1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Monday, April 25, 2005 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas ~i PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X April 25, 2005 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments .......................... 4 1.1 Approve Proclamation for National Day of Prayer..~~~~~' 13 1.2 Consider rental of Kerr County Outdoor Arena, role of Kerr County Extension Office and employees, and follow up on questions asked at Commissioners Court.. 15 1.3 General discussion on HCYEC management, policy and deficit .............................................. 31 1.6 Receive/Open Bids on Kerrville South Wastewater project .............................................. 53 1.4 Consider options for housing the West Kerr Annex..... 54 1.5 Approve renewal agreement with National School Lunch Program through Texas Health & Human Servic s ~i~ ~ ... and authorize County Judge to sign same.....: 55 1.7 Consider a request by Hill Country District Junior Livestock Show to place steel container storage unit . yJ` ~~ 57 . .. on grounds of HCYEC ........................ 1.8 Progress report detailing activities relating to development of a wastewater collection system for Center Point ................................... ... ~ ~iy~ 60 74 1.9 . ... Consider grant proposal by Texas DPS......... 1.10 Consider Kerr County Nuisance Abatement Program :~.`~~y'~ 81 1.11 Discuss organization and oversight of all depart- ~~~N ' ~93 Court ments that report directly to Commissioners 1.12 Consider Subdivision Rules and Regulations........... 97 1.13 Discuss soliciting private bids for EMS service in Kerr County ...................................... 107 1.14 Consider changes in Unemployment Fund's bylaws and approval of updated Participation Agreement for ~~IUS~ TAC Unemployment Compensation Group Account Fund.`... 114 1.15 Approval of the Papcon software contract used in ~~3l~/S- association with hot checks collection department 116 1.16 ~79/S/ Discuss judiciary guns in the courthouse............ 1.17 Consider Road & Bridge organization and personnel... 118 & 134 1 4 Pay Bills .................. ................ :~ C~/~~F'.. 120 . 2 4 Budget Amendments .......... ........a~'~~.'~~"`.fc~~~`t!~~ • 120 . 4.3 Late Bills ................. .........~,`.~/~ 9--......... 129 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports.: ~~~~............ 130 3.1 Action taken on executive session matters........... 131 1.18 Road and Bridge & Subdivision Rules Workshop........ 134 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison/Committees....... 188 --- Adjourned ........................................... 198 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled for this time and date, Monday, April the 25th, 2005, at 9 a.m. It is that time now. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would everyone please stand and join me in a moment of prayer followed by the pledge? (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there is any member of the audience or the public that wishes to be heard on a matter that is not a listed agenda item, you're privileged and free to come forward at this time to tell us what's on your mind. If you want to speak on an agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a participation form; there are forms at the back of the room. It's not absolutely essential. It helps me, however, so that I don't overlook you when that agenda item comes up, that -- that I'm sure to include you. But if there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter 4-25-05 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that is not a listed agenda item, please come forward at this time. We'll be happy to listen to you. Seeing no one coming forward, we will move on. Commissioner Letz, what do you have for us this morning? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just thankful that my family's healthy for the first time, it seems like, in months. (Laughter.) It's been a long spring. So, anyway, I don't really have anything else. I'm just -- I was supposed to be out of town; I don't know if everyone knew it or not. I was supposed to be out of town most of last week in Virginia for my 30th high school reunion, and I had to cancel 'cause I came down with the flu Tuesday night. But that's over and I feel much better, and ready to get going. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, all is well in west Kerr County. That's all I've got to report. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I've got a couple items I want to talk about. One is, I see that we've written another letter to the City in regards to the meetings that we need to have for the budget issues. We have an item on the agenda in here regarding ambulances later on, and I might have -- should have saved my comments till that point. But I think it -- not only do we need to 4-25-05 5 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 sit down and visit with them about it; I really would like to see their proposed numbers sent over here prior to the meeting so that we can do some research and thoughts and -- and be prepared to carry on somewhat of an intelligent conversation. I -- that would probably really muddy up the water if we sent them another letter, but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A response came from them. Did you see it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a response that came in from them. Did you see it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The letter that we sent this morning? (Commissioner Williams nodded.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's pretty gosh-darn quick, I'll tell you. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just came in. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I haven't seen it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But that's great. I'd still like to have the numbers, what they propose that they want from us. Item two is, I have in my hand a copy of the Juvenile Board meeting minutes, and there are several things in here that bother me. One is almost alarming to me, and that's the one that I want to -- that I want to bring up 4-25-05 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 this morning. And I'll be as brief as I possibly can, but I want to read some of the comments that were made in the Juvenile Board meeting. This is Judge Ables: "But if we know what Becky's doing, and it turns out that something goes south, and there's a huge incident, the fact that we knew about it puts us in maybe a role of getting sued." Drop down a few lines, and he continues: "But I just can't believe that we've managed to go as many years as we did and didn't get sued on this stuff." And we drop down a few more lines, and Judge Ables again: "Commissioners may get sued." Judge Prohl says, "And Commissioners are the overseers from above," which is real cute. Judge Ables says, "You know, that's one of the things that -- that probably -- I don't know if Bill and Jonathan" -- meaning the two Commissioners -- "those guys know that the more they micromanage the facility, the more they want to find out about what's going on, and the more they want to go back and say, you know, 'Let's tweak it this way,' the better the case is against them for getting sued. I mean, does -- has anybody explained that to them?" Judge Tinley says, "I gather you haven't." Judge Ables says, "I haven't." Prohl: "I haven't." Judge Tinley: "I haven't." Judge Prohl: "Probably don't intend to." And it goes on to some other things. Now, what bothers me is that the previous 4-25-05 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 administration, the Juvenile Board, ran that facility out there, and it ended up -- in my opinion, the lack of oversight and the lack of management, it ended up ruining the County's credit. It's cost us, the taxpayers of this county, a lot of money, probably $3 million. And now they're saying if you manage it, then you're going to get sued. Well, that's all well and good, but my problem with all that is, somebody needs to come in this courtroom and tell this Court about this being sued stuff. I don't know if it's the County Attorney. Obviously, Judge Prohl's not going to do it. He doesn't want to do that. But you, Judge, or someone needs to tell us. I think that is very serious language, in my opinion. If -- if this County's going to get sued and it's going to be another cost to the taxpayers, then we need to know about it. We need to know what that's about, because we're trying to manage -- and I don't think there's any micromanaging going on. Should be, but we do not do that. But because we're representing the people and managing -- trying to manage that facility out there, we're going to get sued, and I think that this Court needs to know about it. I want to make an agenda item next meeting, and somebody -- whoever's responsible for coming in and briefing the Court on this suit stuff, I'd like to see that get done. That's all. Have a nice day. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've been following 4-25-05 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with interest the vagaries -- for lack of a better word, the vagaries of the Texas Legislature as it applies to tax caps and -- and appraisal caps and the net effect on county government. I suspect most of my colleagues have done the same thing. Recently, the House Bi11 1006 by Representative Carl Isett, Republican, of Lubbock has been the focus of most of our attentions. And the bill has been in and out of committee, and it has gone before and gone back. It's been amended, it's been checked, it's been tried to be gutted. Its been added to and taken away from, and the net result is that it still hasn't gone away, and it's probably not going to go away, because there seems to be sufficient support in the Texas Legislature to put a cap on what city governments and county governments have the authority to spend on services that they're required by law to provide, most of which in recent years have been mandated by the Texas Legislature without any form of compensation coming down from Austin. Recently, Judge Tinley sent out the budget requests, and all departments now have them in their hands, including those that go to Commissioners Court, and it just prompts me to say to anyone who wants to listen, this is going to be a very, very difficult budget year. It's going to be very hard for county government to put together what it needs to put together on the revenues it has available to 4-~5-05 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~.- 2 4 25 provide the services that are required of it currently, not the least of which in addition to what is going to be requested of us to go forward. So, my admonition to elected officials and department heads and anyone who chooses to listen prior to the budget process is, you'd wetter get your pencils sharp. It's going to have to be trimmed down into a very lean and mean -- lean operation going forward, because the dollars are obviously not going to be there. We're going to face the impact of the tax freeze that was imposed in Kerr County for 65-plus and disabled. We're going to face a cap of some kind on revenues, which is going to force back -- force rollbacks more easily than ever before. And what's so troubling about all that is that Kerr County, along with many other counties our size, have never been guilty of -- of excessive spending with respect to new dollars coming in, forcing rollback elections. We have judiciously tried to avoid that. So, all I want to do is to send out a little bit of warning; it's going to be a tough year, and there are going to be cuts. There's probably going to be some personnel reductions, as far as I can tell, and folks better get ready for it. That's all I got, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, thank you. With regard to the detention facility, certainly, if there are some legalities about being sued or not being sued to which the Commissioners Court might be a party or to which 9-2s-os 10 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 Commissioners need to be aware of any exposure that they have, that's a matter, of course, for the County Attorney to research and to advise the Court. I've been reminded time and time again that it's not my function to provide legal advice to the Court -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who said that? JUDGE TINLEY: -- or to any members of the Court. Well, one or two might have said that on one or two occasions. But having heard a comment about -- about, quote, "ruining the County's credit" and "cost us a lot of money," all I can do is say, where were we before and where are we now? Well, before we were looking at, over a course of time, amortizing 4 million -- a balance of $4,975,000 in bonds at a true interest cost of slightly over 5.15 percent, and where we are now is we exchanged that position for one in which -- that was initiated, incidentally, by the nonappropriation by the Juvenile Board, and as a result, our position was exchanged for one in which we acquired those bonds for 1.9 million, and the true interest cost is just under 3 percent. Those are the facts from our financial adviser, and it occurs to me that our position has improved and our debt service cost has gone down. Now, notwithstanding that, I recognize that we're going to have to take a hard look at the costs to operate that facility, and I recognize that we had a pretty good run for a goodly 4-25-OS 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .-- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 number of years when that facility wasn't even on the radar screen because it wasn't costing us a dime, and so nobody cared. But times have changed, circumstances have changed, and that thing is costing some money. And it's something that -- that we need to be mindful of, and we've got to budget for and provide for those costs. I'm hopeful that those costs can slowly continue to be offset by revenues. Time will tell. Ms. Harris is working very, very hard to get the census up, to initiate new programs, and with the cooperation of the Court, to get that facility where it offers a broad range of -- of detention/rehabilitation programs. So, I'm hopeful that we'll get there. Let's move on to the agenda, if we might. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can I make a comment? I mean, one's to your comment, which I hope you're not saying that it's a good thing that the County and the Juvenile Board defaulted on bonds and stuck people with about $3 million worth of loss that had invested in this county in that facility. I don't think that is a good thing to happen. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not saying that the County defaulted, Commissioner, because the County did not default. Notwithstanding the use of the term in two prior meetings -- I think the initial characterization was made by you; the press picked it up -- there was never, never a default in 9-25-05 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 that entire transaction. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could put a gun to the head of the investors and then tell them, "We're going to give you 30 cents on the dollar, and if you don't accept it, we're going to default." JUDGE TINLEY: We did -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same thing. JUDGE TINLEY: We did exactly what we were legally authorized to do, had every legal right to do, and the documents provided for that. And, in fact, the intent when the original -- original transaction was set up was set up in that manner. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- the term "default" shouldn't even come in here, because there was no default. You can bet, had there been default, the holders of those bonds would have had the blowtorch to our feet, and we'd have been in the courthouse. That didn't happen, of course. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- if you had talked to the banks that absorbed that loss, they would have a little bit different view than you're presenting right now to the public. My other comment is, the County Attorney is here, and Commissioner Baldwin says he's going to put it on the agenda related to what they said. To me, the issue is, is this Commissioners Court in a 9-25-05 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 better legal position not knowing what our departments are doing and let them just run and put our heads in the sand, or trying to know what they're doing? That's the crux of what Commissioner Baldwin is saying, in my opinion. I don't think it relates only to the Juvenile Board; it relates to the -- you know, the Sheriff's Department; it relates to Maintenance and every other department. Is -- is knowledge better, or is lack of knowledge better? And I -- I can't imagine that it's lack of knowledge. But that's, to me, what the crux of the issue is that I think we need guidance on. JUDGE TINLEY: That's for the County Attorney. Things kinder and gentler. Item Number 1, consider and discuss the approval of a proclamation for the National Day of Prayer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we need it. (Laughter.) JUDGE TINLEY: I was asked to put this on the agenda by Partners in Ministry, who have -- who have assumed this program from Clergywomen. As you might recall, Ms. Fern Lancaster has -- has taken on other things, and the Partners in Ministry have asked me to present this to the Court. As the Court's aware, this has been done for the last several years, and there have been various celebrations or -- or meetings held with regard to this. 9-~5-05 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the proclamation. COMMISSIONER. BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I just want to comment. I think that this particular day, which is May 5, isn't it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: May 5. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May 5 begins with the Mayor's breakfast over at Trinity Baptist, and then there's a couple of functions throughout the day. I think there's two functions here at the courthouse, and there's folks that read letters and proclamations from the President, the Governor, et cetera, et cetera. So, it's a fun thing; it's a good thing. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. The next item on the agenda is a timed item, and we're close to being on schedule, dealing with the rental of the Kerr 4-25-OS 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 County Outdoor Arena, role of the Kerr County Extension Office and employees, and follow up on questions asked at the Commissioners Court meeting of March the 28th and April the 11th of this year. Commissioner Nicholson was the moving force to get this placed on the agenda, and so I'll defer to him. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, Teri Hawkins is -- and/or Tim Cowden has provided a good bit of backup, some of which you've seen before, and I think some -- some is new. And it's essentially questions about policy, process, procedures on use of Kerr County facilities, and questions about how those policies may have been established. It's a series of questions, and I can't answer the questions. Or I would -- I can answer one or two of them, but most of them I don't have the answer to, and I'm interested in the answers. We might learn something from it; I'm not sure. The -- I think the people who can answer them are Glenn Holekamp and Roy Walston, the people who manage the process, and so I'm going to propose that Glenn and Roy prepare answers to the questions that have been raised by Ms. Hawkins and Mr. Cowden. And, Ms. Hawkins, if you would like to say more about this, you're welcome to at this time. MS. HAWKINS: Well, I just want some answers. And I've been here -- this is my third time, and I'm getting 4-25-05 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 to where I'm starting to figure out how to -- what y'all's procedures are, and getting on the agenda and that kind of thing. I just need some answers to my questions that I've submitted in the past. And if you're telling me that I need to get with Mr. Holekamp and Mr. Walston, I mean, if that's what I need to do and set them down -- do they make the county policy on -- to answer all these questions? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I'm saying, Ms. Hawkins, is they're the people that can provide the answers. MS. HAWKINS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Again, I know the answers to one or two of your questions, but I don't know the answers to all of them. So, what I'm suggesting is that those two people prepare answers to your questions and give that to you and to the Commissioners court. MS. HAWKINS: So you give them copies of everything I've given to you, and then they will prepare answers for me? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If they agree to, yes. MS. HAWKINS: Okay. Without -- okay. So, as of today, I'm not going to get an answer if Mr. Cowden and Mr. Hawkins are going to be able to have two dates in the outdoor facility? 4-25-05 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 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's one of the questions I'd like for them to answer. MS. HAWKINS: Okay. When? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As soon as they can. MS. HAWKINS: I mean, we're not looking at another month, are we? Or COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think they could -- they know the answers. They should -- MS. HAWKINS: Well, so far, every answer they`ve given me is no. That's been the answers. No. But there's no policy stating this, that we cannot get that outdoor facility. It's been leased in the past. I was given all of the information. I was given prices. My dates were okayed. My insurance amount was given to me. Everything was given to me, and then they were -- I was told no. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think -- MS. HAWKINS: And that's my -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I can answer that question right now. MS. HAWKTNS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Holekamp or Mr. Walston? MS. HAWKINS: Do I need to sit back down? I don't know what the procedure is. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're all right. 4-25-G5 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 MR. WALSTON: As far as from visiting with our 4-H leaders, the 4-H arena is off-limits to leasing. MS. HAWKINS: And who -- who authorizes the 4-H leaders? Is this -- is the outdoor arena -- is that a County-maintained facility? Who pays the maintenance on that outdoor arena? Who pays electric? Who pays the water? MR. WALSTON: The County maintains the cost of the outdoor arena. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think people need to come up so we can hear what's going on, please. MR. WALSTON: Okay. MS. HAWKINS: I'll share. MR. WALSTON: Yes. The outdoor arena is -- was a 4-H facility. It's maintained by the -- by the County, just like all the grounds. My Extension Office and -- and the whole grounds out there is maintained by the County. And having visited with the leaders and trying to build our 4-H horse program there, they're wanting to restrict the 4-H arena strictly to the horse project group. So that was -- that was decided by -- by those leaders. MS. HAWKINS: By volunteer county leaders that were called and summonsed down there to sign a letter that you submitted on the 28th, that was signed on the 25th. MR. WALSTON: We visited with them before, and then we -- 4-25-05 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...-~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~'- 2 4 25 MS. HAWKINS: They were summonsed down there to sign the letter. No vote was done. Y'all didn't have a 4-H meeting or anything else. MR. WALSTON: Yes, we visited with our leaders in that, and they agreed to, and I put the letter together and asked them, if y'all would qo along with this, if this is something that y'all agree to, come in and sign. If not, don't sign it. I didn't -- I didn't say that they had to sign it. So -- MS. HAWKINS: That's not what I heard, but -- MR. WALSTON: But -- MS. HAWKINS: So, it's being a County-maintained facility that county tax dollars are paying for and maintaining, in addition to the County employees that work out there that our tax dollars pay their salaries, and the Extension Office and everything else, we are not going to be allowed to go down there on a date that's not conflicting with the 4-H in any way. I have a very good rapport with the 4-H Horse Club adult leaders, and they have told me they don't have a problem with us leasing it. We have already said, you know, that -- MR. WALSTON: Well, they've told me otherwise. I mean -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Hawkins, help me out a little bit. 9-25-05 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 MS. HAWKINS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what purpose are you trying to -- what is your group, and what purpose are you trying to lease the outdoor arena? Help me understand that. MS. HAWKINS: to put on two team ropings. COMMISSIONER MS. HAWKINS: Cowden and Jerry Hawkins. JUDGE TINLEY Okay. We had called out there WILLIAMS: Who is "we"? I had called on behalf of Tim What's the name of your organization? MS. HAWKINS: CowHawk Team Roping Productions. And they had asked me to call and to see if we could get the dates out there, two dates. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a profit-making organization? Not-for-profit? What particular -- MS. HAWKINS: It is a profit-making organization. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. MS. HAWKINS: Okay. And we had called out there, and they had said that, yes, you can have your dates. I talked to Jamie. I talked to Laurinda about some other things on the concession stand and the permits, and I was given insurance information. I was given all this 4-25-05 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 information, and everything was okay March the 1st. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you ever used the outdoor arena -- MS. HAWKINS: Yes, sir, I have. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for this purpose before? MS. HAWKINS: Yes, sir, I have, 1987. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you pay rent for it? MS. HAWKINS: Paid rent for it, and I know several other organizations that's paid rent for it in the past as well. Mr. Cowden himself has even rented it. I can go on. I've got team pinners, I've got cutters, I've got other team roping organizations; they've all leased that county outdoor facility. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And this time you were told -- MS. HAWKINS: I was told no after -- two weeks after we had been told that we could have it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the last time -- when was the last time you rented the arena -- outdoor arena? MS. HAWKINS: It was in 1987. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '87? MS. HAWKINS: Yes, sir. And it was a 4-25-05 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 22 County-maintained facility, as it is now, and I'm not understanding what the deal is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 18 years ago. MS. HAWKINS: It doesn't matter. It does not matter. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me just make a comment, if I might. This Court has had a policy that that facility, as a priority, is to 4-H. MS. HAWKINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's where we are. MS. HAWKINS: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's where we are right now, and we're going to maintain that, I believe. MS. HAWKINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have asked and others have asked, and the Court agrees that we're going to look at the policies over there, and this is one of them. This is going to come back to the Court with a recommendation -- with, you know, a recommendation from -- from me; I'm not sure about Commissioner Williams, over how we handle renting of that facility. You've been told that for three meetings now. MS. HAWKINS: Yes -- no, I haven't been told anything. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, you have. You've 4-~5-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 23 been told that there's -- we're going to form a committee, we're going to develop a policy. It will be sent out to everyone that wants it, and we'll get feedback. Every meeting you come back and ask the same thing. MS. HAWKINS: Yes, sir, because you're not answering my questions. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, because we -- you haven't given us a chance to do what you asked us to do. And, you know, I'm not going to get -- go into a lot of these things. I will say one thing, and I have refrained for the last two meetings. Your first meeting, you made a lot of accusations about myself. MS. HAWKINS: No, I did not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, you did. In your backup, you said -- MS. HAWKINS: Mr. Walston -- JUDGE TINLEY: You said -- listen -- (Both speaking at the same time.) JUDGE TINLEY: One at a time. (Court reporter interrupted, asked them to speak one at a time.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said in your backup that I had an illegal meeting with another commissioner and Roy Walston. That is a false statement. It is a flat-out lie. 4-25-05 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 MS. HAWKINS: I didn't say illegal. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, you did. You said there was an illegal meeting in your backup. There was no illegal meeting. I talked to Roy Walston one-on-one about the use of that facility, as liaison to that facility. And Roy Walston talked to Commissioner Baldwin on the phone. That is not an illegal meeting. You are making things and statements that are not true. MS. HAWKINS: No, sir, I will tell you who stated that to me. Would you like for me to do that? I was trying to keep names out of the Commissioners Court that day, and I did. I received a phone call from Laurinda Boyd, and she told me that the County Extension Agent, herself, and two Commissioners had met, discussed, and voted on and put that policy into effect. I wrote it down as she said it. I have it documented, the date, the time, everything that was said. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Boyd, did you say that? (Ms. Boyd shook her head.) MS. HAWKINS: Yes, you did. MS. BOYD: I was in Houston, Texas, in the middle of a thing on the cell phone. We'd been back and forth on the phone. MS. HAWKINS: That is absolutely -- 4-25-05 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 25 MS. BOYD: I know what I had said, because -- MS. HAWKINS: It is absolutely what you said. MS. BOYD: Excuse me, I'm talking. I said that Jonathan had come into the office, and that Roy had talked to -- yes, ma'am, I did. And he had talked to him on the phone. I most certainly did, because I know that they never sat together in the office. MR. WALSTON: I had visited with both of them. MS. BOYD: And I spoke to Roy right after we had our conversation on the phone. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me -- let me -- Ms. Hawkins, let me shed a little light on that. There are two Commissioners appointed by this Court to work on the problems associated with the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, both indoor and outdoor arenas and everything out there on that 65-acre plot of ground. Commissioner Letz is one of them, and I'm the other one. Commissioner Letz had some telephone -- or had a discussion, but there has never been a meeting, as he has said, in which two commissioners got together to plot against your interests. MS. HAWKINS: And I respect that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did not happen. MS. HAWKINS: I respect that. That is not what was told to me on the day that I received a phone call. 4-25-05 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 26 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not responsible for what was told to you. MS. HAWKINS: I understand that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But I am holding you responsible for what you put in the documents that you sent up here for us to take under consideration, and I'm looking at the language that, "How can two county commissioners meet with extension agents..." and blab, blab, blab, blab, blab. MS. HAWKINS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And write -- and allege that that constitutes an illegal meeting. MS. HAWKINS: I wanted to know how come I was told that when I was -- afterwards, when I had called my commissioner, he told me that it took three commissioners to put a policy into effect, and that two commissioners could not do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It takes a majority of this Court. MS. HAWKINS: Well, three is what was told to me. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is three. Not two plus the Extension Agent. MS. HAWKINS: Correct. And that was my question. How could they take those dates that was told to us to be available, with all the pricing and everything 9-zs-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 27 given to us, to be pulled away from us. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My suggestion, respectfully given to you MS. HAWKINS: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- is that we try to cool this thing down and wait it out, and let us get the policy drafted that we want to draft. I'm working on it, and I'm going to continue to work on it. But it may come as a surprise to some folks; it's not the most important thing on my plate. But I will work on it, and I will get the draft ready. And when I get the draft ready, it will be submitted to this Court for its review, and it will be submitted to other folks for comment. We may do the comment part before we bring it to the Court. MS. HAWKINS: Do you have any time frame? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At that point in time, all the things that you have wanted to know in your -- in your several pages will be addressed, and that's the way it's going to happen. MS. HAWKINS: Okay. Do you have a time frame on -- on the availability of the first draft? Just a ballpark figure? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As quickly as I can get it done. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe we said 9-25-05 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 originally it will be about 60 days. MS. HAWKINS: Was that 60 days, 30 days ago? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. So, we're about 30 days away. MS. HAWKINS: About 30 days away, okay. So do I need to keep coming here each time, then, until I can see a copy of the first draft? Or -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not unless you enjoy this. MS. HAWKINS: Oh, well, I'm just having a blast. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you enjoy the repartee, then be our guest and come on back. MS. HAWKINS: Okay. So, are you going to mail it? Do I need to give you my address? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When we get the draft ready -- there's four of us working on the draft. You're standing next to one of them. Two of them are up here, and Mr. Holekamp comprises the fourth of the working group that's putting together the draft. MS. HAWKINS: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I drew the short straw, and I have to write it. When I get it written, we had indicated that we will send it out to all the people who had evidenced an interest -- 4-25-05 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 29 MS. HAWKINS: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- in being a part of this broader discussion. Now, we're not going to form a committee in the broad sense of 25 or 30 people. We're going to send the drafts out and we're going to solicit -- or elicit comments, okay? MS. HAWKINS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When we get the comments back, we'll take a look at all those comments and see how they mesh with what we have drafted. If some of those changes are good and need to be incorporated, we'll certainly do that. At that point, we'll bring the document to Commissioners Court, and it will be open for discussion among this five. That's the way it's going to happen. MS. HAWKINS: Okay. So -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Hawkins, when that draft is ready, I'll make sure you get a copy. MS. HAWKINS: That's what I needed to hear. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on this particular agenda item? MR. WALSTON: Judge, I'd just like to ask, as far as -- as to the timing on this, we got this -- Glenn Holekamp and I visited during the early part of the year as to us taking over the -- the scheduling of the arena. At 4-25-05 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 30 that time, we hadn't had anybody interested. It was strictly the 4-H Horse Club was going to be using it. And this happens to be the first outside interest of anyone indicating that they were wanting to lease it. So, at that time, that's when I went to the 4-H horse leaders and asked them, "Are y'all interested in doing that?" So, that's -- that's the time frame as to why we -- as far as outside leasing prior to this, we had it where -- you know, like we say, we're changing times. The question I have is, there's out -- there's dates available on the indoor arena. And why does this group not -- are they not interested in using and scheduling those -- those weekends? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you mentioned that, because I was just going to ask that very question. Ms. Hawkins, I'm curious as to why, for your purposes, you have not tried to rent the indoor arena. MR. COWDEN: We're more interested in the outdoor arena, because it's cooler outside. It's better on your cattle. Just a little better arena, as far as I'm concerned. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, one other thing, my final comment on this right now. To my knowledge, the only time that we had a request prior to this one to use the outdoor arena, other than the Kerr County Fair, which is a 4-25-05 31 1 " 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 `~ 2 4 25 little bit different, was about six or seven years ago. Some -- a lady wanted to give private lessons out there, and we declined. So, while I've been a commissioner for the last eight years, it has not been available for leasing, you know. If you were told that, I'm sorry that our booking agent made a mistake, but it has not been available as long as I've been a commissioner, to my knowledge. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? We'll move on to the next item, -- MR. HENDERSON: Commissioner? I think I'm on the agenda. JUDGE TINLEY: -- which is a general discussion on the management, policy, and deficit. This, again, refers to the Youth Exhibit complex out there. Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is somewhat related to the previous -- previous item. Mr. Aubrey Henderson has collected some information from the County Auditor that analyzes the revenues and costs, the financial performance of the Ag Barn over the last 10 years or so. I think -- I think his issues go beyond the policy/procedures for the booking. It's got more to do with how are we -- what can be done to better manage costs and revenues. So, with that said, I'll let Mr. Henderson talk about it. MR. HENDERSON: Judge, do you mind if I stay 4-25-05 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 seated here? I can stand for a while. I have a spur on my foot. I'll try to stand for a while, okay? JUDGE TINLEY: I think everybody in the audience could hear you better. MR. HENDERSON: Okay, that's fine. That's fine. I just have -- I want to give you some stuff. That way, I don't have to come up here every time. Here, Mr. Baldwin. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Do you want to just give me all of them, and we'll pass them? MR. HENDERSON: Well, I can handle it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, he wants to hand them out. (Discussion off the record.) MR. HENDERSON: You have something at 10 o'clock, right, Judge? The next -- is that right? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, we do have a timed item. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Yes, we do. MR. HENDERSON: Since there's a little tension in the house, would it be possible to lay a little humor on us, Buster, this morning? Would it be possible? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You want me to? MR. HENDERSON: No, I was going to. You usually -- you usually do; that's why I asked you. Is it 4-25-05 33 ,~.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 possible that I do? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you what; if yours bombs out, I'll be right behind you. MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Well, I don't think this will. You like football; everybody likes football. This was told to me the other day. I thought it would be a great opportunity to kind of break up the slack between pro and con and everything. It's about Bear Bryant. And I heard this the other day, and it's about Bear Bryant, and he was winning the game; it was five points, and he decided -- the coach that he was, he decided -- he was on the other end of the field, and he decided to tell his quarterback that, "Let's just try to run out the game." And, Jonathan, you love football and everything else. He told his quarterback, "We're winning the game, less than two minutes. If we don't score, let's let our defense win the game." So he told his quarterback, "By all means, just give it to our fullback. Let him run it out." Each down -- first down, hands it to the fullback; no yardage. Second down, he hands it to the fullback; a little bit of yardage. Third down, he hands -- the quarterback hands off to the fullback, and he has no yardage, but in the process, the quarterback gets hit by the linebacker; knocks him out of the game. Bear Bryant has to go to his backup quarterback. Kid never had played all 4-25-05 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .^. 24 25 year. Of course, old Bear Bryant grabbed him by the face mask and said, "Son, all four down; all you got to do is hand that ball off to our handy, handy, handy fullback. That's all you got to do, son, but whatever you do, don't throw that ball." He goes out there and he's shaking, nervous. The center hikes the ball. He tries to hand off the ball to the fullback, and he runs into him. Ball falls out on the ground. Buster, you played for Tivy; you remember that, running for your life. He grabs the ball. He's running around, and his tight end's sitting there waving in the end zone, "Throw me the ball." And he says to himself, I can get that ball to that tight end, so he throws it. But what he doesn't realize, the all-American free safety, fastest man in the conference, jumps in front of him running the other way. Alabama's going to lose the game. And the only thing, Bill, in between that touchdown was that rookie quarterback. As he run behind that all-conference free safety, he dove at him at the 22-yard line and saved the game. The whistle brew. Bear Bryant went to congratulate -- the coaches met at half-field -- half field, middle of the field. And the coach said to Bear Bryant, he said, "Coach, we scouted your team, and your quarterback -- your backup rookie quarterback is the slowest man on your team. How in the H*** did your rookie 4-25-05 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 quarterback catch the free safety, all-American, fastest man at the conference?" And Bear Bryant looked at him, patted him on the shoulder, and said, "Your all-American was running for a touchdown. My rookie quarterback was running for his life." It's decisions in life, gentlemen. Sometimes we make the right decisions; sometimes we make the wrong decisions. Okay, back to business, and I'll be brief, 'cause I know y'all have a lot of more business. That first document that you have there that you're looking at, gentlemen, when I come before and I asked for one date, and it shows here -- as I went to the Treasurer's office, shows where all these dates were paid for 2005 and 2006. But what I'm wondering about is the reason why they were paid up front all of a sudden, when before, Buster, when we had talked about no dates had been paid. And in the documentation that I sent to you requesting -- before I came to speak on March the 28th, was that we would have a deposit for those dates and people would pay for those dates up front. Now, Jonathan, I know that you're trying to put a policy together, and I know it's going to take time. I understand it, but this is why I'm presenting these documents to you today, is -- is to show you that -- why, one, before the fact -- and if you'll look at the second page, April the 6th, all these dates, all of a sudden, like 4-25-05 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Houdini, they appeared. One minute they weren't there, and all of a sudden, all this money was paid up front. Now, Laurinda and everybody else, they run the books; they book the deal. But if it's going to be policy -- and that's all I ask for. All I asked for is one date. I'm not here to put a series of ropings and rodeos or anything; I just asked for one date. But what's good for one man is good for the other, whether it be a lady or anything else, and I think that will all come out in y'ap's policy and your research. But don't -- don't jockey for position to sit here and say, "Okay, Mr. Henderson, you can't have the dates because they're not available, 'cause they've all been paid for," when, really, they hadn't been paid for. When you look at the dates, if it's written, it's -- so it shows when these dates and when they were paid for. One week prior to March the 28th. One week after March the 28th. Before, those documents had not ever been paid for. Those deposits had never been put. All of a sudden, we end up with -- the County ends up with a bunch of money because I raised my hand and I say this -- this wasn't law; this was recommendations. Mr. Nicholson, all this was recommendations that I gave to you in good faith to tell you what I was going to come talk about, that they were not policies. I didn't write policy. There is no policy. That's what we're after, Buster. We're trying to get onto a 4-25-05 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 better deal. So, that's what that documentation is. And the last thing on policies, Jonathan, I want to -- well, there is one other thing. You do have it there, talk about the word "bumped." If you'll look on the -- let's see, one, two, three -- fourth page, on the 2006, it's highlighted, I think. When the kids -- we talked about the 4-H kids bumped. I want you to check with the 4-H leader on that date right there, and you'll see that those kids were bumped for that day, according to the editorial in the paper. I have it right here, and it says here, April the 22nd, bumped from the indoor arena. May 6, also bumped, also highlighted. I don't have five copies, but, Jonathan, you can look at that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not following your thinking here. What are you talking about? I see on your little notes out to the right that May 5th was a bump and -- MR. HENDERSON: Okay, May 5th was the day before. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's don't both talk at the same time. May 5th was a bump, and May 6th is a roping. MR. HENDERSON: Right. Preparation for -- preparation for the arena, day before. But if you'll look at the -- you know, and if you'll look at the article that's in that paper, 'cause that came from the 4-H there, it does 4-25-05 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 state May 6th. Now, that is just -- those are just notations of all the dates for the 4-H to use the outdoor arena. Now, outside there where it's highlighted, it says May 5th. That's, I think, one day before, but I think they have to prepare the arena. But what Jonathan has in his hand over there -- look at the bottom, Jon. It says April the 6th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bottom? MR. HENDERSON: Bottom should be highlighted. April 6th, and then look at the May -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says May 6. MR. HENDERSON: Yeah, but two dates out of seven bumped. COMMISSIONER LETZ: April 22nd, bumped from indoor arena. May 6th -- these are -- they're both bumped from the indoor arena. MR. HENDERSON: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those two dates, but they had the outdoor arena those dates. MR. HENDERSON: Right. But, in other words, I think -- and Laurinda can tell me -- I think they get to use both arenas. I believe that's right. I think they have a backup. Is that not correct? COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have done that. We're looking at that in the policy. The current policy or the 4-~5-05 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,-.. 24 25 current way it's being handled, as I understand it, is that due to the possibility of rain and their scheduling and the difficulty of makeup, both the indoor and outdoor arena are reserved for them. If they cannot use the outdoor arena, which is their arena, they use the indoor arena. We're looking at changing that. I don't -- I don't think that's a good policy, personally. I think that we need to have some makeup dates, maybe, where -- MR. HENDERSON: I understand that, Jon. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, so that's being looked at. So, I mean, they've never been bumped from the outdoor arena. They have been bumped from the indoor arena. MR. WALSTON: Jonathan, if you don't mind, I'd like to -- as far as being bumped, those dates shouldn't have ever been scheduled with them to start with, because that facility wasn't set up on the indoor arena. The indoor arena, we just got through having a wild game dinner there. They had to take all that out. That's the reason that it was a scheduling conflict. That date should have never been scheduled, because the arena wasn't set up. As -- as I'm sure all of y'all understand, the arena, they double-booked and scheduled the indoor arena along with outdoor arena for safety reasons, an area to have them to warm up in. So, that's -- you know, without a facility for those kids to 4-25-05 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 warm their horses up, that's what the indoor arena's used for. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like I say, we're looking at that issue. I think there's a way that will resolve that by having makeup dates where the indoor arena is reserved in case there is a second rain-out date. And -- but that part -- I mean, that's part of the policy. And I think the other thing that you're saying, Aubrey, is that it's the scheduling and how we're handling the -- the scheduling, and I think we have -- we need to improve that. We -- clearly, that's what the policy is. We're looking at other venues to see how they do it, because that is, in my opinion, the crux of the problem, really, is that communication to the public or to those that want to use that facility, and that is being looked at by Commissioner Williams and myself. MR. WALSTON: Jon, I would like to say one other thing. Laurinda does not schedule that indoor facility at all any more. Hasn't for years. MS. BOYD: Long time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. HENDERSON: And further up on that, Jonathan, that's the reason these documents are in front of you. We are talking about policy, and that's the reason why it -- if it's going to -- again, it has to be fair and it has to be honest. And I think y'all do a great job. When 4-~5-G5 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 it's done, that's fine. But why I brought the documentation to you is to show you, don't come all of a sudden out of the middle of nowhere and -- and produce this. If -- if the documents have -- if documents say 2000 -- let's back up to 2004. Then all that should show that all those deposits for 2004 for any venue -- if it's Rusty's roping, or if it's Tim's roping or anybody, it should show documentation that those -- those dates were -- had deposits down. It should show without a -- in fact, we should bring you a sack of 40 of them where it shows that, and the County Treasurer has every one of them, where those dates were. Not seven days before I spoke and not seven days after I spoke, all of a sudden, we -- we pay for them. That's why the policy is where we need to be, is to stop this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I couldn't agree more. MR. HENDERSON: And that -- I want to talk one more thing about policy, and you compare apples and oranges. And I'll give you the name of the person that you -- and we talk about different counties and stuff. Boerne, Texas, outdoor arena. They don't have an indoor arena. Now, Rose Palace right down the road has one, but for their outdoor arena, Jonathan, for the day rent is $300. For the night rent is $400, so that's $700. If you water the arena, it is extra. If you plow the arena, it is extra. So, those are things Commissioner Williams and y'all can 4-25-C5 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 think about what other counties do and charge you. Now, I'm not here to browbeat or anything, but what's fair is fair, and what other counties are doing, we can learn. We can agree to disagree, but we can learn from that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a second. MR. HENDERSON: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let these folks get seated, please. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all get up on the hallelujah row up here. JUDGE TINLEY: Go ahead, Mr. Henderson. MR. HENDERSON: That`s enough on policy. Quickly, go to that last page. Of course, that's the numbers, and we've heard from different people about the deficit and the -- there's no money being made. Buster, you've been here all those years, right? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Forever. MR. HENDERSON: Forever. I mean, you're an icon. I mean, you know, these numbers come from the County Auditor. And -- and I hear that the facility -- and the County Auditor says the facility will never make money, that it will never, ever break even. What I'm here to say is, is it possible that it could possibly break even, where we're not looking at these figures right here that's in front of me and Buster and everybody else? I mean, when I look at 4-25-GS 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the -- I think Mr. Williams said it the other day when I talked to you; this spike at that one year of $100,000 between 2000 and 'Ol, the disbursements of -- excuse me, '99 and 2000, an extra $100,000 in disbursements that one year. I mean, Buster -- I mean, you can -- I'm going to ask you. I mean, you can talk about this or you can pass. I'm just curious if you have any comment about the deficit, and are these numbers right or are they bogus? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if they're right or not. I mean, I'm just looking at them. I -- if you would have provided this in our backup like you should have, I would have gone and researched them out. They're probably not far off. MR. HENDERSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But -- but I will sit here as long as I'm here. MR. HENDERSON: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which may be four more years, and it may be 74 more years. When it comes to 4-H and the stock show, this is a drop in the bucket of what's really going on with people's lives. MR. HENDERSON: Right. I agree. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm -- MR. HENDERSON: Has the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If y'all want to go 4-25-05 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~-- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 calf rope, you can go down the river, far as I'm concerned. Or if the facility's available to you, you can use that; I couldn't care less. But these numbers -- we have to spend money. MR. HENDERSON: I agree. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think that you're going to be able to provide us with a facility in the state of Texas that makes money. I've been to a lot of them, too. MR. HENDERSON: I'm not -- I said -- if you listened to my comment, I said -- not about making money. Is it possible that the arena -- with a new policy, with revamping, new prices, is it possible that this -- I mean, in the history -- wait a minute, Buster. Let's back up. In the history of the stock show, has it always -- I mean, you help me out. You've been here your whole life. There's a lot of people here. Let's talk about, did it lose money like this? Mr. Williams is new to the area; I mean, he's been here the last 15, 20 years, but you grew up here. Did the facility always lose money? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have no idea. Do you know? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me see if I can shed some light on these numbers that you provided to us. I did a little research, and I -- I asked Mr. Holekamp to do 4-~5-05 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I 12 ~ "^' 13 14 i 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some more research, but I was concerned over a couple illustrations where the expenses really spiked over the previous year. In '94 -- between '94 and '95, they spiked, almost a little bit short of being double, but history reveals that that's when the County took over the facility from the Hill Country District Junior Livestock Show. And, obviously, it didn't have much expense the prior year, but after taking it over, it had considerably more expenses. Again, in '99, between '99 -- the '98-'99 budget and the '99-'00 budget, it spiked almost $100,000, and there was some significant changes in that time as well. We took over the -- we added personnel and we took over the booking function, so that contributed to some additional people and some money. In '99 and 2000, we spent $84,000 on the capital improvements. In 2000-2001 was almost another $50,000 spent on capital improvements, and again in '01 and '02, we spent additional money for capital equipment, probably. So, we can pretty well account for the spikes. But the point is, as Commissioner Baldwin said, it has been a red-ink situation, and it has been a red-ink situation because our major and first and foremost commitment is to the youth of our county in terms of the 4-H/Hill Country District Junior Livestock Show. It will remain that way. It will remain that way. The question, then, to me is, how best -- after we have taken care of that 4-25-05 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 primary obligation, how best then can we manage that facility, or can it be managed? Whether we're doing it or not, how best can it be managed to bring in other events that are not conflicting with our youth and stock show events, and help cut this expense nut down? That's something we have to take a hard look at. MR. HENDERSON: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you want to speak? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wish I'd have said it that way. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: One brief comment, also, and Bill alluded to it, that T think that hasn't been brought up up till now, is that that facility was built by volunteers that were coordinated through the Stock Show Association, essentially. They kind of put it all together. They built that, and there's a contract that this County has with that association on how a lot of it -- these things are done. You know, we can't just void a contract. I mean, they get a percentage of the revenue, too, which -- in fact, they get -- I believe it's 25 percent. I'm pulling a number out of my -- 30 percent? MR. HOLEKAMP: 33. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They get 33 percent of all of the booking fees, so -- in the indoor arena and the exhibit hall, so, you know, a third of the money that comes 4-25-05 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in goes to that entity as a -- basically, as a purchase price to the County. So, I think you have to look at the whole picture a lot and how it was built, what the County's obligation is to that association that built it, and what that contract says to that association. We have looked at, several times, renegotiating that contract with the Stock Show Association, but those have always been precluded on some major upgrades in the facility and capital improvements, and we've never been able to get to a point that we could do that. So, I think the -- you know, we clearly need to try to minimize the red ink out there. I think a lot of what you brought up and Ms. Hawkins brought up gets us back on the front burner and looking at policy. We need to do a better job with the policy. We need to do a better job with booking, and I think we're going to do that. You'll see, and I think the public will see that when it comes back before this Court with a new policy. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When is that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Within 20, 30 days. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Like I told Ms. Hawkins, as quickly as I can get it done. I want to make one point, Aubrey. Thank you for being here. I thank you for bringing this to court and letting us have an opportunity to air it. It is an important issue. But I want to make one point to you. Your numbers indicate that 4-25-05 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 48 over the past little -- about 11 years, maybe going on 12, the red ink at that facility is about a million and a half expenses over revenue. In the same period of time, on law enforcement, jail, juvenile detention, the County will have spent millions -- millions more on law enforcement, the operation of the jail, and the juvenile detention center. And I'm here to tell you, this one Commissioner believes firmly that the programs that we have in that facility that contribute to the red ink are valuable programs. You don't find those kids lined up in the corridors out here with manacles and chain restraints on them waiting to come in and see this judge who participate in those programs. It doesn't happen. So, if we can save the life of one kid by being involved in agricultural programs and learning the value of citizenship, God love us for trying. (Applause.) JUDGE TINLEY: I got me one convert, didn't I? How long have I been saying that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now let's talk about the Judge. MR. HENDERSON: Well, anyway -- and I couldn't agree more. I mean, our family has deep roots, as many -- and Buster's family and a lot -- and Jonathan, your family have been here a long, long time, and I couldn't agree more. All I'm asking is -- time will take care of 4-25-05 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 49 policy. Policy will take care of management. Management will take care of policy. But it's nothing meant -- and I understand, Judge, when you have two attorneys in here and they walk out and they go down to the Hill Country Cafe and they eat together, it's just business. And I understand in the heat of battle, and we sit here and talk among -- when we may disagree and everything, it's just business. And that's why I came, because it's business. But we have to have a policy, so when somebody calls down there to the office, if it's called central office -- I don't even know. Somebody can tell them -- and that's what I came, Buster, in the March 28th and I told you. If you can go to a Commissioners meeting in Odessa and somebody asks you how big the arena was, you have a book, just like we used to have a stock show book. It had all the rules in it. If a lamb weighed 78 pounds, he was sifted. That's just it, policy. Thank you. Appreciate your time. I think you're right on schedule. I think you got two minutes. JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate you being here, Mr. Henderson. Bad news is, we've got a conflict. The good news is, we need a policy, and we're going to get one out of this, out of this whole process. Everything that was said up here and from the audience participation I think is important, because it relates to the various facets of it, and also relates to the history. And I think the history of 9-25-G5 r - ___ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ..-~ 24 25 50 this thing, how it came to be, how these facilities even came into being and how they came over to the county is very, very important. And the good news is, we're going to end up with a policy that we're all going to be able to hopefully understand, and at least the vast majority of us agree with. We're certainly going to have the opportunity to have input into it, and -- and that's going to be the good news arising out of this thing. Ms. Calcote? Did you want to say something? You've got a participation form here, and I don't want to overlook you. I want to give you a shot at it. MS. CALCOTE: Thank you. Do you want me to come to the microphone? I'm pretty loud-mouthed, so everybody can usually hear me. JUDGE TINLEY: I think we can hear you. MS. CALCOTE: Fine. First off, I want to thank the Commissioners Court for their opinions. And, personally, I basically approve of your input. I've been here 54 years and I've seen changes, but I don't agree that there's been that much change. Agricultural products have and always will feed this bunch of people, the county and everybody, and I'm for everything agricultural-minded for that facility, but especially the outdoor arena should stay, regardless, for the youth, because they're the ones that are going to feed the generations to come, and if we don't 4-25-05 51 1 2 3 ~ 4 I 5 6 7 t 8 I 9 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~-. 24 25 pamper them, a lot of people are going to go hungry. And I would also like to see that the indoor arena -- I agree with Aubrey up to a point, that it can -- thank you, Aubrey -- that it needs to be managed. But nobody is going to make a living and make money off of that facility out there. It is not a business. It's something like the soccer arenas; it's for the benefit of the county and everybody who wants to come and see it and enjoy it. And I'm proud of it, even though it needs some repair or improvement badly, because everybody that's been out there knows that it does need some repair. And I am against that $6 million tearing it all down and rebuilding something brand-new, with the hopes that we can get some big out-of -- foreign country baseball -- football team in here and make money. It ain't gonna happen. (Laughter.) San Antonio couldn't make it happen, and we sure can't. And for pete's sakes, let's don't copy San Antonio. Who wants to copy San Antonio? And just keep it for the youth and agricultural-minded, and get somebody that is a good manager. And Rusty is doing something that I'd like to see more use of, and that's all of his residents out there in the county or in the city -- I'm kind of hard-shelled, Rusty. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't pay them I5 cents worth of Mexican money for any work. I might give 4-25-05 52 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them a day or two credit, but everybody that's able, I would put them out as clean up, fix up, set up for nothing, and we could cut some money, costs, expense there. Don't hire anybody, but put them to work; let them know what work is. Thank you, Rusty, for using part of them, anyway. Use them all. (Laughter.) Okay, I've said my thing. Thank you, Your Honor. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Calcote. We appreciate you being here today. Commissioner Nicholson? You opened this up. We're going to give you the last shot at it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Without being redundant, and being very brief, I just want to say amen to Commissioner Williams -- Commissioner Williams' comments about facing a difficult budget year, and we're going to have to look hard at what we do and how we do it and our costs everywhere. Second point is, I don't think there is an organization that has revenues and costs where the revenues can't be enhanced and the costs contained, and I don't think it's necessary for us to pay this kind of money for that facility. I think we can do better. I think we can have a better facility and we can contain costs. That's all. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Amen. MS. HAWKINS: Can I say one thing, please? 4-25-05 53 r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It's totally off the agenda. JUDGE TINLEY: Totally off the agenda? MS. HAWKINS: Well, what it is is about Herbert Masters. I don't know how many of y'all knew Herbert Masters. He was killed last week, but his son Jarrod was in the truck. They had a baby boy this morning. And so -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Okay, let's move on to the next item. It is a timed item, and that was scheduled for 10 o'clock. It's a few minutes after that now. The item is to receive and open bids on the Kerrville South Wastewater Project. That item was advertised in the local media. MS. PIEPER: We had none, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: I am advised by the clerk that we have no bids that were received. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I can make a comment, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: Surely. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It appears that all of our local contractors are -- have all the work they can handle. This advertisement and invitation for bids was published twice in the local newspaper. I'm going to suggest to the engineer and to the Grantworks people, who 9-25-05 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 prepared the advertisement, that we broaden our net a little bit and see what else we can find, and readvertise it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need a motion or anything to readvertise? Or -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably do. What do you think, Judge? We11, no, I don't -- no, on second thought, I don't. The authority of the Court was embraced in the original resolutions to proceed on the project and everything attendant to that, so this would be attendant to it. We've already got the authority. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are no bids, and we'll move on right now. JUDGE TINLEY; We'11 go to Item Number 4 -- I'm just going to call the item now -- consider and discuss options for housing Kerr County West Kerr Annex. That's a matter that deals with real property interest to which the County is or may be a party in contractual negotiations. That would be an item that's appropriately addressed in executive session, so with the Court's permission, I'm going to defer action on that until we get to that point, and then we'll come back to that as an open session item. I mean -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Under Section 551.072. JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever the applicable section is. 9-25-05 ~~ -~ 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 MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 5, consider and approve the renewal agreement with the National School Lunch Program through the Texas Health and Human Services and authorize County Judge to sign same. Ms. Harris? This is for the detention facility. MS. HARRIS: On a good note, we have 30 residents, if that helps any. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good. MS. HARRIS: I needed to bring this to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many of them are Kerr County? MS. HARRIS: Four. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've hung in there at four. At least we're not dropping in numbers. MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir, we've got four. Yes, we have four. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER total occupancy? COMMISSIONER MS. HARRIS: COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's our goal? BALDWIN: Four. (Laughter.) NICHOLSON: What's our goal for WILLIAMS: 72. 76. NICHOLSON: You've got a real 9-25-05 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 56 challenge. MS. HARRIS: And on that same note, I have received a phone call from El Paso that has shown some interest in one of our programs, so I'm pursuing that. Just a side note. The item that's on the agenda, this is an annual renewal that we have to do with the federal government in order for us to participate in the National School Lunch Program. And, as you recall, we get part of our food -- our grocery bill, we get that reimbursed at the end of the year. It's approximately about 50 percent at the end of the year, plus we got commodities. And this is the annual agreement that has to be signed every year in order for us to participate in that program. It's the same program that public schools offer the free breakfast and lunch, so -- and we would need to authorize someone to sign the agreement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we approve the renewal agreement with the National School Lunch Program through the Texas Health and Human Services, and authorize the County Judge to sign same. I have a question after we get a second, if we get a second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Questions or comments? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Harris, is this 9-~5-05 57 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 -- are these dollars allocated on a per diem basis or on a per unit basis to us, or how does that come about? How do MS. HARRIS: It's based on the total amount of -- of food costs that we have. We turn in a report at the end of every month on our food costs, which I guess you could say would be per resident, if you look at it that way, 'cause the fewer residents, the lower our food cost. The higher our population, the higher our food cost. So, I guess you could say that it is based on our population, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. MS. HARRIS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 7, consider and discuss and take appropriate action to approve a request by the Hill Country District Junior Livestock Show to place a steel container storage unit on the grounds of the Youth Exhibit Center. Commissioner Williams, I believe you were 4-25-05 58 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 involved with this. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, as the backup statement says, a member of the board, Mr. Ernie Kaiser, contacted me, oh, about 10 days ago, and said they would like very much to place a steel -- one of the steel container storage units on the grounds, and wondered if the Court would grant them approval to do that. I called Mr. Holekamp and -- and asked the question of him, if the Court was predisposed to do that, where would it be placed? And he and I agreed that it -- if the Court goes along and approves the request, that probably the best location would be between the horse barn and the fencing on Riverside Drive. Is that correct, Glenn? MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's a 20-footer. When I wrote the backup statement, I didn't know the size of it. It's a 20-foot-long steel container. I guess that's the kind that rolls up and down the highway on 18-wheelers or whatever. MR. HOLEKAMP: They're approximately 8 foot inside, I think. COMMTSSIONER LETZ: 8 by 8 by 20. MR. HOLEKAMP: Mm-hmm. And it would fit -- it wouldn't be in anybody's way. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's it going to be 4-25-05 59 1 2 used for? MR. HOLEKAMP: I imagine to store stuff that 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 currently -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I asked Ernie that, and he said, "Our stuff." MR. HOLEKAMP: They have -- in fact, we have some of their stuff in horse stalls that they've stored there, and they also have some storage units someplace in town, but I don't know what they keep in there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would -- I would move approval of it, but I'd like to add that -- just kind of a caveat to that; we would approve it, but if there comes a time in the future when it is no longer beneficial to the County for it to be in the location we choose, they're going to have to move it or remove it. MR. HOLEKAMP: That's a good idea, to put that in there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With that understanding, I would move approval of the request. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item with the caveat or condition. Any further question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4-25-05 ~. 60 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 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. The next item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on a progress report detailing the activities relating to the development of a wastewater collection system for Center Point. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One quickie in terms of correction on my memorandum. I got so carried away with this House Bill 1006, or whatever it is, I put that in Paragraph 4, and that House bill I referenced should be House Bill 3029. That deals with Texas Water Development Board and activities for disadvantaged or small community hardship program. There's a lot of things been taking place, Judge, in terms of discussions about how best to provide a wastewater collection system and transmission line that would be for the community of Center Point. And -- and so Commissioner Letz and I were talking one day not too long ago, and it became obvious that all these discussions I've had with various entities, it would probably be best if I brought all that to the attention of the Court and let you know where I've been, what I've been doing, with whom I've been speaking about this project, and where we are today. If you've taken the time to read the document -- and I apologize for the length of it, but 4-25-05 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '^ 2 4 25 there's been a lot of things happening, and so it had to be kind of lengthy to bring you up to date. But the bottom line is, we've had discussions with a lot of folks; Upper Guadalupe River Authority, Texas Water Development Board, the U.S.D.A. through its Rural Utility Service Program, the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, Lower Colorado River Authority, and I've got down others I identified, but who knows what will happen tomorrow and who we will be discussing the matter with? The bottom line is, everybody's interested. And -- and the question is really to the Court. How would you like for me to proceed at this point? The -- you've already, by resolution, given us authority to file the application for pre-engineering design funding with the Texas Water Development Board, and that -- as I noted in the memorandum, that application is 95, 97 percent complete and ready to go. Only reason they're not filing it right now is because the Disadvantaged Communities Program and the Small Community Hardship Program were initially set up by T.W.D.B. and funded minimally, and there are a lot of other folks who got in in front of us, and so there was some question as to whether or not there were any funds available in this biennium to take care of that particular program. I met with them about four to six weeks ago in Austin, and the discussions we had there indicated that some members of the T.W.D.B., particularly those in finance, 4-25-05 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 62 thought that they could probably find enough money to fund our application for pre-engineering design if we get it in, and they were going to notify us that they thought those dollars were available. If so, that would be about $121,000, and 50 percent of it would be a grant and 50 percent of it would be a loan that would be repayable in-kind, some way or other, other grants from other folks or the County picking up 50 percent or whatever. So, as soon as I get the letter or a telephone call from T.W.D.B., we will file the application. It is ready. At this point, I'd like to say thanks to the Tetra Tech folks who, on a pro Bono basis, at no cost to Kerr County, have assisted me in preparing that application, in doing the maps and all of the grunt work that goes with putting together an application for funding in a program of this size. This is a major project, and the estimated costs are about $3.6 to $4.4 million, and that variable depends on which direction we take the wastewater. If we take it west, northwest to the City of Kerrville, and hook up to the stub which is at Airport Commerce Park, then the cost would be somewhere in the $3.6 million range. If we were to take it eastward to Kendall County W.C. & I.D. for treatment in their revamped and improved and enlarged sewer treatment plant, the cost would be about $4.4 million. And, so, you would say, "Well, that's a 4-25-05 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 63 no-brainer." Well, maybe it is and maybe it's not. Relative to those costs are other things ancillary to a system, such as hookup fees, capital recovery charges and all sorts of things like that. And we have paid for those with grant money for those fees in the Kerrville South Wastewater Project, so we know they exist, and that's what the City is -- the conditions the City has set up, and, you know, that's the way they do business. And that's okay; I'm not challenging that in the least. If we -- however, if we were to go eastward to Comfort to that W.C. & I.D., some of those capital recovery fees might not, at this point, be attached to the hookups. But also, it does something else for us if we were to take it eastward. And this is where Commissioner Letz and I had a meeting recently with the representative of G.B.R.A. and we took a look at the area between Center Point and Comfort in terms of existing hookups after you leave the community of Center Point, and what might be available now, and possible through additional development in that corridor between Center Point and -- and Comfort. And, if we were to take the line in that direction, I have a strong feeling that the State of Texas would participate through the Texas Water Development Board for that additional cost on the transmission line, because it does -- it, by their definition, enhances regionalization 4-25-05 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 64 of sewer projects and it opens up economic development corridors. So, these are decisions that will come at a later date, after the design engineering is completed and we know exactly what the costs are going to be. The end user -- cost to the end user is important, and we have to do this in such a fashion so that the monthly cost to the folks who -- who have hookups, replacing their failing septics with sewer hookups, their end-user costs are not exorbitant and they're affordable, and so all those things are part of that -- are part of that consideration. On the bottom last paragraph, I'm asking the Court -- under the caption of what's needed, it would be helpful to have an expression of support from Commissioners Court with authorization to explore any and all of the possibilities noted in this memorandum that could lead to a memorandum of understanding or definitive agreement with Kerr County for funding, construction, ownership, and operation of a Center Point wastewater project. I want to add one other footnote here. And I don't want to go on too long, but it's a detailed subject, and we've been working on it for a long time. The idea of others participating and our own river authority not participating is an idea that the Court needs to be aware of, and -- and express their concerns or -- or support for that notion. I have had discussions with Upper Guadalupe River Authority on more 4-25-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 65 than one occasion, and will again be before that board next Wednesday saying, in effect, much of what I'm saying to this Court today. My earlier discussions with U.G.R.A. were, "Would you have any objection to Kerr County exploring other avenues for getting this project done?" And the answer I got back was, "No, let's explore any and all options that might be available to us." In that context, I did that. One of the meetings was with the U.G.R.A. General Manager, who has since resigned to go in another direction. We met with the Lower Colorado River Authority, and they, of course, expressed interest. I explored the same question with the Guadalupe Blanco River Authority, because they have a major interest in what takes place in terms of -- of the sewer treatment plant in Comfort, and they, too, have expressed interest. The U.S.D.A. has expressed its interest as well, and that requires us to have a preliminary engineering and design, and that, in effect, becomes the application. So, the last note of any consequence that came from the Upper Guadalupe River Authority Board executive committee was really the comment that the president gave me, and he said, "All we'd like to do -- we want to see the project happen, but what we'd like to see is for the Court, in its consideration, is to give us the right 4-25-05 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 66 of first refusal." And, you know, that's quite fair. If they want the right of first refusal, that really means that once we get all our ducks lined up and our costs assembled, if they can participate on that -- in a project of that magnitude, then they have -- they have, and we should be willing to accept their offer to be of assistance to us and join with us in the program. If they believe that the project is too large for them, then -- you know, then we need to explore other options. So, that's kind of where it is. I wanted to bring it to the Court, and I'm happy to answer your questions and see where we go. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question. You almost wore me down. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not quite. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not quite? Let me talk another five minutes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You used the word "disadvantaged community." Is that another word for colonial COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has the -- has the state changed the verbiage? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: T.W.D.B. set up two 4-25-05 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 different programs, a Small Community Hardship Program and a Disadvantaged Community Program. That may be a nice way of saying colonia, but it's not the same pot of gold. T.W.D.B. operates out of a separate pot of gold. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, that's answering my question, then. Okay, thank you. On this U.G.R.A./ L.C.R.A./G.B.R.A. issue, you know, we have always been so proud -- and I heard a couple of community leaders talking just last week how proud we are of having U.G.R.A. here, and the reason they're here is that we can control our own waters. Well, through the years, I -- we've all seen G.S.R.A., one of the most powerful river authorities in the state, would love to have Kerr County's water; start coming into Kerr County and doing different things. I think it's a major, huge, horrible mistake to allow them to come in here, and I have told that to Mr. West, and to his face. The -- so I'm going to be really, really, really opposed to any other -- if U.G.R.A. can't handle it, I think we need to go back to the drawing board. That's my opinion. It's one vote. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can make a comment on that, and it's -- I've shared a lot of those feelings, but the difference here is -- and I'm going back to -- I have to go back to Region J. The Guadalupe River has zero 4-~5-05 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 68 water in a drought for anyone to use. You may recall when Judge Henneke was on the court, he and I negotiated a memorandum of understanding with G.B.R.A. at the time for 5,000 acre feet of water out of Canyon Lake. U.G.R.A. has 2,000 acre feet -- 2,000 acre feet floating around, but there's no water in the river. It's all taken. The only way for the county or, really, the city of Kerrville, who needs the water from our standpoint, to get that water is to get it from Canyon Lake. G.B.R.A. is in the process of building a pipeline from Canyon Lake through Bulverde to Boerne. If the line goes to Comfort, it kind of -- it gets that closer and it enables a lot of surface water to get very close to Kerr County. And, actually, it may come up under this whole same type of grant. We get the pipeline from Boerne to Comfort. Then -- and, you know, then there's just this little stretch, really, from Center Point to the transmission line in Kerrville to get that Canyon water -- which is available and we have an agreement to get, we just don't have a pipeline right now -- get that water up here, which I know the City of Kerrville's very interested in. So, you know, I share the concern about G.B.R.A. The problem is that I see that the project may be too big for U.G.R.A., and they may need a partner. I -- I would be a little bit reluctant -- I think I really -- I guess my preference would be to have U.G.R.A. ask us to go 4-25-05 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 to G.B.R.A. or L.C.R.A. as a partner, and have a three-way partnership, rather than us just jump over and -- you know, to L.C.R.A. or G.B.R.A. I'd rather, if at all possible, try to cover this major project using the local entity, being U.G.R.A., but I understand that because of the size of it, it may have to go beyond that bounds. And I think this is a -- the other thing this project potentially does, and I'm not sure if it's good or bad, and G.B.R.A.'s representative asked the question, do we want development between Comfort and Center Point? You know, the answer that I gave him is, "Well, I think we're going to get development between Comfort and Center Point whether I want it or not." A sewer line and a water line connecting that will enable us to have more concentrated development in areas, as opposed to the sprawl that we're seeing in most of the county right now. And I think concentrating development around Center Point and around Comfort is preferable to having 5-acre tracts all over the county, or 10-acre tracts or 20-acre tracts all over the county. So I think those are, you know, philosophical issues that we need to wrestle with a little bit on there, because it will open development up in that part of the county to a different type of development than we've had before. Good or bad, I'm not sure. I do know that right now, because there's no sewer or water service going into 4-25-05 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 70 eastern Kerr County out of Comfort, that the growth is tending to go north on Highway 87, where there is a sewer line available right now and a water line available already. So, I think that the -- from a taxing standpoint, a taxable value standpoint, not having that infrastructure in place is forcing the growth in Kendall County, as opposed to Kerr County. So, we're -- you know, just another thing to think about. But I think it's worth pursuing. I don't know that we need any action at this point. I think that I talked to you, and I said that I think the Court needs to be brought up to speed as to where you are, 'cause you're moving a lot, meeting with a lot of people. And I think that if anyone on the Court, or the Court as a whole, has a problem with where we're going, I think that needs -- the time is now to start speaking up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. JUDGE TINLEY: I might ask for a clarification, and maybe you don't know. The U.G.R.A. is asking for right of first refusal, as it were. Are they asking for that solely, as in its entirety? Or the right to participate in some part, with the balance then to -- to be partnered out somewhere else? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I think the answer to that is they're not certain yet. They recognize the magnitude of the project. It would be one of the 4-25-05 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 71 largest projects since the dam that they have undertaken, and certainly the largest project that they would be involved in since they no longer own the dam and the water treatment plant. So, I think the answer is they don't know yet, but they'd like to explore all these options. And I agree with Commissioner Baldwin; I sat on that board also for five years, and I know the history and the reason for the formation of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority. It's not a question of trying to cut somebody in or somebody out. Question is, who is best prepared to partner with Kerr County to make it happen, and to provide wastewater treatment facilities for an area of Kerr County that is in desperate need of that? We're talking about water quality issues. We're talking about that which flows into that part of our watershed. We're talking about our groundwater reserves, in terms of its quality. We're talking about the quality of life of individuals, and we're talking about economic development for Kerr County. So, I think what I want to do is -- what I'd like to do, with the Court's understanding, is continue to explore these options. I will bring it back to U.G.R.A., and they'll have to ferret out what they think they can handle, Judge. Right now, the issue is, can they come up with $60,000 to partner with us for -- for the preliminary planning and engineering, that half of it, or part of that? It's going to require $60,000 4-25-05 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 paid back of the loan, which we haven't entered into yet, but that's going to be the condition if we accept it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, how's the process going -- you just mentioned $120,000 for the engineering study. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So there's a grant and a loan available to get that money, but $60,000 of it has to be repaid by somebody? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my understanding, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How long does the study take? And then what's the step -- what do you do with the study? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the study -- the engineering will take about almost a year, probably a little less than a year to get done, and then that tells us what the system's going to look like and what the actual costs are going to be. That document alone would constitute an application, the basis of an application to the U.S.D.A. for R U.S., just like they're doing in Ingram, which I believe that's how they're pursuing the Ingram project. Then, at that point, we'd have to find either partners, or we'll have to decide -- we'll just have to decide what's the best way to make it happen. 9-25-05 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 73 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the study look at both the option of going to Kerrville and going to Comfort? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, it will. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we'll have real data as to how viable either -- either or both or whatever. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, just one question. Well, first, anything we can do to get people off septic systems, I think, is -- is an appropriate and good work for this -- for government, so I applaud the hard work and the thorough work you've done on working on this project. What I'm hearing is that we might have to pay $60,000, unless we can get somebody else to pay it for us. But if this winds up costing $4.4 million, how many dollars from Kerr County do you think will be needed in that 4.4 million? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know yet, Commissioner. And, again, it depends on the route we go and the partners that we have. That's a lot -- that's a big bucket of bucks. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we went the U.S.D.A. route, my understanding is that some of that can be grants, some of it low-interest loans. Same with T.W.D.B.; some of it could be grants, some of it could be low-interest 9-~5-05 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 74 loans. There are also the bonding mechanisms, which would be revenue bonds in this case. And so there are a lot of options to explore, and we really won't know what the best way to go is until the engineering study is finished. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: That pretty well fleshed that one out? Why don't we take a 15-minute recess? (Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we might. We were in recess for about 15 minutes. We will resume now. Item 9, consider and take action on a grant proposal by Texas Department of Public Safety. Precinct 4 Justice of the Peace. Judge Ragsdale? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, is this for your office only? Precinct 4 only? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Mostly. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that a yes? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, I'm not sure. I think that we put some -- what it all boils down to is not just the opportunity to get different software, 'cause I'd rather not. That is a major, major, major pain to switch software, 4-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 "~ 24 25 75 database. The federal government is requiring local entities to report violation of -- of federal motor carrier more rapidly. In other words, commercial motor vehicle violations. In order -- we presently, when you -- the only way to do that is by hand presently. So, they have -- the federal government said, "State, do it." State said, "We can't do it unless the local people do it." And they said, "We'll give you money," so it's a trickle-down grant. Part of what -- we have wanted to -- or the County has wanted me to become compliant with the rest of the county in software, and this was an opportunity to do that. Included inside of this software package is an electronic final conviction reporting device, and I think we -- Tommy, did we include the other three J.P.'s in the reporting -- electronic reporting part of it? MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that. I don't 17 I know. JUDGE RAGSDALE: We were trying to, hopefully. Because Software Group, I think, is working on their plan to solve that problem at about $500 per office cost, and so we were hoping that we included enough in this grant request to pay for the other three J.P.s' electronic reporting box. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, the -- the -- I guess the commercial carrier situation y'all are trying to 4-25-05 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 resolve primarily is your precinct and Precinct 3, because they're the two that have probably 90 percent of the interstate. JUDGE RAGSDALE: All, probably. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably more than that. So I really think it's important, probably, that this reporting thing -- Precinct 2, I would think, would have the -- obviously, the same reporting problem, so I think it's really important that they get included. And if -- have you talked to Judge Castillo about that? About, you know, I guess -- 'cause it's -- it really doesn't make much sense to me to do something that's going to hit Kerrville west, but not Kerrville east. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, let me put it this way. The time for asking is over. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE RAGSDALE: So, we made the request. I'm hoping that we included the other three J.P.'s; otherwise, the County is going to have to pay for it. But it's something that's going to have to be done. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you made a comment, this will make your office -- "compliant" is not the right word, but the same type of computer system software as the other three are using right now? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes. Yes, it will put me on 4-25-05 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 77 Software Group. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This accomplishes what we've been trying to get done for the last several years. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Right. They just wanted a king's ransom to do it. This just all of a sudden popped up out of the blue as an offer to pay for it. I honestly can't see where they're getting their finger into the pie, other than they're -- D.P.S. will eventually not have to pay so many employees. So, somehow or another, it's worth it to them. It's not a terrific burden to do it by hand, but the federal government wants more money, I guess, more quickly or something. More compliance with the voter -- or Federal Motor Carrier Act. But I -- what I'm saying, as far as this grant, I don't think that it's going to hurt us any, I guess, or allow them a finger into our business. It's just going to pay for software. It's going to pay for one year of high-speed Internet, and -- and especially the device to electronically report final convictions. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Help me understand something here, Judge, please. The time for asking who is over? JUDGE RAGSDALE: The State of Texas. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? JUDGE RAGSDALE: The State of Texas. They were given a bunch of money by the federal government. 4-~5-05 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE RAGSDALE: And they sent out notices to every J.P. and every municipality in the state of Texas and said, "If you want money under this thing, ask for it." So I did. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE RAGSDALE: And I -- I -- we talked; Tommy and I talked. I'm not sure, since I don't have my figures in front of me. We -- I think we tried to make it to where we got enough money to upgrade each of the other J.P.'s also, but really, that was their problem. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that was my second question. Because the -- the large paragraph at the close of the letter talks about, "...authorized to bind the Kerr County J.P. 4 precinct not later than May 16, 2005, in order to receive reimbursement" of blab, blab, blah, blab, blab. Doesn't make any mention of Precincts 1, 2, and 3. MR. TOMLINSON: Commissioner, the lion's share of the cost is related to his office. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Right. MR. TOMLINSON: So that's why the grant is -- is filed that way. It -- there's a sideline for J.P. 4 to be on Software Group's system that really doesn't have anything to do with this. There's financial information that comes off of the court system that I need for my GASB 4-25-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 79 report that I have not been able to get through the old -- through the system that he's currently on, and so that -- that'll make -- simplify the reporting for that purpose. And the soft -- the software that he's on now, we've talked to him, tried to get his program to give me the information. Bill's prior clerk was very familiar with the program, and couldn't get it out of there either. So, this simplifies the financial portion of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What portion of the $15,720 is for is the software, and how much of it is for the -- I guess the transmitting capability portion of it? MR. TOMLINSON: $13,000 is an estimate of what the software -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the cost -- even if the other precincts aren't included, the cost isn't huge to get them -- MR. TOMLINSON: No. JUDGE RAGSDALE: It's about $500 apiece, is what they projected. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Has the County Attorney reviewed the contract? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. It looks like a standard D.P.S. contract. There's nothing unusual on it. The only thing, the indemnity contract is -- you know, it's pretty standard wording. The only really foreseeable action 4-25-OS 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 '- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would be if somebody just had gross negligence or intentionally falsified data. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, do you see any impact on future budgets? MR. TOMLINSON: No, none at all. (Judge Ragsdale nodded.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have one no and one yes. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, it's -- the maintenance for this software is higher than the one I have. MR. TOMLINSON: That's true. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Much higher. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll make a motion that we -- I move that we approve the entering into an interlocal cooperative contract with the Texas Department of Public Safety. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And authorize County Judge to sign same. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the contract and authorization to sign same. 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. 4-~5-05 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you very much, Judge. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on the Kerr County Nuisance Abatement Program. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. This is a return of the -- of the program that we had -- have been proposing now for quite some time. This is the -- this is the rewrite which was done by the County Attorney's office, and it is the same program we workshopped and talked about in terms of the good, bad, and the ugly. And so I have it in front of the Court for -- for approval, hopefully, today. There was one issue in it that I don't think we quite got cleared up, but I think the County Attorney can shed some light on it this morning, and that had to do with that section of the program and state law that -- that required the full-time employee. So, Mr. Emerson, would you shed a little light on that for us, please? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. The -- I'm okay over here. I have a big enough mouth. The director that's specified in the program that would be appointed by the Commissioners Court, assuming that the Commissioners Court 4-25-05 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,---. 24 25 approves such, would logically be Miguel, as head of the Environmental Health Department. The question that comes up is his ability to appoint a representative to assist him in the field. The way the statutes are written, it requires a full-time employee. Two part-timers put together don't equal a full-timer for purposes of the statute. So, while Miguel would be able to administer the program, he would essentially have to carry all the duties that go with it and would not be able to assign those to a representative in the field for that purpose. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that apply to all aspects of the program with respect to cleaning up nuisance solid waste sites that are -- that are problematic, or that only applies to situations where the County might have to take remedial action on its own? MR. EMERSON: I think it's going to apply to anything administered by this program. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anything administered by the program. MR. EMERSON: COMMISSIONER MR. EMERSON: COMMISSIONER that -- that appointing Mig wouldn't satisfy the intent Yes, sir. WILLIAMS: Okay. Is that broad enough? NICHOLSON: Rex, does that mean ael Arreola to this position of the law? 4-25-05 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. EMERSON: It'll satisfy him as a director, but his ability to appoint one of his staff, since his investigators and his law enforcement are all part-time people, he would not be able to do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they could bring back -- they could find a situation, bring it back to Miguel, and then he could himself go out and investigate it? MR. EMERSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you for that enlightenment. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got some questions. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I understand. These part-timers could do the preliminary legwork, as it were, bring it to Mr. Arreola, and then he could pick up the ball and run with it from there? Is that what I'm hearing? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: These -- this program applies to subdivisions in the county outside the municipal city limits, and it exempts something like less than five lots or something like that, so it applies to most subdivisions. What is the impact on solid waste issues that are outside of platted subdivisions? MR. ARREOLA: I think it applies to also 4-25-05 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 84 platted subdivisions, as long as it's outside the city limits. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we're out on 1340 or Goat Creek Road, and we've got a solid waste issue that the violator is not in a platted subdivision, this program doesn't apply to that? MR. ARREOLA: It does. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It does? MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Applies to any -- JUDGE TINLEY: Page 1 the application, the enforcement p aragraph, reads, "Policies and procedures shall apply to all the unincorporated areas of Kerr County." COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Platted or unplatted. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it looks like to me that either - - we have two options here. One is that Miguel comply with t he state law, or we wait and deal with this in the budget if we're going to have to have a full-time employee. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Miguel can deal with it now. Or we can adopt the policy and Miguel can 4-25-05 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "'~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deal with it on the basis that the County Attorney outlined, and we can correct that deficiency -- the other deficiency about one of his representatives at budget time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that correct? MR. ARREOLA: We can do that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Page 3, Number 10, I think that's just a typographical error there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whereabouts, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Page 3, Item 10. "This section does not apply to," colon, "a site or facility that is," colon. Shouldn't that be -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That should -- "site or facility" should be part of the opening sentence under 10. Is that the way you read it? That's the way it ought to be. Take out the first colon, take out the sub (a), and make it all part of that first sentence under 10. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Back to this representative issue, for example, could -- could the four constables be appointed as a representative? MR. ARREOLA: I think the law says we could appoint anybody that is employed by the County and is full-time. Has to be in writing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good 4-25-05 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .-. 24 25 question. Let's ask that -- direct that question to the County Attorney. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is a good question. MR. EMERSON: I think it was answered perfectly. Any full-time employee of the county. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we could, by court order, designate all four constables to act in this capacity for solid waste environmental cleanup issues? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Page 6, top of the page, (D) -- this is just a procedural thing. If we do an investigation and they find that there's not a violation, the matter will be logged as closed, and no further action is required. I'd like contact with the complainant. I'd like either a letter or a phone call to whoever complained, unless it's me, to -- to say we've looked into it and there's no violation, so there's some -- MR. ARREOLA: That's standard procedure right now. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- closure to it. MR. ARREOLA: We do that all the time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want that language added, Commissioner? 4-25-G5 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,~-. 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just an understanding? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Well, I -- Page 7, hearings. I guess we'll -- we're making this Court a -- a place where the disputed matter is tried. I guess we're okay with that? That -- MR. EMERSON: For what it's worth, that's the way the statute's written. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. So, that's not an option. MR. EMERSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can't delegate that to J.P.'s. Thank you. That's all my questions. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I want to go back to the neighbor -- the issue -- the first question about where this is applicable. That first paragraph says, you know, that it's anywhere in the county, but then when you get to -- under (H) on Page 2, nuisance, Paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (6), you have to be in a neighborhood for it to apply, and a neighborhood is defined as a platted subdivision or 300 feet near it. So, much of the -- the refuse portion only applies to a subdivision, and so those vehicles and refrigerators and all that, and furniture, I 4-25-CS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 mean, much of the guts of it only applies to a subdivision, though there are parts of it that do apply to the county as a whole. Am I reading that right? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there's nothing -- this doesn't give us any additional authority to clean up junk vehicles, old refrigerators and other things on Goat Creek Road that are not in a subdivision. MR. ARREOLA: Only if -- if they are within 300 feet of a public street, yes, we can. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, if they're next to a street -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Wait a minute. Four says in a neighborhood, and we've defined "neighborhood" as being -- MR. ARREOLA: It says -- 4 -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- subdivision. MR. ARREOLA: After neighborhood, 4 says within 300 feet. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But, again, Miguel, we've defined neighborhood as being in a platted subdivision. MR. ARREOLA: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: Under Number 2 there, 9-25-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 89 Commissioner, keeping, storing, so forth, in a neighborhood or within 300 feet of a public street. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. MR. ARREOLA: Either way. MR. EMERSON: I think it's important here, maybe for clarification, not to confuse this Nuisance Abatement Policy with somebody illegally dumping solid waste, which they can enforce under other statutes. MR. ARREOLA: Separate. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. It's an and/or, as the Judge pointed out. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If my neighbor, Dr. Bacon, parks a junk car in his front yard and we're not in a platted subdivision, this -- this policy won't apply, but the other health and safety law code will apply? MR. ARREOLA: May apply. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that what we're saying? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The other one implied situations where you may have some shade-tree mechanics out there dumping crank case oil on the ground. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That happens. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is -- does the statute 4-25-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 90 say that we have to define neighborhood the way it is? MR. EMERSON: That's straight out of the statute. I -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: And nuisance has to be defined that way, 'cause we don't have a whole lot of choice on those items. MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What we're hearing is an assurance that adopting these regulations do not impair our ability to enforce solid waste violations outside of subdivisions. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. It should enhance this. Judge, I would move approval and adoption of the Kerr County Nuisance Abatement Program as proposed. And we don't need you to sign it, do we? COMMISSIONER LETZ: And do we have to make the appointment of Mr. Arreola? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. I want to add that we appoint Mr. Arreola as the director. MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And to authorize Constables 1, 2, 3, and 4 to act in the capacity of representatives, as defined by state statute. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You sure you don't 4-25-05 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 91 want to talk to them first? (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If they see it, they can report it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second the motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any -- any question? Comment? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm a little concerned about this constable bit. I mean, if they don't have a problem with it, I don't either, but I think -- my preference at this time, anyway, is just to have business with Miguel, and let Miguel visit with the constables and see if they would like this added to their responsibilities. I don't know that we have the authority to mandate that they do it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know that we're mandating, but we're authorizing their -- their appointment. And I think you're right; he should meet with them and talk about it, but by that time, we've -- we will have approved it, and that can happen if they have agreed to do it. MR. ARREOLA: Yes. It has to be in writing anyway, so -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has to be brought back every year. MR. ARREOLA: Yeah, once a year. 4-25-05 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference would be to not -- I mean, we don't have any authority to tell them to do it. So, I mean, we're -- you know, seems a little bit odd, to me, to be -- MR. EMERSON: Even if you choose the constables as your representatives, they still have to be designated in writing by Miguel as a representative. MR. ARREOLA: That's right. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All you're doing is recommendation. You can't tell them what to do. MR. EMERSON: If you tell them to do it, and he doesn't designate in writing, well -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're making it possible, but other things have to happen. MR. ARREOLA: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what's wrong with this verbiage of contingent upon their agreement or something like that? JUDGE TINLEY: I think what I'm hearing is the motion could be that it would also authorize the director to designate those constables as representatives, as that term is used in the statute, based upon their approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your hearing is right, Judge. That's exactly what I said. 9-25-05 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what I seconded. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can go along with that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll third that motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go to Number 11, consider and discuss the organization and oversight of all departments that report directly to the Commissioners Court. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda again, as I said I would, after we discussed this briefly at our last meeting. And, Judge, in thinking about it a little bit more and visiting with some of you, if not all of you, on the Court about what your thoughts were, I -- you know, I have come down that I think the -- what I'd like to recommend is that we, once a month at our first meeting, invite four departments to come in and visit with us at a designated time, being 2 p.m., go over what's going on in their departments. And the list shows the things -- review 4-25-05 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 `^ 2 4 25 department organization, status of budget, review employees, and long-term projects and goals. That's just kind of a starting point. And we have four of them come one month and four the next month, and back throughout the year. So, basically, we'd have each department head come to us in a -- a discussion-type format to discuss their departments six times a year. I think that would give us a lot better oversight. And I'm not sure that I want oversight any more, from earlier comments today, but it would give us more oversight, and also give us, I think -- or give me, anyway, a better -- just a knowledge and feeling as to how our departments are doing and where their needs are. I think it would help us in the budget process and personnel and everything else. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- JUDGE TINLEY: It's called communication, and COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I don't know if we need a motion to do this. I think we can just probably put it on the -- we can, but I think we can probably just send out a memo. Just, you know, the Judge, myself, anybody else can pick out which of the four departments to come. I would think that it would make sense to have Road and Bridge and Juvenile Detention Facility on alternate months, just from 4-25-05 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~-^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the standpoint they have the larger staffs and larger budgets, and that way it would -- you know, we don't handle the two real big departments at the same time. And see how it works. If it doesn't work, if it's a waste of time, we can always cancel it, but we can at least try it for a couple months. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You might see this as something brand-new, but I remember about this time of the year eight years ago, Commissioner Letz was talking about basically this exact same thing, with emphasis on the status of budget and long-term projects and goals, which I think is an excellent, excellent idea. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, county government's moving along at the rapid click of eight years, we finally get to do it. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm surprised he could remember that far back. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you think we need a -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think you need a motion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll make a motion that we implement a policy that the eight departments that report to the Commissioners Court, being Information 9-25-OS 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Technology, Road and Bridge, Facilities and Maintenance, Collections, Animal Control, Juvenile Detention, Extension Office, and Environmental Health, be invited to come on a bimonthly basis at 2 o'clock to visit with Commissioners Court the first meeting of the month. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. Would you change "invited" to "required"? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, required. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Question. What is the formal reporting relationship between the Extension Office and county government? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hope we'll find that out. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was wondering if that might not be the answer. For the timely reports, that's an organization issue; we can talk about it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's the reason I kind of -- kind of put "Review of department organization." Some of these, obviously, we understand, but that is one of the more difficult because of the relationship with the state office and the state Extension Service. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second? MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 4-25-05 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 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. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'll thank Ms. Mitchell for all the work in preparing this and doing all the legwork to get this done. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item, Item 12, consider and discuss Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think everyone has in their backup a draft of drainage, and let me tell you to go ahead and throw that away. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Throw it away? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Throw it away. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All that homework for nothing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we're getting a new one. And there's some extra copies, if anybody -- I know Leonard may want a copy. Rex, anyone over there, if anyone wants one. After rereading this -- well, let me first go back to a little bit of the philosophy. I met with some of the local engineers that read our rules, looked at our other 4-25-05 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 county rules, and our rules, the way they were written, were very difficult to enforce, and they were -- if you read them, I guess they were somewhat vague. And I think engineers, when you get a vague rule, err on the side of being very strict, if they're going to follow the rule, or they don't do anything. I mean, they kind of -- the problem was that we had a provision in there that says you can have no additional runoff from a drainage area after development of a subdivision than they do prior to it, and there's no allowance for size, amount, quantity, or anything like that. So, what that meant was you may have a tenth of an acre going into a little drainage ditch, and that's predevelopment. Then you do the development, and you may add a couple of gallons of water during a flood event down through that drainage. Well, our rules said that we had to go in there and put a drainage ditch across there, a bar, and channel it and do all kinds of -- I mean, basically destroy the whole little area to stop the water from leaving, when that clearly wasn't the intent. The intent is to keep, you know, basically, floods from happening or enhancing floods. So, what I tried to do is come up with a set of rules that basically say that there is a certain amount of allowance in real small drainage areas; you can have additional runoff after -- from a post-development standpoint, but not a significant enough amount to cause, 4-25-05 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 99 hopefully, any damage. The numbers that I chose are somewhat arbitrary. You know, I just kind of -- you know, I really don't think these are fixed, and we really aren't at the point that we're trying to approve this today. I would like to get more feedback from Road and Bridge and the engineering community whether a 20 percent increase, you know, 5 acres or less area, is good or bad. I mean, I'm not knowledgeable enough on the engineering side to know that, but it's more of the concept that I'm looking at. The change in the draft that I handed out today versus what was handed out in the -- in the packet was I realize that when I wrote it, I was thinking more of 5-acre lot sizes, and I feel that we ought to have a provision -- you know, obviously, we do have provision in our Subdivision Rules to have 1-acre lot sizes under community water systems and sewer systems and such. Well, I think it's -- those are very different. You have a lot more impervious cover being added through roads and driveways and homes and all that in those smaller or higher-density subdivisions. So, I divided it into two categories. Subdivisions with 5 acres or greater have basically the rule that was set forth in the original handout, and then I added a 2, which is subdivision drainage calculations for subdivisions with a minimum lot size less than 5 acres, and 9-25-05 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I made them a little bit more strict interpretation. The language is the same; I just made it a little bit stricter on the amount of increased flow that you could have. And, again, the numbers I chose are arbitrary, and kind of my best guess. I think we need input from the engineering community as to what is a good number there. We also added in the first paragraph, Paragraph A, a requirement that the -- either the developer or the engineer signs the final plat that says that the drainage plan was followed and it was installed, you know, according to plan -- substantially according to plan. I use the word "substantially" because I don't -- you know, I don't know that you can ever do things, you know, within reason, exactly like you draw. I mean, there's going to be a rock ledge somewhere, you know, 10 feet over or something. So, "substantial" I think is what`we want. If they're in substantial compliance. Any other key points on this -- on the frequencies to use, I left it the way it was. It was a 5-year -- all calculations were as to 5-year frequency, 10-year, and 100-year frequency. Some of the engineers thought that that was a little bit overkill. Still, they say if you're going to be over on one, you're probably going to be over on all of them. I asked the question, how many frequencies are there? As it turns out, I believe there's a 2-year, a 5-year, 10-year, a 15-year, a 20-year, 25-year, 4-25-05 101 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 50-year, and 100-year frequencies that they can get numbers for. Interestingly, Kendall County requires all calculations for every one of those frequencies. I left it at three. I think 5, 10, and 100 are okay, but I really wouldn't have a problem with 5 and 100 or, you know, maybe 5, 20 and 100. I don't know what the best numbers are. Again, I'd like the Road and Bridge Department and the community of engineers we have to give us the best numbers there. And then the last paragraph is the last thing I'll really draw attention to. I'll just read it. "Subdivisions with a minimum lot size of 20 acres or total number of lots less than five shall be exempt from Sections C, D, and E," which is where all the major calculations are done. And the drawing as to guts of the proposal, I don't know if we want to do that or not. I think that if you're in a large subdivision, I clearly think you should be exempt. We've had some small subdivisions that have been pretty contentious brought before us, one out in Buster's area not too long ago where, you know, that 5-acre exemption may have caused a problem. So, I don't know that we really want to give a -- you know, a new number, 'cause you can do a lot of damage on one or two lots. On 20-acre lots, I guess it's conceivable that you could do it, but we're not exempting them totally. 4-25-05 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 25 102 We're still saying they have to follow the basic parts of the rule, but I just don't see the point in requiring developers to spend a whole lot of money on engineering with a lot size big enough that, really, the roads and the infrastructure is not going to have an impact on the drainage to speak of. So, again, those are a little bit arbitrary numbers. It's more the concept I tried to put in writing. You might notice that -- the press night notice that we've gone from about half a page to three pages on drainage. I don't know that that is a whole lot stricter. I think this is really where the intent is currently, but I think it is clearly a -- hopefully a lot clearer to the developers and the engineers that have to do the work. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, do you intend to address this this afternoon? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not really in detail. I think where I plan to go with Subdivision Rules, I think we have one more section, the road layout, I want to take a hard look at, and I'll get with Leonard on that. And after that is done -- I'm not sure if there will be changes or not in that section. If there are, I'll probably bring that section back to the Court to go over like we are here, and then the meeting -- you know, either the next meeting or two meetings from now, I think we'll try to incorporate all this into a new set of rules and bring that back to the Court and 4-~5-05 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go, you know, into a public -- more public meeting, get it out to the public. This afternoon, I'm really hoping that it's more on the process as to how, procedurally, the platting process is working, whether we need to make any changes there, both between Road and Bridge Department and the Court, Road and Bridge Department and the development community, and Road and Bridge and the County Clerk's office to make sure what procedural things we need to make modifications on, and try to bring those to life this afternoon. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One of the -- one of the things you had listed, I think, for the afternoon discussion calls into question the need for professional assistance. I think this -- this paragraph begs for our ability to have hydrological studies and drainage flows calculated and understood -- calculated and approved by a professional engineer. So COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have sent -- I have forwarded this to at least one engineer in the current form to review. I always get very concerned when I start writing rules for engineers when I'm not an engineer. And I truly want to get feedback, and I'd like to get this out to more engineers to find out what they think about it. This is a layperson's attempt to put down a rule that meets the needs of the citizens and protecting them, you know, from a runoff 9-25-05 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~' 24 25 and drainage standpoint, and also get something that doesn't work before the engineering community that does the work. So, you know, I really hope we do get some feedback from engineers. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good work. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, it is. One of the issues that sometimes comes up, Jonathan, is if a developer strictly adheres to our current rules on drain water runoff, building these channels, detention structures or devices may tend to cause a worse problem on the neighbors than it -- than there would be if you didn't do that. Does this deal with that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It gives a -- a latitude. It doesn't address it totally. And along with what you just said there, you know, if it's a 25-acre basis -- which is, again, an arbitrary number -- it says there will be no additional runoff out of that area. You know, you put in -- and I never really thought previously as to how -- what this says, what the engineering community -- how they interpret that. And how they interpret that means that they take all the water and channel it to one spot to stop it for a while, but what that does, that creates a ditch. One, you're moving water to a central spot. Then you're getting rid of the sheet flow and getting a channel flow, which, in a real big flood event, when you get a channel flow, that may be 4-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 105 You also have a situation that -- and there's one that's come up out in Dave's area, Cypress Springs. I know I was talking with the engineer on that, going over all these rules, and there's a neighbor that -- they want the runoff. He has a stock tank down below it, and he wants -- he's ecstatic that they've increased the drainage a little bit into his -- but our rules don't allow for that situation. I don't know how you -- and I didn't address that. I don't know how you do address that. I think you just kind of figure out what's the best rule for most people. But I think this is a lot better than we currently have. I think it's a little bit more reasonable, gives a little more flexibility, and I think it also protects the 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 people a little bit in neighboring areas. And the other thing I didn't bring up, this rule -- and I don't know. I don't think any rule that we can ever put forward prevents what the individual -- once the lot's sold, what that individual does with that lot. I mean, they can go in there and put a big terrace across it and put all the water at one spot, and our Subdivision Rules aren't going to have an impact on that, and I don't know how worse. So, there may be room that we want to have a little bit more latitude under the 25 acres and larger areas as well, so that there's a little bit of excess that can come off . 4-25-05 106 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 you stop that. I don't know that we want to stop it or that we have any authority to. So, the fact that we have -- you know, we're just trying to make sure that the subdivision itself is not causing adverse situations to the neighbors. That doesn't mean there's not going to -- something can't be done on the subdivision that's going to make things work somewhere. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's just sort of living in the uphill country -- I mean the hill country, is that anytime you address any kind of drainage problem here, you're going to create something for someone down here. It just -- I think Leonard will probably agree with that statement, that you try to -- we try to fix problems on one piece of property, and you're creating a problem for somebody else downstream. Or affecting them, anyway. And so you're not going to hit it perfect. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And the other thing -- and -- well, anyway, I think enough said. I think it's a reasonable -- you know, hopefully reasonable. More reasonable than we currently have. A little more explicit, explains what we require. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Water goes downstream, doesn't it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Goes downhill. 4-~5-G5 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Goes from here to there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, this will be incorporated -- if I don't hear any great clamoring against this approach, this will be incorporated into our new rules, and we'll see it again in about a month. JUDGE TINLEY: And those rules, of course, there will have to be public notice, public hearing and all sorts of things. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, they will be available to the public, and for certainly 30 days or so. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that particular agenda item? We'll move on to Item 13, consider and discuss soliciting private bids for EMS service in Kerr County. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda kind of after thinking -- or after some statements made at the last several meetings when we were talking about renegotiating contracts with the City of Kerrville, who currently provides EMS service, and the fact that we were quickly approaching our -- our budget time and had not met with the City on this topic. I probably would have pulled this item if I would have been able to get hold of the City Manager last week, but based on what the paper's shown, I think he was probably in the process of being hired to a new 4-25-05 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 °^ 24 25 position and resigning from his current position, which is probably why he was out of pocket a little bit. But, needless to say, I was not able to get hold of him last week, and -- but we did receive a letter from the City Manager this morning stating that they -- the City has the numbers related to EMS currently, and it will be on the council meeting, I guess, tomorrow night to review those numbers and appoint a councilman to meet with the Commissioners Court, whoever we choose to have meet with them and go over this issue. So, I think that's a lot of the reason I put it on the agenda, because we had lack of word from the City. I don't know that we need to pursue this actively. At this time, in my opinion, I think it would be -- well, it depends a little bit on what the City's numbers show, how much of an increase it's going to have. I know Mark Beavers is in the audience from the City right now. But I think that, really, it's probably pretty premature to go out for soliciting private bids since we are about to get the numbers from the City. It appears we ought to get those, and at that point, if we do want to go out and solicit for private bids, I think we can do it at that time. It's just a matter of -- you know, that's just kind of what my thoughts are. I don't know what the rest of y'ap's thoughts are on that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we know whether 4-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 109 or not other counties that are about our size, whether or not any of them use a private contractor? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not aware of any county near us that uses a private contractor. The -- my understanding is before I became a commissioner, that the City of Kerrville and Kerr County used a private service, and it was not a very good -- it was not a good situation, and that evolved into the creation of the current EMS system that we currently have. I think Commissioner Baldwin might have been around at that time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that, you know, it's a -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was ugly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was ugly. But -- so I don't know. Really, I don't even know what's out there. I don't know how you even go about finding any private companies. I'm sure there are some. But I think my first preference is to -- I mean, this current service, the quality of service we currently have is outstanding, and if we can work out a deal with City of Kerrville, that would be my first choice. And if we can't, you know, we have to look at other options. And this was really more of a concern rather than -- more than anything else, whether or not there's satisfaction with rather than dissatisfaction with 4-25-05 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the service. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm very excited to see what the City of Kerrville -- what numbers they come with. And -- and I'm sure that they're going to provide us with some data that -- that they've used to arrive at that number; i.e., number of runs out in the county and percentage of runs compared to the inside the city. And, you know, the age-old question; do you travel -- when an ambulance goes, does the fire truck go with it, and does that mean that there's two runs or, you know, what? You know, that kind of information, which they've been very, very good at providing that kind of information to us. But I'm assuming that -- you know, does this letter -- I apologize for not reading it. I guess it's privileged information; I don't get it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in your box. MS. MITCHELL: It's in your box. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's in my box. All right, don't pick on me. But does it -- there's no sense in me reading it now. I've got a question. What -- they are going to appoint a City Councilperson to come over here and work with the Commissioners Court? Or are we going to appoint a Commissioners Court person to visit with that person? Or -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Their sentence 4-25-05 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reads, "Additionally, the Council has an item on their agenda for Tuesday night to authorize a Council member and me" -- being Ron Patterson -- "to meet with representatives of the County to present to you the proposed contract." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Representatives of the County, okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I would suspect -- and my recollection is that you are the EMS guru for the Court, so I would take it that you are the appointee of the Court. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think that too. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks like you have a meeting coming up. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that's, you know -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd better get my letter. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think it's up to you and a Council member and the City Manager to -- to take the first stab at resolving this. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably -- do we have an indication of the time frame on this, when that meeting might be? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, tomorrow night they're going to make the appointment, or consider making the appointment. 9-~5-05 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, there will be two of us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, be one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, there will be two. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who's the other one? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. Y'all are going to have to figure that out. I are one. They're going to have two; we need two. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm pleased to see the response from the City, 'cause it's a -- it's a very important issue. And the last time we had correspondence from there, needless to say, it scared me to death, so I'm happy to see that we're going to sit down -- Commissioner, you're going to sit down with somebody, and you're going to work your way through this issue. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think we ought to go ahead and pick the second person now. I think Commissioner Nicholson would be a good choice. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. One and four. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's nodding his head, I think. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll do it. 4-25-OS 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that particular agenda item? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, on a related item, seems like it's been a couple months ago now, we gave the City notice that -- that we wanted to renegotiate the Animal Control contract, and asked them to -- to identify someone who would -- from the City who would deal with that, and we haven't heard from them. It's been quite a while. I've told Janie Roman to -- that while we're confident we will continue to provide that service to the City of Kerrville, that there's some possibility that we might not, so that she should not make -- not make any -- take any actions that would impact a decision, either by Kerrville or by us, not to do that in the future, such as when she hires somebody, to tell them, "I've got a job for you now; I may not have a job for you come October l." So, I just wanted to pass that on to you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before we leave, Mark, do you have any comments you want to make related to the City? MR. BEAVERS: No. Mark Beavers, Assistant Fire Chief. Just here to listen to your comments and make sure that you're aware that tomorrow night at Council, the proposed contract's going to be put before Council, and also 4-25-05 114 1 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 City Manager and a Councilperson, if authorized by the Council tomorrow night, would like to meet with your representatives to work this out. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, thanks for coming. MR. BEAVERS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you being here. Anything else on that particular agenda item? Let's move to Item 14, if we might, consider and discuss changes in the Unemployment Fund's bylaws, and approval of an updated participation agreement for Texas Association of Counties' Unemployment Compensation Group account funds. This was forwarded to me by the representatives of TAC. They have already made amended bylaws to insure that they were consistent with other TAC funds, and the way the -- to change the way their board is selected, and the quorum in their meetings, and to allow the allocation of their penalties back to the members responsible for causing the penalties, which seems a little -- meets itself coming back type of provision. If you're going to penalize somebody and then turn around and give the money back, why, I don't see the rationale in that. But -- but they've already taken these actions, and they need for us to approve it. And they have asked us to approve those changes to the bylaws. Some of them are just housekeeping amendments, and the modified 4-25-05 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 25 115 participation agreement to take into account those changes. I don't know whether the County Attorney's had an opportunity to review this or not. MR. EMERSON: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently not. I wasn't sure the distribution on it. Court may want to defer taking any action on it, or take action subject to the County Attorney's review and approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this a time-sensitive matter, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think so. They took the action early last month, and they've -- they haven't put a fuse on it that I can find in their communication to me, so I can't see that another couple of weeks would be any great detriment. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My favorite part here is that it's going to "help ensure proper composition of the board to help ensure a quorum." (Laughter.) Whoo, this is government. This is really big, good government. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "At least once on an annual basis," which even makes it worse. JUDGE TINLEY: The sense I'm getting is that you -- you gentlemen are going to let the County Attorney take a peek at it, and we'll bring this back next time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd vote for it 4-25-05 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '"' 2 4 25 now if you can -- if -- you know, if we can get everybody else. I mean, it's not that big of a deal. It's -- all we're doing is ratifying something that's done. We don't -- I move for approval. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to Item 15, seeking approval of the Papcon software contract used in association with Hot Check Collection Department, County Attorney's office. Mr. Emerson? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. This is the software program that's used to collect our hot checks, and it allocates fees, merchants' fees, and restitution to the clients. The contract -- the last contract we had with this provider, from what I can tell, was 10 years old, so I felt like it was probably time for a new contract. The rate that's been provided on there is $412 per annum for the software program, which is relatively inexpensive. There is 9-25-05 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a separate maintenance clause that's in there, but to the best of my knowledge, from what I can tell from reviewing records, that's been used few -- few and far instances in between. We have very -- in talking to the two employees in the department that work with hot checks, we have very few problems with this software program, and it would be a tremendous detriment to us to have to change to a different software program and move all the data. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rex, is this $412 per year, is this a new $412, or is that what we're presently paying? MR. EMERSON: That's what you're presently paying. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does it come out of the Hot Check fund? do? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What does the software MR. EMERSON: Correlates -- correlates it. You have a merchant fee, the bank fee that would be attached to it, the amount of the actual check, and then the fee that's calculated by statute that goes into the Hot Check Fund, and it correlates all those items, allowing you not only to track it and input communications, but at the end of the month you can run an auditing report enabling you to 4-25-05 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ""' 2 4 25 print out your disbursement checks to your merchants, including the check that goes into the County's Hot Check Fund. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 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: The motion does carry. The next item we're going to reserve for later. We'll go to 17 -- Item 17, consider and discussion of Road and Bridge organization and personnel. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I put this -- I mean, Road and Bridge was advised that was going to be a 1:30 item, so that may be partially in executive session as well, so I think we'd better -- I would rather wait until 1:30 for that. So, we can go back, hit the other executive session item, or other items, in my opinion. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other member of the Court have anything they wish to offer on that? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Probably the best thing 4-25-05 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ''" 2 4 25 to do at this juncture would be to recess until 1:30. When we come back at -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Huh-uh. Before you recess, 'cause I'm not sure if I'll be able to get back, one thing I just wanted to advise the Court of, one of our employees named Hal Roth, who was my training sergeant for the jail for the last number of years, passed away this weekend due to cancer, so I thought the Court ought to know that. I'll advise them when the funeral arrangements are made. But we did lower our flags, because he was an employee at the Sheriff's Office, at half-staff. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you tell the Court about the guy that was caught? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mr. Haines was caught last night about 8:30, sex offender that we were looking for, out of Helotes by Bexar County Sheriff's Office. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, while we have a little bit of time, why don't we get rid of bills and budget amendments and all the rest of the stuff before lunch? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good idea. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we could do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That way we won't get rushed at our workshop or something. JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we move to Section 4 4-25-05 120 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 of the agenda, payment of the bills. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that emotion. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the bills. 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 amendments. Budget Amendment Request Number 1. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for the jail, from -- from the Sheriff, to transfer $174.76 from Cooks line item to Radio Repairs. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What kind of radio repairs? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our hand-held radios in the jail. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Inside the jail? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Inside the jail. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that exactly the same kind of hand-held radio we have out in the streets? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, they're different. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought. 4-25-05 121 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 So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: approval of Budget Amendment or discussion? All in favor raising your right hand. (The motion c JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for Request Number 1. Any question of the motion, signify by arried by unanimous vote.) All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 2. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is for the 216th District Court. The request is to transfer $145 from Court-Appointed Attorney line item to Court Transcripts. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that, but I want you to explain it to me. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we -- in the budget process, we -- we lowered the amount for court transcripts. We've been out of money in there for some time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just like the transcripts that our reporter here does for us? MR. TOMLINSON: Right. It would be for -- probably for an appeal. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And -- 4-25-05 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: That's when most transcripts are done, is for -- is for appeals. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember that now. I appreciate you bringing that up. Is that -- who actually does it? Is there a -- MR. TOMLINSON: The court reporter. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's in the courtroom? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That we pay -- just -- I've always had a problem with that. That we pay the court reporters a pretty good salary up there. I think this particular one is 27,000 plus a few dollars, and any time that there's any kind of -- I think Commissioner Williams recently had -- had requested a -- some printout of some proceedings of some sort, and was charged for it, and I just -- I struggle with that. I mean, I can't -- I can't seem to get my mind around it. We have a salaried employee, and then we turn around and pay extra for -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Services. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- the work. I don't -- I just can't get that. Is -- is transcripting outside the job description? Or -- I mean, I -- MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's a statute -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not fussing or 4-25-05 123 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 anything. I just cannot understand that. MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's a statutory issue concerning the creation of transcripts. I can't tell you what the -- what the chapter and paragraph is, but I -- that's my understanding. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- so, we -- we should be paying our reporter, then, extra for sending us copies of the minutes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I -- I'd like to follow up on what Commissioner Baldwin is asking about, 'cause it -- when that happened, it was really kind of disturbing. 'Cause I -- I thought that -- as he did, that that particular court reporter was on -- was a salaried employee, and all of a sudden, a week or so later or 10 days later, got a bill for the pages of the transcript that I requested. And your answer kind of befuddles me even more, if it's a statutory thing, and I'd like the County Attorney to shed some light on that. You know, is -- is that something that's statutorily required, if we ask a court reporter other than our own for some pages out of a -- of a proceeding, we have to pay for that on top of -- MR. EMERSON: That's correct. It's statutorily allowed for. They have a good lobby; that's all I can say. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it possible -- well, 4-25-05 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what about when I ask Kathy for -- to do a little research and find a copy of a transcript awhile back? Should we be paying her additional? MR. EMERSON: I don't know the answer to that. I didn't research that specifically. MS. PIEPER: I think she's just nice and does it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand. MR. EMERSON: I researched it from the standpoint of the County Attorney's office. Back in January we got a bill from a court reporter for providing a transcript for us to use on an appeal. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What you said, though -- MR. EMERSON: I had a serious question about a county department paying another county employee to generate paperwork, and it's allowed for in the statute. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You said it was allowed. Is that different than required? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They're allowed to collect that compensation, but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is different? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 9-25-OS 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we don't have to pay MR. EMERSON: I think you're probably going to have to renegotiate their contracts. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- well, that's what I'm saying. I mean, under the -- the current contract, this is the way it's done, but there's not a requirement by law that we have to do it this way. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What contract? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess our -- our employment -- you know, whatever the personnel -- JUDGE RAGSDALE: Policy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The job description. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's getting murkier and murkier. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, you know, a lot -- a lot of transcripts go to attorneys that are appealing -- that are representing the person on appeal, so we get -- we get funds in those cases sometimes. And -- and through -- through the indigent defense mechanism, we do get reimbursed somewhat for -- for their services. Not totally, but we -- we can include the cost of that as a -- as a cost to provide indigent defense to -- to a defendant. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I understand that, you know, outside attorney making a request or 22 23 "" 2 4 25 4-25-05 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whatever. I think that's quite legitimate to make that charge. But another person within the county government -- realm of county government? That just seems a little unusual. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wanted to ask Rex one more question. MR. EMERSON: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Forgive me for interrupting. That applies to the district court level. Your -- the law that you found -- MR. EMERSON: District and County Court at Law. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And County Court at Law. MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if -- we need to pay Kathy more if that's -- if that's the case. She does -- she does a lot more -- I'll bet you, a lot more of that type of work than anybody else. JUDGE TINLEY: I know she does. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: I know she does. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's sort of akin to one government agency that contracts with another one requiring a Freedom of Information Act request to find out 4-25-05 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what the details of the business are. That -- that seems like -- government entities are paid for by the same taxpayers; we ought to be able to do better than that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree with you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion? Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thought I'd ask. JUDGE TINLEY: We don't have a motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I made a motion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, and I seconded it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He seconded it. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion and second. Any further question or discussion on the Budget Amendment Request Number 2? 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: I just handed you Number 3. It's for -- a request from Road and Bridge to transfer $1,100.80 from their Contingency line item to Operating 4-25-05 128 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 Equipment to purchase some hand-held radios. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this -- do they -- hand-held radios? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are these the same ones that they use in the jail? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the question. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I hope not. MR..TOMLINSON: I don't have the details on that one. Leonard's not here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they have hand-held -- I mean, I can see these guys now with a shovel in one hand and their little radios up here. Do they have hand-held radios today? Is this brand-new? MR. TOMLINSON: I think it is, yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we're going to do it outside the budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I kind of have that question. I mean, they have radios in their trucks, but I don't -- maybe they're -- I mean, I wouldn't have a problem if they were replacing those radios with hand-held radios, you know, slowly upgrading, but I don't know why they would need truck radios, hand-held radios, and cell phones. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we hold it up until we get the answer from Road and Bridge? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There could be times, 4-25-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 like during all the work that was done down at Hermann Sons, if they're on opposite sides of the river, they're in different locations, truck's only at one location. Hand-held radios are -- are very nice to be able to have to communicate to each other farther down and farther apart, where you're not real close together. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, when you can spend a million dollars on them like you did. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We didn't buy any radios there, Buster. We just got towers, remember? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We didn't buy any radios? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's hold this one and ask Leonard where we are, if this is new. JUDGE TINLEY: Do I have a motion on Budget Amendment Request Number 3? Hearing none, we'll move on. No other budget amendment requests? MR. TOMLINSON: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: I have on e, to Off ice Max Credit Plan for $89.97. The reason this is late, the bill had -- had -- sales tax was included, so we held it until they -- they removed the sales tax, and it's now due, so I'd like to go ahead and -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 4-25-05 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: -- issue a check. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for payment of late bill to Office Max for $89.97. Any question or discussion? All in favor? (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed? (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. I have here before me monthly reports submitted by Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, as amended; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; Road and Bridge; and Information Technology. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as presented? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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. We'll stand in recess until 1:30. At 1:30, we will go into 4-25-05 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ executive session. (Recess taken from 11:53 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, if we might. We were in recess for the lunch period, and due back at 1:30. It's that time now. At this time, because we have some executive session items to go into, I will recess the open, public session of the meeting, and it is now 1:33, and we will go into executive or closed session. (The open session was closed at 1:33 p.m., and an Executive Session was held, the transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back into open, public session. It's now 2:47. I think we have one more item on the agenda -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I make a motion out of -- JUDGE TINLEY: Just -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not yet? JUDGE TINLEY: First off, let me inquire if we have any motion or anything to be offered by any member of the Court concerning any matters considered in executive session? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, Judge. I make a 4-25-05 132 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 motion -- pursuant to Item 1.16, which is listed as judiciary guns in the courthouse, I'll make a motion that the Commissioners Court permit members of the judiciary and state's attorneys to carry guns in Kerr County Courthouse, Kerr County Courthouse Annex, and Kerr County Law Enforcement Center, as long as they have concealed handgun licenses. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. One remaining item on the agenda, unless I've missed something here. I assume there's no more motions concerning executive session? an item -- amendment. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, but there is COMMISSIONER LETZ: Late bill or budget COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was something to do with the bills in Road and Bridge. Handguns -- I mean, hand-held radios. 4-25-05 133 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Radios. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can y'all explain that, what they're for? JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, appreciate you reminding me about that. There's a budget amendment to transfer funds over to Operating Equipment from -- from Contingencies to acquire hand-held radios. MS. HARDIN: We -- most of our trucks have radios in them, but we bought a new distributor -- water distributor, several pieces that do not need a radio in them full-time. They only need it in there when they're being driven, and so the hand-held radios are on the same frequency and can be taken from one piece of equipment to another, and that's what it's for. MR. ODOM: And it just saves money. It's more productive than buying them for each piece of equipment. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4-25-05 134 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 (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: I'll inquire again. Any other action to be offered or motions to be offered in connection with items considered in closed or executive session? We'll move to Item 1.18, which was a timed item for 2 o'clock. Would you like to go ahead and finish out 1.17 first? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which one -- why don't we call both at the same time? I mean, call both at the same time; we'll talk about the organization part as well. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'll also -- Item 18 was a timed item scheduled for 2:00. Obviously, we're late getting to it, and that's Road and Bridge and Subdivision Rules workshop. I'll call, in connection with that, Item 17, consider and discuss Road and Bridge organization and personnel. I think the organizational aspect is what you've got in mind. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. On the organization aspect, I didn't really list it under the workshop, but we kind of -- we did some reorganization when we changed the -- got rid of the County Engineer and restructured Road and Bridge Department a little bit. And if there's any improvements that y'all can recommend or changes we need to make, you know, sometime during the next 4-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "" 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 135 -- this workshop, or probably next workshop would be a good time to do it, if it relates to subdivisions. I don't particularly have anything in mind, but if there is any changes that you think, you know, may be needed, we can talk about that as well. But the work -- the purpose of the workshop as a whole is to kind of go over the process that we go through, and which is a lot of -- it's just flow of information and communication in the whole subdivision platting process. And I've listed, I think, nine questions. I think everyone received a copy. They're related to various things that I noted and had questions on. And I'll start with the first one, and we can go down. And anyone, including Mr. Harvey or Mr. Voelkel, if y'all have any comments, feel free to give them as well. The concept plans and the original contact by developer. I mean, is the current process working? Is there any major changes or changes that are needed in that process? And I'm really asking, probably, Truby and Len more than anything else. I mean, the way -- we added concept plans in 2000, and it seems like they're working. But it also seems like that I'm probably -- this is really more before y'all were doing it. When Franklin was doing it, I was out of the loop a lot during the concept plan portion. I think I'm more in the loop now. But I think it's real important that the 9-~5-05 136 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 Commissioners be in the loop as soon as possible, because we frequently get phone calls from someone along the line in a platting situation. So, I just want to make sure, you know, that if we need to make any changes in the verbiage, that now is a good time to go over that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is your routine when a developer contacts you about a concept plan? What is your basic routine from the get-go, from the time you get the call? MR. ODOM: Let's just take Voelkel and J.J. What we'll try to do -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any other project besides that one? (Laughter.) MR. ODOM: No. MR. VOELKEL: Thank you, Commissioner. JUDGE TINLEY: Think real hard. MR. ODOM: I'll count to 10. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Backwards. MR. ODOM: Yeah. And -- but in that case, we try to contact the Commissioners before we do that. They'll call and we'll say, "We need to set up a time. Do you have a time that's available that you can make..." You know, "What is available?" And we'll try to contact the Commissioner. Now, it's difficult, because it's not a set time that you're here. Mr. Nicholson's here normally 4-25-05 137 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 Tuesdays, and I try to arrange things or meetings -- concept meetings around that time. Buster is here, and I -- between you and Mr. Williams, sometimes, you know trying to balance it. But once we get it, then they present that and we sit down and we go through and we discuss that concept and the things we sort of need, or what are they trying to do? If we can get enough data -- in some cases, we just don't get enough information; we have to dig it up ourselves. J.J. Lane. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We were just talking about -- basically, I think the question has to do with the original contact via developer. What is that process? He's going to make sure he knows what that process is. MR. ODOM: Well, normally it's us, and they come to us saying that they want to set up a meeting and to look at a plat of some kind. And then we contact the existing -- or the Commissioner that's involved in it and try to set up a time that we're all together at one time. We don't try to meet outside here; we try to have a Commissioner in the loop. We think it's working. But, Lee, you've done it several times. Is it working or not working? MR. VOELKEL: I think it is working. The concept plan, I'm trying to think -- I'm kind of leaning toward maybe the concept plan coming before the entire Court, though, every time, as opposed to intermittently when 4-25-05 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there might be some problems or something, just to have everybody on the Court familiar with what's going on. I don't know if that's something all the Court members would want to know about. But the main thing is to involve the Commissioner in that precinct; there's no doubt about that, and to meet with -- with Mr. Odom on a preliminary basis to go over things and kind of familiarize them with where the property is and what the developer wants to do. To this point, I think that concept plan is working. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think it's important that it comes to the Commissioner first from -- from them before it comes to court. MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I think so. JUDGE TINLEY: On presenting the concept plan to the court, if there's not some extraordinary things that you might have some gray areas or maybe some variances that you're going to be looking at, and it -- everything else is pretty much by-the-numbers, so to speak, would -- would there be any need to bring that one before the Court for review to just kind of get an informal feeling of the pulse? MR. VOELKEL: The way we've been handling it, Judge, is we haven't been. In other words, if there weren't any problems and everything -- everybody was on the same page, we just proceeded forward with preliminary plat and 4-25-05 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 brought that in. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. VOELKEL: I don't really think it's -- unless y'all really want to know, and unless Buster wants to know what's going on in Mr. Letz' precinct on the concept plan level, I mean, we're going to get to it on the preliminary plat eventually, so it might be saving y'all some time not to do that. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's what I'm thinking. If there's not some gray areas or some -- MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: -- some extraordinary issues, or maybe a variance that is going to be out there that you may want to get kind of a preliminary read on, I wouldn't think it would be necessary, as long as the Commissioner of that precinct is brought into it from the get-go. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I look at it a little bit differently, and it's probably because I tend to get called into these more than anybody else, other than Commissioners. I'd say it seems that in the past year, two years, I get asked for an opinion or an interpretation of Subdivision Rules all over the county. And I don't mind doing it. Commissioner Nicholson and -- well, probably all the Commissioners probably rely on me, 'cause I wrote a lot of the rules and spent probably more time on subdivision 4-25-05 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rules. You know, it puts me in a difficult situation when I'm asked and, you know, when I go into -- like J.J. Lane, which is a great example today. Commissioner Williams -- it's in his precinct, and I'm asked to go look at something. And I'm glad to do it, but it gets into an awkward situation. And it may be the way to resolve that is -- well, another one, one in Cypress Springs on drainage, in Precinct 4, and I think everyone was aware -- I think Dave was aware that I was looking at that as well. But it may not be a bad idea to bring them all to court. We don't do that many subdivisions, or have -- you know, at least on a very quick version. I mean, I'm tossing that out because it's -- it seems that as we -- when we get more active in subdivisions, like we have been for the past six months, more so than we were the prior six months, I just get an awful lot of calls. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any problem at all with the concept plan coming. You know, say a developer contacts Road and Bridge and says, "Hey, I want to sit down and talk about this project." They contact the Commissioner and they review it, and it's still in the concept stage. I don't have any problem at all. I think it's -- as a matter of fact, I think it's probably pretty good policy to bring it here, because each of you can see things that I -- I, perhaps, can't or didn't see. And at 4-25-05 141 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 that stage of the game, anything you can do to help, you know, smooth out -- smooth out the process or the -- or the course of action, to me, makes sense. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think -- on a revision of plat, I don't think it's necessary. I think on a revision of plat, you do not need to, but I think any new subdivision is probably -- and we don't -- like I say, we don't get that many of them, I don't think. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't -- I don't see it the way y'all do, but that's fine. It's not a big deal. It's not a -- we're not wasting a lot of time or anything like that as far as the whole Court's concerned, but I don't care what you're doing in your precinct. If you and -- you and Leonard and the engineers work it out, you work it out, as far as I'm concerned. I don't have to look at it until it gets to the second stage. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The problem comes -- I think that if you're at a concept, and I've told the developer that this is the direction I want to go, and there's something that you think is absolutely -- you're not going to go along with, that developer is investing quite a bit to get to that preliminary stage, and then to have one of the Commissioners say no, they don't like it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That -- in my limited experience, I've seen that not all developments have 9-25-05 142 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 come in with concept plans. They go directly to step two, and that when they come in with a concept plan, I think I see that that heads off a lot of problems later on. They get to it earlier; probably saves them some time and money. So, I -- I think requiring a concept plan is important. Whether or not it needs to be reviewed by the full Court, I don't have any opinion on. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to suggest that we set -- instead of making it mandatory to bring it to court, let that be at the Commissioner's option. If he wants to bring it, he can. If he doesn't, he doesn't have to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And see if -- excuse me just a second. If there's something -- we see a concept plan, and there's something questionable about it, or maybe this will work or won't, that's when I talk to Jonathan, 'cause if I don't talk to him before court, I'm going to talk to him in court when -- when they bring it in for approval. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? MR. HARVEY: From the -- from the developer's point of view, almost on every occasion when a developer will meet with a single member of a governing board, when he leaves that meeting, there's always the question in the back 4-25-05 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of his mind, "Well, what is everybody else going to think?" Before -- as Commissioner Letz mentioned, he has to get to some point to where he's comfortable investing the time, money and effort to move to the next level. JUDGE TINLEY: What I'm hearing is that your comfort level would be greater -- MR. HARVEY: As a developer -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- if you had a quick consensus? MR. HARVEY: As a developer, I would be more comfortable going to the next level if every Commissioner -- if the entire Court had at least one opportunity, in the infant stages of a development, to voice all of their concerns. Even though the development may be in one precinct, the other Commissioners may want to ask a question, or they have concerns maybe from past experience of developments in their precinct. So, it -- it might behoove the Court, and I think it would help the developers if you might term it in any future rules that the initial contact is just the initial development conference with the Road and Bridge staff. And at that point, Road and Bridge can inform the developer he needs to prepare a concept plan, bring it to the Court, and even in the initial development meeting, the Commissioner of that precinct where the development is going to be could be in the initial meeting, 9-25-05 144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just to have a member of this body in from the very first COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think there's -- I -- some judgment has to go into that. I mean, I think it's -- if someone comes into Road and Bridge with a plat in their hand, they want to talk about it, they can't say, "No, we're not going to talk to you. We have to get the Commissioner here." I mean, that's not reasonable, either from their standpoint or our standpoint. But I think it is very important that Road and Bridge get with the Commissioner, if they're not at that initial meeting, or one of the first -- if there's a second meeting and they're not there, I think Road and Bridge should visit with the Commissioner about the concept plan before -- I think it needs to go to the Commissioner before it gets to court. MR. HARVEY: Right, before the concept plan comes before the full Court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. HARVEY: The applicable Commissioner has been brought up to date on what the County staff has met about. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You also run a -- and that's a good plan. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever, but you run a risk of -- the possibility, if you come before the whole Court with a concept plan -- and I'm 9-25-05 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to have to redefine -- or define "concept plan" in my mind -- but come before the Court, and the Court says, "Yeah, that's a pretty cool deal," you know. "We'll see you down the road." And he comes back in with his preliminary, and then to this full Court for official vote, and we spot some things that are possibly wrong, Then that developer says, "Well, what the hell's wrong with you, man? You approved it in the concept plan." You know, you've already -- you've already said this is a good deal. Now what are you doing? Why are you trying to change it at this point? I've seen that happen here before. That's not a regular deal, but you have that opportunity for that to happen. MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir, that's true, if the Commissioners Court wants to take an administrative -- for lack of a better word, take the administrative posture that you approve concept plans. You -- as far as I'm concerned, you don't have to approve it. You can just have no objections to what they have presented so far. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. I mean, I'm not talking about an official vote or anything on the concept plan. It's just by not taking objections, it's a nod. "Yes, this is a good plan; go with it." Just a minor point I wanted to make. JUDGE TINLEY: I think the point he's making is, it's better to have too much communication than too 4-25-05 146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 little. MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir. And it can be -- it can be very -- it can be made very clear to a developer in the concept stage presentation that the Court's not approving your concept plan. They're not rejecting it. We just want to see what you have in mind. But, remember, if your preliminary plat comes in, in your opinion, substantially different from the concept plan, then we have a lot more to discuss. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, Leonard? MR. ODOM: That would work theoretically if you went down the line and you had a concept plan. But let's go back to a week or so ago where you get hit all of a sudden with somebody selling property, and you don't have this length of time. You're talking about concept, going to the Court to get your initial on it, going onto an agenda, and then the other times for a preliminary plat. So, you're -- in the case of this -- in this J.J. Lane, you know, you were being pushed for time. It doesn't work. I mean, ideal would be that way, but that's not the situation all the time in this court. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Smile, Leonard. MR. ODOM: I am. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course, that one may have a little -- little extraordinary timeline. 4-25-05 147 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 MR. ODOM: It does, but it's happened several times with them coming in all of a sudden, really hitting and trying to get something in with the time frame that we're directed by the Court to do now. It's not that we can't do that, but, again, they're going to be being pushed. They'd say, "I got to plat it; got a contract on it." COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's no timeline that applies to the first contact with the concept plan as to -- as leading up to a preliminary plat. That can take six months to develop the concept. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think Leonard's saying if they come to us with the information, we've got, by law -- MR. ODOM: 21 days prior. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 21 days to act, yes or no. MR. ODOM: And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Once they get everything before us. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's on a preliminary? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, to get to final. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Preliminary to final? COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's what I'm saying. If they come with everything right there, we have 4-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 148 to be able to act real quick, and if we have all this -- too much process and procedures to get through, we can't do it that quick. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it may be best to -- I'll work on -- I'll tinker with the language and probably go back to what Commissioner Williams said; leave it to the Commissioner or the developer to request it get on the Commissioners Court, because that gives a little more flexibility, where on some of the smaller ones that are rushed, maybe we don't have a concept plan before the whole Court, but the rule on a new subdivision would be that it would come before the full Court. The second item is pretty much -- I think we dealt with that, too. It's coordination between the Commissioners and Road and Bridge. That was just more to get the Commissioners involved as early as possible, which I think is going -- is being done right now. Third is the certifications on the final plat, and I'll just go down some of them that I have a real question with, see if anyone has any comments right now. There's a certification by the County Engineer. I assume that the Court intends to have Mr. Odom sign the plat? Or just recommend the Court -- I mean, we obviously don't have a County Engineer any longer, so do we want a certification that -- 4-25-05 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ JUDGE TINLEY: That the -- that the Road and Bridge Administrator approves it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that it's necessary. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Under what -- I mean, I don't see the authority there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I'm just looking -- I mean, it's pretty -- I don't know what the authority for the other one was, either. It just says a certification by County Engineer. MR. ODOM: Are you saying the -- define "certification." COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's on the plat. It's on the plat where you sign. MR. ODOM: I understand that. Are you saying a certification needs a professional engineer? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'm saying I don't know that it needs either County Engineer or anybody else. I mean, I don't know why we need a -- MR. ODOM: As long as the Judge signs it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. VOELKEL: I think what they have been certifying to is that all the requirements of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules have been met. 4-25-OS 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: Yeah. MR. VOELKEL: And that's -- it's either -- it has been Kerr County Engineer, and now it's designated Kerr County official, which I think is appropriate also without an engineer. I think either one can do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. VOELKEL: But I question the -- I guess, do they need to certify to that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- by the time we vote on it, doesn't make any difference if you certify it or not. Our vote -- our vote's what counts, not the certification. MR. ODOM: And it does say in the rules that even if we miss something, it's his responsibility to make sure that all the requirements of the subdivision plat are fulfilled. So, the engineer or the surveyor has to -- he's responsible. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The surveyor and engineers will continue to. I don't think it's necessary, personally, to have an in-house person sign the final plat. JUDGE TINLEY: If the Court's got to ultimately approve it anyway. MR. ODOM: That's right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think you're right. Once we approve it and the Judge signs it, that's 4-25-05 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~.., 24 25 the authority of the Court, and that presupposes that all the rules have been followed and variances have been granted. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or they're noted. Next we have a certification currently for Headwaters. I don't see any reason for that. Under the current -- under the new Water Availability Requirements, they're not involved in our water availability requirements at all. That's how they were -- why they were on the plat. I think they've been refusing to sign them for some time, anyway. So -- MR. VOELKEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think we can delete that. We have certification by Kerr 9-1-1 as to road names and that. Again, I don't know that that one makes any sense any more. I think Road and Bridge works with, I think, 9-1-1 under the current system. That may be changed sometime in the near future, but, I mean, the road names are done. By the time they get approved, we're comfortable with those names. JUDGE TINLEY: That's something that Road and Bridge handles as part of their process. MS. HARDIN: Not on a new plat. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How are the names getting on the plats? Are they worked -- MS. HARDIN: 9-1-1 is actually -- 9-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 152 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're doing them still? MR. ODOM: They're approving them. JUDGE TINLEY: We need to le ave them. MS. HARDIN: But i f they're not going to do addressing, t hen -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we 'll leave them there for the time being, just so it doesn' t run out. COMMISSIONER NICHO LSON: We' re the only ones that have the authority to establ ish a road name, so we're just talking about the process. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHO LSON: How it gets to us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How it gets to us, how it's picked t he names and they're approved. 'Cause, obviously -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the authority is to -- just to determine that there are no duplications and it meets their basic criteria, right? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For addressing. I don't understand that. They don't have any, do they? JUDGE TINLEY: No, we actually assign the road names, but they certify that they're not duplicitous and they meet their criteria, I think is what that certification does. 4-25-05 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MS. HARDIN: Actually, on the new plats, they've been assigning road names; we haven't. That has not been a separate thing for the Court. It's just been done on the plat. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Under Texas law, we -- we have the responsibility, duty, and the authority to assign road names. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think someone -- we need to -- I don't -- again, this is another one of the things -- I'm not sure this needs to be on the plat itself. I think we need to make sure that the road names are run through, but it can -- in my mind, it can be an internal memo or e-mail between Road and Bridge Department and 9-1-1, you know. What I'm trying to do -- basically, I don't see the point in developers running all over town trying to get signatures that are for something that's a waste of time. MR. VOELKEL: Amen. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is -- you know, and I don't -- I don't know if the current system is working. I don't want to change the current system; I just don't know that it makes sense on final plat to have to run back out to 9-1-1 office again. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you've got to 4-25-05 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know, though, if it's a -- if that road name is going to fly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but can't Road and Bridge work that out on their routing slip? And they can just have it checked off, yes, they've been approved, and put that in the file. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How are they going to know? Are you going to call 9-1-1 and say, "Hey, is Jack's Drive cool?" MS. HARDIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they'll say yes, and then it will be a problem. MS. HARDIN: The thing about them seeing the plat, though, it helps with the addressing and knowing how many numbers they're going to have to assign and that type of thing, because they go by how many feet on the road and that type of thing. So, them actually seeing the plat is useful for their -- for their purpose. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They may want the plat still. And they're -- this conversation is almost -- MR. HARVEY: 9-1-1 systems typically use a recorded plat, and they go out and drive the road -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. HARVEY: -- and physically assign a number. But for them to have to certify to those -- to that 4-25-OS 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 --- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 addressing on a plat, it's unnecessary, 'cause typically they don't -- they don't drive the road to assign numbers until they have a final plat. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. HARVEY: It's kind of a premature certification that really serves no purpose. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's what I'm thinking. They need to get the plat on the distribution, but I'm not sure they need to certify on it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, all I want to know when the plat hits here is if that road name is not a duplication. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you're going to ask the same questions of the same person that you currently do, which is Leonard or Truby, I guess, up here, and say, "Are these road names certified by 9-1-1?" They'll say yes or no. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. I don't -- I don't care, long as somebody tells me that it's -- that it's not a duplication. I don't care who it is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: In my -- to me -- I'll go on to the next one. Next one is utility companies. To me, it's the same thing. For the life of me, I can't understand why utility companies have to sign the final plat. I think they should be distributed the final plat. And I know they 4-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 156 balk at this, but I don't see anywhere in Section 232 that requires utility companies to sign a plat. I don't see that they're even mentioned in the platting, you know, business. And; to me, a lot of these people should get copies of the plat after it's approved, and then a courtesy copy on the preliminary so they're aware that it's coming down the pike, but I just don't see where they have to sign the certification. And we're not unique in that; other counties do the same thing. Electric companies especially want to sign off on them in advance, and I just -- you know -- MR. ODOM: Just for planning purposes, I'm sure their engineering department gets it and wants to take a look at it, and for budgetary purposes, where they may be coming online. I don't know, but I would assume that would be a working -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That doesn't benefit this Court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: In eight years, I have never recalled us making any kind of a change on a plat because a telephone company or electric company has asked us to. MR. VOELKEL: And generally all they want on that plat is that little paragraph that provides easements down each property line. Other than that, there's nothing for them to look at. 4-25-05 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 MR. ODOM: That's right. MR. VOELKEL: Now, our problem here in Kerr County is, we have an electric company in Bandera; we've got one in Fredericksburg. We've got a telephone company that's in Ingram, and we -- well, we still do have an electric company that's in Junction. Coordinating those people on signatures on a plat, gentlemen, is very difficult. And we have two utility companies that only have one person that will sign the plat, and if they're out of town or sick or on vacation, the plat doesn't get signed. JUDGE TINLEY: Sometimes it takes two of them, too, doesn't it? MR. VOELKEL: It does, and that's the difficult part of it. And, again, I've never had any feedback from any electric company or utility company that has gotten a preliminary plat. As long as they're seeing that paragraph on there, they're satisfied, and they'll sign the plat. It's just a cumbersome deal to run around, as Jon put it, to get those signatures on there. MR. ODOM: So we should have that in the rules, then, that that statement -- we have a standard statement, whatever we're using. Or does each entity use a different -- MR. VOELKEL: The good news is, they all use the same one. 9-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,--~ 24 25 158 MR. ODOM: Same language? Then that should be part of our Subdivision Rules. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We put it in the rules. And I think that when it comes from Road and Bridge and it's recommended for approval, they've already gone through the -- made sure the road names are there, made sure the electrical language is on the plat and all the other language. It can be done in-house, which is kind of being done that way already, but it's saving a lot of time running around and wasting -- wasting money. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, whatever we can clean off there, let's do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Those are the certifications that I saw that I thought were -- serve no real purpose. JUDGE TINLEY: Any others that you -- MR. VOELKEL: At this point, O.S.S.F. -- if there's any tract that's -- if there's no tracts smaller than 3 acres, they are not signing the plats either. They were putting a note on the plat, but they don't sign the plat. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I believe -- I talked with Miguel on this, and he said, by state law, he has to -- he's supposed to -- MR. VOELKEL: Okay. I think it would be a 4-25-05 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 good idea, but I think the way our rules read presently -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: The rules say he doesn't, but by state law, he does. This needs to be left on. MR. VOELKEL: Bring them back into the loop. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? MR. VOELKEL: Can I offer this? And just -- I'll just throw this out; it has to do with the routing slip, and -- and it will go back to the certifications. Presently, on preliminary and final plat, we -- "we" being either the developer or the developer's surveyor or engineer, is delivering the copies of plats to all these entities, and we have a routing slip that they sign. The routing slip finally, I think, has gotten to a point where people will accept it. At first we didn't have -- we had people that wouldn't even sign the routing slip, because they felt like they were approving the plat by signing the routing slip. I think we've about finally gotten over that lump. But what I envision in my mind to be more efficient would be for a developer to deliver his preliminary plats and final plats to the Road and Bridge Department, and have the Road and Bridge Department distribute those to everybody that needs the plat. And I think it can be done by mail. There might even be some cases where they could e-mail the files, but I think if they were the central unit to distribute the plats, then, first of all, they would know 4-25-05 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 that everybody that was supposed to get a plat has gotten a plat. And in their distribution -- hang on -- they would ask those entities to respond back to them if there's a problem with the plat. At this point, I never have anybody call me as -- as far as having any problem with the plat; that the plat looks good, the plat looks bad or anything. I have no feedback from these people that we're delivering the plats to. We just send them out there, and then a month or two later, we go out and have them sign a final plat. I think it would be well to have a paper trail, so that these people or these entities respond to -- in this case, what I'm recommending is the Road and Bridge Department, that the plat has on it the essentials that they need to approve the plat. And then I don't think that there's any need for them to sign a plat as long as they have given the Road and Bridge Department or somebody that affirmative action that they have seen the plat and agree to it. I'm just trying to eliminate some of the running around that we're having to do with the routing slip and with signing the plats. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you -- I don't think you're solving anything other than making Road and Bridge run around. 21 22 23 24 25 MR. VOELKEL: Well, it can be done by mail. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. But, I mean, people aren't going to handle it, and it's going to -- 21 4-25-05 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 25 161 days is going to come up, and we're going to be up against a -- you know, they're going to be up trying to -- I just MR. VOELKEL: Okay. I can understand that, sure. I was just trying to get away from it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You tried. Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Any -- any other -- MR. HARVEY: I don't mind adding one thing to that, too. That, you know, this may be -- we may all be in here chuckling, viewing that this as a shift of one administrative procedure to another entity. But utility companies and the different agencies that these plats -- these plats are routed to, they are much more inclined to respond to the County than they are the developer or the developer's surveyor or engineer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that may be -- MR. HARVEY: That happens all the time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- but, I mean, I look at that as that if they're not required to -- if we take some of these people off -- the utility companies off of the final plat, they can't hold it up anyway, even if they want to. They'd better be more proactive if they're going to have input, and -- 'cause we're not going to wait on them any more, you know. And that's just kind of how I look at it; they go hand-in-hand. I think we can simply tie it a 4-25-G5 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lot -- make it a dot easier from y'all's standpoint and from the developers and for us. I mean, the less certifications we have to worry about getting, the easier the whole process is. 'Cause we are under a legislative time frame to get these things in and out. But I'll make a -- I mean, this isn't the last chance everyone's going to have to look at these. I just got to figure out how to incorporate these into the next draft. Anything else on certifications? The next one's a pretty quick one. Revision of plat currently requires submission of subdivision covenants and restrictions. I don't see the need for that, other than, you know, if the -- we never -- I never know if we have the current covenants and restrictions for a subdivision, and I don't think we need to waste our time to make sure if we do or don't. If they come to us and get approval, that doesn't mean we don't override them and they don't override us. I don't know why -- I really don't know why we have it in here right now. I thought we got this out in most areas. JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Suppose you've got covenants in place that say a tract may not be subdivided into tracts smaller than -- whatever size. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: And you're brought a plat separately and apart from that to revise by chopping up a 4-25-05 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 25 163 tract, and it is smaller than the -- I realize we don't have any liability, but I'm just thinking we might avoid a firestorm if we have those covenants in-hand. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I look at the situation -- if you go into a new development, generally there's rules and restrictions filed. Then there's a clause that says a developer can do anything he wants until 75 percent of the lots are sold, and which means that, you know, they submit this -- and we've had this happen on the Court before. We get those and say, "No, you can't do it," or one of the other residents says, "You can't do it," but the developer plays his trump card and says, "I can do whatever I want." So, I just think that it puts us in a situation of having to -- well, basically, we're going to have to send them down to the County Attorney to read them every time. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't use them, do we? I don't -- MR. VOELKEL: Can County Commissioners enforce deed and plat restrictions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. MR. VOELKEL: Well, then, again, why are we asking for the deed restrictions? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It may -- just like a deed restriction; same thing. You mentioned deed 4-25-05 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 25 164 restrictions. If there's a deed restriction that says they can't divide, and they do it, you know, we're not saying that as a legal -- that we're going to rule on what they're doing. Maybe we need language on the plat to indemnify us, so to speak, that this doesn't -- you know, that we have to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kind of a disclaimer. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, disclaimer. MR. ODOM: Would you not have a ministerial duty to recognize those covenants? Other than judgment call? I mean, we're -- I can understand where we're going, but -- but I'm sort of like with the Judge. If you -- and Rex -- is Rex here? You know, is -- does the Court not have a ministerial duty to recognize those covenants? MR. HARVEY: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know for what reason. I mean, we don't -- we don't have any authority over them. If -- if someone breaks a covenant, they go to J.P. court; they don't come to this court. MR. ODOM: It's a civil matter. But I'm saying for us to take a new plat or a replat in some way -- let's say it says that you can't be any less. Whiskey Canyon was a good example. In the last couple of months we had one; it was done right. But they could be subdivided no less than 25-acre lots. That was -- that was -- they were 4-25-05 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 splitting it. We revising the plat. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They don't come to us looking for approval for the development stage of those covenants and rules, deed restrictions, so, you know, what say do we have over them? It's a civil matter. If they're violated, they go to court. MR. ODOM: It would be a civil matter. But are we drug into something if we -- if we approve a revision of plat? You know -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Guy right there with the tie on, ask him. MR. ODOM: That's what I'm asking. That's why I think you're -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Common sense would say regulations, and not -- we shouldn't be concerned with something outside of that, private property covenants. JUDGE TINLEY: I hate to be going back the other direction. We're just trying to clean up the plat, and now we're talking about putting a disclaimer on here that the approval of this plat, you know -- MR. ODOM: Vacates. JUDGE TINLEY: -- cannot be meant to be construed as -- as that they're in conformity with any applicable covenants or restrictions or whatever. But I 9-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 166 think that would solve it. I just -- my only thought was, I know we can -- we can do nothing about it, because that's private property rights, but I just don't want to get in a firestorm that we can avoid, if we can. But I don't want to -- I don't want to muck up the process to get there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex, what's your thought on it? Should we be in the business of reviewing subdivision covenants when we're looking at a revision of plat? MR. EMERSON: Two things come to mind very quickly on that. First, I would say that you schedule it for an open hearing; you have an open hearing, and anybody from the subdivision has a right to show up and contest it if they don't like it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. EMERSON: And the second thing would be that the Judge is absolutely right. I mean, that's private property rights, and the homeowners' association has every right in the world to pursue their own civil remedies, and I don't think the county government needs to be in the middle of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think your first point -- I'd forgotten about the requirement under state law and our rules that there's notification going to them if we revise a plat, to all the people in the subdivision, plus 4-25-05 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's posted. So, they're at notice that we're -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If our rules say that it's 5-acre minimum, and someplace in the covenant says it's a 10-acre minimum, then they need to fuss about that amongst themselves. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not us. MR. VOELKEL: And you'll approve the 5-acre if it complies with all of the county rules? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. VOELKEL: Is that what you're doing? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think we need them in there. I don't think we're using them now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're -- you're just opening up something that shouldn't be -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wrote down "delete." MR. ODOM: So, we would eliminate that for revision of plat, then? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not require them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I don't know that we've ever -- that's ever come up. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I remember one time we asked the question, were the covenants and the deed 4-2s-os 168 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 restrictions satisfied. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You did. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Next is a -- should revision of plat be treated differently than a new subdivision plat in the platting process? And the reason I'm bringing this up right now, the language is that they have a little separate section or do things a little bit differently on notification and hearing and all that for revision of plat, and that's state law. But we also have a clause that says that they have to abide by all the other rules. That includes drainage studies; that includes all kinds of things, you know, that they may or may not have to do. And if they're just doing a -- splitting a tract from one to two, which is normally what happens, you know, I don't know that we should require them to do a whole lot of additional expense. And that's -- I think you've had, probably, Buster, more complaints in this area than anyone else. If all a guy wants to do is get rid of a lot line and combine lots, he has to jump through all these hoops and all that. And I'm not sure how we make it simpler and, you know, how we have a separate set of rules for them without really making it a very confusing set of rules, but at the same time, I don't know that we should require them to do everything that a new subdivision has to do. 4-25-05 169 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, I don't have an answer for you right off the top of my head, but I agree with you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we can just think about that. And, you know, I might look at it, 'cause I really don't have a way to solve that one, any kind of recommendation. The next is when, if ever, do we need to hire a consulting engineer, and what process do we use to hire an engineer? We haven't had any issues up till now, but when we start looking at drainage plans, I think that if we're going to have any kind of a disagreement or agreement with them, really looking at them in any kind of depth, I think that we're on pretty shaky ground if we don't have an engineer advising us. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Recommendation of the Road Administrator? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't know if it's -- if it's -- you know, I'm not trying to pick on Leonard here, but I don't know that Leonard has the qualifications to look at a hydrology plan and -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I mean to alert us that it -- "Gentlemen, you need to hire somebody to do 4-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 170 that." COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, are you saying we pass it off on Leonard to say, "Hey, y'all need to hire an engineer"? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what I was saying. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if we require, by Subdivision Rules, of a developer a drainage study and/or a hydrology study, isn't it an automatic, we have to have an engineer to review it? JUDGE TINLEY: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No? You want to certify that those calculations are correct without the input of an engineer? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the engineer that's done it is certifying that it's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Les, you're an engineer. Can you do this type of work -- I mean, could a layperson receive one of your hydrology and drainage studies, and just by looking at it, understand it? MR. HARVEY: Probably not. Now, I don't mean that derogatory by any stretch of the imagination, but please understand what technology is like nowadays. There's hardly a thing I can do in road design, hydrology, or 4-25-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 25 171 hydraulics that is not some sort of computer application that has a very specific input and output file. You know, it all depends on when -- and this is just something to consider. When an engineer -- any engineer submits a signed and sealed drainage report to Kerr County, what do you want to do with it? I don't expect an answer. What do you -- what does this body and the Road and Bridge Department want to do with it? Do you want to file it away, just for pub -- just for public record? Do you want to approve it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll give you a good case in point, The Homestead next door to The Woods. That has been an issue in terms of hydrology studies, good, bad, or indifferent, and the findings and the results since the get-go, and you know it. I can't think of a better illustration. I've been out there half a dozen times with the County Engineer, when he was in our employ, and we stepped through it, and I venture to suggest to you the next big rain that comes up, you can go back out there and the arguments will be revisited all over again that the hydrology study prepared by a registered engineer was wrong, was faulty; it didn't do what it was supposed to do, or misrepresented. Now, you know, how do you -- how do we get ourselves off of that hook so that when we approve the plat, which contained the hydrology study and the whole bit, drainage flow, the whole bit, that we are, in fact, 4-~5-05 172 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 certifying that it was done properly and to whatever satisfaction? Now, help me out with this one. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Bill, another good example was Bumble Bee Hills, where we had a developer's hydrology engineer saying, "Here's the deal. Everything's okay on this lot." And then we had some of the neighbors hire their own engineer and a qualified hydrologist, and he said, "No that's not the way at all. It's completely different." Now, what -- what do people like me and you do then? Flip a coin? Go for two out of three? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess that's why I'm asking that, yeah. MR. ODOM: One engineer will use a certain type of analysis versus feeling. I think that -- I think that when we look at the rules, that we should set a standard that people can do. I don't know what he -- what Les uses, but HEC-2, you know, is not used any more by FEMA, so there's certain standards. Everybody can design something different. Bumble Bee's an example of that. They can use different criteria, different ways they do it, and unless you really come into this and set standards, the design is going to be based upon that computer program. MR. HARVEY: You can't -- you can't set standards telling an engineer what method to use for hydrology and hydraulics. 4-25-05 173 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. ODOM: I can say that FEMA uses this, and that's what we're looking at, is the FEMA standards, whatever that standard may be, Les. Then we're on the same page. MR. HARVEY: No, I couldn't -- I couldn't disagree more. MR. ODOM: Well -- MR. HARVEY: Because FEMA -- FEMA only deals with what's called HEC-1 and HEC-2, and the new one is HEC-RAS. MR. ODOM: That's right. MR. HARVEY: Those are for very large drainage basins, solely for the establishment of floodplain elevation and the limits of the floodplain. That's the purpose -- MR. ODOM: That's the purpose. MR. HARVEY: -- of HEC-1 and HEC-2. Now, when you get into drainage analysis for a brand-new subdivision, depending upon the size of that subdivision, there are several different hydrology methods that you can use. Those individual methods are subroutines of the FEMA program. You can use -- FEMA does not apply to subdivision drainage; it's not apples and apples. There are various methods that an engineer can use to do the hydrology and hydraulics for culvert design, for drainage channels, 4-25-OS 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 parallel bar ditches. And one method, depending upon the size of the drainage basin -- it may be if one drainage basin is 100 acres, there are several methods you can use. If the size of the drainage basin is 500 acres, some of these methods over here are not to be used with that size drainage basin. So, you can't set a standard for doing hydrology and hydraulics. But, to respond to your comment a minute ago about The Homestead, I myself could think of no better example of that being a problem. And that -- that was probably a case -- and I know the engineer that did the study. That was probably a case where that study was done, and it was simply filed away by the County. To use your trigger comment a minute ago of, How do we get the County completely off the hook of those future possible situations? You hire you an engineer that knows all of these different methods, that can review the results that are sent in on just about any case. And if he doesn't understand -- if -- if he doesn't understand the method that a submitting engineer is presenting to the County, then he asks for an explanation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Les. That was the response I was looking for. Appreciate it. MR. HARVEY: Well, it's the truth. But, I mean, there -- there's no other way to get the County off of 4-25-05 175 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 that future hook. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that I want to get the County -- I mean, I don't have a real problem with getting -- hiring an engineer who's a hydrologist as well to look at the drainage studies, but I've never looked at our Subdivision Rules as approving the drainage study. We're approving that they have submitted the drainage study that meets our requirements and state law. And if it's a bad study, and it's sealed, I look at that engineer as responsible that sealed it. And the problem goes if the -- The Homestead problem comes up, well, someone should see that engineer that did it, being The Woods. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it comes back -- Commissioner, it comes back to the argument that's been, you know, laid on me at least -- at least three times. The County approved the plat, period. And here's the problem. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I understand that. But I'm saying that the -- we're going to start driving the costs very, very high if we basically, I mean, go out and hire an engineer to get the level of comfort that we know that everything's okay. It's going to start costing us a whole bunch of money that we don't have. And I don't know that -- I don't know how we ask the developer -- I don't 4-25-05 176 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 know that we can really ask -- pass that on to the developer, and I don't think the rest of the taxpayers should pay for it. I mean, I think there's a certain amount that has to go with the -- the developer and the engineer that does the subdivision, that they're the ones on the hook. I don't want the County to be on the hook. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't either. I want us to find a way to get us off the hook. MR. HARVEY: Just one follow-up to this discussion of being on the hook. I will be the first to admit that you can hire all of the hydrology and hydraulic experts you want to review submissions to the County, and that's not -- and that is not going to stop John Q. Public, when he has a problem in the future, to come running to the County. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. MR. HARVEY: That won't stop him. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right about that. MR. ODOM: And it won't stop a 25-year frequency coming off the E.T.J. over there till 5-year or 2-year that's in The Homestead or over there in The Woods. So that's part of it, is -- is you've got the City standards that are higher than ours, and you've got runoff coming out of -- out of those things, and it's greater than whatever we 4-25-C5 177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 --- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '~ 24 25 have. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know how the City plays in this one. MR. ODOM: Well, the City had to do with that up above, that land right there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, but Homestead was there before Comanche Trace was. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that we have an answer to that question. MR. VOELKEL: Commissioner, can I just throw this in about -- I hope there are not any developers here. Plat review fees, I think, would be something that the County ought to look at as far as collecting those fees for preliminary plat. Of course, we collect fees now. They're very minimal; I think preliminary plat's $50. But I know the City of Kerrville, they have fees that add up, and it's just something developers have to bite, for reviewing those plats. And maybe that can be -- if you do hire people to look at it, that would take care of some of that expense, and not take it out of taxpayers' dollars. JUDGE TINLEY: What you're suggesting is that we add as part of it maybe an engineering review fee? MR. VOELKEL: Correct. And collect -- but collect that from everybody. And some of the projects may not have any engineering review at all, but you're still 4-25-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 '""' 2 4 25 collecting that money for that -- for that when you do need COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good thinking, Lee. MR. VOELKEL: I think it's something -- like I say, I hope there's no developers here watching me. I think it's something that we need to look at to maybe get some of those fees for -- for the County, to keep it from other taxpayers having to pay that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like that. Commissioner, I think we ought to give some more thought to identifying a consulting engineer and making a contract with him or her that's based on, you know, "When we need you, will you be available, and will you sign a contract with us and we'll pay you 'X' dollars an hour?" COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was our intent when we changed the system up. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll revisit that. That may not be directly part of the Subdivision Rules. More of a policy. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Alternate plat approval process. Want to leave that? If I can figure out what it is. That's on small -- MR. VOELKEL: It lets us eliminate 4-25-05 179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 preliminary plats on, I think, tract -- subdivisions of four tracts or less. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four tracts or less. MR. VOELKEL: So we can go straight into the final plat. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's worked pretty well. I mean, tends to -- MR. VOELKEL: I think it has. JUDGE TINLEY: You think it's worked good? MR. VOELKEL: I think that's been effective, and I think that the Commissioner's involved to a great extent there. And, of course, if the Commissioner feels like he needs to take it to court, he has that option. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Next, 8, potential illegal subdivisions, and how do we handle these? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the definition? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a subdivision that is put in when we have the current rules or have had rules in effect, and they were put in in violation of those rules. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, it's somebody that's out there and is going by metes and bounds and selling property, and they don't have the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Someone in my precinct recently sold 6 and a half acres to a friend of mine. 9-25-05 180 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Definition wouldn't include -- MR. ODOM: How did he get through? That would be the question. Why would a title company give a policy for something like that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: He paid cash. MR. VOELKEL: Plus title companies will not -- they'll exclude that in their policies now. They'll say, "It's not our responsibility. You're both supposed to follow all the rules. If you don't do that, it's your own fault." But they're putting that in there. MR. ODOM: Can you not have a court order that would change a lot of utilities -- no hookups for utilities, no O.S.S.F.? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. That is one probably for Rex. A lot of -- 'cause you're probably going to be the biggest recipient of this problem. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: One is what we do, and then how we start tracking them. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- would that definition include somebody who buys a piece of land that he intends to use for a development, and goes out and starts moving the mountains around, pushing dirt, and without going 9-25-05 181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "" 2 4 25 through any approval process? COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they're -- if they're moving the dirt around with the intention of avoiding platting, yes, I think. But if they're just out there doing a ranch road, I'd say no. You have to look a little bit what it is to get in some gray areas. But, I mean, there are -- I mean, we have kind of two issues. One are kind of current forward illegal subdivisions, and we still have them going in. I know of two in my precinct right now, possibly three. And then there's old ones, trying to pick up all these old ones. Some of them, you know, start trying to figure out how to fix the problem. It's a huge problem. It's a huge number of people involved, and it's a huge cost, and no one's willing to pay the cost. We had one -- I'm not sure; I think Lee brought it to us not long ago. I kept on asking the question, and it was because the lot to the south -- it was an illegal subdivision. One guy was trying to correct his part of the problem, but he wasn't about to pay for the other people around him to do their surveying. And we -- he fixed his problem, but we know that every other lot in that subdivision is illegal right now, and we've done nothing. And I don't know -- you know, I don't know what you do. I don't know -- you know, people have this land for 20 years, maybe -- or maybe not that long; 10 years. And, you know, it's a problem. And then, if we don't do anything 4-25-05 182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ..., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there, all we've done is tell someone in my precinct -- you know, "Why should we follow the rules? They don't do anything. They had an illegal one in court the other day; they just let it go right on through." So, I think it's a -- we have to figure out a way to stop them, and we have to figure out a way to go after them and make them comply. But I'm not sure how far you go, because some of them are real hard to fix. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe the County Attorney can shed some light on that for us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of the -- like, the ones -- the three that I have handed out, the new ones in my precinct, I mean, they're all pretty simple. They're all real small. One of them, he has a letter from a State Senator that says he can do what he did, which I disagree with. But -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A former county judge from another county. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, former county judge, to boot. But, anyway, he sent a letter to this guy saying he can do what he wanted to do, and he did it. And the other ones, I think, are being solved, hopefully. But how far -- I think there's two issues. One is, you know, I think we have, in our current rules, all this authority that we can do all this mean stuff to these people, but in eight 4-25-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 25 183 years, we haven't done anything to anybody. And I think it's real frustrating to people that we make jump through all kinds of hoops, like J.J. Lane, when he's trying to do it right. He's come to -- at least he's trying to go through the process. And there's somebody else who's doing something illegal, and we just turn our head the other way and go, "Well, you know, that's the way it goes." So, I think that's something we have to come, really -- and, really, again, this is not a subdivision issue, per se, as from rules and regulations, but I think we really need to come to an understanding as to how we're going to pursue that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hopefully, at some point in the near future, we can compile a list of those illegal subdivisions. I have three, just off the top of my head. And we have a separate workshop with the County Attorney. You know, those older ones, I just -- what do you -- what do you do? Slap them on the hand? Tell them they're naughty boys? MR. ODOM: What's the statute of limitations? MR. EMERSON: I don't know, off the top of my head. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, you know, I know that we cannot issue them a septic tank license and those kinds of things. That will slow them down. But I never 4-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 184 have -- never have heard a legal point of what can be done. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that point right there is probably the -- the best method; maybe O.S.S.F., because we do have a lot of authority in that area. And -- and Rex is looking into what Kendall County is doing on their affidavit of location, which is basically using O.S.S.F. to determine if every land sale is a subdivision or not. Inspection process. That's really a -- I don't know. You know, it's an internal thing with Road and Bridge. Is the inspection system working? Are we getting them inspected? Do we need to make any changes in that area? MR. ODOM: As we go into the process, yeah, I thought about it. And -- and I'm going out as much as I can get out to look at -- two of them is all I got going now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. ODOM: One of them's almost complete on our part, and we've seen it there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- you know, I plan to get with Leonard and probably Truby to go over these issues, make sure that we find these. And also, I mentioned to the Court -- I don't know if you were here at the time, Leonard -- about going over road issues, road layout, that section of the rules, make sure we have any changes there. MR. VOELKEL: Well, you -- when you speak of q-2s-o5 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 inspection, are you talking about roads? Is that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Roads and drainage. MR. VOELKEL: Without submitting anything engineering-wise on how a road is to be built, what is there to inspect? Other than getting compaction tests or -- I mean, as far as grade, as far as all the engineering design of a road, there's -- there's none -- there's no inspection of that going on. MR. ODOM: But we have no issues we have to -- drainage ditches, we just try to make sure that it's there. We need to do something about that. I -- MR. VOELKEL: That's a whole 'nother thing. MR. ODOM: When we first put this together, we tried to do that, and it was nil and voided out at the time years ago, that we had no control of verticals, horizontals. There's no cut sheets. It's going out and building a road. Now, there's a difference between new construction and road betterment. I don't think we ever looked at the difference in what we -- what we do versus a new construction, and so we -- we kept -- kept it the same like it's road betterment. You go out there; you just make it a little bit better. But you're right, we don't have the grades, elevations. We don't have a lot of that. MR. VOELKEL: So, inspection now is basically the compaction? That you inspect the -- 4-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 186 MR. ODOM: It's drainage and -- making sure that you've got some kind of drainage in there, and -- yeah. But that's -- it's just like it has been for 14 years, Lee. Hasn't changed a bit. MR. VOELKEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hear both -- I think I hear both sides saying we need stricter rules. MR. ODOM: We need stricter rules. MR. VOELKEL: I think it would be easier to inspect if you had something, if you're building a road by -- either he built it right or didn't build it right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I see heads nodding, people bored. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a juvenile court to handle. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think we've accomplished a lot of what I wanted to do. Y'all were not here when we talked about drainage here earlier, The Court pretty much went along with the direction we're going, though we have a new draft since either one of you have seen it. MR. VOELKEL: I have just one last question. Where do we stand on E.T.J, plats? COMMISSIONER LETZ: E.T.J.? MR. VOELKEL: Seems like that there was a 4-25-05 187 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 state mandate that the City and the County work it out, and one body -- somebody do it, and not both, and yet we're not at that point. I just didn't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're getting closer. As soon as we can get a map out of the City; the City has promised us for some time. We are -- or I've met with them, visited with Ron, I think. And Buster -- I don't know if he's met, but I've talked to him. The E.T.J. is being divided up -- of the city of Kerrville is being divided up into two areas. One will be the County's responsibility; one will be the City's responsibility. MR. VOELKEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have appointed their person, I believe -- well, of course, if we don't have a meeting pretty soon, he may not be around as to -- Councilman Brown. Depends how the election goes. Maybe he will be around, but we'll see. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't count him out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know when City Councilmen -- when do they take office? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 7th. MR. VOELKEL: So we're still working on that. That's all I needed to hear. Yeah, that's fine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 4-25-05 188 1 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: Next day or so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, Councilman Brown was appointed by the City Council to meet with Commissioner Baldwin and I and the City staff to finalize a plan. I've looked at one, the first draft of it. MR. VOELKEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if -- MR. VOELKEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- there are changes over there, it may get delayed again. MR. VOELKEL: I understand. I understand that, sure. JUDGE TINLEY: What else we got on that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Item Number 17 -- is that it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to the last portion of the agenda. Reports from Commissioners? Liaisons? Anything, gentlemen? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anything I had, I've forgotten by now, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Walston? No, we haven't forgotten about you. MR. WALSTON: I knew you hadn't. Getting all kinds of education today. 9-25-05 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "` 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .... 2 4 25 JUDGE TINLEY: As most of you gentlemen remember, we have an opening in the Family and Consumer Science -- MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: -- Extension slot out at the Extension Service, and that's what Mr. Walston wants to talk to us about. MR. WALSTON: We've got a -- we've got an applicant, and I hope everybody has gotten her resume, Donna Edwards. Cheryl Mapston, our district director, has been kind of, during the last week -- last couple weeks, been tied up and hasn't been able to get finalized, but she's checked with Ms. Edwards again, just checking to see if she's still interested in the position, and which she said she is. And, basically, as far as I interviewed with her, I guess it's been a couple weeks ago, my visit went real well. She's -- she's very experienced, with 24 years -- I guess she's been in since '81, so you have 24 years experience in Extension. She started in Meridian County in Extension -- or Bosque County in Meridian. She started there, and she's been there ever since. So, as far as her Extension experience is -- is really good. As far as what I can guarantee, she lacks probably five, six years maybe before she retires. There's no guarantee she'll be here a year, two years, five, ten years. Extension offers early out. We 9-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 190 don't know if that's going to happen; never do. So -- but I don't think if -- even if we had somebody with less years than that, we could guarantee how long they're going to be here or the productivity that we're going to get out of them. I just -- you know, all we can do is go on their background and recommendations. We're still -- I'm going to visit with her coworkers there and see how -- how everything's going there as we get closer. If y'all would like, we could set up a time for y'all to visit with her and kind of get a little more personal idea as to what -- what kind of individual she is. And that time frame, just let us -- let me know what will work for y'all. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would like that opportunity. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that'd be fine. That's probably the proper way to do it. However, she has a great resume, I think. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's Commissioners Court role in this selection process? COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- we hire her, don't we? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We affirm the appointment. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We hire her, but the 4-25-05 191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 --, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "' 2 4 25 salary is paid for partly -- majority of it, I guess, by the State. JUDGE TINLEY: She's actually a state employee, but we get input into the process. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: More than input. We make a decision. MR. WALSTON: Y'all make the final decision. As Ms. Mapston mentioned, we want y'all's input. If there's any question at any time along the way, we won't know up front before we bring her to court. We don't want to get into court and not have her approved. And I think that's -- you know, y'all let us know if there's ever any question, and we'll shut things down, and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might recall there was -- another individual was recommended for the position, and we said no. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I saw the resume too, and it really does look good. My -- my concern is not who is hired, it's whether or not we should hire someone. So, that's -- you wanted input. There's my input. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you do hire -- if we do hire her, will you brief her on the outdoor 4-H arena? MR. WALSTON: She will be in charge of it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. 9-25-05 192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '"' 2 4 25 MR. WALSTON: No. I think -- you know, as far as her experience, I think, you know, that's one of the things in Extension we're able to -- with her Extension experience and committees, and working with our various committees, it's a big plus just having somebody coming from internally. So -- but like I said, I'd appreciate anybody's input. And if -- you know, as far as the question as to whether or not we should have one, there's no question. I can tell you, I can't operate it on my own. So -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Roy, you know we meet every other Monday. And we met -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- today. And so it will be two weeks next. Pick one out, and let's rock and roll. MR. WALSTON: Okay. Y'all want to meet with her in court? Or you want to meet with her prior to court, before we -- I'd like for you just informally just to come in and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's a good day. I would recommend that she comes in and -- like, at 1:30, ' and we can just meet her and visit with her a few minutes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In this kind of a setting. Not in the regular Commissioners Court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not in the courtroom. 4-25-05 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 25 193 Then we can go back to the business that we have, but have a set time, like at 1:30, a timed item .where we can ask any questions and just meet her. And then -- but not make a decision right there on the spot. MR. WALSTON: Yeah. Yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It would be the second -- second Monday in May. MR. WALSTON: Second Monday in May? JUDGE TINLEY: We're due to -- or at least tentatively scheduled to meet with the City on May the 4th. I don't know how that's going to work out. In the afternoon. A specific time hasn't been set. I was thinking that if we firm that up, maybe we could get her down here, say, somewhat earlier than that. That's on a Wednesday. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On the 5th? JUDGE TINLEY: 4th. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. Either one of those dates will work for us, whichever works with y'all's schedule. MR. WALSTON: Okay. Well, I'll see Ms. Mapston in the morning -- or tomorrow, and I'll get with her and let her know, and she'll see if she can't get her down here one of those days. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We appreciate it, Roy. 9-25-05 194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WALSTON: Thank y'all. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone -- anyone else have anything to offer? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. The head honcho of the Kerr County Emergency Service District Number 2 is here. Wave your arm, Corky. Got anything to say to us? MR. HENSON: No, sir, I'm just here to absorb wisdom. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I got. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other? A couple of things I'd like to mention -- yeah. We -- we've got a vacancy on our Alamo Senior Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: And we've had that since, I think, late February. And I -- I apologize for not mentioning that when we had our press rep here so that we could get a little publicity on it, and I'll try and make mention and would ask that y'all do that also. We're looking for somebody to serve in that capacity. We've actually got two of them, I think, on it, but we've got a second slot that we need to get -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Harris resigned. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. The other item is, 4-25-OS 195 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 I've given one -- as y'all have noted, one tentative date for meetings with the City. Do we have other dates that I can pass along to them in the event that date is not acceptable? I'd like to have the benefit of that so I can get it to them. I want to give them as many options as possible. COMMISSIONER LETZ: May 4th is a Wednesday? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, that's a Wednesday. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are we meeting with them on? EMS or some other purpose? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a joint meeting. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That thing said they're going to send the City Manager and one Council person over here to talk. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was the first and second paragraph. The third paragraph says they want a big meeting, of their newest letter. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Process meeting. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what was that date? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 4th. JUDGE TINLEY: The one I tentatively cleared for them by a majority of the Court, that Ms. Mitchell was able to clear, is the 4th. The afternoon of Nay 4th. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. 4-25-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 196 JUDGE TINLEY: But I'd like to have a couple of other dates. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about the 11th? That's a week later. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm available all -- any time that week that includes the 4th. But I think I'm gone on the 11th, and for the rest of the week. JUDGE TINLEY: What about Friday, the 6th? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Friday, the 6th? I know I've got a Region J meeting that week; I can't remember what date it is, but I don't have to be at the city meeting. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Following week is not good for you, Nicholson? Okay. What are your thoughts, Buster? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The following week. JUDGE TINLEY: Either of those. How about the Friday before? The 6th? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Far as I know, I'm okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Region J's -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is Holocaust Remembrance Day. I don't know that we can meet on that day. JUDGE TINLEY: Good news. I appreciate you bringing that to my attention. I'd have never suggested it had I known that. 4-~5-05 197 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, I can't meet on that day. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thursday, Cinco de Mayo. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cinco de Mayo. That's on Wednesday, right? The 4th? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, the 5th. That's why it's Cinco de Mayo. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's why it's "cinco." COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cinco, five. It's been a long day. Let's try for Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. You can probably get a majority. Friday, the 6th. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does it have to be late in the day on Friday? JUDGE TINLEY: No, it can be morning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's got to be morning on Friday. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can start at your house for breakfast. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's rock and roll. JUDGE TINLEY: The following week, how about Tuesday afternoon? 4-25-05 198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to force me to go get my electronic brain. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tuesday afternoon is good with me. That would be the 10th? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. That's plenty of dates. If they can't pick one of those -- JUDGE TINLEY: I'll pass those two along to them -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See what happens. JUDGE TINLEY: -- and we'll see what kind of response we get. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it. Anything else to come before the court? Hearing no further business, we will stand adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:05 p.m.) 9-25-05 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF TEXAS ~ COUNTY OF KERR ~ The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 2nd day of May, 2005. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk B Y : ____ ~~~s'nc1C_~ ____ _ Kathy ik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 4-25-05 ORDER N0.29138 PROCLAMATION NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER Came to be heard this the 25`x' 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 Proclamation for National Day of Prayer. ORDER N0.29139 KERR COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM Came to be heard this the 25t1i day of April 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the Renewal Agreement with the National School Lunch Program through the Texas Health and Human Services and authorizes the County Judge to sign. ORDER N0.29140 HILL COUNTRY DISTRICT JUNIOR LIVESTOCK SHOW Came to be heard this the 25°i 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 authorize the Hill Country District Junior Livestock Association to place a steel container storage unit on the grounds of the HCYEC with a caveat or condition that should it no longer benefit the County, they have to move it. ORDER N0.29141 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #4 GRANT ALLOCATION FOR TRAFFIC CONVICTION REPORTING Came to be heard this the 25~' day of April 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to approve the grant proposal by the Texas DPS for help in purchasing Case Management Software, computers or other technological upgrades necessary to achieve Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration reporting requirements. ORDER N0.29142 NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROGRAM Came to be heard this the 25~' 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 the Nuisance Abatement Program and appoints Mr. Arreola as director and authorize the director to designate Constables 1, 2, 3 and 4 as representatives based upon their approval. ORDER N0.29143 COMMISSIONERS' COURT ORIGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENTS Came to be heard this the 25~' 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 to implement a policy that the eight departments that report to the Commissioners court, being Information Technology, Road and Bridge, Facilities and Maintenance, Collections, Animal control, Juvenile Detention, Extension Office, and Environment Health, or required to give a bimonthly report at 2 o'clock at the first meeting of the month. ORDER N0.29144 Unemployment Fund's Bylaws Texas Association of Counties Came to be heard this the 25~' day of April 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the updated participation agreement for Texas Association of Counties Unemployment Compensation Group Account Fund. ORDER N0.29145 KERR COUNTY ATTORNEY Hot Check Collections Came to be heard this the 25~' 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 Papcon Software Contract used in association with the hot checks collection. ORDER N0.29146 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS On this the 25th day of April 2005, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: 10 General $104,650.90 15 Road ~ Bridge $45,530.00 18 County Law Library $726.95 26 JP Technology $3,424.99 40 Alternate Dispute Resolution $20,000.00 50 Indigent Health Care $2,252.15 76 Juvenile Detention Facility $15,030.35 TOTAL CASH REQUIRED x191,615.34 Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts. ORDER N0.29147 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY JAIL Came to be heard this the 25~' 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; Expense Code Description Amount increase/()decrease 10-512-453 Radio Repairs $174.76 10-512-103 Cooks ($174.76) ORDER N0.29148 BUDGET AMENDMENT 216TH DISTRICT COURT Came to be heard this the 25~' day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes; Expense Code Description Amount increase/()decrease 10-435-497 Court Transcript $145.00 10-435-402 Court Appointed Attorney ($145.00) ORDER N0.29149 LATE BILLS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #3 Came to be heard this the 25~' day of April with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to pay a late bill to Office Max Credit plan issue a hand check in the amount of 89.9?. ORDER N0.29150 MONTHLY REPORTS Came to be heard this the 25'x' day of April with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports; Justice of the Peace #1 (as amended) Justice of the Peace #2, #3, & #4 Road and Bridge Information Technology ORDER N0.29151 JUDICIARY GUNS IN THE COURTHOUSE Came to be heard this the 25~' day of April with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to permit Judiciary and state's attorneys to carry guns in Kerr County Courthouse, Kerr County Courthouse Annex, and Kerr County Law Enforcement Center, as long as they have concealed handgun licenses. ORDER N0.29152 BUDGET AMENDMENT ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT Came to be heard this the 25~' day of April 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes; Amount Expense Code Description increaselQdecrease 15-611-569 operating equipment $1,100.08 15-611-599 contingencies ($1,100.08)