all. They may not have any legal right to use it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It runs -- uses their property. The easement's on both properties. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15 on each side. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 15 feet on both sides of the property line. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what the chain of title is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't either. Since they granted that easement on both sides, I would think both sides have access to it. I think Mr. Mosty has access; that's how he gets to his well lot. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we were to expand the easement, Jon -- if we were expanding the easement, that 4-11-05 64 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 would be an additional 45 off of Mr. Mosty's side to get the 60? No, 30 -- additional 30? JUDGE TINLEY: 45. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh? MR. MACHANN: Additional 30 feet. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 30 off Mr. Mosty's to get to 60? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. A total of 45 feet off of his side, though; 15 which is already in place, and 30 more. MR. MACHANN: 15's in place; be another 30 feet. If I might respond, Commissioner Williams, you were not omitted by any -- any -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry? MR. MACHANN: You were not omitted from that meeting by any deliberative thought process. My understanding was you had already talked to Mr. Voelkel, had talked about some variances. It wasn't anything that was dramatic that came out of that meeting. I've had discussions with the County Attorney, who advised us that Mr. Letz had some questions, who told us it might be a good idea to sit down with Mr. Letz. That's why we sat down with Mr. Letz. So, if you take offense at that, I think it's misplaced. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not taking 9-11-05 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 65 offense. Don't misunderstand. MR. MACHANN: That's what I thought I heard. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I certainly am not -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did too. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm certainly not taking offense at my colleague, who knows more about subdivision rules -- a lot more about subdivision rules than I do. MR. MACHANN: I don't think it's the same thing as Mr. Odom standing up here. You certainly would have been invited. I thought you had already been involved in discussions fully, and Mr. Letz had an issue that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was in the original -- MR. MACHANN: -- the County Attorney asked us to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was in the original discussion, and you weren't. MR. MACHANN: I understand. JUDGE TINLEY: I think we've looked at this from about six different angles. I think we probably need to confine it to a motion, if we can get one. If not, we're going to move on. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really think that we 4-11-05 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 need to -- the County Attorney needs to weigh in on a legal opinion on this easement issue. And, personally, I think this needs to be tabled, and we can come back in a week or four days or whatever and deal with it just by itself. I don't mind doing that at all, but I think we may be a little bit hasty here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this -- as a concept plan, we generally don't make -- take objection to a concept plan, but we're aware of it. But when it comes to the first preliminary plat, by that time, the County Attorney can have an opinion on that easement issue. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where we are today, is concept, right? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, they've heard our concerns, and the next plat needs to address them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, we have a timed -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir. Mr. Machann, you had one more comment? MR. MACHANN: Yeah. From a timing standpoint, I certainly don't -- you know, I have no objection at all to the -- you know, you'll need to have an attorney -- your legal counsel give you an opinion as to whether you can widen this road or not. We do have a 4-11-05 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 67 closing scheduled. What we'd like to do is to get the -- I think the preliminary plat -- was it April 25th? Is that the -- MR. VOELKEL: That's the next meeting that we can come before -- but this issue needs to be resolved before then, or during that process. MR. MACHANN: that process? In other wor~ approved, we at least don't there's a procedural matter the preliminary. COMMISSIONER preliminary plat -- I mean, County Attorney can give us know. If -- can we make that part of ~s, assuming that -- if we do get get delayed on the closing. But of having to wait until May for LETZ: I think the -- the it's going to be whether the an opinion by that date, you MR. MACHANN: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think he probably will be able to. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would prefer the County Attorney clearing up the issue of whether or not we can or cannot require easement to be improved to 60 feet, at which time, when you tell us that we can or cannot, I'm willing to offer a motion, but not today. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move on to a timed item that we have for 10 o'clock. It's after that 4-11-05 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time now. We'll move to Item 9, discuss and consider funding for First Responder education via the internet. Commissioner Baldwin, I believe you placed this on the agenda today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I did. Eric Maloney is here from the Kerrville Fire Department. That is our -- our person with the First Responder program, and Eric has some thoughts, and -- and I -- personally, I kind of like what he's talking about, and I'll give you a brief, and then he can get in. You know, they offer CEU's, actual training -- licensing to First Responders around the county, and he wants to offer them via the internet. One of my questions was, does everybody have access to a computer? And I still have that question in my mind. Another question is, does our representative, Mr. Maloney, still check off -- sign off on the hours obtained and the studies and everything that's done on the internet? And the answer is yes to that. It costs 30 -- I don't know -- how much does it cost outside of your program? MR. MALONEY: $35 per person. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what it costs us, but wasn't there another number? Aren't you getting a deal here? MR. MALONEY: Yes -- well, that's the total bargain. It's $525 total. 4-11-05 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 69 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $35 a person. There's 15 people, so that's $525. He already has that in the budget; it's not an increase in anything. And this would be for two years. So, you talk about what I didn't talk about. MR. MALONEY: Okay. Commissioners, Judge, here's a handout. This is -- as Commissioner Baldwin said, my name's Eric Maloney. I'm the EMS Coordinator for the Kerrville Fire Department, also the representative for the Kerr County First Responder program. A brief update, I guess, kind of what Commissioner Baldwin was talking about. Currently -- I guess a little background with the First Responder program -- we have 29 First Responders out there. There are 15 non-Kerrville Fire Department volunteers, and that includes 14 basic EMT's and one paramedic out there currently. That is divided up into the five zones, as y'all are familiar with. The all have equipment currently, and they probably average, it would be my guess, one to two calls per day in the county. So, the volunteers make them one to two calls for cardiac, motor vehicle accidents or so forth. Since I took over, we have increased the response. We have increased the turnout, so we're getting an excellent response with volunteers showing up on scene and really assisting the Kerrville Fire Department. All responders now have the appropriate gear and radios, so we're all equipped out there. And we currently have 14 AED's in the county, so 4-11-05 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 70 that's not bad; we have about half, I guess could you say, out there, funded AED's. The Continuing Education program, actually I'm in charge of that; that is part of my responsibility, and we currently meet the fourth Monday of every month. I do e-mail Commissioner Baldwin as we're doing the meeting from there, and we meet from 7:00 to 9 o'clock, and we offer a total of about 88-plus hours every four years, is what we offer in the C.E. program. Basic EMT's are required to have 72 hours. In the handout I gave you, it says the EMT there -- the basic, it has 72 hours of what they're required to have every four years. We only offer 88. That 72 hours is pretty specific, as you can see in the content areas, so as we have C.E. -- say I have one content area in January. If somebody misses it due to work, kids or whatever, it may be -- for the volunteers, it may be a while till I get back around to that same content area, maybe another four months. So, they would have to make that one in four months, or else they're going to end up falling behind. I think that's what we've seen in the past. In talking to some of the volunteers out there, the fact is that some of them are having to spend their own money in order to, I guess, get all the required C.E., and as a person volunteering out there, it costs them about $100 for them to spend out of their own pocket. They 4-11-05 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are carrying the C.E. strictly as a volunteer for the First Responder program; these people are an employee elsewhere and they just do it as a volunteer. So, I think this is going to be a good program for the First Responders out there. Paramedics, on the other hand -- 'cause we do have the one paramedic. He's required to have 144 C.E. hours. We don't offer enough for him at all. We only offer 88 hours, so he's going to have to find out -- he's going to have to obtain the rest of his C.E. on his own. It just becomes tough. In talking to everyone else, work's either getting done late at work -- and, like, I can only schedule, like, one a month there as far as getting together. Having kids, being sick, whatever it may be, it does get kind of difficult for them to kind of spare their own time to get together. So, as I say, I teach one different content each month. It's the same as I do for the fire department, and they are allowed to come to the fire department during the week. The proposal I have will be this online C.E. program. In discussing this, they're -- they're able to obtain this C.E. at their own schedule. So the cost, as Commissioner Baldwin said, is $35 per person, and this would be strictly for the volunteers. Has nothing to do with the fire department, so it would take care of the 15 people that we have out there. They are able to obtain 289 C.E. hours 9-11-05 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 72 every two years, which is more than enough to make sure that they do have the required amount for the state. I'm able to track all the C.E. online. So, basically, if they're able to get access to a computer -- most of them have the access. There was only actually one person who didn't, but he could go over to his cousin's house, or the library has access over there. 'Cause there's nothing that they need to print out, so they can do it at the library. They can make the time to go over there if they can make the time to get the C.E. Where we're meeting now, they can definitely make the time to go to the library for the C.E. at their own convenience for this. What else? They have access to 289 C.E. hours. I have access to all this, so I will actually come up as an administrator. I'll be on there, so I'll be able to see what kind of C.E. they're getting. It will show all the content areas on there. It will show that they have four hours in airway, six hours of medical and so forth, so if someone's falling behind, I can say, you know, "Hey, we need to catch up with this." You know, I need -- "You need to make sure that you do get the C.E. appropriate to keep up to speed." I can make assignments. I can block the C.E. I can do a lot of things with the C.E. program itself. Actually, this is kind of where it's heading -- where things are moving here in the near future. There's no extra funds 4-11-05 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 73 for this. I can take it out of this year's budget. Tim Ahrens and myself sat down and took a look at the budget, and there were some things we could push off till next budget year, so we would actually make room for the $525 for this, so I'm not asking for any extra funds here. Meetings, we currently -- I still want to meet with them on a regular basis. We're going to get together on a monthly or bimonthly basis. We're going to get together for about an hour, just kind of go over the services, different discussions, problems with the programs. So, this is not going to eliminate me being in contact with the First Responders, 'cause I don't want to do that at all, 'cause we got a pretty good program working here. So, I still want to get together. And if we have more C.E. -- if they want to do something different, by all means, I'll hold the C.E. I don't have a problem with that at all. I think this will be of benefit; this will assist them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, all -- MR. MALONEY: Any questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All you need from this Court is permission to pursue? You are not asking for any money, just -- MR. MALONEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just permission? MR. MALONEY: Yes, sir, just permission to 4-11-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 pursue this. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds good. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here in 2005, this is the kind of thing we should be doing. JUDGE TINLEY: Couple of advantages. One is cost. Two is the scheduling difficulty that you'd otherwise have. This way, each individual can pursue it on their own schedule, plug it in wherever they need to. MR. MALONEY: Absolutely. Currently, on the C.E.'s, I get anywhere from six to nine of the -- of the 15 people who can make it. Now, everyone kind of e-mails they're doing something else. So, this will be their own time, so they'll be able to do it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Eric, in your opening comments, you made the comment that they respond to one or two calls in the county per day? MR. MALONEY: Yes, sir. That would just be an average guess. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, is this -- yeah, I understand. You're talking about the First Responders make one or two calls? MR. MALONEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many calls does the ambulance go out into the county? 4-11-05 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MALONEY: Into the county per day? Boy, I just saw that figure, too, as far as what we do. I don't remember offhand. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what you're saying to me is the First Responder doesn't respond to every call MR. MALONEY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- goes out? MR. MALONEY: No, sir. They typically respond to just the Priority 1 calls, same as the City. We would ask for an engine company to respond, and it would be the same thing with that. We'd ask the First Responders. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. MALONEY: Chest pain, seizures, minor traumas, major motor vehicle accidents. And that's just a guess; I don't have anything to really judge. I don't keep records of how many the First Responders make. I would guess probably one or two a day. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good. I appreciate your -- MR. MALONEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appreciate that. If there's a motion required, I'll be happy to make it. Y'all figure out what needs to be said. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make -- I'll make a 4-11-05 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 76 motion to approve the C.E. plan as presented. Is that your motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I actually wanted to second it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, second. Okay, I made the motion. JUDGE TINLEY: I knew you were. That's why he -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's why he -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- punched him over here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As presented. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We have a motion and a second. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one comment, Judge. As an aside, Mr. Maloney, I mentioned this in court last time, that recently I was on the scene of a medical emergency for, I think, the fifth time since I've lived out here in west Kerr County, and the First Responders and the EMS did a terrific job, as they have all five times. So, the people -- the people in west Kerr County appreciate the work you all are doing. MR. MALONEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just encourage you to keep it up. MR. MALONEY: Thank you. I`ll pass it on. 4-11-05 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 ~~ Thank y'all. JUDGE TINLEY: 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 motion does carry. MR. MALONEY: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we recess for approximately 15 minutes. (Recess taken from 10:26 a.m. to 10:43 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, if we might. We just took a short recess, and we're back in session now. The next item on the agenda is Item 7, discuss and consider declaring April the 23rd, 2005, as Earth Day here in Kerr County. Mr. Arreola? MR. ARREOLA: Good morning. This year, the Kerr County Environmental Health Department is actively working with the rest of the entities in organizing the Earth Day at the Nature Center. There's a few entities working together. You might have a copy of a proclamation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. MR. ARREOLA: And we would like to have it on 4-11-05 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 78 April the 23rd of this year. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 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: That motion does carry. Thank you, Mr. Arreola. Next item on the agenda is Number 8, consider and discuss appointing Ambra Freeman and Pam Peter to the Kerr County Child Welfare Board. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. This was up last time, and those two names were on the agenda, and we decided that we needed a little background. And that background has been provided now, so I move for approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 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.) 4-11-05 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 79 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next item is Item Number 10, moving the office of J.P. Precinct 4. Judge Ragsdale? JUDGE RAGSDALE: You know, you guys -- I mentioned to you outside, this fellow was complaining about how he was treated in here today. He ought to get a building permit from the City of Kerrville if he wants to be treated roughly. But, anyway -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just say what you think, Judge. (Laughter.) JUDGE RAGSDALE: We have a problem in our office. We've been working -- and I sought help from Commissioner Nicholson and Glenn Holekamp. We were trying to find some property to move to that would be sufficient in size for me and -- and for Paula Rector. Paula's joining me on this -- this request to move. Of course, we've been -- in no way to slight anyone included in the county government, but we just -- we're trying to find some -- something large enough for both of us, and there are a couple places in Ingram. What has necessitated this -- I think that's a good word -- is the fact that the building has really become uninhabitable. You can go in the back room and look up through the ceiling and -- I mean, you can 4-11-05 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 look up through; the roof and the ceiling are one and the same. They got a 5-gallon bucket of oil and poured it on the hole, and it just poured 5 gallons of oil all over the floor in the back room. I fell in November trying to get through the puddle of water that was back there after a rain. I had a few choice words at that time, but thank goodness, I wasn't injured. We have worked and worked and worked with this fellow, asking him to fix the things, and he kept promising many, many times. I even came to him suggesting several alternatives that would satisfy us, and he just never has done it. After I made this request to be put on the agenda, apparently the newspaper picked it up and didn't have much to print, and put it on the front page this morning. And he came under a full head of steam into my office while I wasn't there and screamed at my clerk that somehow, today, all of the materials necessary for the repair for our roof had been delivered. And she didn't know who he was; she's only been there for about a month. But he was, according to her, ranting and raving about we could just move anyway, which really offended me. I've had enough. It's -- it's just -- it's a health hazard. It's ruining our equipment. Last night, when the cloud came up unannounced, I went down to the office and had to move a whole bunch of furniture around to 9-11-05 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 81 keep it from pouring water into my fax machine and printer again. But it's ruined some personal things. Most office equipment I have in my office is my own, and it's ruined several things. You can't use the restroom without standing in an inch and a half to 2 inches of water. I find that offensive, too. But, at any rate, we need to make a change. Mr. Holekamp has looked at a couple places that are available. And I'm not sure what we would need to do from this point on. I can't make any contracts, of course, and in the past, Mr. Holekamp has been, I guess, the liaison between you and us in acquiring off-courthouse facilities. He's the one that negotiated where we are now. So, I would like -- I guess whatever you need to do to allow him to -- to negotiate or be able to report back to you so that we can move. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, what's the status of the current lease? JUDGE RAGSDALE: It's a month-to-month tenancy. What I've understood -- I've not looked at the contract, myself, but from what I've understood from Glenn was that we had a termed lease -- written lease, and it expired, and a provision in that termed lease was that at the end of it, it became a month-to-month tenancy. He announced to my clerk this morning that we could just darn sure move, so I don't know if he -- if he has intention of 4-11-05 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 82 terminating the lease. He's not done it officially. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that -- I mean, we were aware of this situation and that you were working with Glenn and looking at some other options. I mean, it seems that we need to come up with a -- a location. I mean, we need a proposal to us as to a new location, it seems to me. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I'd like to see happen is for Glenn to come in here with a firm proposal. Might be two options; it might be one option, I don't know. But to come in and say, "Here's the proposal, and it is satisfactory to Ms. Rector and Judge Ragsdale." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, and once we have that, we give 30 days notice and move. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this drawing -- is this your present facility? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm interested in knowing Ms. Rector's position on it, because I'm reading Judge Ragsdale's memorandum, and he talks about the Tax Assessor/Collector had in the past objected to a move. MS. RECTOR: I think that was -- I'm sorry, Bill, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I think that was a 4-11-05 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 83 misunderstanding, kind of a lack of communication on our or so ago. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think what happened there was, I was sitting around in Precinct 4's office one day, and Bill and I said, "Let's go look at some office spaces." We were kind of up to our ankles in water, so we did that, and then contacted Mr. Holekamp at that time. We should have contacted Ms. Rector, but we didn't do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. RECTOR: But everything -- Bill and I have talked about it, and we both agree that something needs to be done one way or the other. The building is really in poor shape. Nothing's been done since we've been in there, except it's just gotten worse over time. And with all that tar, whatever it was that came down inside, it was like an oil slick in the back of the office, and was very dangerous. They've attempted to clean some of it up, but it's not all cleaned up yet, and that's been there for a couple of months or more. And with every rain that we get, it just continues to get worse. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question now. What -- what would be both of y'all's attitude if he 4-11-C5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ~ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 84 repaired the roof? Today or tomorrow or in three days. MS. RECTOR: I think there's a lot more to it than just repairing the roof. The damage that's done in the back of the office, and Bill -- everything that's back there is ruined, and the walls are wet. There's boxes that he's got stored back there that are wet, and it's a health hazard, unless he will come and clean all that stuff up. But I don't envision the rotting wood and everything being replaced. I think he's just mainly concerned with the roof. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, y'all want to move. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's one other issue, Commissioner. The current facility is -- you can get by with it size-wise, but it's not large enough for Ms. Rector or Judge Ragsdale. JUDGE RAGSDALE: We've outgrown it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't need a whole lot more space, but another couple hundred feet would -- would improve the quality of service that we do out there. MS. RECTOR: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you say that there is some available out there? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've looked at two, one on Junction Highway in Ingram and one at the dam -- MS. RECTOR: The dam store area. 9-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,^ 2 4 25 85 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- complex. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's not use ugly language. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where the damn lawyer is, and the damn cafe and the damn laundry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put the damn J.P. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The damn lawyer owns it. (Laughter.) JUDGE RAGSDALE: I join with Ms. Rector in that. The ceiling tiles are all caving in. It smells moldy; stuff stinks. It's really not large enough for me to have the trials that I really should be having at my office. I mean, we've gotten by with it, 'cause no one's objected. But, seriously, I'm supposed to be having court in my precinct, and I can't have jury trials in my precinct the way it is now. The things that are presently available are -- are much more costly, and that's because they're better. They're habitable. They aren't nasty. And so -- and both -- both the people that we've talked to are extremely willing to accommodate us and make some -- some pretty healthy concessions for the promise of a long-term deal. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How -- how much more costly are we talking? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Plenty. I don't -- I don't 4-11-05 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 86 think you really want to discuss all that right now, do you? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably not. JUDGE TINLEY: As I'm sure all of you saw, there was some communication from the County Attorney to the property owner at the current location. For informational purposes, apparently in the last week someone purporting to act on behalf of the owner left a message with Mr. Holekamp that materials had been ordered to replace the roof. And, as Judge Ragsdale mentioned a moment ago, to and behold, today, just a -- in a telephone conversation just within the past hour, the owner has declared that he's ready to commence putting on the new roof this afternoon. For whatever -- for whatever that's worth, I pass that along to you. Obviously, there -- the roof was the issue that caused all the problems, but apparently merely fixing the roof does not resolve all the problems that have accumulated as a result of a bad roof. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, water pours in -- JUDGE TINLEY: There's some drainage problems also? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes. Water comes in under the back wall unless he digs it out once a year, which he won't do until water comes through. So, we have to get in there and sweep the water out every time it rains. But, you know, there comes a point where good faith just doesn't 4-11-05 1 .,. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,,,,_ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,,_ 2 4 25 87 exist any more. He promised me -- well, for the last two years, he was going to fix the roof next month, next month, next month. Then he promised me absolutely by January -- by the end of January, we would have a new roof on there. Well, now we're in the middle of April, and the materials just got delivered today. And I haven't seen them. MS. RECTOR: Well, another one of my concerns is, if they do go ahead and fix the roof, what's going to happen to the rest of it? Is he just going to walk away from it so we have to spend another two years trying to get him to clean up the rest of the mess? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would think that when the two of you, working with Mr. Holekamp, come back with a proposal, it could include staying where you are. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or it might conclude that where you are is not sufficient and you need to move. But -- JUDGE RAGSDALE: And he made it quite clear that when he fixed the roof, the price was going up on the building. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the question -- I'm sure y'all probably have done this, but have you looked at possibly sharing some of the space with City of Ingram? JUDGE RAGSDALE: They don't have any space. 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't have any? JUDGE RAGSDALE: No. They have one room that's not currently occupied that's the size of this room here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they have a courtroom? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That may be an option, for you to use the municipal court, or a courtroom in your -- JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, in your precinct. JUDGE RAGSDALE: If they're willing to accept the liability and insurance and those kinds of things, I'm sure Danny Edwards would love to discuss that with you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There is another option. The County owns property in Ingram, down that old loop near that bridge near the Point Theatre. JUDGE RAGSDALE: I thought y'all gave that away. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Oh, behind the Little League park? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. This side of the bridge. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Oh, the old yard? Don't you 9-ii-os 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 have that leased to the City of Ingram? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't remember. Seems like we did do something with that. JUDGE RAGSDALE: I think y'all leased it to the City of Ingram about -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We own that. JUDGE RAGSDALE: -- 15 years ago. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard also has a yard out toward Mountain Home, couple miles out of Ingram. MR. ODOM: You can have that front part right on the highway right there that we cleared that old building off of. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's another option. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I mean, we already own property. JUDGE RAGSDALE: If you want to build a building. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And these new prefab buildings are pretty nice. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well -- MR. ODOM: Put them by the asphalt pit back there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, put them by the asphalt pit. 9-11-C5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 90 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Get Glenn to bring us some proposals or recommendations. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Okay. Thank you. MS. RECTOR: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm -- I like your option there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that might be a lot more cost-effective in the long term. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Own some land in Mountain Home also, but it's too far away. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda, Item 11, is a presentation, discussion, and possible approval of Hart Intercivic eSlate Electronic Voting System, to comply with the HAVA requirements. It's my understanding from talking with the Clerk that the vendor, Hart Graphics -- I believe that's who that is -- has got the whole thing set up down in County Court at Law. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. JUDGE TINLEY: And -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thought we was going to dodge this one. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the option I'm offering you is -- is do we bypass this one and come back to it 4-11-05 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 later? Or -- and go through the rest of these items, or do we just go ahead and bite the bullet and get on with it now? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Come back to it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Come back. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let me ask a question about this. This is -- this is Hart Intercivic somebody-somebody-somebody -- JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Company, program, corporation, et cetera, so forth. Is this the only company we're going to take a look at? I -- the reason I ask this, because I hear my Commissioner friends around the state -- everybody's going through the same thing, and they're always talking about, well, we had -- we had Hart and had three different companies in one afternoon, and took -- you know, everybody's taking a look at two and three different companies and their programs and their bids and that kind of thing. And I just -- is this the only one we're going to look at? MS. PIEPER: I can't answer that for sure. I don't know if -- right now, there -- to my knowledge, there is only four vendors that are certified by the state. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. MS. PIEPER: Two of which I do not like. 9-11-05 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 92 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gets us down to two. MS. PIEPER: The other one which I do not think will meet our needs. I think it will cost more in the long run. And then we have this one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Are we required by law in any way to take bids? MS. PIEPER: This company is with the state -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Purchasing? MS. PIEPER: -- purchasing. Therefore, we will not have to go out for bids. And this will meet our needs not only for now, but long-term. The other one that I had halfway considered will meet our needs for a short time, but I don't think it will meet our needs for the long term. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, if my recollection serves me correctly, when we were at the meeting in Odessa, the -- there was an effort underway to try and get all of these approved vendors on a state contract basis so that each jurisdiction was able to go straight to that vendor and be able to deal with any one of them on a state contract basis without having to take bids. Was that what you were wanting to point out, Mr. Tomlinson? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it was. In fact, I just had a conversation with Dan Glotzer, who is the lead person 4-11-05 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 93 in the HAVA grant, and that was the information he gave me, that there -- that the Secretary of State's office is currently in negotiation with all those -- all those vendors to get them under the Texas Procurement Law. JUDGE TINLEY: The timeline, as I recall, at the Odessa meeting was that they hoped to have all those state contracts in place this month, is my recollection. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Also, we learned in Odessa that the state supplemental budget had been approved, and there is additional funding for this purpose. And so I'm interested to know how much more that provides for us over and above what we were told to begin with. MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think -- I don't think the -- Commissioner, I don't think they know that amount yet. From my conversation with -- with that gentleman, they -- I don't think they really know for sure. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the gentleman from the Secretary of State's office who spoke to us for an hour about this matter seemed to be pretty certain that those funds were in Austin, had been drawn down from the feds for this purpose. There was a supplemental budget, and that every jurisdiction who has to do whatever that we have to do is entitled to additional funding, and the funds are available. That's what we were told. MS. PIEPER: There's supposed to be a way we 4-11-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 94 can go on the web and check that; however, I have not checked it yet to see how much our additional funding is. JUDGE TINLEY: Didn't I send you a memo on that, or give you a call or something on it? I know I had a note to do that. Maybe I didn't. MS. PIEPER: I don't remember. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. Well, let's -- let's pass over that for the immediate time being and go on to Item Number 12, consider and discuss the approval of contract for medical health services. Ms. Harris. MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. This is the contract that we tabled at our last Commissioners Court meeting because the final revision had not been completed by the County Attorney. This is the final revision of that contract for health services that are -- we are required to have a medical health authority, and so this is the finalized contract that the County Attorney has -- has come up with. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Medical health authority is in the person of a doctor or a nurse, or both? MS. HARRIS: The doctor that we use -- the pediatrician that we use, which is Dr. Meriwether. Suzanne Edwards is our R.N. nurse that represents him as the medical health authority for us, and she represents him. And we're allowed to do that. 4-11-05 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 95 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Her name goes in the provider line? Her name? Or his? MS. HARRIS: His name. His name. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: His name? MS. HARRIS: His name, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then if, for some reason, you decide to change, this contract would stay the same. Basically, we'd just change doctors? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How have you come up with Dr. Meriwether? Not that I have anything against Dr. Meriwether. I'm just curious. MS. HARRIS: He was in place when I came to the facility as the doctor, and Ms. Edwards, the R.N. nurse, works for him full-time, and then she comes out to the facility of an afternoon. That was already set in place when I came to the facility. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your experience is that he's provided the services you need? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As needed? MS. HARRIS: He's been very accommodating, in that sometimes -- for example, we had a child last week that Ms. Edwards had been treating for a sore throat, and she finally said, "He really needs to go see the doctor," and we 9-11-05 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 had him in the very next day. Dr. Meriwether is very accommodating about seeing our kids on a short notice basis. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the contract for health services. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. MR. EMERSON: May I make one comment real quick? I wasn't under the impression that the actual contract was supposed to be with the physician, and the nurse worked for the physician. So, on that basis, I think it's probably more appropriate to have a separate contract for the nurse and the doctor, so that you can insure licensing and insurance and everything else that goes along with it. Unless Dr. Meriwether -- unless Dr. Meriwether is willing to stand -- we can tweak Paragraph 2 if Dr. Meriwether is willing to stand pat that his nurse is fully licensed and covered by malpractice insurance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you're suggesting we have a separate document for each? MR. EMERSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This would be for the medical director. MR. EMERSON: And I would presume that we're not paying Dr. Meriwether the same rate that we're paying the nurse. 25 ~ MS. HARRIS: Correct. We're not paying him 4-11-05 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 97 at all. MR. EMERSON: Which is one set rate in here. MS. HARRIS: We don't pay him to be our medical health authority. We don't pay him. We pay her the $35 an hour to come out to the facility, provide the medical services that we're required to have, as a representative of the medical health authority. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now I'm confused. So this really would be for the nurse practitioner? MR. EMERSON: That's the way this contract's written. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Second paragraph provides, "Whereas, Provider is licensed as a registered nurse..." COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: So this particular contract would be with the nurse, unless I missed something here. MR. EMERSON: That's the way it's written all the way through. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it's not Dr. Meriwether; it's somebody else. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ms. Edwards. What's her first name? MS. HARRIS: Suzanne. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Suzanne. Well, I can 4-11-05 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 tell you, both of these people are excellent, excellent people. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only -- my question was as to Dr. Meriwether. There's lots of doctors, and I don't know how we figured out -- you know, this compensation here, this $35, is for the nurse. But, I mean, this may be something we'd want to go out for bid at some point to try to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's free. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's free. MS. HARRIS: We don't pay him. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't get any better than free. COMMISSIONER LETZ: When there's an office visit, we don't give any money? MS. HARRIS: The placing county pays for that office visit. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, there's money changing hands, and the more we can save, the better it is. Whether -- 'cause when our kids go out there, I mean, they're going to a doctor, and that doctor -- If we can get a -- I mean, there's clinics around. I mean, I think we should try to get the best health care at the lowest cost. JUDGE TINLEY: I think the -- the distinct 4-11-05 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 advantage in this particular arrangement is that, because Ms. Edwards is one of Dr. Meriwether's nurses, the continuity of care is -- is seamless. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes sense. JUDGE TINLEY: And it -- continuity of care is seamless, plus you've got the access issue. I dare say if one of us were to have a severe sore throat, we may have a hard time getting in to see a doctor tomorrow. I don't think I could. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, you probably couldn't; you're a lawyer. But I -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I could. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- I could probably get in. MS. HARRIS: I do know that Kerr County Probation Department -- if it's one of their kids, a Kerr County kid, I know that Kerr County Probation Department comes and gets their kids, or either they ask us to transport the kid to another physician. We've had to do -- we've had to do that for Kerr County. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kerr County kids don't go to a doctor? They go to a different -- Kerr County kids don't go to Dr. Meriwether? MS. HARRIS: Not every time, no, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: In some cases, they do? 9-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .-- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,_-.. 2 4 25 100 MS. HARRIS: Some cases they do, some cases they don't. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question of the County Attorney. Do we need a separate contract with Dr. Meriwether? MR. EMERSON: If he's going to provide the medical services for the county, I would say yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. EMERSON: It needs to be very clear that he's an independent contractor and not an employee of the county in order to protect the county. MS. HARRIS: Would we do that even though we -- we don't pay him? He's just named as the -- as the health authority? MR. EMERSON: I would say yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're responsible for the kids, and we're choosing what doctor they go to. MS. HARRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, would the contract for Dr. Meriwether be essentially the same as this? MR. EMERSON: Essentially the same. Same terms and conditions. We could change the paid section if they're being paid by their guardian or conservator, whoever's responsible for them. If that's -- this is about where the medical expenses are coming from, we can change 4-11-05 101 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 the contract to reflect that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it would be -- MR. EMERSON: That's providing services coming to our facility, but as an independent contractor for the patient. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So we can approve the one for the registered nurse, and Dr. Meriwether's -- you will provide that one. You will provide that one? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As provided by the County Attorney. That would be the sense of my motion, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. EMERSON: And, just for the Court's information, $35 an hour for a registered nurse for contract services is dirt cheap. I think the hospital's paying somewhere around the tune of $80 to $90 an hour. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why we want to take it real quick. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of this contract as to the contract nurse, and the subsequent contract to be approved by the County Attorney for the physician. Any question or discussion? 4-11-05 102 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Judge, who signs off on this thing? You? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And authorize County Judge to sign same. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And him, huh? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, County Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. With that authorization also included? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 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: The motion does carry. Next item is Number 13, discuss and consider rescinding Court Order Number 25722, and approve a new court order for Agenda Request Rules for Commissioners Court. Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. This is just an issue -- it's kind of a cleanup that I thought that we had done a couple of years ago, and I'm sorry I don't have that date -- January 11, 1999, when we adopted the rules for the Commissioners Court. And I thought -- there 4-11-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 103 was one item in there that's not, and that's what we're doing. We're rescinding the old order and creating a new order. Everything is exactly the same, only we're adding a Number 7, which says, "The Court Coordinator/Administrative Assistant has the authority to reject agenda requests if the above rules have not been followed." That's all there is to this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for new proposed court order. Any question or COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would like to -- I'm sorry, I'm not prepared. There was a -- there was -- wait a minute, it may be this one here -- yeah. To give you an example, the reason that we need this is Item Number 1, this purchase of the land from the Juvenile Detention Facility. Looking at this over the weekend -- well, to be honest with you, I don't know much more now than I did over the weekend, but I had no -- I didn't have a clue what this was about. I couldn't tell if we were buying or selling. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we were buying until we came in here this morning. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't know. So, this gives Kathy now the authority to say, "Wait a minute, these 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 guys need more information to make a decision." That's all this is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Makes sense. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, also, if Kathy can send this out to all elected officials and department heads and everyone else and say, you know, that -- you know, this -- we intend to go by this. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one caveat. Now that -- since 1999, we've moved into the information age. Some of my requests may not have an initial on it because it's transmitted by e-mail, but it comes from my e-mail, so Kathy knows where it's coming from. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? 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 motion does carry. The next item is Number 14, consider and discuss Commissioners Court organizational chart. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I asked Kathy to contact, you know, the various departments and kind of basically put together an organizational chart of who reports to us. I 9-11-05 a ___ 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 have a -- I had kind of a gut feeling that it's running a little bit looser than I would like, and I think things are, you know, not necessarily falling into the cracks, but I don't see as much accountability as I would like with some of the departments, and knowing what's going on and things of that nature. And when Kathy provided this, which shows that we have eight departments and 102 employees reporting to us, I got real concerned. We have almost half the County employees reporting straight to this Commissioners Court through -- through departments that we control. And I just -- I don't really have a solution right now, but I think that there are -- we are currently, I guess, using liaisons, kind of a loose structure. But, as an example, I don't know when the last time we had something come in here from the Collections Department. Probably not since the last budget time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Budget time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, budget. Miguel comes in. We get monthly reports from departments, but, I mean, that's not -- we don't have a whole lot of interaction. So -- Miguel's here whenever we ask him to be, but I'm just concerned that we need a better system of meeting with our department heads on a regular basis to find out what's going on in our departments. And some of them we have good communication with, some we have very poor 9-ii-os 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-.. 25 communication with right now. I just put it on the agenda kind of to get everyone thinking about it. I don't know that we can resolve anything today, but it is a concern that COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just thought I'd put it on the agenda and see if anyone has any ideas on how we want to proceed, or -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm glad you did it. I was shocked when I saw 102 employees. Whoa, that's a lot of folks. It may be -- you know, I see two different ways to do the thing. And I agree with you that we -- we need to -- we need to keep a closer eye on things that we're responsible for. It could be added into the information agenda at the end of our meetings, or we could have a separate meeting with nothing but department heads so we can have a dialogue back and forth. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As I look at this, I see four departments that we routinely hear from. We hear from Mr. Trolinger, who's new, and was advised that we wanted to hear routinely. Road and Bridge prepares a monthly summary of activities which we all get. Whether we read it or not, we get it. Miguel prepares a report. I'm not sure it's monthly, but it certainly is periodical. And Ms. Harris, by direction, provides us with a report on the 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 107 activities at the Juvenile Detention Center. Which means 50 percent of -- of the employees and their departments, four of them we don't hear from very often, unless they have a real problem or it's budget time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we get the monthly reports, but I'm not sure -- that's really not what I'm getting at. The numbers don't tell me much. I mean, I think that -- you know, certainly, I can go down and -- I'll pick on Miguel, 'cause he's sitting right in front of me. I can ask Miguel, "How's everything going?" But that's kind of -- you know, what are you -- what are your needs going to be next year? You know, how are employees doing? What's the feedback you're getting from... Those things aren't answered in numbers we get in a monthly report. And I -- I really think, you know, what I see is probably some sort of a pretty structured -- maybe one month, meet with the top, you know, four department heads, and the next month meet with -- and have them come into the Commissioners Court meeting, or on a separate day. I'd rather do it on a regular Commissioners Court meeting. I know it becomes a problem because the Judge is scheduled at 3 o'clock, but maybe that can be changed. I mean, I think if we had a set time that -- I don't think they should sit around and wait all day for us to get to the agenda item. I think it needs to be more of a timed item, and just really sit down and 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108 have a discussion with them. Another option may be to -- you know, I don't think I like this option a whole lot, but expand the liaison authority a little bit more, give each of the Commissioners -- you know, assign them more into the departments and give them more authority to do things. One that comes to mind is maintenance. You know, there are things that I see that need to be done. You know, talking to Commissioner Baldwin, he sees things occasionally, but we -- really, we mention them, but I think we need more planning. I think we need more input into what is being done, what's fixed when, you know, what's our long-term maintenance schedule on repainting all these buildings that we own. So, I just think there's a -- a lot of it's communication. And monthly reports are good, but it's pretty much numbers; we don't see a whole lot what's going on there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with where you're coming from. And I -- and looking at this, it prompts a question of Ms. Davidson. We have nine employees listed under Mr. Holekamp for facilities and maintenance. Included in that nine -- is Parks Maintenance included within the framework of these nine employees? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those who formally 4-11-05 109 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 take care of parks? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think a positive thing that would happen from a face-to-face dialogue is it would cause something that we've been trying to do for many years, and that is to encourage department heads to do a little more planning, looking down the future. And not only this budget year, but look -- look out two or three years, that kind of thing. I just -- I think it would be real, real healthy, and that would be a tool to use to get that done, I think. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm real glad to see it on the agenda. And I don't -- like the rest of you, I don't have any magic solutions, but I do think that it deserves a little more routine attention, 'cause we need to be a little more careful about accountability and reporting, and -- and we can find some ways to do that. I don't know exactly what they are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'll probably put on it the next agenda again. Maybe we can think about it a little bit and figure out a -- a plan. JUDGE TINLEY: A scheme or method of getting more information, better communication. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I mean, I'm leaning ~-ii-o5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 110 probably to recommend we go something like some sort of a regular, you know, every other month meeting with department heads. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge, I noticed on there, like, our department isn't even part of that, 'cause we don't technically report, but I would think that we should be because of our amount of budget and that. I think y'all have the right to know exactly what I have going as far as whether it be courthouse security, jail, or Sheriff's COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, Rusty, the reason I did it this way is that your department reports to you, and then you -- and you are -- you're an independent elected official. Clearly, your budget has ramifications throughout the county, and it's the same with Ms. Rector back here, you know. They're independent. They're elected by the public. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree, and I'm not trying to dilute that. I -- so, just when it comes to county budget time, just like I've spoken to you and -- and the Judge about some things maybe coming up in this next year's budget or where we're trying to go. And so, to me, if we keep that open, I come in when I want to and visit and talk with the Judge or you as the liaison. But it might be nice to be able to have the opportunity also to explain that 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 to the entire Court, let everybody know where we're working. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what we could do is, any elected official that wants to come in and give us a report or discuss something going on in their department, you know, I think it's up to them to come to us and say, hey, let's -- we'd like to have an hour 30 minutes and discuss what's going on, you know. 'Cause that's -- clearly, every elected official has that ability to do that. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, and we routinely have on COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- and department heads that gives them that opportunity. But if there's a particular item of interest that is going to impact the overall county picture, why, we certainly need to know about that as far in advance as possible, of course. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we've -- the problem I have is with the item you talked about on the agenda, we've never had a report from elected -- I mean, other than from ourselves. I mean, and usually ours are quick because we're exhausted at the end of the day. That's why I think we need a, you know, better mechanism. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's right. And there's also essentially the fact that we don't want these department heads sitting around in here for six hours till 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,^ 2 4 25 112 they get their turn to make a report. We've got four or five of them in here right now. So, we need a better way of organizing this -- this feedback and communications. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I think that's it. It will be on the agenda again. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Let's move on to the next item, being Item 15, to consider and discuss automobile insurance requirements for all county employees that use personal vehicles. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda after visiting with the County Attorney briefly, and he had some concerns, and as we started talking, I started having concerns. And our court coordinator got with Tommy and got the -- the basic -- what is covered currently under our insurance, and then I got more concerned. And I think the -- I mean, the issue is, when we're using a county vehicle, boy, we're in good shape. The problem is, so much of the time we're using personal vehicles. And I'm not as concerned, really, with the elected officials, 'cause we have some other policies and coverages, but, for example, if I was to ask Ms. Mitchell to go over to City Hall and pick up a -- you know, something with the airport -- airport minutes, who knows what it could be, I think we have a mechanism for her to get reimbursed for use of her personal 4-11-05 113 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 vehicle, but what if something happens? That's what came to my mind, as to what's covered. And as I understand our current policy, the County's covered from a liability standpoint, but there's no vehicle coverage anywhere. And there's a question on bodily injury, as I read the -- this policy. I think -- and I just think that we have a lot of potential exposure there. And what if, you know, Ms. Mitchell doesn't have anything, and then she goes out and we ask her to -- you know, I've asked her to go do something and she doesn't have insurance, and she happens to have an accident? Well, then, you know, we have a county -- a person doing county business in an uninsured vehicle. We have no requirement that our employees have insurance. So, I just think that it -- when Rex brought it up to me originally, I think, you know, it just became a concern. I'll probably turn it over to him, I mean, a little bit, or ask for his input. What do we need to do to protect ourselves better? Or is this really not as big an issue as I think it may be? MR. EMERSON: Well, I think the proper answer to that would be talk to your insurance agent. I'm not an insurance expert. But it is a concern, because the vehicles aren't covered -- personal vehicles are not covered under this policy, from what I can tell. There's some question on bodily injury coverage. There's an issue of if I ask one of 4-11-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 my employees to go to the bank, I don't -- I~don't know theoretically if they've maintained their vehicle properly, if their vehicle's insured. You know, all those things can come back to bite us. And I think there's some case law out there, even though we're protected to an extent under the -- the tort act, that if we allow a condition that's negligent or grossly negligent to continue, or we just turn a blind eye to it, pretend like it's not there, they can jump up and we have liability for it. My concern, and what I'd originally approached Jonathan about, was that we have employees from all these different departments going to the bank, the post office, going one place or another every day, but if you look around the courthouse, there's half a dozen county vehicles sitting here at any one time, and what was the possibility of getting access to a county vehicle to run those errands? And that's where this all originated from. And then the liability grew from there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you read -- have you read this auto liability coverage form that, I guess, was provided by the Auditor's office? MR. EMERSON: Briefly. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It talks about throughout the document, the words "named member" -- and this is the TAC policy -- "named member" and "named members" refer to the governmental unit. So, when they talk about a 4-11-C5 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 named member, they're talking about Kerr County. And, so, down in this thing on who is covered, it says, "The following are covered persons: The named member" -- Kerr County -- "for any automobile." Now, does that mean what I think it means? That that would be any county automobile and any automobile that a county employee is using in the conduct of Kerr County's business? That's the question. MR. EMERSON: I don't think so. MR. TOMLINSON: That's for liability purposes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's liability only. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. You don't think so? MR. EMERSON: I think it's liability only, if at all. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what this is, liability coverage. MR. EMERSON: Yeah. And if you go to the back page -- or Page 2 and you look at coverage for what a covered auto is, unless it's listed in the County's documents, as I'm reading it on presentation of the policy, you don't have anything at all. MR. TOMLINSON: And my conversation with TAC was that they -- they cover only scheduled vehicles, because you have -- they have to know what the value of the vehicle 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 116 is before they can adequately cover it. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what vehicles do we give them for -- to be in the schedule? MR. TOMLINSON: Every county vehicle is scheduled. There -- there are situations that if we lease equipment or we lease a vehicle for an extended period, we -- we will call them and get additional coverage for that individual vehicle. If we lease it or borrow it, however we acquire it, if we -- if we have extended use of it, we do get additional coverage for that vehicle. But on an ordinary day-to-day basis -- for one day, for instance, we would not do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what does that do for members of this Court or any other elected official who does not have or have access -- use or have access to a county vehicle and uses his or her own vehicle in the pursuit of Kerr County's business? Where does that leave them? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, their -- the vehicle is uninsured. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wonderful. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other issue is that if you're in an accident and get hurt, I mean, you're covered, you know, under the County's health insurance, but 4-11-OS 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 you're still responsible for the deductible. And if you have a -- MR. TOMLINSON: Commissioner, I think you're covered under worker's comp. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Worker's comp? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. And there's no deductible to the insurance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Worker's comp, okay. That's better. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, raising this issue is good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think one of the questions that Rex had earlier to me is that, you know, if, you know, the District Clerk has someone go to the bank for her one day, and that vehicle's in bad repair and has an accident, then there may be all kinds of liability because it's -- you know, there could be a negligent claim against the County for using a vehicle that's not properly maintained, or may not be insured at all. We have no -- you know, state law says it should be insured, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is insured. And if their -- if her vehicle gets damaged, it's not covered anywhere right now, except under her own insurance. I mean, potentially. But I think there could be some issues as to that as well. MR. TOMLINSON: There's another issue q-l~-o5 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 about -- about an employee using their own vehicle on a regular basis for -- for their job. We've encountered this before with -- with constables when -- in years past, when we did not furnish vehicles for constables. And the result of it was that -- that the County agreed to pay -- to reimburse the constable for the coverage, or the additional coverage -- or the additional premium that was required by his own carrier. In other words, if he had insurance on his personal vehicle, the regular personal coverage does not cover it for use in another business, so the constable had to get additional insurance for his own vehicle to use it for business purposes. So, at that time, the County agreed to reimburse the -- the individual for that additional coverage. So, I -- I do know that -- that there could be -- and I don't know how all the policies are written, but I suspect that I could not -- I could not get additional coverage for my vehicle if -- if I were going to use it for business purposes on a regular basis. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- that's another point I really hadn't thought of, is that the -- you know, I'm not sure that -- MR. TOMLINSON: So I'm not sure that -- that an individual could even cover their personal vehicle for -- for that purpose. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you can do it, 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,-.. 2 4 25 119 but you have to claim it. And I suspect that probably every elected official in this county claims their personal -- does not claim their personal vehicle as a business vehicle. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think if you're -- is there any coverage at all for elected officials or department heads on using their vehicles? Because, you know, a lot of what I do -- I mean, it's hard-pressed for me not to be on county business when I'm driving up and around the county. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you know, I think it's just -- I don't know. Again, I have lots of questions today, but not a whole lot of answers. This was an issue, and Rex brought it up, that got me concerned, and I put it on it the agenda, did a little bit of research. I don't know if we need to get TAC's representative down here, or -- we need someone knowledgeable in insurance. I think maybe that's the first approach, is we can ask them these questions, and maybe they can say, "Yes, you are exposed," or, "No, you're not," from an insurance standpoint. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now what? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's 254 counties in Texas. Somebody has probably already solved the problem. We need to find out who that is through TAC or somebody, 4-i1-05 120 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 and -- MR. TOMLINSON: From my conversation with our -- our rep in TAC did not offer any solution. I didn't really dig into whether or not there was a solution. But, I mean, I'd be willing to ask. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we -- you know, either, Tommy, you or Ms. Mitchell can contact our TAC representative and just have them come to our next meeting, and then we can, you know, ask them these questions and ask them, maybe, how do other counties handle it? I mean, TAC certainly covers a large number of counties. JUDGE TINLEY: Specifically the insurance rep, you're speaking of? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Insurance rep. Insurance. I'm concerned about the insurance issue only at this point. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it would be wise to put together a list of questions and send it to that person prior to him coming down here so he can be prepared to answer the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I can do that, and we can get them by looking back through the minutes. We can prepare that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very wise to ask TAC to just come on down here and do it. That's what they do. 4-11-05 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 NICHOLSON: Sounds like we've got some exposure, so dealing with it's the right thing to do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: True. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that particular item? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move on to Item 16, consider and discuss Subdivision Rules and Regulations. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me hand out to everybody a -- there's one for you, Rex, too, I think. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: I looked at, you know, the -- obviously, we've been doing a lot of work on subdivision revisions, and I'm sort of looking at lot size. This is kind of the fundamental of where we are about how we start governing subdivisions, is lot size. And under 5.Ol.D, through the end of the document, there's quite a few changes. And I don't think -- let me go over what the basic changes are, and then people can read them; we can look at them again. But what I started looking at is, we currently have a 5-acre average for lot size. That's based on water availability. The way it's currently written, I think it's confusing. I hear that a lot. To me it's simple, but it evidently is not to the public. 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,,.., 2 4 25 122 5.01.D.1 says, "The total number of lots permitted in any subdivision that uses individual water wells as the source of potable water shall not exceed the total acreage in the subdivision divided by 5 acres." That's currently what we have right now, and that's all we have right now. I've added two others, and I put some numbers here that I'm not recommending; these are just talking points. Under 2, "The total number of lots permitted in any subdivision that uses a community water system as the source of potable water shall not exceed the total acreage in the subdivision divided by 3 acres, unless the subdivision is located within a designated high-density area by the Commissioners Court; see Paragraph 5.01.I," where I define that. And then 3 is, "The total number of lots permitted in any subdivision in an area designated as a high-density development area shall not exceed the total acreage in the subdivision divided by 2." What I've looked at in this is that there are areas in the county where a 5-acre average doesn't make sense. Community systems -- well, and, if you go in the -- basically, the areas I defined are the ETJ of Ingram, the ETJ of City of Kerrville, and then a 1-mile area around Center Point and 1-mile area around Comfort. In these communities, if we don't allow something more than a 5-acre average, we're not going to allow any development of -- of 4-11-OS 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 any kind of a density subdivision. You can't develop something like Kerrville South on a 5-acre average; it won't work. If you go to Comfort, if we don't allow -- and there are a number of developments that want to come to Kerr County. They cannot afford to do it with the price of the land on a 5-acre average, especially when you can cross Cypress Creek and go into -- into Kendall County, and you can do them on half-acre lots, quarter-acre lots, because you're under the water district in Comfort, which will expand into Kerr County, or has the ability to expand into Kerr County if the developer wants them to. So, I think we need to allow some mechanism to treat the current area around the towns and communities a little bit differently, and go to a much higher density. And there's a couple of logic for this, and this goes for Items 2 and 3. One, when you're with a community water system, those wells are going to start producing a lot, which means they're going to be permitted wells. If there were 15 connections, it's governed by T.C.E.Q. If there were less than 15, the volume's going to get to a point it's going to come under Headwaters' rules, and I think there's some water control by other agencies on community water wells. Secondly, Ingram, Kerrville, Center Point, and Comfort, I think at some point in the moderate future, probably the next 20 years, likely will all be hooked up to 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 124 surface water. There is some items that are working, either bringing water from the east or from the west to connect Center Point and/or Comfort to water, either out of Kerrville coming out of the Guadalupe, or out of Canyon Lake coming up through Boerne. So, I think -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Inter-basin transfer? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's an inter -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's all the Guadalupe Basin. All Guadalupe River. There's currently -- the pipeline's currently under construction, or at least permitted and funded to come from Canyon Lake to Boerne with the surface water, and that uses that water that was reallocated by G.B.R.A. four or five years ago. So, I think there's a -- a likelihood of this whole Guadalupe valley being hooked up through central water and central sewer, for that matter, but water -- that is surface water, which alleviates the issue of groundwater problems. So, I just kind of looked at this and came up with some -- some different ideas on how we look at subdivisions and changing the averaging around a little bit. I think there's -- you know, the science can back it up, and the long-term direction we're going back in the county backs it up. And I just toss it out for people to read it. I mean, it's a lot to -- you have to go 9-11-05 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 through it very slowly and read it. I ask everyone to read it and, you know, put it back in my box, or put it back on the next agenda again, either way, and see what the -- what the thought process is, you know. My goal is, once we can get the Court kind of on the same page, then we can put it out to the public and let the public have a lot of comments to it. But I think we need to get kind of -- somewhat of a meeting of the minds before we, you know, start putting drafts out to the public. So, these are all for the public. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: High-density development area. That's directly related to these communities that you mentioned? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is ETJ or 1 mile? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 1-mile area, which is the same as the ETJ would be. I left Hunt off. I didn't know if Hunt wanted high-density development out there. It would likely -- based on what we did in Center Point and Comfort, it's a little bit different community, obviously, and it's also less likely to ever get tied to surface water. I think the other areas where the water comes from Kerrville or from the other direction will have surface water available at some point. Then the other thing that -- go to the last two paragraphs. 5.01.H is kind of expanded a 9-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ,--. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 little bit on other developments, planned unit developments -- first sentence -- and pretty much explicitly say that those types of developments and condominiums are subject to our rules. And then it goes on to say that some of the provisions may be not applicable, and we can discuss those on a case-by-case basis. And on commercial developments, pretty much the same thing. Commercial developments are subject to Kerr County Subdivision Rules, but they need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis from thea lot size, and that's based on utilities. But, anyway, it's handed out for everyone to read. I went over some of the changes and ideas, and look forward to feedback at our next meeting. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I noticed you also COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which has to do with a lesser land requirement for planned developments that have both a public water system and a community sewage collection system. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I think -- at first reading of that, I think I like what I see as an improvement over what we already have. So, I'll look at it again. 4-11-05 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, again, all of the acreage numbers, I really -- you know, I'm not sure that I would think that the -- you know, half acre may not be the right size. Maybe it's 1 acre still, maybe it's a quarter acre. You know, I just think that if someone's going to go to the expense of putting in a central sewer system, I think, you know, there's a lot of things can be done a little bit differently. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You do have to remember that you have to meet D & E requirements. D is the total acreage and subdivision requirements to do the type of development, and E sets the individual lot sizes in that development. They're not either/or. I mean, you have to -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm having trouble understanding you. Just -- COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER me into it there. D says t 60 acres total development, that would give you 20? COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER that fit with E.2 that says LETZ: Okay. NICHOLSON: -- plug me in; lead zat, for example, if you've got then you divide it by 3, and LETZ: 20 lots. NICHOLSON: 20 lots. How does you can have 1-acre lots? 4-11-05 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can have 1-acre lots, and then the rest of the area be a designated nondevelopment area, such as greenbelt. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One's total number of lots; the other one deals with minimum -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Minimum lot size. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is a proposal, which I think you and I talked about, in Precinct 2, which a -- a developer proposes to take a parcel of land in Kerrville South and develop it. They'd like to have the higher density consideration, because he already has community water through Kerrville South Water Company, and he would propose to hook it into the sewer system that we're developing down there. So, he would have to satisfy D.3 -- no, D -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: D.3. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: D.3 as well as E.3 -- 5.O1.E.3, correct? COMMISSIONER LETZ: E.3 or E.4. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: E.3 or E.4, okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we did it just like that -- I know it's on paper for discussion -- would it relax the -- would it allow more development than we currently allow? 4-11-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-. 25 129 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not much. It doesn't change it a whole lot. I mean, it does allow -- 'cause under our current rules, the way they're written right now, there's no minimum lot size. We're going back to a 1-acre minimum lot size, so it does a little bit. It allows a little bit higher density areas, and that's really the biggest change. It does allow more development from a density standpoint right around the cities. And I think there's a -- you know, there's a lot of reasons that it makes sense to encourage that. I mean, it -- one is that I think we're about to -- you know, we're almost pricing real estate out of the market and people can't afford it. And I think that if we can do something to encourage that that helps the environment, both with water and through the septic systems, get them into community systems, that at some point maybe it will be tied into sewage plants in Comfort or Kerrville, and water off of surface water in these high-density areas. I think it's justified, and I think that the science backs this up. If you, you know, just look at the cities, they're much higher density. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And right now, under our current rules, if they're -- you know, and there in Center Point's a good example. There are some tracts up by the Little League field that are pretty -- you know, 30-, 4-11-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 40-acre tracts. We're pretty much saying you can't develop that land. I mean, it's -- under our current rules, it's almost impossible because of the cost of the land. And the -- you know, we've -- the density is -- you know, we can do the averaging, but still, if you only have a 5-acre average, you can have four lots on 20 acres. Well, that doesn't work in a city. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are several tracts like that in and around Center Point. You're highlighting the one you go by all the time which is by the Little League field there, but there are others off of 480 as well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this encourages development around the communities rather than pushing the sprawl further out, too, which I think is something which is probably good. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just an idea, a new approach, new way of looking at some things. And we'll put it back on the next agenda. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have anything further to offer on that agenda item? Let's move on to Item 17, if we might, consider and discuss Water Availability Requirements. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Almost as -- we can do a 4-11-05 .~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~„, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 131 playback and do it in -- you know, say the same thing again. This is water availability requirements, and this is a -- a pretty significant change from what we currently have. And this is as a result of a meeting that I had with -- had with Gordon Morgan and Gene Williams, Gordon being President of Headwaters, and Gene is their General Manager. And these are -- these are -- it's a draft, but if the Court agrees with this -- and it's more a matter of myself getting together with Rex and doing the legal side of it to make sure it all fits, but just from a philosophy standpoint, our current -- our water requirement rules we currently have require Headwaters to do a lot of work. There's wells required for a new subdivision, test wells, and there's testing requirements. And if there's a water system, I envisioned they'll have to approve the water system. Headwaters had a legal problem with that, because there's nothing in the authority -- in the law that gave the County authority to do this. Headwaters -- and underground water districts are never mentioned, and they were having -- it's a big question in their mind whether they had authority to do what we told them to do. And I probably agree with them. I mean, it's real. It's a very gray area. And they were uncomfortable, and they weren't -- they really were encouraging us to simplify everything. What that does is pretty much say it's a 5-acre -- it's the 4-11-05 132 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 same lot size averages in our Subdivision Rules. And the reason for doing that is, water availability is probably the strongest legal way for us to regulate lot size. There's some cases that have come down that give -- that make that real clear. So, the closer we can tie our lot size to water availability -- water availability requirements, I think the stronger position we have legally. It also -- and I think, you know, I cited the state water plan, Region J, Headwaters rules, and T.C.E.Q. Those all give us a lot of authority in those areas. The other big change that -- well, anyway, the draft presented here requires no test wells. Doesn't mention well testing, period. If there's a well drilled on a property, Headwaters has their own rules that require what needs to be done with that well. This basically says that if you're going to use individual wells, if you can meet these average -- the averages of 5 acres, 3 acres, 2 acres, you are deemed to have enough water based on the current science in Kerr County. You don't have to do anything further. If you're using a water system over 15 connections, you're subject to T.C.E.Q. If you're less than 15 connections, you got to provide the Court with licensed engineer documents that show, one, the -- the design of the facility is proper, and two, that there's sufficient capacity to provide the service. And it puts it on the 4-11-05 133 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 private -- basically, on the developer and the engineer. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How do they -- how do they come up with that there is enough capacity to provide for the subdivision without a test well? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they may have to. It's up to the engineer that does the system for the developer. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not my problem. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think what happens is, if you get into those situations to drill a well that's going to be able to provide much water, it's going to be a permanent well, and Headwaters has rules in place under their rules for permanent wells. So, it's a much simpler system than we had before. It's still based on the same basic science that the state water plan has on the, you know, amount of water, you know, recharge and all that stuff that goes into how much water should be sufficient for an individual water well. But, anyway -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if you meet -- 1.02 talks about water availability requirements. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And essentially says that you do -- if you meet 1.03, you're deemed to have 4-11-05 134 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 sufficient water -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- and you don't have to go through this bureaucracy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. And what you know about those who know something about the availability of water, this would be sufficient to protect the aquifer and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the same as we have currently on the 5-acre average. There's no change there. And that was based on, you know, the amount of recharge required to sustain 2.8 people on, you know, 200 gallons a day per person. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We essentially -- right now, we've got some bureaucratic processes that don't add any value to protecting water. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. We're requiring test wells and we're requiring Headwaters to do a bunch of stuff that they don't want to do and don't think they legally can do, and they're costing developers. And, I mean, there's been -- and I -- it's not that our previous rules were bad. Headwaters has changed, is really what has happened. Headwaters changed their rules substantially to alleviate the need for us to have all the requirements that 4-11-OS 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 we had previously. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's always been an argument over -- and I kind of argued it myself, of requiring a developer to prove that there's water down there. When, I mean, there's lots of folks that will say that you can drill a hole anywhere in this part of the country and you're going to hit water. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At some depth. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At some depth. I don't know what the depths are, but there's water down there. And -- and so here we are requiring people to spend a ton of money to prove something that we already know. So, I mean, you know, that's a pretty good argument. But I think this gets us away from that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You want to act on this? Or -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- not at this point. I really want to get with Rex to go over -- there is some legal cites in here I need to get help on. If the Court is comfortable with this by consensus, I'll proceed down this road; we'll get a formal draft to go to the Court, and then we'll also get that by Headwaters and out to the public to look at. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, do 4-11-05 136 ~..,.. 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 you see -- I'm sorry, Dave. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, do you see a possible conflict here in the water availability draft, 1.03 -- 1.03.3, where we talk about the number of lots permitted in a subdivision where a high-density subdivision would be divisible by two, do you see a conflict there with our subdivision standards that you drafted under S.Ol.E.3 and 4? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Divisible by three? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There may be a conflict there, but my -- after writing these over the weekend and looking at them this morning over my cup of coffee before I came in, I think that we need -- my plan is to -- let me look at the right copy here -- 5.01 -- on the subdivision standards, 5.01.E, that language needs to be duplicated on the water availability requirements. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That would take care of the conflicts, okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that particular agenda item? Let's move to the next item, consider and discuss status of Juvenile Board's internal investigation of Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I might make -- 4-11-05 1 2 137 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 before we get to that, can I make one comment on water availability? We're going in a -- I don't know if it's good or bad -- in an opposite direction from some of our local counties on that issue. Gillespie County has extremely rigorous water availability requirements, to the point that they have to go into a subdivision and determine what the water availability is internally within a subdivision and have -- and there's one subdivision where they are currently mapping a fault line, and have one water amount on one side of that subdivision and a different water availability requirement on another side of the subdivision. And I -- and Kendall County is not to that extreme, but there are a lot -- they're stricter than our current ones are on all that's required. And I think that it's -- when I started reading those, it made me go further this direction, because I just think it's not the Court's business. I think we have water districts in these counties for a reason, and I think that we need to work together and let them have their rules. And I think it's a -- I really wonder how they are working with their water districts and the Commissioners Court on requiring all that stuff, and who has the legal authority to require some of that. But, anyway, we are going a different direction. The net effect, I don't think, is a change. I think we're both trying to -- all the counties around here .--, 25 4-11-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 138 are trying to go to the same density, 'cause that's what counties -- I think at one time, it was 5 -- one lot to 5-acre density, and I think Kendall County is one lot per 6-acre density. But they're requiring a whole lot more than we are, which is -- I thought was kind of interesting that we went pretty far, then we came -- now we're recommending coming way back from where we were. They were much later in getting water availability requirements than we were. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like our way of doing it better than I do theirs. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sorry, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's see if we can quickly get another item here. Let's go to Item 18, consider and discuss status of Juvenile Board's internal investigation of the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda. In our January meeting, we -- this was discussed, and discussed in executive session. We're not going to go into great depth on it. I was just curious. My recollection was about a 60-day period it was thought to come back. That's where we are. I thought I'd put on it the agenda to see where we are. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to see if I can shed some light on it for you. Commissioner Baldwin and 4-11-05 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 I have had meetings with two different accounting firms in Kerr County for the purpose of discussing this issue, and -- and finding out whether or not they would be interested in undertaking an -- essentially, a management audit. Both local firms have declined our invitation to give us a bid for those services, believing that they would rather not do so. Okay? So -- however, one of them did recommend some smaller firms in San Antonio that might be interested in providing those services to us, and I've been in touch with one of them. And we attempted to set up a meeting prior to the West Texas Judges and Commissioners meeting, and it didn't work out. And we are at the tail end now of -- of an audit company doing -- audit firm doing tax returns, and they have other things on their agenda other than meeting us to do that. So, Commissioner Baldwin and I have agreed to meet with this recommended firm out of San Antonio as soon as tax season has abated somewhat, and see where that takes us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the latest. Anything else you want to add, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. You hit the nail on the head. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're actually giving more information than I was looking for. I was looking for 4-11-05 ... 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 the Judge and Juvenile Board's investigation. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I can kind of respond to that. At the conclusion of the meeting where the issues were raised, I, of course, passed along those issues that were raised to the members of the Board and the County Attorney and the facility director. And, as I'm sure the Court recalls, shortly after that, the Auditor indicated that he felt like, you know, he had all the records available and he would attempt to answer whatever questions he had. The Court, of course, then inquired of him, and he gave us a report. For whatever reason, the Court felt like that was not adequate, and the direction was taken at that particular time to pursue an outside audit, albeit something that could maybe be attached onto our current outside county audit that was underway, and I think there were some discussions with that auditor. The information that -- the factual information and figures, the documented information, of course, is -- that we have available to us is what the Auditor has. Other than that -- I mean, of course, there are subjective judgments that can be made, and those can be done individually, and so we -- we have nothing beyond what the Auditor has. But the thing did turn direction as to looking towards an outside audit, and not knowing how that was going to turn out, I -- I think there was a deferral on 4-11-05 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the part of the Juvenile Board because of the -- the apparent direction that the Court was looking. Since -- since January, there have been a couple of meetings of the Juvenile Board, as I recall, strictly for the purpose of -- of addressing issues in connection with the County's acquisition of that facility and doing whatever is necessary there. So, that's all we did. Now, I have -- I have placed that issue about what response, if any, the Board has with regard to that question on the upcoming meeting of the Juvenile Board, so -- I think that meeting is posted now, isn't it? MS. MITCHELL: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we want to try and knock out some more before we get on down the road here? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're going to be back after lunch; I'd just as soon break. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, let's go eat. We got to come back anyway. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Rector is asking for permission to leave the room or join the room. MS. RECTOR: Back to our agenda item, Bill just called me, and Mr. Priour ordered us out. So, we 4-11-05 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 probably will be getting something formally in writing, so we might need to kind of step up the program. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Talk to him. JUDGE TINLEY: Your lawyer's right -- right there. MR. EMERSON: Practically speaking -- MS. RECTOR: He kind of ran Bill down and stopped him and said -- and they're out there now cleaning up the tar with diesel, so I've ordered Pam to close, because it's just terrible. MR. EMERSON: Practically speaking, we'll have to be out by the end of May. It will -- he'll have to give us 30 days, based on term, and we've already secured the month of April, so -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: You probably -- you may want to send him a letter, Rex, to that effect. MS. RECTOR: Mr. Holekamp's not available. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's take a look at the lease. MR. EMERSON: expired -- I don't remember while back. For whatever r investigated, but -- COMMISSIONER MR. EMERSON: And the lease actually if it's 2001 or 2002. It was a Cason, it was never reviewed or LETZ: I'm just thinking -- -- they've been on a 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 143 month-to-month since that time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My thought was having Rex write him a letter. I just don't want him yelling and out there causing problems with our employees, and so he's aware that we're going to be out by that date and not before -- or it's our choice if we're out before. And so he needs to leave our employees alone. MS. RECTOR: Well, and he may just be angry because we've stepped it up. But -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's probably a lot of issues. He may be in breach of the contract we have, so we need to -- we need to decide what's best for us, and get good advice on that. MS. RECTOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever you need to do. MS. RECTOR: So, y'all were informed of the latest. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate the update. Thank you, ma'am. We will stand in recess until 1:30. (Recess taken from 12:06 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We were in recess for lunch, and scheduled to come back at 1:30. It's just a bit past that now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right on the dot. 4-11-05 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 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to reappoint Commissioner Jonathan Letz to a two-year term on the Joint Airport Board effective June 1, 2005. While you were up, Commissioner, the least could you do was salute. There you go. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When we formed the Airport Board and its new representation, Commissioner Letz and I drew straws, and I drew a two and he drew a one. And the administrative assistant down at City Hall reminded us that it's time for Commissioner Letz to get a new appointment, so I'm putting his name in for a new two-year appointment. So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item to reappoint Commissioner Jonathan Letz for a two-year term on the Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport Board effective June 1, 2005. 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.) 9-11-05 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 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Lest I get into trouble for running amuck here, let me go to the timed 1:30 item. At this time, I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will open a public hearing on the proposed Kerr County nuisance abatement program, public notice having been given of that program, and ask if there's any member of the audience or the public that wishes to be heard with regard to the proposed Kerr County Nuisance Abatement Program. Seeing no one seeking attention or otherwise moving towards the podium, I will -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said anyone in the audience. Now, there are members of the staff out there who would like to speak to it. Is that going to be permissible? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, certainly. Certainly. They're members of the public as well as Kerr County employees. I didn't mean to exclude you, -- MR. ARREOLA: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: -- Mr. Arreola. I'm sorry. MR. ARREOLA: Well, good afternoon, gentlemen. I would like just to give you a quick report of what -- what we've been doing in this division or department. I got my original and nine copies. Is that 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 146 correct? I got plenty of copies. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, you're cute. You're getting cute. All right. MS. PIEPER: At least I got one. MR. ARREOLA: You got one this time? Good. So far this year, we have opened 55 cases on solid waste. That's the report that have you in front of you. 23 of them have been closed, and -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 55, 23. MR. ARREOLA: 55 total, 23 still -- I mean, have been closed, been resolved, and all of them have been resolved internally. We haven't had to go to court or seek any -- any other help to do it. The attorney's office have been helping us a lot, you know, in all the cases. I would like to thank Mr. Emerson, 'cause he's been a great help for our department. But still, 32 pending. Last year we did about 130 total the whole year, so this year we're doing quite more than what we were doing last year. That's based on we have extra staff. We have more researches to do our job better. So I think this new program that is proposed is going to help us a lot to continue and do better every day. If you have any questions on that report? JUDGE TINLEY: Could you repeat those numbers? Closed are 50 -- how many? MR. ARREOLA: 23 of those 55 are already 4-11-05 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 closed. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the remaining -- what's that? MR. ARREOLA: 32 remain pending. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh? MR. ARREOLA: 32. JUDGE TINLEY: 32. Total of 55 cases this year. MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ARREOLA: That's correct. Any other questions on that? JUDGE TINLEY: That's as of -- MR. ARREOLA: The last day of -- last March. Last day of March. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, 3/31. MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ARREOLA: I went ahead and called it this already, though it's -- we believe it's going to be approved. We called it that name already. I'd also like to tell you about the response from the community. There's -- people have been calling us, and there's some also in the 4-11-05 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .. 2 4 25 paper; you might have got a copy of this letter to the editor of the Kerrville Daily Times of April 2nd where a member of the community thank us for what we've been doing. Hope you got a copy. If not, I can get you a copy of it. We also have some cases where we had to go to court. We have to use -- or seek extra help. We have -- just an example, one person was fined about $2,000 for illegal dumping, and it was in Kerr County Court at Law last August. So, cases like those is what Officer North help us a lot to do. He manage all those difficult cases in court. We also have Ray Garcia; he's a new inspector. He's been doing a great job opening those, finding those cases, investigating these complaints, and closing them, which is the main thing, getting -- get them cleaned up. He might have a few pictures to show you of what the before and after, to show what basically we've been doing, how it used to look, how it looks now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Miguel, before you get to that, I have a quick question. Where do most of the complaints come from? MR. ARREOLA: Well, you have in the report also precincts. I think 4 and 1 are the ones that get the most. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was wondering, do they 4-11-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 149 MR. ARREOLA: No, from the public. General public. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, there's only, looking at the list, one in my precinct on this list, and that came from me, I believe. I'm just wondering if there's -- it wouldn't be a good idea to do some education in the Comfort and Center Point areas to explain to people how to -- if they see a complaint, how -- what to do. MR. ARREOLA: Sure. We're doing part of that, too. We're doing -- whenever we meet someone, we tell them all their options, where they can call. If they need to contact the state, we give them all the numbers. And we try to -- especially on illegal burning has been a misunderstanding for a while. We're trying to educate the community on what to do, what -- what's really illegal burning, and what they can burn. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that approach may be -- I know in Comfort, putting fliers out in some of the businesses really helps to get information out. MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9-1-1 has done that on some of the signage issues, and it's worked real well. You may look at that, so as people see things or have questions, they know who to contact. MR. ARREOLA: Sure. 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 150 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. ARREOLA: Okay. Well, share those pictures. We might not give you addresses or names, but it's just a -- MR. GARCIA: What I have here, these are examples of before and afters you guys can take a look at. And some of them are illegal dumping cases that we've -- Officer North and myself have came upon, and others are actual complaints that the Kerr County residents have called in, and we've gone out and tried to handle them at the lowest level, again, without having to go to court, without having to get citations. They also -- like Miguel said, we instruct them and try to educate them on all the laws and everything they can use that's at their disposal to get rid of this stuff; recycling center, again, a list of haulers. And you see some stuff in there from some abandoned structures that are being taken care of now. Some illegal dump -- illegal dumping that's going on right now that we have a citation issued on. You see some of the stuff that these people leave in the trash, how we get our information from that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You provide them with a list of haulers? Did you say that? MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir, a list of haulers. We give them a handout from the recycling center. And then we 4-11-05 i 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 r 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go over some of the laws that they are not familiar with as far as illegal burning and, obviously, dumping on your own property. Anything we can to take care of it at the lowest level possible is what we're doing. And we do have -- these are just a few examples, and we do have a lot more that are actually finished and cleaned up, and have made a huge difference. And if I could add, there's some of these places that we've cleaned up where the citizens, neighbors around them, once they see us there, they -- they're taking it upon themselves; we don't have to go back. So we can roll into this place for that one complaint, and on the way in, we see five or six that -- that need to be taken care of. Well, some of those neighbors, they see their other neighbors cleaning up, and they're actually doing the right thing with us there, and they're spreading the news to their neighbors that we can give them education. We provide our number so they can call us. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: What about hazardous-type materials, batteries and things of that nature? MR. GARCIA: Same -- same situation. If they have any kind of haz-mat, we'll go over the right way to stow it or who to contact. Again, we give them the numbers and all the information they need. If they're going to store batteries, we tell them how to store their batteries, you know. It might be they might be sitting on the ground. 4-11-05 r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 152 We'll stop and let them know that they have to be sitting up off the ground. Anything like that, haz-mat, paints, household haz-mat, hazardous materials, they all are given any kind of information they need to take care of that. MR. ARREOLA: We also working pretty close with the City of Kerrville. They have two events a year for hazardous waste. We let the public know. And the county, that is their event also; it's part of the county. The facility is owned by the County; the City's operating it. But they're working real good with us. So, a lot of people save their stuff for that event. We going to have the next one coming on May the 7th. JUDGE TINLEY: We know far enough in advance when those dates are that you can let these people know -- MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: -- months in advance? MR. ARREOLA: Mm-hmm. 23 24 25 9-11-05 MR. ARREOLA: Almost everything. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Batteries? MR. ARREOLA: Batteries, tires, used oil, JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ARREOLA: And we all participate in that event that day as volunteers and help out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know what's being taken in on May 7th? 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 paint. All -- almost all kinds of hazardous waste, which is a big, big help. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You take both batteries, like car batteries and those little batteries? MR. ARREOLA: Yes. Mr. North also helps with special cases. All his experience and all the goodies he knows how to do. We depend a lot on his help. Sometimes situations don't -- get a little bit dangerous, so he's the one. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pulls out his gun. MR. NORTH: Well, my side of the coin is, once again, we've been trying for voluntary compliance. We've had a lot of luck there. We go to court as a last resort. And, as you know, we've had a lot of luck this last year in J.P. court and county court and in district court. I assisted -- our department assisted some local people in a civil suit against a gentleman in Commissioner Baldwin's precinct, and finally managed to get an injunction on him. And, like I say, in the county court, we've had a lot of success. One man was fined $2,000 total for some illegal acts. And J.P. court you don't hear about a lot, 'cause it's all Class C misdemeanors. I write citations, and they just go in there, pay a $250 fine, clean up their mess and go on, so it never gets -- not a lot of publicity. We've had a lot of success. 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 154 JUDGE TINLEY: Does it seem as though you're having to issue citations less and less because the word is now out that if you seek voluntary compliance and don't get it, you will go forward and issue citations, and they will be summoned to court? MR. NORTH: In some instances, yes, sir. In fact, a lot of times, if they see our truck in the neighborhood, they'll call and say, "Well, I saw you out here, but I'll go ahead and take care of -- I'll take care of it. You don't need to..." And getting back to these batteries, a while ago, as you know, the new law change, now just sitting a battery on the ground is a Class B misdemeanor. That's -- you know, I don't want to fill up the Sheriff's jail with Class B misdemeanors, but we could easily in this county. If somebody discards a 55-gallon drum, it's a felony offense now. It's -- that's a -- the laws are getting changed around a lot every day, and serious. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say that -- the 55-gallon drum again. MR. NORTH: If someone discards that, it's closed -- closed drum, but any kind of material in it -- MR. ARREOLA: It could be water. MR. NORTH: It could be -- it's a felony offense. Because, number one, we don't know what's in the 4-11-05 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 drum. We don't even have to approach the drum. We don't have to check the drum, don't have to sample the drum. Just the act of discarding the drum is a felony offense. JUDGE TINLEY: Closed drum. MR. NORTH: Closed drum. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Help me understand that right quick. Just MR. NORTH: Because, number one, if it's closed, you don't know what's in the drum. And they don't want anybody getting hurt or exposed. Most policemen, what are they going to do? "What's in here?" I mean, "Let me light a match. Let me look." They're not real smart sometimes. State of Texas has decided to avoid any -- any possible problem of haz-mat that now just -- just a mere discarding of a 55 -- closed 55-gallon drum is a felony offense. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you come across one like that, Eddie, what do you do? MR. NORTH: Sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you come across a situation where you've got a -- MR. NORTH: Come across a drum? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A drum of -- of something that you don't know what it is, what do you do? MR. NORTH: I'm going to call the haz-mat 9-ii-os 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 team in. I'm not going to mess with it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 'Cause it MR. NORTH: I'm going to try and get any information, of course, off the drum as to where it came from, and just call haz-mat and let them handle it, because they're equipped to do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought you were going to call a deputy, have them look inside. MR. NORTH: I'm sure the Sheriff has received those and just told his men not to try to open a drum or -- the laws are changing constantly, just because of that fact. But we don't have that problem in Kerr County a lot, thank God. I can't think of anything else. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask you a question, 'cause part of this -- part of this policy -- new policy takes us into a direction we've never been before, and that goes into enforcement. And the failure to abate a nuisance could result in -- this is the paragraph that's -- well, wherever it is here. Just a second. Paragraph -- under Paragraph 6, Notification. And we go through the routines of notifying in 31 days and all that good stuff, which you guys do anyhow. But if they fail to abate, you know, this -- this puts some teeth there where we've never had them before if we adopt this policy. Failure to abate 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 157 may result in abatement by the County. MR. NORTH: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We talked about that. Assessment of costs to the person responsible for causing the nuisance when that person can be identified. MR. NORTH: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And a lien against property on which the nuisance exists if the person responsible for causing the nuisance has an interest in the property, and so forth and so on. Now, my questions, I guess, have to do with -- we've talked about this, Miguel and I and Ray; we were in a meeting the other day, talked about abatement by the County. For example, how would we do that? MR. NORTH: Going to have to work on that. Normally, the County would bring equipment out and clean the property up with their backhoes and dump trucks or whatever, and -- and dispose of it, and legally, in a landfill. And the cost would have to be figured by whoever -- Road and Bridge or whoever did that, and then that -- that would be a lien put against the -- would turn into a lien against that property. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that part. I'm just talking about actually getting the work done. For example, we'll have to talk about whether Road 9-11-05 158 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 and Bridge can participate in that, but the thought occurred to me, Sheriff, that we've got some folks with black and white striped suits. Can those folks be used in this connection? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I'm not sure the liability on using them on private property, even if the County's ordering to use it, because the law actually states I can only, right now -- and there are some bills before the Legislature this time that may change that, but right now, as it stands, it only states I can use them on county-owned property. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Government-owned. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, government-owned property. The only other thing that would really concern me on this is just, like, we run across -- and Ed can attest to this -- is you run across a situation where it's a methamphetamine lab, okay, where you've got haz-mat materials. The cost of that cleanup -- and that's why you will see us always involving D.P.S. or the task force, who has the D.P.S. involvement. The costs of just that cleanup can run into the hundreds of thousands, if not the millions of dollars per site, and if the County is the one causing this cleanup, the County's the one that's going to have to pay that by the EPA stuff and everything and all those. That's why D.P.S. went to a contract with haz-mat cleanup 4-11-G5 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 groups and environmental disposal. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not necessarily the case if you can affix the blame. You can go out to the person that created the problem. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But if the property itself is worth $20,000, and your cleanup is going to cost you $100,000, I don't know how much blood you're going to suck out of that turnip that the County's going to have to pay for. That's the only -- that's the only concern I would have. That's why we involve D.P.S. And I'm sure Ed's thought about the same thing. MR. NORTH: That's a problem with a lot of property in the county. People won't clean them up because the cleanup costs more than the property's worth. We find that a lot, a lot of abandoned mobile homes, abandoned property. That's a problem we run into. People will just leave, walk off and leave them, 'cause it costs more to clean them up. When we're talking about a County cleanup, we're talking about small-time -- you know, maybe $100, and not $100,000. Hundreds of dollars, maybe a thousand dollars. I would think that we wouldn't want to get involved in anything major. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Get EPA and turn it over to federal -- 25 ~ MR. NORTH: Right. 4-11-05 160 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But your question, the law that looks like it might pass simply expands his ability to work his prisoners from government-owned property to nonprofit -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- property. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I think something -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't say anything about private. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, but I'm only -- my question would be -- and it may be after this Legislature will be a time to get an A.G.'s opinion on it. If it were something like this, where the County's forced to go in and clean this up, then the County's having to do it, not a citizen, and at that point I don't know where that would fall, Buster. And I think it would be worthwhile to get -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good point, Rusty. Mr. County Attorney, what about the use of -- what about the use of county equipment through Road and Bridge Department? Is that permissible? MR. EMERSON: I don't know the answer to that. I've never looked into that situation, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Private property. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 161 MR. NORTH: I can -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we need to ferret out an answer. MR. ARREOLA: Other counties do have the program, cities have the program, so I'm pretty sure there is contractors; there's somebody who will do it. It's just the cost is going to be very -- the cost in the beginning. But it's going on right now. It's happening. MR. NORTH: I was going to say, I could contact Dr. Yukon or somebody, ask them what their procedures are. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, and what their legal authority -- the basis of their legal authority if the governmental entity is doing the cleanup on private property and using governmental equipment. MR. NORTH: I know -- and I ought to tell you, Judge, in the Health and Safety Code, it says if the County is involved in the cleanup of property, the lien on the property, there has to be -- this has to be in place, this -- JUDGE TINLEY: Program. MR. NORTH: -- program that we have. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. NORTH: Has to be in place first before you can do that. I'll be glad to check for you and find out 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 162 what the other counties are doing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Another issue that we have to talk about -- the Court needs to talk about and get a little light on has to do with that point that was made in Assistant County Attorney Jerry Phillips' memorandum to Miguel dated February 24, in which he said the requirement of Section IV(B), about the help, is -- or representatives, is that the representative, or plural, must be a regularly salaried -- regularly salaried, full-time county employee. And he says that that requirement comes straight from the Health and Safety Code. MR. NORTH: It does. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, that poses somewhat of a -- a problem in that we have you, Ed, who have worked regularly two days a week, I believe -- is that correct? And Mr. Garcia, who now works regularly as a part-time -- MR. GARCIA: Three days. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- three days a week. In my mind, that makes a full week's work, but apparently not -- doesn't apparently satisfy the letter of the law. MR. NORTH: I was thinking -- my thinking, Commissioner Williams, is that's covered by Miguel being a full-time employee. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 163 MR. NORTH: So that was the way I thought it would be covered. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what do you think, Mr. County Attorney? MR. EMERSON: I think Miguel can administer it, but I don't think Ed or Ray can. You can't assign them, because they're not full-time employees. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It says the nuisance abatement program shall be administered by a director. That would be Miguel. Director shall be appointed by Commissioners Court. That would be us, wouldn't it? Must be full-time -- and a director must be full-time, regular salaried county employee, so we satisfied that. We do got that. Neither the order creating this program or other policies created with salary... blab, blab, blab. A director may appoint, by written designation, one or more representatives to assist him, and they -- according to this document, they must be -- they shall also be regularly salaried full-time county employees. So, where's that leave us? MR. NORTH: Good question. I don't know. MR. ARREOLA: We need to convert one of them to full-time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would the cost 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 164 be to do that? MR. ARREOLA: I don't have the exact figure yet. I present it to the Treasurer's department. That will be about $10,000 more of what we're spending right now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Per annum? MR. ARREOLA: Per year. Per year, for a full year, plus benefits, whatever the benefits is. And that's what they're figuring out right now. For the rest of the year, it will be probably half of that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, your thought is that Mr. Garcia could become the full-time employee, if the Court were to go that direction, and Mr. North would continue in his capacity, and -- and as such, bring the law enforcement aspect of this -- MR. ARREOLA: Of this program. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to bear to back up the other gentleman. Is that your idea? MR. ARREOLA: That's it, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I've asked all my questions. You guys got questions? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do. Procedurally, are we -- are we going to act on this? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not today. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, good. JUDGE TINLEY: Public hearing only. 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 165 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not styled to act on today. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The -- I appreciate we've had aggressive results on kind of a cleanup program, and I think it's working. I think they've done a good job of cleaning up some traditional areas of nuisance. And I think I like this nuisance abatement program, but I'm trying to get a feel for whether -- what is the balance between the program that's got more teeth and will be more successful, and the trade-off of more bureaucracy and more rules to administer and that sort of thing. And I don't -- don't yet have a good feel for that. I don't know how I'm going to get to that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And money. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And money, yeah. And I'm just -- I'll just ask Sergeant North. Would this program -- this policy allow us to be more effective in getting things cleaned up? MR. NORTH: Well, I think we could get all the kinks worked out of it, but it's another tool, basically, Commissioner. Another tool in our bag that we can use if we have to. It would probably be a last resort. Having the County cleaning up a property would be a very last resort type of proposition, when all else fails. I'm -- in my travels around the county, we have hundreds of 9-11-OS 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 abandoned structures that people have just flat either died or just moved away and left, and I don't know -- or they don't have the money. They're hazards. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. We've run into that several times where somebody says they'd like to clean it up; they can't afford to. MR. NORTH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You know, my -- in dealing with people that I represent, next to Road and Bridge, I probably get more contact on these kind of issues than anything else, and there's a lot of cleanup that needs to be done. If we're not careful, we'll look like Kerrville. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I share a lot of your concerns. I'm just not sure if we need it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not either. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's where I guess I am. I think we're doing most of the stuff already withoat it. But if it does give us a little more teeth, maybe it's good. I'm not -- I'm undecided. One thing that I -- while we're talking just about, you know, litter, trash and cleanup, one of the things that is going the other direction, unfortunately, in this county is litter on the roads. And I've had -- I get a lot of complaints from my constituents about that, and it's not necessarily -- it's 4-1i-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 25 167 dumping, but it's not dumping as in these photographs. It's dumping as in carelessness, bottles. I mean, you know, but it's in very regular places. MR. NORTH: Littering. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bad litter. Significant litter. And one of the things I was wondering, we have a video camera, correct? MR. ARREOLA: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That you can set up in spots where we knew there was dumping going on? MR. ARREOLA: It's -- as a video camera, it works good, but as a surveillance, it does not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does not? MR. ARREOLA: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: May be something I'd be interested in, because, I mean, there are areas that are -- consistently get a bag of garbage thrown out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: C.P. River Road is one of them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a lot of them. And we're getting pretty good at cleaning up the old mattresses and the cars and stuff in the photographs, but there's still an awful lot of dumping going on that's -- you know that's casual dumping, for lack of another term. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you notice that 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 168 you don't ever see anybody throw that stuff out? But you come by the next morning, and there -- there's something. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's dark, and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Midnight skulker has been out again. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When I see it, I'm calling the Sheriff. But I don't see them. MR. ARREOLA: One of our plans this year is to apply for a grant for surveillance equipment. Yeah, we know there's a problem. We -- we know of a few spots that people like to use. That will help us a lot. Yes, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask, if I might, in attempting to secure outside funds for cleanup or compliance or both, the ability to secure those funds, is that dependent upon having in place a formal nuisance abatement program? MR. ARREOLA: I don't know if it has to be the nuisance abatement program, but the code enforcement has to be in place. The actual office of the Code Enforcement Officer has to be in place. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we've got that in place. MR. ARREOLA: Yes, we do. We applied for grants before, and it was not a requirement to have certain named programs, but we have to have something going on. I'm pretty sure this will help a lot more, 'cause we -- we going 9-11-05 ~. 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 into the -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I understand it will give us some additional options that we don't otherwise have under the Health and Safety Code right now, or the Penal Code. But I'm -- I'm like Commissioner Nicholson; I'm looking at the trade-off, and if, over on the other side of the equation, there's some outside money that could be had that would offset this additional cost, I -- I'd have a warmer fuzzier feeling about it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the last time we tried that -- and we did try that, Judge. We tried it on two occasions, I think. MR. ARREOLA: Two occasions. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, before the Solid Waste Advisory Committee group of AACOG, which makes those decisions, and essentially what they're doing is spending moneys that they accumulate from tipping fees, most of which come out of the metropolitan area, because they're tipping all the time, and in greater quantities than we do, and so they're pretty parochial about where they give those dollars. And the last time we filed an application, they were unwilling to give us a grant to expand from part-time to full-time, to get us where we are today, two and three. They were unwilling to fund that addition. So, I'm not sure that -- if we went back to that well for that purpose, we'd ~-11-os r 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 probably get the same answer. If we go back to that well for other purposes, we may get a different answer. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Another question about that. I'm a little bit worried about some of the definitions. In our current rule, it's 100 feet, and this would propose that we go to 300 feet from the property line? MR. NORTH: 300 feet is part of the Health and Safety Code, Commissioner. Part of the law is in a -- visible within 300 feet of a public road. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, that's not an expansion; we're not expanding from 100 to 300. And, of course, it's always -- the details are always popping up later. Allowing weeds to grow within 300 feet. You know, both my neighbors are guilty of violating that. And they're pretty -- I'm worried a lot about the bureaucracy of something -- MR. NORTH: Well, it has to go -- Your Honor -- I mean Commissioner, you also have to show that it -- it harbors vermin, snakes or vermin, and some language that says it must grow over 36 inches tall. So that's something -- we try not to get into a lot of weeds. That can be a nightmare. MR. ARREOLA: Yeah. Basically, your heavily populated areas is where we -- you know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can tell you, 4-11-05 __ _ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .-.. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 171 Commissioner, right now, the City and the County, who own the airport, would be in violation of this code for allowing those thistles to get 3 feet tall and blowing their seeds all over Mary and Nelson Happy's property across the highway. We've already heard from her. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want to make sure the west Kerr County newspaper gets that comment about your neighbors. Did you get that? (Laughter.) MR. EMERSON: If I may comment briefly, Commissioner Baldwin and I were at a meeting Friday on the weeds, and this would be a good example, where if it's -- primarily, what it turned out to be is really a civil dispute from one neighbor to the other, and the County wasn't involved. But the issue that arose was a fence that went across in front of a culvert that had grass this high growing up in front of it that was acting as a catch-all every time it rained. And that would be a prime situation where they could selectively force it and clear it out, thereby reducing the backflow of water and flooding this apartment building. MR. ARREOLA: And we take more into consideration like that case. Ponding water, et cetera, is a big issue, so, you know, we'll take it all in play. Also like to make another comment on -- we don't have so many cases that we feel is going to go through this more 4-i1-05 172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stringent requirement. And we're doing a lot of cleanups. The community is responding very well, and we're getting a lot of help, but there's one or two or three that we might need to do it. If it's a big one, that if we -- we know we can't afford, we will notify D.P.S. or whoever needs to be notified. MR. NORTH: T.C.E.Q. or whoever. MR. ARREOLA: Whoever needs to be notified for that. We're talking about county-level cleanups where we can -- we will know the property value enough to get it back whenever it is reimbursed. But, like he said, it will be a last option. It's not something that we're looking for and just go clean them all. We want them to clean it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the bottom line is, if the Court were to adopt the nuisance abatement policy as drafted and presented, this would give you abatement tools that you don't now have. MR. ARREOLA: Exactly right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can continue to do exactly what you're doing now, but the more difficult ones where they refuse to clean up, you'd now have a tool to work with. MR. ARREOLA: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it reduces itself to. 4-11-05 173 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 MR. ARREOLA: The ones that we can do now we will be able to do. We have a very small percentage, but it will be done. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any other individual that wishes to be heard? MR. TOMLINSON: I have a request, that they extend their activities to the City of Kerrville. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'd have to have an interlocal agreement. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh-uh, we'd have to have three or four meetings to decide on how to have a meeting. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Work out the process. JUDGE TINLEY: The thought occurred to me that if we're -- if we're trying to pretty things up, and we're having considerable success at it, maybe this type of program could be a replacement for the U.D.C. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was thinking about calling it the Uniform Dumping Code. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: U.D.C. My only other comment, Judge, is that whoever typed this, their computer 9-11-05 174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 has either a hiccough or a stuttering problem, 'cause "a hearing a hearing." COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney's office. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: County Attorney's office? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Number 2, what's your plan? To bring this back? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, I'll bring it back, and the Court can decide whether it wants to go that route or not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other individual wish to be heard in the public hearing with respect to the proposed Kerr County nuisance abatement program? MR. ARREOLA: Just one last comment. If there's more information that you need to better make a decision, there's plenty of information in the department that we can share with you any time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to thank you and -- MR. ARREOLA: Ray. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- Eddie and Ray for the work. We do appreciate it very much. You're doing a good job. Thank you very much. 4-11-05 175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ARREOLA: Thank you. MR. GARCIA: Thank you. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Could we declare Buster a county nuisance if it gets passed? JUDGE TINLEY: We're closed. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this? I will close the public hearing and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting, and we'll go to Item 20, to consider and discuss the employment status of the manager of the Rabies and Animal Control department. Is that something, Commissioner, that you feel like we ought to address at this point, or consider later? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we can go ahead and address it, and if we think we need an executive session, we can do that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll start off by making a motion that we -- that we change the employment status of the manager of Rabies and Animal Control department from temporary to permanent -- the assignment status, not the employment status. And that we increase the compensation from $27,500 per year to $28,500 per year. And if I get a second, I'll talk about the background on that issue. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 4-11-05 176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Three months ago, we had a -- had a vacancy in that position, and Janie Roman applied for that job, and we decided to -- to employ her in the position for a 90-day trial period, and at the end of that 90 days, make a decision about whether or not to make that permanent, and if so, to adjust the salary at that time. You probably will recall that the previous manager was making right at $31,000, and at the time we assigned Ms. Roman to it, we put her in at 27,5 and said that if, at the end of that trial period was successful, that we would increase it to 28,5. I worked pretty closely with Ms. Roman over the past 90 days, and there have been some pretty difficult issues that, coincidentally, came up over that period of time. I dealt with some complaints, and I also dealt with hearing some good kudos, some pretty impressive recommendations that we're doing a good job out there. The most recent one was, I think, a week -- not this weekend, but last weekend, when a child came in contact -- picked up a bat out at the Ag Barn during dog trials, and the sponsor of the dog trials called 9-1-1, and the dispatcher -- to ask them what to do, and the dispatcher said, "We don't have a rabies problem in Kerr County; don't worry about it." Well, they got in touch with Animal Control, and they literally went the extra mile. They got them -- got the attention they needed, got them over to the 4-11-05 177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,._ 2 4 25 hospital, got the local bat expert involved in the situation. The family happened to be from College Station, and so they had to go back home, and Animal Control followed up with them in College Station by telephone the next day and got them in touch with the people they needed over there. So, that's one example of going the extra mile. And -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, can I expand on that little story just a little bit? When this thing popped up, they called Janie, who was in San Angelo, Texas, and then she, in turn, called her staff here, back here in Kerrville, and her staff actually went down to Peterson Hospital and met with the family down there, too. That is way above and beyond the call of duty. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Janie and I talked about some ways to improve the services, ways to control costs, and she's got some good ideas. Some of them are not earthshaking changes, but some good ideas that have already been implemented, and I'm comfortable that we got the right person in that job. And I expect that we'll continue to get complaints. People get pretty emotional about animals, more than about any other subject. But -- and we're on the right track, and it's in good hands. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And besides that, Janie, where's your husband going? 4-11-OS 178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. ROMAN: He's leaving for Kosovo. He'll be gone -- he's leaving August 18th, and he'll be there for approximately 18 months. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She didn't say Cozumel. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't say Cozumel; she said Kosovo. Got it. JUDGE TINLEY: What unit is your husband attached to, Janie? MS. ROMAN: He was with the 249th, but he -- they just changed him to -- actually, this last weekend, he just -- they just changed him to -- I don't even know. It's -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just make up something. MS. ROMAN: He's at Camp Swift now. Through Camp Swift. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What will the salary issue be again, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 28,5. It's currently 27,5. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is what we agreed to -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 4-11-05 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- when we cut the deal. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only question I have, and going back to the bat situation -- and I'm grateful what we did, but I'm a little bit concerned about someone at the City knowing about the dispatch. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it was corrected on the other side? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a done deal. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, whoever did that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They got quite a few calls, 'cause they also got one there -- the dispatch supervisor got one from me and my department, because at first they thought it was our dispatcher that did that. And the tape was pulled, and their dispatch supervisor for 9-1-1 advised me that they had definitely addressed the situation, and that won't happen again. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did it turn out the bat was rabid or not? MS. ROMAN: No, it was not able to be tested -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. ROMAN: -- due to it being severely 9-11-05 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decomposed. But at the time, we did not know, and unless we actually -- either myself or my staff sees the bat, we can't tell whether it's able to be tested or not. But Bill Price from P.D. Dispatch did e-mail me. I sent him a -- a memo, let him know what we should or should not be called out on, because I've also had a problem with them not reporting animal bites to us, which is one of the main things that they should be calling us out on. I can honestly say I've never -- we've never -- in the 10 years I've been there almost, we've never had any problems out of -- out of the Sheriff's Office. They're great. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We'd rather them chase them animals than us. MS. ROMAN: And they know what, you know, to call us out on, and if they have a question, they call me and I'll let them know whether we can go out on that or -- or whether we will or will not go out on that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Ready to vote? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second. 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.) 9-11-05 181 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 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you for your patience and hanging around here all day, Janie. MS. ROMAN: No problem. Thank you. Thank you all. JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is -- MS. PIEPER: Excuse me, Judge. That motion did not actually appoint her. It just changed the status and the pay. JUDGE TINLEY: Change her from an interim director to permanent. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Permanent director. MS. PIEPER: Okay. I missed that, then. JUDGE TINLEY: With an increase in salary from 27,5 to 28,5. MS. PIEPER: All right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay? All right. We'll now go to Item 21, remodeling to allow access to windows currently located in the exterior wall adjacent to the County Attorney's office. Tell us what this is about. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, here's another case where Kathy has authority to tell him you're not getting on this agenda without some explanation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There you go. JUDGE TINLEY: By example. 4-11-05 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 182 MR. EMERSON: We can only assume that somewhere in the process of courthouse remodeling, the money ran out before the windows on the bottom were taken care of, 'cause everybody else's windows are boxed in. We're still sitting in the dark like mushrooms. We have windows immediately outside the walls, but no way to access them. We've had several contractors come out and look. It's a relatively simple and, comparatively speaking, inexpensive procedure to cut the masonry and box out the windows so that we actually have windows. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have to talk to Mike Walker about this. This may totally the change the design of his building. JUDGE TINLEY: Could affect the structural integrity, too. 24 .-- 25 9-11-05 MR. EMERSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd come back with a COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to be looking out on the parking lot? Is that the deal? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sunlight. MR. EMERSON: Sunlight, exactly. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: S-o-n. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to give the County Attorney some windows. 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 proposal. I mean, a definite -- what it's going to cost. I mean -- MR. EMERSON: Well, I actually think I can pull the money out of the Hot Check fund to do it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In which case -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the funniest fund I've ever seen. MR. EMERSON: Won't touch the budget for the County. And what I need is permission from the Court to pursue it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER SALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. The windows are on the outside? We can see them? MR. EMERSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just can't get to them. MR. EMERSON: There's -- the problem is, there's a 2-foot dead area between one wall and the other. We can actually go out the door from the County Attorney's office and look all up the side of the building. We can maneuver up and down the side of the building; we just can't get out. JUDGE TINLEY: A false wall. 9-11-05 .~ ~ 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE RAGSDALE: It's a real wall. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember, 'cause we had to put -- because they covered up the old building. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we weren't going to tear out the masonry on the outside. JUDGE TINLEY: 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. MR. EMERSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next time try to provide some backup, will you please? JUDGE TINLEY: The next item -- do we have anything to go into closed or executive session? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We will go out of open session at -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, when are we going to go listen to the -- 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 185 JUDGE TINLEY: We're not going to. (Discussion off the record.) (The open session was closed at 2:20 p.m., and an Executive Session was held, the transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We will come back into open session at 2:47, and we will now go to the approval agenda. First off, let me inquire, is there any action that any member of the Court wishes to offer with regard to any of the matters discussed in closed or executive session? Hearing nothing, we'll go to the approval agenda. First off, we have payment of the bills. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to pay the bills. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for payment of the bills. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one. On Commissioners -- Page 1, Commissioners Court, law offices of Charles S. somebody. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Frigerio. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. Is that -- I see. That explains it all. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: That goes to our deductible? 4-11-05 .~ ~ _ s ~~. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 186 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other 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: That motion does carry. Budget amendments. Budget Amendment Request Number 1. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for the Sheriff's Office. Actually, this -- this is an increase in the budget for $107,897.65, and it's for the proceeds of -- it's the Homeland Security proceeds. Along with that, I have late bills that -- that I want to include. One is for -- to Contech Communications, and this is for the trailer, for $76,932.65. And the other one is to Secor Fence Company for $10,586. It's for 523 feet of 8-foot fence installed at the Sheriff's Office for security. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it installed? How's it look? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Looks good. MR. TOMLINSON: And the other is to Ken Stoepel Ford for -- 4-11-05 187 1 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: That one, I'll have to change who it's made out to. MR. TOMLINSON: I don't want to do that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, let me tell you what the deal is. That's why I stood up. I want to explain this. The 76,000 and the 10,000 money has already been received by Kerr County. Evidently, TEEX is a little slow with their 20,000. The van is received. Kerr County has the van for 520,379, which is what that's for. But the way these amendments were being done, as soon as late checks -- or as soon as that money -- we thought it would be here by now. It's not here, but I don't want to keep Ken Stoepel on the line, because we have the van and they don't have their money. 'Cause all this Homeland Security is a reimbursement, which we're supposed to pay and get the money back, but since that's not here, I do have a seizure account that I was going to go ahead and take the money out of the seizure account to pay that 20,000 to Ken Stoepel so that we can pay it tomorrow, and then, when that money gets in from TEEX, to deposit it back into that seizure account. And y'all don't want to do it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see lots of heads shaking. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it's a reimbursement. I just don't know how you want to do it. I 9-11-05 188 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 don't want to pay it and it not get back in the seizure account. MR. TOMLINSON: I don't want to -- I don't want to particularly mix the money. I want the check from this money to go to Ken Stoepel Ford. .SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I agree with you, Tommy. The problem you have with that is the way all this Homeland Security money is set up, and the way it was originally agreed to -- and this is all over the state; it's not just us -- is it's a reimbursement. When you do a local purchase -- you know, most of our equipment itself is not a local purchase. It's purchased through contractors with TEEX, so we never even see the money and never change it. But when it's a local purchase, which they consider the communications trailer as a local purchase, the fence is a local purchase, and this domestic preparedness-slash-crime scene van is a local purchase. The way those are set up with TEEX is, those are reimbursements, okay? Now, no county, including Atascosa, the rest of them that got trailers -- all of us had objected with AACOG that we're not going to pay this 76,000, or all these tens of thousands of dollars out of our pocket and wait to get reimbursed. We don't have that in our budgets, 'cause it's after budget time. And, so, what we did is try and get all this sped up so that this money comes in at the right time. My only 4-11-05 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 problem is, I mean, Ken Stoepel's been working with us, but I'd just hate -- it's been two weeks now, three weeks that we have the van, and they don't have their money for that van. And I have the money in a seizure account that I can take and pay them for that van, but then I want to make sure that that Homeland Security money, which is for that van, does go back into that seizure account. That's reimbursement from the state. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's going to look bad. That's going to be hard to show the feds that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, that's what they expect. That's a reimbursement. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, but -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They reimburse. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this the same van I saw up -- parked in the parking lot up at AACOG? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, that's the trailer. This is a white, one-ton 2005 Ford utility van -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- that will be used to pull that trailer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now I see. MR. TOMLINSON: What's the prognosis on receiving the money? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That money was approved 4-11-05 190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at the same time the trailer money was approved. The trailer money was deposited last week. This money is not. I've got a call in to the gal at TEEX to find out what happened. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we approve it pending the funds coming in, so if funds come in in the next two weeks, Tommy can do a hand check. But I would agree with Tommy; I wouldn't take money from a seizure account. That doesn't look good. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I need -- you know, I'd just hate to keep one of our local people out of their money until the state or feds figure out how to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's wrong with what he's talking about, Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, you know, we're just -- I just -- with federal money, I like to keep things really clean if we can. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it's the same thing -- to me, it's the same thing. MR. TOMLINSON: We don't even have a budget on that money that he's talking about. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's another thing I was going to ask you. I couldn't find these -- these expense code accounts in the budget anywhere. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, these are brand-new. 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ! 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 191 These are new accounts. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Obviously so. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, they are. We're setting up a revenue account for -- for the proceeds, and an expense account to expend the money out of to -- to pay for this equipment. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I agree with Tommy. The problem is that I don't -- I can see the feds saying -- coming back and saying, "No, you didn't pay for a van with that." So what's the difference in paying -- you loaning them the money, and then you trying to get the feds to pay you back? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the feds expect for you to pay it up front and get reimbursed by the feds. That's the reimbursement. That's what I'm talking about. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't imagine they care where it comes from. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. And instead of going into the general fund to get the 20,300 to go ahead and pay Ken Stoepel, I'm doing it out of our seizure account to get it reimbursed instead of the general fund. However y'all would rather do it. I just don't want Ken Stoepel to have to keep hanging on, not getting their money, waiting for the feds. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have a fear, 4-11-05 ~ ~ ~. r __ .~ r .. 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 Tommy, that the feds are not going to send the money? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, no. I just -- I've just had experience with federal grants, and the cleaner you can keep it, the better off you are. But, I mean, if -- if the Court would -- would entertain a budget for that -- for that seizure money, then -- then, you know, we -- we've talked about that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. Which I think it needs to be done. MR. TOMLINSON: The thing -- the money he's talking about is proceeds from the gambling paraphernalia that was seized in -- in this bust that the Sheriff's Office made. There's -- in the law and the Code of Criminal Procedure, there's -- there's no real definition as to what -- how to handle the money. Didn't even say it's to be budgeted. But my preference and the Sheriff's preference is that the Court -- that we -- that this money is highly visible, and that we want to create a budget for those proceeds. And so, if we can create a budget for -- for this amount for those -- for those proceeds, then I'm okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What we have, gentlemen, right now is when the original seizures and all that gambling stuff occurred, the cash that was seized and anything we had at that time, I opened up a savings account at the Security State Bank, same place the County has 4-11-u5 i .. ~ ----i- ~ 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 _. ~a theirs. And it's only a savings; it wasn't any kind of checking or anything. Now that most of those cases are done, in that account at this time there's about $133,000. Twenty thousand of that goes back to one of the gambling establishments. Another $20,000, $30,000 of that, roughly, right in there, is still tied up in court. So -- or about another $20,000. So, there's about $90,000 in there that is County money right now that has to be used for law enforcement. What we plan on doing -- and I just talked to the secretary about it, is we're going to transfer that that's already seized and is the County's money over to a checking account in there so you can create your line item for it, and then the money that's still pending will stay in there, or the money that has to be returned pending on it. And that -- there's also another 65 gambling machines that will be sold out of that, which will bring in another $30,000 or so, probably. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, when you say create a budget, are you talking about just a line item? MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or are you talking about -- MR. TOMLINSON: Set up a line item to -- to authorize an expenditure of these funds. I mean, I don't think -- the law doesn't require it for -- for the Court to ~-ii-os r 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 do that, that I -- that I can read. I don't read that into it. But it's the Sheriff's preference that you do it, and so -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You set these up. Why don't you just set it up and go? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I can, but I want your approval. I mean, it's -- it will increase the budget by -- the total budget by this amount, is what it'll do. So I just -- you know, I want you to know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're doing it -- I mean, but this 107,000, that's Homeland Security money. Then there's seizure money. There's two different items. MR. TOMLINSON: I have two different things. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two different things, yes. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what do we need a motion to do first? MR. TOMLINSON: Let's do the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Homeland Security? MR. TOMLINSON: -- Homeland Security first. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. That's to expand the budget? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 4-11-05 r r __ 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: And Ken Stoepel Ford was $20,379? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. We pull that and pay it with the seizure money after we increase the budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to increase the budget $107,897; after we've done that, then we're going to transfer $20,000 from the seizure fund into this fund, correct? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we can do it that way. Yeah, let's -- I think that -- that may be the best way to do it. Go ahead and approve the payment out of this fund, and we'll do a -- we'll transfer the cash from his account into this one. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then we transfer it back when the funds come in. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. That's -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I made the motion to approve this thing right here. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And issue the hand check? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And issue a hand check. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do I have a second to 4-11-05 196 2 .~. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 I that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, I seconded it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have a motion and second to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1, and issue late bills and hand checks to Contech Communication, $76,932.65; Secor Fence Company, $10,586; Ken Stoepel Ford for $20,379. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (Commissioners Williams, Letz, and Nicholson voted in favor of the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You made the motion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know, but I -- I thought that Ken Stoepel's money was -- was pulled out of there. That's going to be a separate -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What I'm going to do, Buster, is I'm going to give him the Ken Stoepel money. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see it. I see what you're saying. JUDGE TINLEY: Show you as voting in favor of the motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, please. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, this is exciting. 24 25 4-11-OS 197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just real quick, this seizure account, it will be handled the same way as our equipment fund account now, which is part of the seizure where we do have a -- a checking ability, where my secretary can write those checks out of there. But we'll always keep the Court, and have to keep Tommy informed on what we spend. Because there is 9,000-something that we will be spending for spike strips for all the cars. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about my chair? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. I will bring you a chair that was seized from Jokers Wild, that we are now owners of 26 chairs. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Y'all do know that Jokers Wild was in that building that we're thinking about leasing? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we'd have confiscated the building too, we wouldn't have a problem. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It came very close to that, sir, 'cause I had given the owner a warning about it. He let them reoperate. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now we need to authorize somebody to transfer Rusty's money so it's a done deal. JUDGE TINLEY: He's got control over those 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 198 funds, and they can transfer 20,000-plus. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exciting. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Budget Amendment Request Number 2. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is a request from the County Clerk to transfer $39.29 for election supplies out of -- out of the Elections Expense budget into County Clerk's budget. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. 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. Budget Amendment Request Number 3.. MR. TOMLINSON: This is for Nondepartmental, to transfer $606.36 from Unemployment Insurance to Mainframe Maintenance for the third and fourth quarters of this year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 199 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why do we have such a large unexpended balance in TAC Unemployment Insurance? MR. TOMLINSON: Our -- our unemployment rate really improved this year. So, we -- we budgeted based on history, and it appears that -- that based on the first two quarters, that we're in real good shape as far as that line item. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But something could happen. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it could, but -- but -- 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. Budget Amendment Request Number 4. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is for the 216th District Court. The request is to transfer $18.15 from Special Trials to Court Transcripts. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 4-11-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 200 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 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. Budget Amendment Request Number 5. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is for the Commissioners Court. We need to transfer $275 from Books, Publications, and Dues to the Center Point Utilities line item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This came about because Judge Wright left out the 50 percent she'd been paying off of her budget, and we didn't pick up on it at budget time to pay the whole thing. Just like the shortfall with the copy machine, same principle. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who signed this thing as breaking our budget down here? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I did. Move approval. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 5. Any question 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~. 25 201 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. Budget Amendment Request Number 6. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is to -- is a budget amendment actually to increase the budget for Fund 10, to come from Reserves, to repair the fire alarm system. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Repair the fire -- MR. TOMLINSON: Alarm system. We had to replace the computer in that system. And I've looked everywhere I can think of to find the money to not increase the budget, but without going into someone else's -- some other department's budget, it's just not there. So, that's my recommendation. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In my pea brain, I can sure see how this could be an emergency. MR. TOMLINSON: Definitely. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. This works. Some things we do bust the budget on doesn't work, in my brains, but this does. So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 4-il-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 202 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Declare an emergency. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to declare an emergency and approve Budget Amendment Request Number 6. 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: This motion does carry. Do we have any late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: No. JUDGE TINLEY: I have before me monthly reports presented by the Sheriff's Office, Constable Precinct Number 1, County Clerk, Justice of the Peace Precinct Number 1, Constable Precinct Number 4, Kerr County Juvenile Facility, Environmental Health, District Clerk, Victims' Rights -- Victims' Rights programs from the County Attorney's office, County Attorney, Road and Bridge. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as presented? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the named reports as presented. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 203 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we have any reports from any of the Commissioners on their committee or liaison assignments? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not here. Nothing here. JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any reports from elected officials or department heads? Hearing none -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice try. JUDGE TINLEY: Any reports from boards, commissions, committees? Would you like to give us another report on City/County projects, Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, the press is not in here. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Do we have anything further? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. What happened to our -- to this? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. JUDGE TINLEY: Those -- I'm advised that the vendor -- when it was indicated to the vendor, when we broke for lunch, that we'd be coming back at 1:30, the vendor advised the Clerk that they had commitments elsewhere and 4-11-05 204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-, 25 had to go. The Clerk said that they didn't mention that time constraint at the time that they originally made -- made a commitment to come here. MS. PIEPER: Well, I'm going to put it back on for the next agenda. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I was afraid of. MS. PIEPER: We'll have it for a specific time. That way, if they have to leave -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't need to retype it. We'll keep it -- I'll keep mine, anyway. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's talk about this for a second. How -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: About keeping this? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. Did you say that this is going to be a one-hour presentation? MS. PIEPER: I don't think it will take that long, not unless you have a ton of questions. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have zero questions. But, you know, if we -- if we were going to -- it just seems to me this is kind of more of a workshop type issue, to where we have a company -- this company, and maybe the other -- no, that's right, you eliminated all of them, didn't you? 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,._„ 2 4 25 205 MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it just seems like a workshop type thing, to where we're not -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rushed. MS. PIEPER: Well, when you see the bottom line figure of how much the County's going to spend, I thought you would at least like to see what we may buy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we'd like to see it. I think the question is whether we want to see it in a workshop or see it in a meeting. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just don't know -- like, a full hour presentation doesn't seem to me like a Commissioners Court agenda item issue. That's -- to me -- and, you know, I could be wrong. Y'all can tell me go to hell if you want to, but it seems to me -- no, you hold it till I get through. It seems to me that it's kind of a workshop type thing, to where we can have some real back-and-forth and have a visit. MS. PIEPER: We can do a workshop. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do something else. We have some other workshops that are kind of floating out there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, we got all kinds of things. JUDGE TINLEY: Set it up with the Ag Barn 9-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 206 workshop? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be a lively -- MS. PIEPER: We need to set something in stone. Otherwise -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You want to be in on that. Won't be able to vote, though. MS. PIEPER: We need to set something -- a date in stone or something. Otherwise, it's just going to get pushed aside. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we pick -- next week on, I'm pretty much gone. Pretty much gone most weeks the same, but the following week, why don't we pick a date and do your part first? We can schedule something else that same day. If not, we'll just do this. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we put your subdivision regs on there too? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty good chance. We're getting about to that point. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What date are we talking about? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I've got a Region J meeting all day Monday, and then I'm out of town Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. 4-11-05 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 25 207 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's this next week? COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that following week, which is -- we have Commissioners Court Monday. We can do it Tuesday. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't have Commissioners Court next Monday. COMMISSIONER LETZ: A week from Monday. MS. PIEPER: May 9th. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 25th. JUDGE TINLEY: Tuesday afternoon, a week from tomorrow, what's the HAVA meeting with the Secretary of State? Do you know? MS. PIEPER: What's what, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: There's a HAVA meeting that I'm showing with the Secretary of State Tuesday afternoon, a week from tomorrow. MS. PIEPER: Right. That's on the 19th, and I'm not real sure why. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have e-mails all over and fliers all over, plastered all over. MS. PIEPER: Right. They are asking for this meeting with the Judge and Commissioners, and then I received a phone call message sometime this morning requesting a room large enough that they can invite other counties to join in. 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,.~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 208 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're going to tell us about how much money we're going to get? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it's just a public relations dog-and-pony show. MS. PIEPER: Evidently -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What time is that? JUDGE TINLEY: 3:30. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we do it -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jonathan, one other thing that we have coming up that you may want -- if she's going to do it as a workshop or demonstration, is that Guardian Security -- Judge, remember, y'all met with him, I think, out there in Odessa also, or saw him out there at one of those. He's going to be up here around the 29th or so. 'Cause I want them to show me some other security issues in the courthouse, and that alarm system, and possibly some camera system, if we want to set up something at the same time. You may not be interested in seeing it. He was originally just going to show it to me so I can start looking at it for budget time, but if we could do a workshop, you could see his demonstration on that. You may want to do it at the same time, and get it all -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could do next Tuesday at 2:30, and then the HAVA meeting's at 3:30. That would give us an hour. 4-11-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 209 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you talking about with the Hart people? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course, that's subject to their availability, of course. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. It can be any time. If I'm not here -- JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to have a trainload of HAVA people meeting here at 3:30, and we -- and a lot of other counties participating, if the Hart people are aware of that, I think they -- they'd look for any opportunity to be here on that date, I would think. I mean, it would be kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, wouldn't it? MS. PIEPER: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hey, we could rent space, let people have booths. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, man. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Coca-Cola. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Raise money for Commissioners Court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about a week from tomorrow at 2 o'clock or 2:30, somewhere around there? 2 o'clock? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, about 2 o'clock on 4-11-05 210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Tuesday, the 19th, probably. Okay. What else we got? Anything? Hearing nothing else, we'll stand adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:12 p.m.) STATE OF TEXAS I COUNTY OF KERR I The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 18th day of April, 2005. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY: __ __ _ ____` _ _____________ Kathy B n k, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 4-11-OS COURT ORDER 29119 Court House Display Came to be heard this the l lt'' day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to grant permission to display a Children's Art Project in the Lobby of the Court House the week of April 18th, 2005. COURT ORDER 29120 PROCLAMATION SOIL AND WATER STEWARDSHIP WEEK Came to be heard this the 11~' day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 declaring the Soil and Water Stewardship Proclamation for Aril 24-May 1, 2005 and authorize the County Judge to sign. COURT ORDER 29121 FNAL PLAT OF AUDUBON PLACE Came to be heard this the l la' day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the final plat of Audubon Place, Pct. 4 COURT ORDER N0.29122 FIRST RESPONDERS Came to be heard this the l lth day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the funding for the 1St Responders C. E. plan as presented. COURT ORDER 29123 EARTH DAY Came to be heard this the 11 ~' day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to declare Apri123, 2005 as Earth day in Kerr County. COURT ORDER 29124 KERR COUNTY CHILD WELFARE BOARD Came to be heard this the 11 ~' day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the appointment of Ambra Freeman and Pam Peter to the Kerr County Child Welfare Board. COURT ORDER 29125 KERR COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER MEDICAL HEALTH SERVICES Came to be heard this the 11 `~` day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the medical health services for the Nurse and Doctor's contract as provided by the County Attorney. COURT ORDER 29126 AGENDA REQUEST RULES FOR COMMISSIONERS COURT Came to be heard this the 11~' day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the Agenda Request Rules for Commissioners' Court adding Number 7, which says, "The Court Coordinator/Administrative Assistant has the authority to reject agenda requests if the above rules have not been followed." COURT ORDER 29127 JOINT AIRPORT BOARD MEMBER Came to be heard this the 11 ~' day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to appoint Commissioner Letz fora 2-year term on the Joint Airport Board effective June 1, 2005. ORDER N0.29128 RABIES AND ANIMAL CONTROL MANAGER Came to be heard this the 11~` day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to change the status of Janie Roman from temporary to permanent manager and change the salary to $27,500 to $28,500 per year and change the status of interim to full time. ORDER N0.29129 COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE Came to be heazd this the l la` day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the remodeling to allow access to windows currently located in the exterior wall adjacent to the County Attorneys office with the funding to come from the hot check funds. ORDER N0.29130 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS On this the 11th day of April 2005, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: Expenses Amount 10-General $185,095.85 14-Fire Protection 10,416.67 15-Road & Bridge 10,074.31 18-Law Library 2,475.00 19-Public Library 26,944.08 50-Indigent Health Care 75,042.09 70-Permanent Improvement 8,485.00 76-Juvenile Detention Center 7,087.29 80-Historical Commission 5.25 Total Cash required for all Funds $325,625.54 Upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts. COURT ORDER 29131 BUDGET AMENDMENT SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Came to be heard this the 11th day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes, and issue 3 hand checks one to Secor Fence Company for $10,586.00 and one Ken Stopel Ford for $20,379.00 and the third check to Comtex Communication for $76,932.65. Expense Code Description Amount Requested Increasel()Decrease 10-560-491 Homeland Security $107,897.65 10-370-640 TEEX Homeland Security $107,897.65 Proceeds ORDER N0.29132 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY CLERK Came to be heard this the 11th day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Amount Requested Increase/()Decrease 10-403-456 Repairs & Maintenance $39.29 10-402-330 Election Supplies ($39.29) ORDER N0.29133 BUDGET AMENDMENT NON DEPARTMENTAL Came to be heard this the 11~' day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Amount Requested Increase/QDecrease 10-409-564 Mainframe maintenance $606.36 10-409-207 TAC unemployment Ins. ($606.36) COURT ORDER N0.29134 BUDGMENT AMENDMENT 216TH DISTRICT COURT Came to be heard this the 11~' day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Amount Requested Increase/()Decrease 10-435-497 Court Transcripts $18.15 10-435-417 Special Trials ($18.15) COURT ORDER N0.29135 BUDGET AMENDMENT COMMISSIONERS' COURT Came to be heard this the 11~' day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Amount Requested Increase/()Decrease 10-401-441 C.P. Utilities(Telephone $275.00 10-401-315 Books-Publications-Dues ($275.00) :' COURT ORDER N0.29136 BUDGET AMENDMENT COURTHOUSE ~ RELATED BLDGS. Came to be heard this the l lth day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner l~aldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to declare an emergency and transfer the following expense codes from fund #10 Surplus Reserves. Expense Code Description Amount Requested Increase/()Decrease 10.510-550 Major Repairs $3,960.53 COURT ORDER N0.29137 MONTHLY REPORTS Came to be heard this the 11~' day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz; the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports: Sheriff Constable Pct. #1 & #4 County Clerk Justice of the Peace # 1 Kerr County Juvenile Center Environmental Health District Clerk County Attorney -Victim Rights Program County Attorney Department Report Road and Bridge