1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Monday, January 23, 2006 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X January 23, 2006 --- Commissioners' Comments 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to acquire software and equipment necessary to program and print ballots from Hart Intercivic 1.2 Interim Report from the County EMS Committee 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to accept offer of Attorney General to redirect and process child support payments on orders established prior to January 1, 1994, from local registry to State Disbursement Unit 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to revise preliminary Plat of Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 2, Section Two 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set public hearing for revision of plat for Lots 4 and 5, Byas Springs Ranch, Vol. 5, Page 250, Pct. 4 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for concept plan on division of property on Bass & Wagner Road, Pct. 4 1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set a public hearing for regulatory signs in various locations in Kerr County 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to deal with misappropriation of $94,001 of Kerr County funds to the Public Library 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on reducing registration fees to $1.00 during the Rabies Drive on February 4, 2006 thru February 18, 2006 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for final revision of plat of Tract 152-A of Spicer Ranch No. Three 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for road name changes on privately maintained roads, Pct. 4, in accordance with 9-1-1 Guidelines PAGE 5 9 27 38 40 62 63 70 80 95 97 98 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X (Continued) January 23, 2006 PAGE l.ll Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding narcotics enforcement in Kerr County 99 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to confirm Commissioners Court liaison assignments 121 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations, set public hearing on same 124 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on Kerr County Water Availability Requirements, set public hearing on same 129 1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt proclamation declaring May 5 & 6 as the fourth annual Relay for Life Days in Kerr County 139 4.1 Pay Bills 140 4.2 Budget Amendments 141 4.3 Late Bills --- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 144 5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 195 --- Adjourned 146 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Monday, January 23, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let me call to order this meeting of the -- regularly scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled for this time and date, Monday, January the 23rd, 2006, at 9 a.m. It is that time now. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. If you'd rise and join me in a word of prayer, and then we'll do the pledge of allegiance, please. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's any member of the audience or public that wishes to be heard on a matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at this time and talk to us about whatever's on your mind. If you wish to be heard on a listed agenda item, we prefer that you fill out a participation form. They're at the back of the room. If we're out, we'll try and get some more there quickly, but we would ask that you do that. It's not essential. It's not required. It just helps me when we get to that item, that I don't miss you. But if there's any member of the public that wishes to come forward and be heard i-?-os 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about any matter that is not a listed agenda item, why, come on up and tell us what's on your mind. Seeing no one coming forward, it appears that we can move on. Commissioner Baldwin, what do you have for us this morning? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just want to remind everyone that Thursday is Kerr County's 150th birthday. We will have an open house type thing here at the courthouse from 4:00 to 6:00 Thursday afternoon; coffee, cookies, and some entertainment. And hopefully that -- like to see all the city officials here and -- and former city officials, if we could, just some of the old-timers. I'll do my best today to call the old commissioner down in the Comfort way. There's not a whole lot of them left. But, anyway, I want -- we're going to try to call some of the old-timers and invite them to the function, and I want to remind you of that. 150 years only comes one time, and I think it will be a great celebration. Judge, I have a special presentation I'd like to make, if -- if you'd allow me to do so. Gerard? Would you come up here, please? MR. MACCROSSAN: My timing's impeccable. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I know. Don't get too close to me. I have a certificate here I'd like to present to you. MR. MACCROSSAN: I'm going to stand right beside you. 1-23-~~n 6 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, that'd be fine. It's the side of my wallet, now. (Laughter.) The title of Honorary Redneck of Kerr County is hereby bestowed upon Gerard MacCrossan in recognition of being named Champion Sheep Milker of 2006. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Congratulations. (Applause.) MR. MACCROSSAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's "honorary" redneck, now. That doesn't make you the real thing. MR. MACCROSSAN: Oh, okay. I'll remember. JUDGE TINLEY: I might add, Commissioner, he didn't do too badly at the cow chip tossing, either. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He couldn't win that. MR. MACCROSSAN: Couldn't beat the Sheriff. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all I have. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Congratulations to the stock show people, the board of directors, all the participants, and particularly all the volunteers. And a special thank you goes from me to Commissioner Nicholson for breathing two-thirds of the dust on -- on Friday, after he and I had sucked up a good bit of it the day before. But it appears that it was a great show, and it's always a pleasure, seriously, to see the young 1-23-Uti 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 L V 21 22 23 24 25 people grow up from year to year, and some of those same kids that started out where they could -- just about that tall are now twice that big, and they're still winning, because they're doing the right thing with their animals. It's really a pleasure to see that happen. Thank you, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ditto everything Commissioner Williams said, with a -- he may have said it, but if he didn't, I'd li}:e to thank all the buyers. A lot of people spent a bunch of money on Saturday, and that goes to help those youth and keeps the whole program going. I'm glad Commissioner Baldwin was thankful for the rain, but he must have received more than I did if he was very thankful, because we didn't get much other than some clouds. But maybe the weather pattern will change and we'll get some later this week, hopefully. That's all I have. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just ditto the sentiments about the junior livestock show. It's really good to see so many young people doing things so well. That is all I've got. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. The -- the sale was even into the late hours Saturday evening. The spectators, there was -- there were still a large number of them. There was a lot of enthusiasm among the spectators, and buyers were -- were staying there and staying in strong. The prices were ?-23-nr 8 1 ~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .~-. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2~ 23 '"^ 2 9 25 holding good. We haven't heard a report yet about the numbers, but I'm -- I'm going to predict that they were significantly better than -- than previous years. I think the thing that we probably need to recognize more than anything about that show, in addition to the -- to the young people who come up through the program, are these volunteers from our community and our county that spend all this time with these youth year after year after year. If we didn't have those volunteers out there to help keep this thing rolling along, and it takes a bunch of them, that thing would not be able to -- to be the success that it has been. So, when you -- when you see these folks that have spent their time out there in furtherance of that program, be sure and thank them for their efforts, because they deserve at least that. They deserve much, much more, but give them your thanks and tell them -- tell them you're really proud of what they're doing to help our area youth. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, the morning newspaper reported that the proceeds may have topped $100,000 over last year. DODGE TINLEY: I -- I asked some of the folks that were there on the ground this morning, and they couldn't give me d number, but I know even late into the evening the prices were holding very, very strong. And, like I say, the enthusiasm amongst the buyers and all the spectators was i-_-, u~ 9 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 holding. There wasn't any waning as it got late in the evening; it was still going strong, and it really looked like a great event. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, can I have one more minute? I noticed there was a boy scout just came in the room. Are y'all in here to observe a government body? Young man, would you stand up and tell us your name and what troop you're with? MR. HINTGN: My name is Jacob Hinton, and I'm with Troop 311. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 311? MR. HINTGN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Welcome to the Commissioners Court. Glad to see you. MR. HINTGN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, young man. We appreciate you being here. Okay, let's get on with the business at hand, if we might. The first item on the agenda is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to acquire the software equipment necessary to program and print ballots from Hart InterCivic. MS. PIE PER: Gentlemen, here is the quotes that I received. As you can see, I was off on what I thought the software was going to be. I do have my Hart rep here, Charles Scott, for any questions that you may have. 33-uo 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 29 25 MR. SCOTT: Good morning to the Court. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good morning, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you, sir, if I might, in order for us to be totally self-r_ontained and self-sufficient on these ongoing elections, to be able to program these machines for various ballots from various jurisdictions, tell us what the bottom line is that we need to be looking at in terms of cost, both as to software and ongoing maintenance on an annual basis. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before -- and if I could add to that, can you also give us the other side? If we continue to have -- I guess, let Hart Graphics do it, what's that going to cost us on a per-election basis, or however you calculate it? I need both of those numbers, is what we need to find out. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. The -- the programming part of what we're talking about is approximately $2,500 per election. And I say "approximately" because we have a scale, a pricing scale. Up to 10 races per election is $950, and up to 20 is $1,250. Up to 40 races is $1,550. And, of course, because we also have audio cards, then that -- that programming doubles. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the $2,500? What is that? MR. SCOTT: That would be -- that would be programming. That's $1,250 times two. i- uh 11 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- that's an average, I think. But can you go back to number of races? For example, let's qet some of it -- I know the City Clerk's here. City of Kerrville, when they run, they have approximately -- you know, maybe -- MS. CRAIG: Three. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three spots on the ballot, and there are maybe -- who knows how many candidates, so you're saying that's $950? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's not an issue as to number of candidates; it's number of -- you call them races? MR. SCOTT: No, it's races, right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- MP.. SCOTT: And that $950 is doubled because of the audio cards. That's -- that allows the ballot to be read to a blind voter or a handicapped voter. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Double -- I don't understand -- okay, I'm lost now. MR. SCOTT: You're programming the ballot and you're programming the audio cards. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's $950 and $950, so it's $1,800 -- or $1,900 is the minimum cost per election? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you just help us through 1 - ~ S - ~ f. 12 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one thing here, maybe -- maybe get our understanding level up equivalent to yours? Would you tell the Court again what you mean when you say upgrade from a service bureau to full implementation? I think I understand what full implementation is, but -- MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- I want to hear it from you. MR. SCOTT: Right now, because you're dependent on us -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. MR. SCOTT: -- we're operating a service bureau. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. You're doing it for us. MR. SCOTT: That's correct, through our service bureau. And what you're attempting to do here with this -- with this BOSS and Ballot Now upgrade is to be stand-alone, so you would be separate and apart from the service bureau. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are your fees one-time fees for our -- your giving us that ability? Or is there -- is it an ongoing fee, or is it subject to programmatic changes at the end of a time period or what? MR. SCOTT: There's an ongoing cost that you see here. It's Item Number 18. That's licensing and support. That continues. i_?~ nt, 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 JUDGE TINLEY: That's an annual cost? MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir. MS. PIEPER: This -- this cost on there is prorated, though. What is the cost per year? JUDGE TINLEY: So what we've got is seven-twelfths listed there? MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, Judge, say it again? JUDGE TINLEY: So what we have listed here is seven-twelfths; is that correct? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Y'all have lost me. DODGE TINLEY: Well, I'm going to give it to you here in just a second. So the -- MR. SCOTT: The Judge is looking for an ongoing cost. JUDGE TINLEY: It's 6,400, I think, annually. Mm-hmm, I show 6,400 -- MR. SCOTT: Right at. JUDGE TINLEY: -- annual. MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're at 6,400 plus the programming, are you telling me? MR. SCOTT: No. What we're talking about on this sheet right here is purchase price and ongoing costs. Your purchase prices are in Item 10. i-zi-~~F 14 1 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 1~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 ~1 22 23 ~4 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. SCOTT: And you have a purchase price on the new item; that's for a high-output, high-speed laser printer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's 5,000? MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. SCOTT: And then you have one-time costs, Items 16 and 17. That's for training. And then you have annual costs in Item 18. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. This says 3,733, and the Judge was telling me it was 6,400. MR. SCOTT: Right. This is prorated. The 3,733 is prorated, so the Judge is figuring about 6,400, 6,500. JUDGE TINLEY: That's an annual -- ongoing annual cost over the term of use. MR. SCOTT: That's correct. So, what that tells you is you're goinq to have to charge your entities -- to make your money back, you're going to have to charge at least, annually, 6,400, 6,500. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got a whole basement ful] of equipment right now. Can I assume that we already have in place a first-year license to use that equipment? MS. PIEPER: To use the equipment, we do. i-z~-o~ 15 1 2 3 9 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCOTT: To use what you have purchased already, yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. SCOTT: You have a first-year license in that. So, this is in addition to, if that's what you're thinking about. This is in addition to what you already have in first-year license. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a county-wide election coming up in March of this year. MR. SCOTT: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Followed by a city election in May, I believe. MS. PIE PER: And schools. MR. SCOTT: City and schools, water districts, et cetera, in May. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, if we were to remain as a service bureau this year, what would our fee be? MR. SCOTT: What you've already contracted for. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What we have already contracted for? MR. SCOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you would program this equipment now to take care of the upcoming March primary and the subsequent elections in May, r_orrect? MR. SCOTT: At a fee. 1- ~ Ur: 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would that fee be? MR. SCOTT: What we've already talked about. That would be approximately $950 for your cities and schools. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. SCOTT: Each. Times two for the audio cards. MS. PIEPER: Plus the cost of printing the ballots at $300 per thousand, I believe. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A little louder, please. MS. PIEPER: Plus the cost of printing the ballots, which I believe is $300 per thousand. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Anything else? MR. SCOTT: That's everything I can think of. MS. PIEPER: I think that's it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will get us past this election, and if we wanted to change our status from service bureau to full implementation, we would be looking for a total price tag of $51,000 plus a renewal annual charge of 6,400; is that correct? MR. SCOTT: Correct. Of course, if you wait -- if you wait and do this later in the year, then this prorated amount for -- for license and software, that will change. That will go down. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Goes down? MR. SCOTT: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jannett, is there a Headwaters 1-'J-U6 17 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 election this May? MS. PIEPER: Sorry, what? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a Headwaters election? MS. PIEPER: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's not? MS. PIEPER: No. That will be on the November -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the primary has probably -- I suspect it will be in the 20 to 40 race range? MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's how much? MR. SCOTT: Well, at 20 to 40, it would be 1,250. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1,250. Times two? MR. SCOTT: Times two. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2,500. MR. SCOTT: Of course, those are paid by the State, too. That's not your expense. MS. PIEPER: By the parties. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have to worry about that one. What -- what about the general election? MR. SCOTT: That's yours. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that's 2,500 there. MR. SCOTT: You won't have any -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a new budget year. MR. SCOTT: -- program r_harges until November that you're responsible for. i_~~,-oh 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about runoff elections? MR. SCOTT: Same. You have -- MS. FIE PER: The parties will be responsible for that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Parties are responsible for that? MS. PIEPER: The only thing the County is responsible for are the early voting workers. MR. SCOTT: You're conducting early voting. That's your responsibility. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm trying to get at is as to how much the County -- I don't -- I'm not talking just the County. The County and other entities in the county are only going to have to pay $4,000 on programming through this budget year. That's -- that's 2,000 -- 2,000, plus or minus, for the school and 2,000 for the City. Is that -- am I right? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Give or take maybe 5,000. DODGE TINLEY: Essentially. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Give or take. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to make sure we're not -- by deferring buying this stuff, if we do choose to buy it, it's not going to cost -- like, if it was $10,000, we might as well go ahead and buy it. If it's going to be this much, I think it might be better to see how it goes for the first run. MR. SCOTT: If you're -- if you're interested in i zs-o~ 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 ?5 19 being a stand-alone Hart account, then I would suggest that you -- that you buy now, with the idea of not using until May, because we're getting really close now to the primary. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think -- I mean, 7'm not -- well, I'm not ready to make a decision on that right now. I think I need to look at, I guess, a projection as to -- based on the number of elections that we know we're going to hold in the next five years, what that's going to cost to let Hart do it on programming versus us spending 555,000. You know, I think it'd be cheaper for Hart to do it. MS. PIEPER: That's what I'm thinking. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I need to look at that specifically, you know, so we can make a, you know, real accurate decision. But if it's $4,000 this year, next year's not going to be -- I don't believe we have any elections next year, the following year. MS. PIEPER: We have elections every year, either the general or constitutional amendment election. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think a rush to judgment on $51,000 versus programming costs for this year is -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to look at -- that's what I'm saying; we need to lock at exactly what it's going to cost each year projected out the next five years. We i-_~-o~, 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 G 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know when elections are going to be held, and we know -- we have a pretty good ideas of the number of races that are going to be on each of those ballots. We can calculate the programming costs pretty exact for the next five years. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Also, the costs that we're charging other entities to conduct elections doesn't really have any of this built into it, I don't believe, and that needs to be relooked at as well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Now, the -- I guess I have a question. This is to Jannett, but maybe you may know. What if the City decides not to use this -- you know, our equipment or programming? MS. PIEPER: They'll have to rent it from someplace or some entity. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is -- MR. SCOTT: They'll have to rent or buy from someplace, you know, at least -- at least on the DRE side, because -- because they have to use something that's compatible with the handicapped. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I'm asking is, does the HAVA law say that everyone has to use the equipment now? MR. SCOTT: They have to use at least the DRE. They don't have to use the eScans. They could hand-count a paper ballot, but they must use some kind of device for the handicapped, and that would be eSlate. j ~i-.J r~ 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we have acquired one of those voting -- electronic voting stations for each of our voting precincts; is that correct? MS. PIEPER: That is correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 21 or -- 21 pieces of equipment, JUDGE TINLEY: Other than the ongoing license and annual licensing and maintenance costs, is there any way that we can spread this up-front cost out over any period of time? MR. SCOTT: We can try to finance if you wanted to. JUDGE TINLEY: I think we need to do what you were suggesting; take a loo Y, at what we're going to likely be having in the way of elections over a period of time, and put the pencil to it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the expected life of this equipment? I mean, I just -- you know, 5, 10 years, something like that? 20 years? MR, SCOTT: 25. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 25-year life. MR. SCOTT: At least on the eSlate side. Might be about 20 years on eScan. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Assuming the federal government doesn't change the rules again. MR, SCOTT: Our guess is -- our guess is that the State of Texas -- the federal government will change rules on i _3 of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 GS 2L us long before the equipment wears out. The equipment is built to last. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In which event, if we were the owner of this software to do it ourselves, we'd still have to acquire the upgrades to accommodate any changes in the election laws; is that correct? MR. SCOTT: Licensing and support covers the upgrades. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. DODGE TINLEY: That's the annual 6,400? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. If the federal government says, "We want you to change your software," that's covered in lir_ensing and support. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. SCOTT: Or if the State of Texas says, "Make this change," you're covered there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do all school districts have elections this year? MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they all do. So, I guess -- I mean, going back, I'm thinking of Divide. How do they do elections if they can`t afford it, if they don't have money? I mean -- MR. SCOTT: It's not the first time that's come up. Because this thing has -- this HAVA has -- has completely 1-_ ,-iio 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 changed the way people budget and the way we handle elections, and the way people are trained for elections. This is completely different than anything we've ever done, either -- either in Texas or any other county in the country. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many -- I've got to go back to my -- I made a big error in my calculating when I was calculating the cost this year. How many school districts do we have? MS. PIEPER: Right off the top of my head -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kerrville, Ingram, Center Point. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Hunt. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hunt, Divide. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Five. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're looking at -- that's $10,000, plus the city. We're looking at a $12,000 expenditure this year. That makes the purchase make a lot more sense. How long -- what's the -- if we buy this stuff, the software, is the expected life of that the same as the -- assuming upgrades? MR. SCOTT: Both systems, eSCan and eSlate, are built tc be flexible. They're -- they're based on firmware. When firmware changes -- which is a combinatLon of software and hardware. When those things change, we simply change the way the firmware acts. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are -- are we covered for 1-23-OG 24 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 programming for this upcoming election? MR. SCOTT: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to do that for us? MR. SCOTT: We are going to do that for you. If that's what you mean by covered, we are going to do that for you through the service bureau. JUDGE TINLEY: However, we will -- we'll be paying, for example, in the primary, the $1,250 times two, but that -- MR. SCOTT: You will not be paying it. MS. PIEPER: The parties wi1L. JUDGE TINLEY: It will be charged by your organization, and somebody's going to pay it. MR. SCOTT: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we -- or can you and Jannett or -- get Jannett's people trained by May for the school primaries to do this if we choose to buy the equipment? MR. SCOTT: Yes. MS. PIEPER: No. (Laughter.) MR. SCOTT: Well, what we have here is a failure to communicate. MS. PIEPER: We can -- we can train Brenda for the City. We can train the city secretaries for the school -- I t z~ o~~ 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ZL 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2Z 23 24 25 mean the school secretaries for the school, because I have contracted to do the -- the primary parties. I don't think I'll have time to be trained and to literally program each entity's ballots. I mean, it's not that I'm unwilling or -- you know, I just don't feel I have time. And -- and I don't mind the city secretary or the school secretaries coming over and using our equipment. I have no problem with that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem with them being required to do it anyway. MR. SCOTT: In answer to the question, technically, we have the time to get someone trained. Who you decide to train or who Jannett decides to have trained -- MS. PIEPER: Rosa lavender has also volunteered to be trained on this, to do their ballots on a contract basis with the different entities. You'd have to talk with her on that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, based on that, T mean, I think that -- can you give us a financing option by our next meeting? MR. SCOTT: We can try that, mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, Jannett, can you give us a -- a next five or ten-year projection, whichever you choose, projection of cost, which I suppose is going to be well over the cost of this equipment. MS. PIEPER: Yes. i_?3-~~~ 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because 1 ,000 this year and pretty much 12,000 in two years and 12,000 in two more years, plus a little bit in the off years. We can get an idea and ]ook at the two numbers next meeting, and then -- 'cause, I mean, it appears right now that it's going to make more sense for us to buy the equipment, and until we get it paid for, you know, bill it out to the other entities, you know, at half of what Hart's going to charge, something like that, at least to help get our money back. I mean, that way we're somewhat -- and maybe we need to go to the other entities and get a commitment that they're going to -- if we buy it, that they're going to use it and use our programming and use our fee schedule. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Brenda, you may get with the -- MS. CRAIG: I can't speak for the City Council; I don't know if I'll even have a job next year if I did. But I do believe I could sell to the City Council that we would pay the County 1,000 versus Hart 2,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MS. CRAIG: I think that's an easy sell. MR. SCOTT: I would certainly think tha*_ would be an easy sell, if -- as long as you keep your schedule below ours, why not? Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to probably -- 1-3-u~ 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you know, we need to get a commitment from the City and the schools -- JUDGE TINLEY: School districts. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that we -- if, you know, we do that. A11 right. So, I guess we'll look at this again next meeting. MS. PIEPER: Thank you. MR. SCOTT: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any other questions of this gentleman? Thank you, sir. We appreciate you being with us today. Let's move to the next item on the agenda scheduled for 9:15. We're not running too far behind. Interim report from the County EMS Committee. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. This is -- you've been holding your breath waiting on this one, and I've asked the chair, General Schellhase, to come, and he has come. General Schellhase? MR. SCHELLHASE: Walter Schellhase, 529 Water Street. Commissioners and Judge, just a quick recap of where we stand at this time. We've been in the information collection process. We've met with the committee on numerous occasions and we've made numerous contacts. With regards to this project, what we're doing is we're doing personal intervLews with those involved with EMS, ESD's, collection 1-23-n6 1 ~. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2G 23 "" 2 4 25 28 data, and then trying to evaluate that data as we see how it applies to the challenge that the Court gave us. We've met with ESD representatives. We met with Medicare reps from the hospital. We've met with the Interim City Manager. We've met with the City Manager. We've met with the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief, who has EMS under their direction. We've met with the EMS Director. We've met with the EMS financial clerk. We've met with the City's financial officer as to how they come about this data, and we spent a great deal of time with the Assistant Manager, Brian Brooks, who actually puts together the data that comes to the Court. The information we've obtained has been thorough. We have not had any obstacles anywhere where in regards to the City; they've been very, very helpful in providing all the data that we've asked for. Sometimes we don't know exactly what to ask for, but we're finding cut as we go along. We've established a paperwork trail as to how it goes from the time a call is initiated until the time an invoice is sent out and the collection procedure takes place. We understand the billing process, how it's being done by the City at this time. We understand the collections process of how it's going. We're not for sure we totally understand the budget process at this time, and we still have some additional questions to ask with regards to that. We also are not for sure about the actual data that is provided the Court at the time the budget i-z3-oh 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1~ 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 process takes place. There seems to be some discrepancies with the paperwork that's actually here in the courthouse and the paperwork the City says they have provided you, so we'll continue to look into that. We've looked into the formation place with regards to that. Our final steps are on the way. I'd like for Gordon to come up and talk to you about the final steps that we`ll be taking and his summation of where we stand at this time. MR. MORGAN: Gordon Morgan, Scenic Valley Drive. When Walter says "final steps," I'm not sure exactly what that means. We've had some thoughts in relation to what those final steps might be. I'd like to first emphasize a couple of things. First, this is an overview, and that's what we've tried to do, look at it enough so that we get an idea, a feeling of how it's all handled, so at least we could ask good questions, and I think we're to that point. We still have a little bit of information to gather from them yet. Once that is done, then -- then we can even ask better questions. As Walter said, we'll analyze it. We will come up with some conclusions. We hope we will have some observations that will bring us to the point of suggestions and options for the Court. Budgeting seems to be probably the biggest concern for everybody, and we've had some thoughts about that. Don't hold -z~-oe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~o 24 25 30 us to them. I'm sure they'll change, but some of those thoughts are basically a process of budgeting the fired expenses each year; for instance, that being on a percentage basis, whatever the percentage that each -- the County, Ingram, and the City of Kerrville, their partir_ipation in the percentage basis on fixed assets. And then, at the end of the year, a deficit or a, quote, profit, which doesn't seem real feasible, but if those are available, then share in that on the same percentage basis. The biggest problems are the variables. Those are how many calls will be made. That's going to be dependent relative to hospital usage; that's going to be dependent upon whether you have flu epidemics or a lot of sickness, and all of those things affect the income and the operational factors. Those are hard to predict, and that's why that one might look at a final figure, and that is that that be thrown into one area -- one situation where everybody would just share in that shortfall funding. That you'll never know till the end of the year. The problem is, the end of the year never comes until after you've budgeted, so therefore, if you set up a fund to take care of those shortages, and then just to carry that over into your -- a fund that you can pull out of for your next year's budget, 'cause you will be budgeting before they get their final figures for the year. Anyway, one other thought, and that is if you have ->~-oc 31 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 J~ 23 G4 GS any questions, please let us know. As we go through this and we, as a committee, talk about it, we have questions that we didn't realize we didn't know the answer to before we started talking about it, and so if you all have questions that you would like more specific answers to, please let us know and we can ask those questions. Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple right now, Dr. Morgan. On a couple occasions where we talked about some of the issues involved in this to help us frame out what the County's obligation is, we talked about claims and the coding of claims, and whether or not there is a problem there or something that needs to be looked at. We talked about disallowables. Are you satisfied that both of those issues are where they need to be? MR. MORGAN: Probably, within -- within reason at this time, Those are some of the things that we're going to get into detail. Basically, the -- the billing or the origination of the claims that are going to be processed come from the site where the emergency's occurring, and that is done by -- by computer, most of it. That goes into the system and comes out eventually as a hard copy at the office. But you have the importance of that going in at the site of everything being included that's being done, because the charges are based on a call basis, services-rendered basis, and mileage that is traveled, so those things are all i-'s-~~ 32 1 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 important at the very start. And then, of course, following through on that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gordon, you mean, like, those things -- bandaids, neck braces, those kind? Is that what you're -- MR. MORGAN: Oxygen. They have several levels of care when they make the call. You know, what's the condition? What's the diagnosis? What's the problem that's occurring, and then what do they need to do to correct that problem? And in order to do that, there -- there are two or three levels of care, and there is a charge based on that level of care. It's a big yellow sheet in hard copy that they fill out, basically. But, as I said, most of that's done by computer from the site. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And there would be no subsequent intervention of coding or changing of a coding before the claim is filed? MR. MORGAN: Well, that's gone over -- you know, that's looked at and -- and gone over at the office. Sometimes additional things may be added that was left off or something like that. But, you know, most of these are pretty well -- have a form; they have a whole list of charges like this, and there are different amounts for each thing that they do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I'd like to make, i-2s-u e, 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 I'd like to, of course, thank you and the rest of the committee far all the work you've done. I'd also like to thank the City -- I see Mark Beavers here and the mayor -- thank the City and the rest of their staff for -- for helping and being, from what I've been told, very open to the committee and providing all the information that they requested, which I think is going to ultimately give the County -- myself a much better understanding of how the EMS process is working. And I think that was -- that lack of understanding and lack of knowledge, lack of information flow from the City, was probably one of the biggest reasons we had such an impasse last summer. And I think this is going to go a long ways to prevent that from happening, 'cause I think now we're going to understand the process in the city for the first time. I think it'll be very good. MR. MORGAN: I think this probably will be one of the number one recommendations, that they turn out a monthly report each month. They do their own reporting, summaries of all the activities, and hopefully they would be willing to send that over to you each month so that the Court could be aware as -- month by month of what's aping on. DODGE TINLEY: Is that not going on at the present time, the monthly? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We are not receiving it at this time, but they are willing to do that. And -- i_~a_~~5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~„ 23 24 25 34 MR. MORGAN: I think your contract calls for quarterly, but -- you know. And, you knew, that's a decision that you all should empress to -- you know, to those involved, whether you want it monthly, quarterly, or -- and to whom it would be sent, who would be responsible. JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that the reporting was the same frequency by which it is furnished to City management and the Council. I believe is -- that was the agreement that was struck, was it not, Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They agreed to send it over here on a monthly basis, and my thinking was to do that for a particular period of time so that we could -- we could see it and get to understand it as we go along, and then move it back to the quarterly. That's the way I saw it, anyway. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have probably -- I think the agreement says quarterly, but in our discussions, it was monthly. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. And they're willing to do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It sounds like -- sounds like your committee is heading to a recommendation of proportionate cost allocations based on -- or allocations based on a proportionate use of the system; is that correct? MR. MORGAN: That's what we're looking at, i 's ue 35 1 M.. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~- 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 certainly, yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm cool with that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Dr. Morgan, is the committee considering the merits of a user-pay strategy? MR. MORGAN: I think from the standpoint we're not looking at anything other than what the expenses are as they presently are, and what the income has been relative to fund that. Now, of course, you have two choices in a -- a difference between income and expenses, and to balance that, you have several choices, actually. Number one, you can increase your revenue basis to try to meet the expenditures. That's one choice. But that has -- in this system, with Medicare and with set charges, that sort of limits what you can do. And there is a noncollection percentage that's involved in all of this, and that's fairly large, so if you get your fees up too high, of course, then you're going to actually just end up with more noncollectibles. I will say that they haere recently made some changes in their collection system, with those that provide the collections for them for the -- for the -- especially the debts, noncollectible bad debts, and they are getting less cost to the City for doing the service, plus the fact the percentages are -- by experience, because the company's experienced in this alone, and so they're -- they are getting a better percentage back. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is a medical service, 1-G3-On 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1? 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and other providers of medical service -- individual doctors, clinics, hospitals -- are operating under the same economics that this service is. Medicare doesn't pay enough. MR. MORGAN: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A certain number of deadbeats that won't pay. Insurance is another issue. But those organizations -- you're more familiar with that than I am, Dr. Morgan. They charge enough that -- that they at least cover the costs, if not make a profit on that. And 1 -- I don't see that the rationale for charging -- not charging enough to pay for this service has any merit to it. MR. MORGAN: I'm sure that the committee will have -- in their options will be some ways in which the expenses and the incomes can come out closer. They're set up basically right now pretty close to a break-even deal. The factors that keep it from being a break-even is -- is because of the bad debts and those things that they actually make a run and make charges for, but they're really not billable. They're not charges that are accepted; not even percentage of payment, but just not accepted. And so there are many, many factors involved. But, certainly, I'm sure that the committee will have some ideas of how you can see whether or not that's feasible. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Couple of -- -~~-~~~ 37 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2U 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And thanks for your work. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Couple of questions. Is the City of Inqram participating in the program today? MR. MORGAN: We have not seen the exact figures, other than looking at the budgets that we have; there are some figures in there. In conversations with them, we understand that the City has been more or less subsidizing Ingram's participation. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, we'll carry that conversation on at a later time. Now, we had asked you all to -- and your final report was sometime in April? Was that correct? MR. SCHELLHASE: March. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: March. Are you comfortable with that? MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. You want the 1st of March or the middle of March? MR. SCHELLHASE: End of March. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: End of March. MR. MORGAN: But not the 1st of April. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y"eah. MR. MORGAN: Anything else? JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Dr. Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Thank you. z zs ..e 38 1 G 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: Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Jim Murphy, I see you're here with us today. We appreciate you being here. Do you have anything you wish to add on this? MR. MORPHS: I just want to say this. I was -- I was -- had a medical problem, and I have not been active with these two, but I want to guarantee that what they've done is excellent as far as I'm concerned, and I'm very well satisfied with what they've given to me and shown me. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your participation. Glad to see you up and around, MR. MURPHY: Thank you. Glad to be here. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on this particular agenda item, gentlemen? Let's move on to the next agenda item; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to accept offer of the Attorney General to redirect and process child support payments on orders established prior to January 1, 1994, from the local registry to the State Disbursement Unit. I put this on the agenda at the request of the District Clerk, Ms. Uecker? MS. DECKER: Morning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning. MS. UECKER: We're under a contract right now with the Attorney General's office to process and do state case registry entry on all cases that are post-1994. What that 1-~i-06 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 L S means is all of those cases where there's child support after 1994, those get ordered, then are redirected. Instead of coming to our office, they went directly to the S.D.U. in San Antonio. We still have to do state case registry entry data, customer service on those cases. The good news is, we get paid a little bit for it. You know, we're still -- but they said at the time, we don't want to do pre-1994 cases. That means we still have to receive and disburse pre-1994 child support, which there's not that much of that any more. We've gone from processing over 100 child support payments a day to about seven. So, now they've come along and they've said, okay, we're going to offer you a deal. We want to -- we're going to offer to process your -- or "redirect" is what they call it, pre-'94 cases as well. We'll still have to do state case registry entry on them, which means we have to do data input, address changes on their software system, which is totally separate from The Software Group case management that we have. But what it means is we'll all be doing the same thing on all cases, rather than receiving child support on pre-'99, and not on post-'94. So, they've made this offer to amend our contract to include that, so I think that's probably a good idea. And we'll get -- we'll, you know, get some payments for customer service on those cases as well. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anything we need to do? MS. UECKER: Just sign the dang thing. (Laughter.) 1-Z' 3-~~ 6 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make a motion that we accept the offer of the Attorney General to redirect and process child support payments on orders established prior to January 1, 1999. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you, Ms. Uecker, for being here. MS. UECKER: Just have -- once you get that signed, just have them return it to me, and I'll -- 'cause I'm going to keep a copy of it and send it. I'll send it on. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to the next agenda item, if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to revise preliminary plat of Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 2, Section 2. Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Thank you, Judge. What you have before you is a letter from Mr. Voelkel, and -- and I believe there's two options the Court needs to look at and consider. Basically, will the Court accept the preliminary plat done on 1-~3-06 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May the 1st of ^001 and give the variance for the length of time that -- these are the three variances, whether you will do that. Or -- or have Mr. Voelkel come back with a new preliminary with these changes on it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does the rules say about that? MR. ODOM: The rule says that -- the current riles say that it is one year's time, and then they're to r_ome back to the Court. This is almost five years old coming this May. So, it's not that we haven't looked at it and haven't discussed it in the concept-type thing, but I told them to come to the Court if they wished to see if the Court would accept it. You need to give a variance on time. My understanding is that what was proposed before with the changes was three years, and we're beyond the proposed changes. So, is that -- I'm open for any questions, but -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I have one. MR. ODOM: All right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In Mr. Voelkel's letter, Item Number 2, what does that do, or how does that fit in with our rules? I mean, it appears, just glancing at it, the number of lots changed from 74 to 75. It appears that we had -- we had a subdivision at one time, and now suddenly we're coming along and changing the number of lots in that subdivision? MR. ODOM: Correct, sir. .: 3 - _ ~, 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you do that? MR. ODOM: You can do that. I'll go back on that point. That -- basically, what was proposed before, I believe, was 74. My understanding, the reason they want to go to 75 was because of Section 2, Phase 1. The phase before had -- they did not build one lot in there, so they were trying to make this change. The rule says that there's a 20 percent change in there, if it's not over 20 percent. So, 15 -- one versus 15 is certainly within those regulations to do that. Then the probability is -- is that the road between Spring Lakes Parkway and Spring Lakes Cove will probably change because of the degree of angle. I had a concern with that; it's over the 12 percent, so there'll probably be a realignment. With that realignment -- and Mr. Voelkel can correct me if I'm wrong, but the probability is that they will probably lose a lot or so in there. So, there won't be any more than 75, and the probability is it will probably be less than 75 with that change of that angle, which would -- of that road. So -- which will change some sizes of some lots right there. The -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cypress Estates Parkway? Is that what we're talking about? MR. ODOM: Yes -- or Spring Lakes Parkway and Spring Lakes Cove. That's where it goes up the hill there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, Leonard, I don't 1-23-U6 I G 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 G 2 23 ~4 25 43 understand why we don't just start over on the -- I mean, the preliminary plat is so old, why can't we do a new preliminary plat? MR. ODOM: I'm -- that's the question I had. I have not ever done a revision of a preliminary. And talking to you, you had not either, so I told them that I would assame that the best thing is -- is probably -- efficiency for the developer, is to see if it will be accepted. To me, we're one year over. You're outside the three years. I would say the probability is, if the changes are acceptable to the Court, you come back with a new preliminary. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- I mean, the only issue that I can see, as I recall, the subdivision has a -- a special court order, because it was revised and the number of lots allowed in a subdivision is less than our current minimum because of the averaging. MR. ODOM: The average is 3.37 acres on that 253 acres and 75 lots. Fits in the new -- it doesn't fit the current rules of 5-acre average, but it does fit under the 3 acres. So, the number of lots are acceptable in that aspect, if the Court would accept that -- what's proposed. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it were -- if it were done when it was supposed to be done. MR. ODOM: If it was done five years ago. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, this is why -- I I-?i-oF 44 L L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 can't remember -- maybe Don remembers. I see Dale's here; he may remember, or Kash or somebody. They're scattered throughout here so they can hit us from every direction. I know there was a separate court order, and I don't know if that court order was ever tied to a plat. We did that, right or wrong, at the time. I just know we did a separate court order on that because of the over -- it was an overall whole subdivision scheme. MR. ODOM: Yes, it was a master plan. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Master plan as to the lot size. MR. ODOM: We had Section 1 and Section 2, and this had three phases in it. And Phase 1 was complete. Phase 2 was done on May 14th, 'O1. Court Order Number 27029 was the court order that -- that accepted that preliminary. The question is, is this still valid? And if it is, the changes they proposed, will they be acceptable if you're not going to -- ~f you accept this as a preliminary? Otherwise, start over. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are the disadvantages of just going ahead and accepting -- waiving the -- the time requirements and going ahead? Is anything going to change if we start back over again and require another preliminary plat? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it -- it may do one thing. Depends on when they do that. It would change, potentially, the drainage work, 'cause right now they're under 1 .13 ~i ¢~ 1 n 3 4 5 6 7 8 a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 the old set of drainage work. And the reason I know this is I've talked to -- I believe he was, and I presume still is the engLneer for Mr. Crenwelge -- Les Harvey, about it. This is where the whole issue of the way we calculate drainage was -- for a subdivision; it was specifically for Lot 127, about that. You know, and there was, I think, a desire, as I understood it -- Dale can answer this -- to get under our new drainage rules, 'cause otherwise he probably has to get a waiver on drainage under our old rules. MR. ODOM: Under the old rules. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think there's that issue. Then, on the lot size issue, I think that, you know, we kind of -- I don't know. Is the 3.37 the average in Phase 2, or average throughout? MR. ODOM: Average for Phase 2. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, obviously, I think I'd like to see a higher average, but it's kind of in there. I just think that it's -- we're going -- I don't know that I like the precedent of resurrecting a preliminary plat that's this old, that we haven't been continually working on. And I don't think it -- I don't -- you know, that's just my personal feeling. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Don Voelkel? MR, VOELKEL: Don Voelkel, Kerrville, Texas. I don't want y`all to think we're trying to circumvent the i-~~-ah 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 preliminary plat phase. That -- this plat was submitted originally when Dale bought the remainder, and that's when y'all worked out that court order for the whole Phase 2. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. VOELKEL; The one that was platted in 2001. And the reason that we're bringing bacY, a revised preliminary on Phase ~ -- Section 2, Phase 2, the -- and I've never done a revised preliminary. This was approved originally back then for the whole master plan, and -- and part of that court order. That's what we were under the -- working under that assumption, that that was the way it was going to be. And I've been talking with Len and we met, and met with the Commissioner, Commissioner Nicholson, back a month or so ago, and we just resubmitted this as a revised preliminary, because there were just a couple of changes. Da1P sold some land to the west that he doesn't own and is not going to be taking a road into; we made a minor change there. And, like Leonard told you, the -- the overall lot count, they -- they revised some of the stuff there and lost a lot in the first phase, so we put that into this one. And we've already been discussing with Kash that we're probably going to not have 75 lots, but that's what we're approved for, so we want to submit the preliminary as the worst case. The road on that east side, because -- and everything we'll be doing from here on, we'll be working with 1 °'^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ..... 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 "^ 24 25 47 Leonard and Dave if we need to. That roadway going up that east side to loop this -- the road system and the water system and all may have to be adjusted when we get out there and start doing the -- you know, the actual road construction and design. And Les Harvey will be involved in that, plus the drainage. It's not like we're trying to not do any drainage. T think he's already looked at several sites going to have some detention for the major drainage plan. But the only reason we submitted it this way was it was already -- the preliminary plat was already approved for this court order that Dale got, and we're nct throwing that out, coming back in with half-acre tracts. We're -- basically, it's the same layout, with just a couple of minor changes that we talked with Leonard and also Commissioner Nicholson about. So, that's kind of where -- if we'd have been coming in for a final plat today, I can see where you'd say, "They're trying to use a preliminary that's four years old or five years old." That's not exactly the case. We're resubmitting the preliminary that was approved already, with some revisions, to allow y'all to say, "Yeah, we don't have a problem with that." Now, I don't know about the time factor on the -- you know, what Dale got approved for his lot count before, but I'm assuming that that's still the way it is. So, that's why we wanted to resubmit this as a revised preliminary; not come in with a final plat saying we're ready _.~ as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 to go, and y'all get it for the first time and say, "Wait, this is fcur, five years old." COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's -- Don, what's the negative from doing a -- letting this go because it never got anything done, and do a new preliminary plat on -- MR. VOELKEL: I think because of the fact that Dale got the court order. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, assuming that that court order can still be valid. MR. VOELKEL: Right. And ii that court order's still valid, then the basic layout that we already have approved, to me, in my professional opinion, that still holds. It's just that they didn't come in and -- for his final plat. You can come in for a final plat within a year and not have to have this -- this type of meeting right now. But that year's passed, COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the problem is that the -- the plat -- according to our rules, this plat is dead. It doesn't even exist any more. MR. VOELKEL: And I think, by virtue of the fact that when he got that court order for the lot count that he had, I think that's why- we're coming back with the revised preliminary, saying we want to resubmit this. Here's the way it is; nothing's really changed, except a couple of minor things, so we want to come back in and bring that before 1-2S-O5 1 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 y'all. We're not coming back for final, where it would be -- I see what you're saying on the final plat. We couldn't come in, because it's over a year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I just -- I still don't understand the negative of doing a new preliminary. MR. VOELKEL: What`s the -- I mean, this isn't -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the issue is that it's going to be the drainage you're going to be under. You are -- currently, this plat, if we do a revision, is going to be under our old rules, and the drainage is going to have to be done with -- with 100 percent retention, retention everywhere, with no allowance. And that was something that, you know -- and, you know, I think it was a good thing for the County that Les brought it to my attention. But y'all are under the old rules, and the new rules are going to -- this type of development with real steep grades are better. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question before y'all get a little heated there. This court order that we're talking about is -- is the master plan for this large piece of property. MR. VOELKEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct? MR. VOELKEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, in our wisdom, we kind of approved that several years ago. What has changed in this i-~~- c 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 particular section from then till today? What am I looking at different today than I was, what, 12 years ago? No, several years ago. What's the difference? MR. VOELKEL: There were two differences in -- and one of which was the 74 lots. Originally, there was 74 lots back in this phase, and I forget the number in the front. How many did you have approved, 120 Lots, Dale? MR. CRENWELGE: 120 lots. N9R. VOELKEL: There were 120 lots approved for this acreage, and we had a layout that had 120 lots. Well, in the first phase, the way the final plats got approved, Dale lost a Lot. So, effectively, we put that into this second phase, the 75 lots instead of 79. This wasn't final platted for 75 lots; it was preliminary platted and approved with the layout that Jonathan and I were talking about for 74 lots. So, we've -- we've still -- within the guise of all of the 200 foots and all the acreages and all, oae've got 75 lots back there, which -- and if y'all need to, you can talk to Kash Morrow; he's already looking at abandoning some of these lets. It's probably not -- more than likely not going to be 75 lots. I'd say a greater percentage of chance it's not going to be 75 lots; it's going to be less. So, that's -- that's one thing that changed. We've added one lot. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I stop you? MR. VOELKEL: Certainly. 1-~~-26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. You know, because we did this a couple of years ago, and the -- saw the concept of it and the number of lots, and we have basically kind of gave a nod that it was okay, that makes me feel good about what we're doing about this today, except for the fact that Commissioner Letz keeps bringing up drainage, which is a big issue. And some things have changed since we first addressed this, and I think the drainage issue needs to be addressed under today's thinking. So, if you're telling that we need to redo it because of drainage, I agree with you. But if it's not that, I -- I'm willing to approve what they're in here today -- MR. VOELKEL: Can you approve it with the variance that. we use today's drainage, since it's submitted today, although it's a revision of an original plat that was dcne four or five years ago? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- no, I don't think that will work. 'Cause, I mean, one, we don't have -- we haven't approved the new drainage yet. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know what it is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- and then we're -- and you either have to be under our new rules, which are going to be -- are probably six weeks away from being final, or you're under the rules when this was done, and you can't pick and choose. i-~3-nos 52 1 G 3 9 G J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~2 23 24 ZS MR. VOELKEL: Well, I think -- wasn't Les using the old rules when he was talking about putting the detention in? MR. MORROW: I don't know if they were the old rules or new rules. COMMISSIONER LETZ: New. MR. CRENWELGE: New rules. MR. MORROW: Separate drainage or detention structures. MR. CRENWELGE: It was gong to be the new rules, Don, COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I think -- that's why, to me, it makes a lot more sense to do a new one, because we can't keep this old one alive. MR. VOELKEL: But you're saying do a new one after those new rules get adopted, so you're talking about six weeks before they adopt it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. MR. MORROW: I would prefer not to wait six weeks. I don't have a problem going with -- I don`t have a problem -- MR. VOELKEL: This is Kash Morrow. MR. MORROW: Kash Morrow, Kerrville. I don't have a problem going with new drainage rules at all, but I prefer to get it approved today. COMMISSIONEk LETZ: Of course, you haven't seen the new drainage rules, either. i zs-o~ 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MORROW: Good point. (Laughter.) Very good point. But assuming that these are -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean -- MR. MORROW: I'd rather get approval today than wait the six weeks and then come bacY, to you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Problem is, even -- even with their willingness to abide by an unapproved-yet set of drainage calculations on our stormwater takeoff rules, how do we do that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying. I don't think we can do it until they get approved. We can -- you know, you either have to wait or you go under the old rules. MR. MORROW: What are the old rules? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Zero tolerance for drainage or runoff. MR. MORROW: Okay. No, it's not -- MR. VOELKEL: That's why -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all want to come back in two weeks? MR. VOELKEL: I don't think that's going to -- DODGE TINLEY: Let me weigh in here, if I might. Leonard, the rules -- when the preliminary plat was filed, what, if any, rules were in place regarding revising a preliminary plat? Not carrying a preliminary to a final, but revising a preliminary. i _ . u a 59 1 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: To my knowledge, there was nothing in the rules that said that we could do that, other than if the Court chose to give a variance on that. If you came to the Court on the timeline, it says that you had one year, and then the Court could extend that time over. What length of time that would be would be at the discretion of the Court. JODGE TINLEY: But there was no limitation on asking, in terms of within a specified time, you had to appear to ask for a revision of a preliminary plat? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our rules are silent on revision. We don't mention revision of preliminary. MR. ODOM: Just the plat itself. They would come back and say, "I need more time to do this; something's happened." JUDGE TINLEY: If I understand what these gentleman are asking here today, they're presenting a revision of a preliminary plat, and they merely want a consensus from the Court that they've got the blessing of the Court to proceed, and it's going to be within -- within the new drainage requirements to be adopted probably shortly when a final plat is adopted, but they want to be able to know that they can be going forward on the basis that they've laid out before us now. Is that correct? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I be]ieve that that's what they're -- more than anything, other than a revision, is 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 guidance; the fact that would the Court be receptive to the new drain -- if they change -- these three changes, which was putting in a cul-de-sac instead of a -- into Phase 3, which was just part of the master p]an. There was no design on it. That has been sold. The other is one additional lot, which in all probability will probably be -- will not be any more than 75, probably less than 75 because of the realignment. What is not shown on the old preliminary are the detention ponds. That -- and so, basically, I think Mr. -- Kash needs a direction. Would this be acceptable to the Court? Whether it's four weeks or sir. weeks or whatever it may be. I think that's guidance. Am I correct in that assumption? MR. MORROW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- I don't see how -- how is this styled? Is this -- revise preliminary. You're still a ways off from getting to final plat. And you're going to have to do the lot. MR. ODOM: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're a long caays -- MR. ODOM: Long way from a final. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Long way from a final. So, I just don't understand -- as long as the Court is willing to go along with the original concept on number of lots, I don`t -- and which I don't have any problem with that, 'cause this was a very large development, and our rules really don't 1 2 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1h 17 1S 19 20 ~'1 22 ~3 29 25 56 contemplate getting something like 1_hat done within a year. I don't see why it's not easier to wait until our new rules are in place, which y'all would rather be under the new rules, which are in many areas more stringent, but y'all -- but they also allow for some -- MR. ODOM: Flexibility. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- flexibility. If y'all are willing to do that, to me, it seems better to wait and do a preliminary after our new rules are through. Or we can continue on this one, and then this -- do a court order and say, "You're going to be under our new rules." I mean, but I don't see how that -- we're changing anything on either one of those. Final plat's still months away. What's the rush? MR. VOELKEL: Are you saying you could approve it and just, once we get tc that point, adopt it? It's going to be under the new rules for drainage? Or are we stuck with the old rules if you approve it today? I think that's the main question. COMMISSIONER. LETZ: I guess we have the ability to be working along on a plat and then, all of a sudden, say, "We're going to put this under a new set of rules." COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that might be problematic, don't you? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's awkward, but we can do it. -~~-_F 5~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~~ 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: Awkward. That's a good description. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 1f we don't act today, what -- what kind of an inconvenience is that to the developer? What could you be doing if we acted today that you won't be able to do if we don't? MR. MORROW: It's a financial inconvenience, but I don't know that that really matters to y'all. It matters to me. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It matters to me, too. MR. MORROW: Well, my interest meter starts, hopefully -- probably next Monday. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, you could be selling lots? MR. MORROW: No. No, not necessarily on that. I'm borrowing ttze money and paying for the use of that money, and I'm not able to use it, to spend it. I want to start on our planning, our surveying, our roughing in the roads, you know, cleanup, that sort of stuff. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why can't that be done? As long as you're working with Road and Bridge, I don't know why that can't be done, you Y.now. MR. ODOM: As we go along. Drainage -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do a court order today, I think, that would allow, you know, you to be working on the roads, knowing that we have new rules coming along, and you're ,3-oh 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to be under the new rules. You can't start construction until thee new rules come into place. MR. MORROW: Possibly, Mr. Crenwelge would be more comfortable with me out there working on his property -- I don't know. Maybe -- I'd like to get Dale's opinion on this. MR. CRENWELGE: I didn't understand -- I was kind of out of the loop last week. I didn't understand that we were going in for this revision of a preliminary. I don't know that it matters what we call it, but the primary goal is to kind of just get the Court's blessing that, well, we had the court order before, and went to a special effort to get a court order when Mr. Griffin was still there, just to make sure that I was still able to do the 120 lots on the 400 acres. And I did 44; I thought I did 45. But Kash wants kind of assurance that, you know, this court order for the lot numbers, this is still in place. And I -- every indication is it's still in place, but I just always want to make 110 percent sure. And then, you know, the -- the drainage is an issue. Met with Les quite a few times on the drainage, and now I want to go forward on that. Just want to kind of just start moving forward, you know, rather than wait around; just kind of want to start getting something going. That's the primary issue. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds like all you really need from us today is that we're going to follow our -- the court i-s-oe 59 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 order that was previously passed on the number of lots in this development as the master plan development, MR. ODOM: And, basically, this is a concept plan. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Concept plan. MR. ODOM: Change it to a concept. If the Court was in agreement with this concept, that would give people guidance of where they're going. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then a new preliminary will be done, and it will be under our new rules. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we still need to grant a variance on the time frame issue? MR. ODOM: No. Do it as a concept plan. Is that acceptable? MR. CRENWELGE: Yeah, that will be fine. But I think the preliminary plat fees were paid on this one, I think, also. The original -- since last week on this, they've been paid twice already. They were paid before, and when they expired, you know, they were paid last week on the preliminary plat fees on the routing slip. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Am I hearing they don't want to pay the fees again? MR. CRENWELGE: I know if I pay it twice, I'm going to pay it three times. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I would think that the -- the fees paid to get it on the agenda today would apply to ~-z~-oa 60 1 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the new -- to the -- for the preliminary plat when it's refiled. MR. ODOM: And if the concept's acceptable to the Court, then they could proceed forward and Kash could go ahead with the deal, and everybody sort of knows where we're going. But there will be a new preliminary. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. VOELKEL: In six weeks. MR. ODOM: Whatever. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will show detention or retention basins, if necessary. MR. ODOM: And retention basins will be in there, at least three that I've been assured. We've discussed that. They're just not shown, because there's -- this revision doesn't show the detention, because drainage is something that's in the final. But we wanted some working document to look at so Les Harvey could be working toward that. We -- you need a design before you start on where you're putting this water, and that's been done, basically. MR. VOELREL: And from what I hear you saying, y'all kind of approve what we're doing, but since the -- since six weeks from now, when the new rules are going to be adopted, that we -- after that date, we resubmit our preliminary and get it approved under the new rules. But in the meantime, anything we do, as long as we do it with Len's approval and 1-~'3-Je; 61 1 2 3 9 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 guidance along the way, that we can -- and I'm saying that for Kash's benefit, because if he gets online with the money and he wants to make sure that everything's going to go smoothly and not have to pay his fees again. But start it with -- and everything he does, make sure Len and Les Harvey and I and Kash are all on the same page; that y'all are agreeing that that concept and everything is okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. And I think -- I mean, we're not doing anything out of the ordinary here. You can't get to a true preliminary; you have to do some dirt work out there to get to the point that you can do anything. MR. ODOM: Do the surveying. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you do the surveying. MR. VOELKEL: We'll go ahead in that direction in the next six weeks, so when we come back with a preliminary, we may be closer to the final anyway. But at least that way, Kash isn't just waiting for that date before he can do anything. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I don't see any problem with that. MR. VOELKEL: Okay. That okay with you? MR. MORROW: Sure. Thank y'all. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we need a court order? MR. ODOM: Do we need a court order? Basically, it's a concept plan; just give them a direction. 1-zs_ ~r 62 1 2 3 4 5 ti 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing -- you know, and at our next meeting -- we can't act today. If they would -- Kash or Dale or whoever would like, you can put it on our next agenda that we're going to follow through; that we're going to follow the acreage -- you know, number of lots and acreage average and all that that we agreed to under that previous court order. We could reaffirm that court order at our next meeting. But, other than that, everything's going under stricter rules anyway, and everyone is agreeable to that. MR. MORROW: I have one more question. Do you think that your drainage -- new drainage rules will be approved in sir, weeks? Is that a firm -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, they're going to be put out to the public today. Well, that's my recommendation to the Court, to put them out today for a 30-day period. And there will be some -- I don't see any major changes in Subdivision Rules after, really -- you know, after I put it out today. MR. MORROW: Thank you. DODGE TINLEY: You gentlemen comfortable with where we are now? Okay. Anythinq further on that item, gentlemen? Thank you for being here. MR. MORROW: Thank y'all. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it. Let's move to the next item, Number 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to set a public hearing for revision of plat for Lots 4 1-~'3-n6 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and 5, Byas Springs Ranch, as set forth in Volume 5, Page 250, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This revision of plat meets all the requirements of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and we request the public hearing be set for March 13th, 2005, at 10:10 a.m. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to set a public hearing for revision of plat for Lots 4 and 5, Byas Springs Ranch, Volume 5, Page 250, Precinct 4, for March 13th, at 10:10 a.m. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a public hearing on the agenda item as indicated. 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 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for a concept plan on division of property on Bass and Wagner Road, and located in Precinct 9. MR. ODOM: Becky Key with Limestone Properties has a property consisting of 9.83 acres. The parties involved want to divide the property into two parcels. One lot would be 1 .°-, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .- 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ^°~~ 24 25 64 approximately 1.83 acres, and the other 8 acres. The 1.83 would have the existing house, septic, and water well, and they propose to have a shared water well agreement, which will make it community water. This division does not meet the current Subdivision Rules of 5 acres average; however, there is a County-maintained road. It's -- I think Buster knows where it's at, and Dave probably knows where it's at going up that hill, and it's only a 20-foot easement. We go back to this property, and what they're proposing on this concept plan is that they basically end at our -- at that gate. There's a gate there; comes up on top and flattens out, and there's a gate that -- where our maintenance ends right there. So, they're proposing to take that area that's fenced in here, as it's shown to -- that's that 1.83 acres. The other 8 acres basically fronts that -- that road to that easement right there. I don't see a problem, other than it would be a variance from that. If you go to the proposed rules, it could be divisible by three, which would be three lots. However. the problem arises that they're trying to not do any more work to build a road, because of the way that 8 acres -- where our easement's at. So, to me, the two lots is the mar,imum that they could get out of it. It would be 4.915 acres, so that's a little bit under the 5, but it's close, and probably a variance of some kind from the Court for the size of lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You lost me when you got to the 1-~,-ua 1 G 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 ?~ 23 24 25 65 three lots -- or three -- D1R. ODOM: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said something about three lots. MR. ODOM: Well, that would be if you went on the current rules, that 9 acres is divisible by three, three times. However, the current rules are 5 acres, and that's only twice. But it's a little bit -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's viewing the shared well -- MR. ODOM: They're doing the shared well. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- as a -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah, it meets the minimum lot size, but it doesn't meet the average, is what the problem is. Correct? MR. ODOM: That's right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 7t's very close. MR. ODOM: 4.9-something, so you're very close. And you would need a variance from that from the Court for that size of 5 acres under the current rules. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is one of those that -- that I don't have a problem with doing it. The problem comes down as to how you enforce this down the road. And since we have a Headwaters board member in the room, I might throw this question his way. 1 ~~-oE 66 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Jonathan. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we put a plat restriction, say, on 1 point -- or the 4.9, on the small tract, that no water well is allowed on that plat -- or, I mean, on that lot, would that plat restriction -- would y'all enforce that plat restriction if they came to you to get a permit for later on? MR. MORGAN: I would hope that we'd go on whatever the General Manager suggested to us. It would certainly be something that would be brought to the board. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. MORGAN: By a member. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, Rex, I guess I should maybe rephrase it to you. When we put something like that kind of a plat restriction on there, which is all based on water availability, which we do have authority for, is that enforceable? We'll never see that again. Is that enforceable by another governmental entity? I mean, can Headwaters look to our rules and what we have done in enforcing their rules? JODGE TINLEY: I don't know that they can do that. MS. HARDIN: The well already exists. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not worried about that right now. I'm worried about if someone wants to drill a second well; if they don't like the shared well and they, all of a sudden, drill two wells. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't -- ~-2s o~ E7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARDIN: But the lot is 4 point -- (Several people speaking at the same time. Court reporter interrupted and asked Commissioner Williams to repeat his statement.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was just asking the COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a criteria, but I think we I mean, or -- it doesn't always work out just right, and here we're going to have a lot that is, you know, below our -- our minimum lot size, or on the average standpoint. MS. KEY: I'm Becky Key from Hunt, Texas. And the purpose of subdividing the property was to have as large of -- the buyers are wanting as large a piece of property that they can have. And the seller wanted to keep the well on his property and do a shared well agreement, so the buyer is going to wind up with an 8-plus-acre tract. And if it would help to put a -- oh, something on there saying they can't subdivide that again, I don't think that would be a problem. They actually wanted more land than was available there, so if -- I don't know if that would make a differenr_e. And if another well was drilled at any time in the future, it would have to be on the 8-acre lot, not on the 1-acre tract, because they have, like, 8,000 gallons of water storage there right now. 1-~'3-06 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~1 22 23 24 25 And I did call Headwaters before I came here to see what they said. T. Sandlin was the man I talked to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just looking -- you know, I don't have a real problem; I'm not trying to really stop it. I'm tryinq to think through how our rules are going to work on this. Down the road, I see really nothing to prevent a second well from being drilled. I don't see how; I mean, they're going to have an 8-acre tract. And so we're -- I mean, I know you have a shared well agreement to get this done, but I don't see how there's anyone going to stop a second well from being drilled. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I agree 100 percent. They could go in there, but that's a -- Headwaters better go out there and set up camp and catch them, every day. That's their deal. That's the way I see it, anyway. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Leonard, what needs to be done here? Do we -- you talked about the road. In addition to approving this concept plan, do we need to take some action on the road? Are we proposing to abandon part of it? MR. ODOM: No, just -- we maintain that portion that's county, and this division is right at -- at the end of our road, which gives access to the 8 acres as well as -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We should abandon it. It's nothing more than a driveway. i-~;_ne 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ?~ 23 29 25 MR. ODOM: I have a comment that says -- it's from -- I think from Mr. Menafee, that said it should not be County-maintained. I said too bad it doesn't say "shall" not, but it said "should" not. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We just resurfaced it. MR. ODOM: We just resurfaced it with trap rock, so it's a safer road. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not an issue today. MP.. ODOM: That's not an issue today. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, the issue today is to get -- MR. ODOM: Can they divide this into the 1.83 and the 8, and with the knowledge that -- that they would have a problem -- they would have to build a county road after that if they subdivided that 8 acres. That is laying out a road or a street, and to -- just to get to the other portion of it, so it would be -- for everybody's information, it would be expensive. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not sure they could get approval to subdivide the 8 acres. I don't think they could. MR. ODOM: I don't think you could, so you'd have to build a county road just to get that other portion. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, what we need here is a court order to accept the concept plan. MR. ODOM: Yes. And then from there, I guess you 1-::3 06 ~o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would plat it out, and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Concept plan and grant a waiver of our 5-acre average -- averaging. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I make that motion to accept the concept plan and grant a waiver on the 5-acre average rule. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that include a plat note that no well can be drilled on the -- MR. ODOM: 8-acre. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 8-acre tract? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: For what it's worth. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, for what it's worth. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move, if we might, to Item 9; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to set a public hearing for regulatory signs in various locations in Kerr County. Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Thank you. Let's see if I can j ') ~ it b 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 ~4 ~5 find the right one here. What you had before, we have two recommendations that were put before us. The note that you see right here tells you exactly how much it costs us every time we do it -- we, as a department, do it. It -- the minimum is one time to two times a year, so the next time we would do a change, to be cost-effective, would probably be the last meeting of July to catch anything that's there. Mr. Harris out off on Klein Branch requested that we would change the 30 mile-an-hour speed limit to a more reasonable mileage of -- his suggestion -- I think there was a petition at 45 miles an hour. The day that they called me, they said there were several tickets given, so we went out and did a survey of that and took a look at that speed to see where we're at, and basically I ran a 51 and a 56 miles an hour, which is way too fast for that road in there. I am not opposed to the 95 miles-an-hour zone, because that would do the same thing like Peterson Farm. The county -- Gillespie County has 45 at their county line, which we pick up, and we would be adjacent to that. The only problem that we would have is back toward the end, as you approach that county road, and then I had 31 miles an hour; it's so curvy. But I can take care of that with some advisory signs there at 30 miles an hour, so that's not a problem. But there is a problem as far as funding is concerned, and that's why, on this particular item, Mr. Harris said he would be 1-~3-Oo 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~l ~~ 23 24 2 S ~z willing to pay for it. Road and Bridge has got a policy. I stated the policy; been that way for 15 years. And I would ask the Court to give me a direction on which -- which way to go, whether you charge Mr. Harris or whether the Court pays for it or directs me to pay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Harris thinks this is urgent enough that he and/or his neighbors are willing to pay the $200 cost of advertising. And on one point, I think 45 miles an hour is a reasonable speed limit there, and I support that. I'm willing to support approving it now, conditioned upon Mr. Harris paying the $200 it costs to run the ad. If he's not willing to do that, we'll put it in the hopper with the other issues we have, and it'll -- it'll probably come up in a month or two. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Harris, did you want to be heard, please, sir? MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir, I do. First off, I looked into the exact cost of what it -- what it costs to run that ad. It runs between $18.50 to $46 to run your ad. I actually went to the people that handle the accounting of it. Be more than glad to pay for the ad. In fact, we want to pay for it, because we don't want any more -- any kind of delay on this. And I -- I appreciate what you quys have said. We just want a reasonable and prudent speed, and we feel that 45 is a 1-23 Of, 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 73 reasonable and prudent speed. I have a petition in front of you guys that I've worked on extensively. I went to all the neighbors that I could possibly find, and it actually was -- it was a really nice trip. I got to meet some really nice neighbors, and I had no idea who my neighbors were. When you live way out in the country, that's -- that happens. So, it was -- it was a real good deal. And I have a number of people here. We had a death in our community, which is a gentleman was run over by a maintainer, and some other folks would like to have been here. The funeral's at Grimes at 11 o'clock, so these folks are probably not going to be here. But we do want to pay for it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. We've got another item on this same -- MR. HARRIS: If somebody wants to run -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you want separate motions? MR. HARRIS: If somebody wants to run another street on our petition, the difference to run another street is so minuscule, I would be more than glad to pay for that. I mean, it -- JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate that offer, Mr. Harris. We really do. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have one motion on both of these issues? i-~~-r,~ 74 1 3 4 J 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 ~5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I think this one is all. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When we get to that, I'm going to recommend that we approve the 45 mile-an-hour speed limit conditioned upon the -- Mr. Harris paying the actual costs of the reimbursing us for the actual costs of the ad. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I ask the County Attorney a question? Can we do that? MR. EMERSON: You mean pass an order contingent upon a private citizen paying the bill? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know in the Subdivision Rules, I mean, we -- MR. HARRIS: Just to pay an advertising -- or notice in the newspaper. We're not trying to do a bribery or anything. We're just -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand what you're trying to do, sir. It's just a matter -- I want to make sure we don't do something illegal. It might be easier if you want to just give the County a donation and we put it in our general fund. MR. HARRIS: I can do that, whatever you say. My folks here all told me that -- everybody out here, we'd be more than tickled to help the County if they have a -- a budget problem with this. COMMISSIONER. NICHOLSON: I didn't include anything about the cost of advertising. We'll just trust Mr. Harris to t-. =r, 75 1 3 4 5 H 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do the right thing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, however. MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of either Ms. Hardin or Mr. Odom. Is the requirement just a one-time advertisement, or more than once? MS. HARDIN: Three times. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three times. And the cost for three times typically is? MS. HARDIN: $200. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh? MS. HARDIN: $200. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HARDIN: I'll be glad to give you the invoice when it comes in. DODGE TINLEY: Sure. MR. HARRIS: That's fine. MR. ODOM: It will be our actual cost on it. That's all. JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Y'all can work that out. I think we're probably obligated to pay the public hearing costs. MR. ODOM: May I address -- if Mr. Harris is ~-.:~-nh 76 1 2 3 9 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 through, I'll address this other issue. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you a question while it's on my mind here, Mr. Odom. The -- of course, the adjacent -- as that road continues into Gillespie County, the limit there is 45, posted limit. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: How would you characterize the condition and topography of the -- this same road in Kerr County, as opposed to that in Gillespie County? MR. ODOM: Ours is more straight and open. Theirs is real curvy. I drove the whole thing myself personally at 30 miles an hour all the way up to 55 on cruise control. Let me tell you, there was a couple of times I met some of his neighbors out there, and I don't mean to be facetious; I had to go -- really, 50 miles an hour is scary. 45 pushes because of that, because the road's out about as far as it can get. I did drive 45 and tried to maintain 45 in Gillespie County all the way to Harper Road. Concern on that road. But ours, I believe, is in better shape and not as -- as curvy as theirs, more severe curves. So, ours is more straight, and so -- and 30 miles an hour is too slow. It's not in the 85 percentile. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The speed limit we post, that doesn't mean the whole road's at that speed limit. Obviously, you have to slow down at curves along the way. MR. ODOM: To Harper Valley, it's almost a straight i-~~-n~ ~~ 1 shot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm saying, I mean, the fact that we have 45, the fact that you can't slow down to go around a corner or so, doesn't mean the speed limit -- we wouldn't post a 45. MR. ODOM: Any curves like that, toward the -- back behind Harper, I'm going to post from the county line to Harper at 30, somewhere in that neighborhood. I'll look at the slope meter on that, and we'll come up with something. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. MR. ODOM: That's the realistic speed limit, 45. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. MR. ODOM: 51 and 36 was not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Roy? MR.. ODOM: R.oy, I have the notes here. A three-way stop at Roy and Thurman Streets was requested by a citizen to slow traffic. We explained to them the purpose of a stop sign is not to slow traffic, control speed, but to facilitate the movement of traffic. Commissioner Letz did request that we do a traffic study. We did do that. We did that over the holiday period, which would give us a better count to look at that. We attached the totals of the traffic study that shows no excessive speed over a holiday weekend. Therefore, I I recommend -- recommendation would be not to install a S three-way stop sign. Normally, what happens on Roy is that, 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1E 1i lE 1~ 2C L 2: ?. 2 ~a 1 """ 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 '1 22 23 24 25 by the manual, the minor yields to the major, and that we already have a stop sign at Thurman at Roy. So, we stop the minor to the major, which is straight through. The other corollary to it is that just this side of Thurman, that's Kerrville. So -- and when we looked at putting this out -- and you have a diagram of where we did this traffic count, up around -- in that area that's flat, as they get around Jonas and they start picking up speed, and then there's a little hill drop. We put one on the other side of that, and then at Thurman there -- before you get to Thurman. And, basically, what we looked at, the percentile at Location 5 was 35 miles an hour. Location 3 was 33 miles an hour, and Location 2, which is up before you get to Jonas, you're still in that flat area, that it was 25 miles an hour, so we don't see that excessive speed. It's not to say that -- remember, this is 85 percentile, and it doesn't mean that somebody's not going down through there, but the preponderance of the traffic is doing this average of about 34 miles an hour. I don't know if that's enough to warrant a ticket as far as being speeding. So, I don't see it as a problem, other than maybe if there is some er.cessive time, we can take a look at it and say -- either the city police on one side, or our -- I don't i-=~, u~ 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 volunteer for the Sheriff; he's got enough to do. But, you know, traffic r_ontrol is -- we don't control that. We can help. But the road's in good shape. The vegetation is cut back. And I can understand the speed limit being a little bit faster coming down a hill, and it reflects that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we ought to delete the stop sign at this time, see what goes out there. Just ask the Sheriff's Department and the constable to kind of patrol that road a little bit. One of the issues, there's a -- I get probably more calls on Thurman and Roy for speeding and traffic problems than any other road in my precinct, for some reason. I don't know. Continuous. But the test results show that there's not that much speeding going on out there, so I think you have to go by the facts, not what we're being told. Monitor it, and maybe if you have time someday, Leonard, just run another traffic count out there. MR. ODOM: I'll do that. Let's see what it does, and we'll relook at it in the July posting. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we set a public hearing for March 6, 2006, at 10 a.m., for the purpose of increasing the speed limit on Klein Branch Road from 30 miles 1-~S-U~' so 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an hour to 45 miles an hour. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that emotion. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the change of speed limit on Klein Branch Road as indicated in the motion. 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. Let's give our court reporter a break here. Why don't we take about a 15-minute recess. (Recess taken from 10:40 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order, if we might. We had a timed item for 10:30, Item Number 8, so let's take that item up now. And I would note that we have some speakers who have asked to be heard on that particular item. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to deal with the misappropriation of $94,001 of Kerr County funds to the public library. Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In an earlier Commissioners Court meeting, you all asked me to look into the circumstances surrounding the -- the issue of $94,001 that was supposed to have been paid to F:err County by the City on October 15th of 1 ,-u n 81 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 '0 21 22 23 24 25 last year -- last year? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two years ago. I've done going to learn any more, and I'm here to report to you that I think you have -- have four options, and I'll comment on each one of those. First option would be to forgive the debt. That would be a generous thing to do, and it would put the issue behind us. The second one would be to demand payment, and if that sort of action could possibly lead to litigation, then I don't have any interest in recommending that. I don't think it's -- I think it's one of the most foolish things that politicians can do, is to use public funds to sue each other, and my constituents who live in Kerrville will be paying twice. They'd be paying to prosecute the demand, and paying to defend it, so I don't want to do that. Third option would be to reduce contributions to the library fund in this year's budget, and I note that we're being billed -- well, we budgeted 300 -- we signed a contract to pay a minimum of $300,000 for the library this year, and we budgeted $355,000, and we're being billed under the contract rate of $25,000 a month, which comes up to $300,000. So, one option that you can consider is to just pay that minimum rate, and you'd _, ut~ 82 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recover $55,000 of the $94,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, before you leave that point. So, what you're telling me is the City is so flush with funds that they're not billing us the amount that we agreed to try to pay them? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Mayor's here; he might be able to speak to that. I can't. (Laughter.) JODGE TINLEY: Mr. Mayor's going to speak here in a little bit. MAYOR SMITH: I'll say something in a minute. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the fourth option would be to -- well, let me finish up on Item 3, to reduce the library fund in this year's budget. I would favor reducing it by that 55,000. I would not favor taking the whole $94,000 out of it, because that would be a breach of our contract. We were critical of the City a year ago for breaching the library contract, and so it would be unseemly for us to do that. And then the fourth one would be to wait till this budget period ends and recover the $94,000 from the future budget. So, that's -- that's the four options as I see them. I -- I can't support Option 2, demand payment, or Option 3, to reduce this year's budget by any more than $55,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to make a couple of comments. And, you know, I probably won't make a definite decision until after I hear from the -- the comments of the j - ~ n 83 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .^° 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 ".." 2 4 25 public and the mayor, but I look at this -- I'm inclined to do Option 1, which is to forgive the debt, for a couple reasons. One is that the -- the money was used at the library. It was not -- it was used where it was intended to be used. It was not used when the County wanted, or probably in the manner the County wanted, but, you know, it wasn't -- what was done was done then. The other reason I probably favor that option is that that was done, and I think it was done in a borderline unethical manner by the former City Manager. I don't know if he was in -- working with the former City Council or not. If they were, they were equally unethical, in my mind, for doing that. But the bottom line is that that City Manager is no longer around, and that City Council is no longer around. And the current City Manager and the current Council has done everything they can, in my mind, to work with the County. The money went into the library, and I think we need to move forward, and I'm comfortable forgiving that debt. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple comments too, Commissioner. I'm troubled by the assertion of priation of Kerr County funds. I just don't see recall that he, in effect, said the check's in the mail. I understand that. And I -- and I also understand the -- the fact that the current City Manager is trying to grapple with a whole pile of problems, and he -- to go back and find the work i-as-oh 84 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 papers that have caused Mr. Patterson to write the letter that he wrote is asking a whole lot on a very short notice, and so I'm -- I'm not on the same page with an assertion of misappropriation. There obviously is some reason to find out exactly what took place, if -- if the Court wants that to be done. But I'm also not of a mind to demand any payment. I'm not of a mind to -- to short the current budget of the library operations. And if subsequent investigation, if necessary, finds that -- where, in fact, an error was committed, took place, then we can always take credit for it in a subsequent budget. So, that's kind of where I am right now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kind of agree with almost everything I've heard. Except, in my mind, $94,000 is a lot of money, and if I had -- if I had a clear explanation of where that money went and what happened to it, then I might be able to -- be able to focus on forgiving the debt. I doubt that, though. But I also would not demand payment or reduce this year's budget. But I would li}:e to take a look at reducing next year's budget by the 94,000, but -- but, primarily, I -- I'd really like to know what happened to the money. That is -- this is -- we need to know. We need to know what happened to the $94,000. And I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation, and I think we're due that explanation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we -- I think we know 1-G?-Uh 85 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 " 24 25 what happened to it. The money was -- was transferred -- instead of giving the check back to the County, the money went into the fund to operate the library last year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, maybe -- maybe I mis-said that. That we know what happened to it, but why did it happen that way? JODGE TINLEY: I think I might be able to speak to add the $94,000 to it that we were assured was going to be return of equity to us, the addition of those two numbers comes, coincidentally, very, very close to the requested amount of contribution that we had from the City. Based upon that, I can understand how some at the City may have made an assumption that we had elected to net out, just because of how the numbers fell. They, coincidentally, came up to about the same total, within a few hundred dollars, or maybe even less than that. But I think what -- what is important is that, number one, the money did go to the library function, and secondly, it points up the problem that I think has been the basis for the difficulties that we've had during the past two years, and that is failure to communicate. And there has been an expression of interest to have good communication going forward. Everyone from this Court, I know, and also from the current City administration and the current Council that I've 1-23-UG 85 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 "° 2 4 25 talked to, and it's been virtually every one of them, have indicated that we certainly need to do better on our I think that's the important -- the lesson to be learned, is we must communicate on all of these projects and not make assumptions, not do things that appear to be so, but maybe aren't necessarily so. And let's keep the communication lines open, and I thin}; on an ongoing basis, we'll not have these problems in the future. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just basing my thoughts on the letter we'd gotten from the City. This says that, you know, we will send you a check on such-and-such time. And, you know, that makes me think that -- that they would -- they owed us 94,000; they're going to send it to us. I mean, I don't -- I don't call that bad communication, or being evil or anything. That's just simply what it said. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I agree with you predicated on a -- a change in the City in the management and the Council; that we have a different group now, and I think what was done was done very intentionally by the former City Manager. I don't see any way you cannot come to that conclusion, 'cause he knew very well what the County's position was, and he chose to handle it differently. I wouldn't necessarily call it misappropriation of funds. I ? - n 6 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 think he just didn't do what he was supposed to do. But he's no longer here, so -- you know, so it -- the money went to the library. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's move on. DODGE TINLEY: Mayor Smith? MAYOR SMITH: Yes, sir. I hope I can clarify this a little bit. The -- you know, when you -- my name's Gene Smith. I reside in Kerr County and F:errville; I'm a taxpayer in both entities. I want to make that clear, that Kerrville is part of Kerr County. This communication problem, as long as I'm mayor of this town, I'm going to make sure that we have communication. In business, when you miscommunicate, you cause a lot of hard feelings. And when I had a partner that I miscommunicated with, I'd say, "Where are you going to be in a couple hours?" Most of my people I did business with are over in Houston. I'd get on an airplane and go over there and sit down face-to-face and resolve it. But, unfortunately, some of the people involved in this are no longer here. But let's go back to the budget. The budget was about $416,000. Well, less the 94,000 was something like 323. Now, if you're doinq business with a -- with a store and you overpay your bill or you have a credit, they don't give you money back. Accountants like to hold onto that money, and I think that was what happened here. When the City Manager said he was going to issue a check, the financial people gave you a 1-~ i-n!, 88 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 credit instead of issuing a check. Now, if you wanted to resolve this thing correctly, we should cut a check for 400 -- for $94,001, and y'all should cut a check for $94,001. We will give you the money and take the money, and then it will be even. Because the budget was -- was the $416,000. It was -- when somebody writes something in a letter, they ought to adhere to what they put in a letter. He should have sent the check, and -- and the budget would have been $416,000. That wasn't done, and we can't correct that. Actually, some of the people involved in it are no longer here. But it'll be the policy of Kerrville and the Kerrville City Manager that we will have a detailed budget. We will have meetings with the -- with the -- with the County, as well as Headwaters and -- and Guadalupe. The four entities -- governmental entities here should communicate without any disagreement. If we have disagreements, go to the meeting and lay it on the table and get it over with, not let it fester. How longs this thing been festering? It's almost ridiculous. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Too long. MAYOR SMITH: And there's no reason that we should be arguing between the City and the County in the newspaper. I mean, they have -- they report what they hear; I'm not fussing with them, but it should have been resolved. But as best I can determine, the budget was 416,000. In lieu of a check, they credited the budget that amount. If y'all want a 1 - G "3 n h 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 check, I'm sure the City will r_ut a check for $94,001. They will hold it until y'all cut a check, and we'll -- we will swap them back and forth, and that'll resolve it. But it internal problems, too. The budget is prepared by the City Manager, and then it's submitted to the City Counr_il. Well, our new City Manager said he's going to -- he's going to work on the budget and -- and constantly communicate with the Council so we won't go to the meeting and have to approve 35 or 36 million dollars just like that. He will communicate, and we will have it well organized. And he will communicate with y'all, and as soon as the information is available. It won't be officially the budget until the City Council approves it in August, but we can surely submit the information to you, and you can -- you can work on it. Now, on the library, the library has been reorganized into -- not an advisory board, but it has a function; they will prepare the budget. And the budget is made -- made up of 100 percent people that live in Kerr County. Some of them come from Kerrville, and some of them come from the county, and so they'll prepare the budget and submit it to the City Manager, just like the other departments. And then -- then the City Manager will look at it. Now, I'm not -- don't have the data to say that we're 1-~'3-06 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 90 spending too much money or not spending enough money, but I know the library is an important part of -- of this area, and I -- I would hope that we will finance it adequately, but not overfinance it. And that's what we intend to look -- look at when we do get the budget -- or when the City Manager gets the budget. And I will guarantee you, we have a gem of a City Manager, and his -- his thoughts are communication, communication, communication. And -- and I know I didn't live up to the deal of meeting with each of you individually for lunch, but I've met with a couple of you for lunch. I need to carry on that thing so we can iron out these problems before they become problems. Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate you being here today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question for you, though. MAYOR SMITH: Surely. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This lunch thing. What about this breakfast thing that you guys were going to do? MAYOR SMITH: Well, it's -- I think it's in a couple of weeks. February 3rd, I believe, or something. I don't -- I don't remember exactly. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You didn't forget? MAYOR SMITH: Oh, no, we didn't forget it. But I tell you how shrewd the City is. Always pick up the breakfast i-zs-nF al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tab, because that's -- that's a heck of a lot lower than the dinner tab. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very wise. Very wise. MAYOR SMITH: Thank you. Any further questions? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Far as I'm concerned, the issue is over. I think it's time to move on. MAYOR SMITH: I agree with you, Commissioner. Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate you being here today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is very refreshing to -- to communir_ate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's exactly the reason I'm in favor of moving on on this. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Joe Benham? MR. BENHAM: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Friends of the Library. I am not an accountant. I have no -- make no pretension whatsoever of being able to tell you how this problem came about or how it can best be resolved. You have expertise that I don't, and you have expertise available to you that I'm sure you will utilize to the fullest. What I am going to urge you to do is to resolve this in such a way that you will not hurt the library. The library has been squeezed financially ever since I got here. I was recruited for the ,__,_„~ 92 1 ..., 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ---~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 °'°" 2 9 25 board of the Friends of the Library the day I arrived. They discovered I'd been on the board of a similar group in the Houston area, and they pounced on me before I caught my involved very closely with the Friends of the Library and with the series of directors since the day I got here, and the library has been in a financial squeeze all during that time. That has not been a fat operation. I don't want to take a lot of your time, but I want to give you three quick examples of important things that the library didn't have the money for. When we needed to do a comprehensive study of the computer system, which was described as somewhere between horse-and-buggy and Model T -- some of those computers are so old they can't get parts -- couldn't get parts for them any more. There wasn't any money available to the library from you gentlemen or from the City Council. The Friends paid it. We had -- fortunately, had the resources to pay it, $9,000. When the opportunity to protect the possibility to expand the library and its services came up, when the building next door, where -- where the travel agency and the Cypress Grill used to be, the -- there was a total -- it was unanimous recognition that, boy, we need to get that property, 'cause we had the feeling General Schellhase wouldn't be too excited about i-:.3-a~ 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 selling us his house on the other side of the library. The Friends raised $361,000 -- and I want to -- I very generously put up a good bit of that money. We raised $361,000 to buy that property, and it's been turned over to the City for future use. So far, the only thing that's been done is that part of the land is being used for parking, but it's definitely dedicated for future use by the library. The third thing, and most recent, there was, again, unanimous recognition that we needed to have some long-range planning for this library instead of operating on a year-to-year basis. No money in the budget; no county money, no city money. The Friends paid to hire the firm that we were told was the best library consulting information technology g country. And they have issued two reports, get a third one this year that will tell us the best way to go for the library. My point is, the library has been tight rein since the day I got here. We've coup in the and we expect to what they see as operating on a never had any spare cash. Every nickel has -- has been needed and has been spent, I think, wisely. And I would just plead with you, 1-'3-0` 94 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 _^0 21 23 24 25 resolve this -- certainly, you need to resolve it in the interests of the County. That's what you gentlemen were elected to do. I recognize that. I've served on some school boards and so forth myself. I know what your obligation -- fiduciary obligations are. But, please, within the context of living up to your fiduciary responsibilities, don't do anything that will hurt the library. The library has suffered enough. Morale over there has suffered enough. Couple of weeks ago, as I was leaving, I told one of the librarians, I said, "Well, I'll see you tomorrow." She said, "Yeah, I'll be here tomorrow. We don't know about next week, of course, but I'll be here tomorrow." We got a lot of good people over there who work very hard. We got a lot of volunteers who work very hard, and please don't do anything that would -- that would hurt the library. It's too important to this community. It's too important to the county. Not just the city; it's too important to this county. And I would plead with you to live up to your obligations, but also take care of the library. And I'm grateful for your time. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Benham. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Benham? COMMISSIGNER BALDWIN: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate you being here today. MR. BENHAM: Thank you. 1-23-05 95 1 L 3 9 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 L2 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Does any member of the Court have anything to offer in conner_tion with Item 8 that we've been disr_ussing? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we don't need to do anything if we're -- I think there's general consensus, what I'm hearing, that forgiving the debt's the right thing to do, and that doesn't -- inaction will do that. So, I don't -- I don't have a motion to offer. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you, sir. We had a timed item for 11 o'clock. Let's take that up, since it's past that time now. Item 13, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on reducing registration fees to $1 during the Rabies Drive on February the 4th, 2006, through February the 18th, 2005. MS. ROMAN: Good morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. MS. ROMAN: As you know, the county-wide Rabies Drive is quickly approaching. I am requesting that the Court reduce the registration fees to $1 between February 4th through February 18th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item as indicated. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. During that period, -~~-oF 96 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ?? 23 29 ~5 is it -- is that fee lowered if you do it only at these -- MS. ROMAN: Only between those dates. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- locations? But you can do it at the doctor's office? MS. ROMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or at this -- the three or four locations? MS. ROMAN: Anywhere between -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just the dates that are -- MS. ROMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Good clarification. I appreciate you pointing that out, Commissioner. Anything further? MS. ROMAN: That should be on the flyer that y'all got, if y'all did receive one. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It does say -- it does. Thank you, Janie. MS. ROMAN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's .s-~~ti 97 1 .. ` 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '^ 2 4 25 return, if we might, to Item 7; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for final revision of plat of Tract 152-A of Spicer Ranch, Number Three, as set forth in Volume 5, Page 176, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 1. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This revision of plat meets all the requirements of our Subdivision Rules, and public hearing was done on January the 9th, 2006. Therefore, I suggest the Court approve the revision of plat for Tract 152-A, Three. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to make a comment, that this is -- this is a family issue, and I think that there's -- some things are waived because of that. But Mr. Scottow and his family have decided to plat it and do it the right way, and I really would like to see more of that, even though he didn't have to. He now has a record of exactly where his properties and family properties are, and with that, I move for approval. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of final revision of plat of Tract 152-A of Spicer Ranch Number Three as set forth in Volume 5, Fage 176, Plat Records, located in Precinct 1. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) t-~~3-ue 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 G1 ?2 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion the carry. Let's move to Item 10, if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for road name changes on privately maintained roads located in Precinct 4 in accordance with 9-1-1 guidelines. Ms. Hardin? MS. HARDIN: Hello. We have eight road names on this list. However, I would like to remove the first road name. There was some discussion by other members that -- family members that live on the road, so until we get that, I would like to remove that one. And then there is a misspelling on the last one. It should be P-a-i-s-n-o. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Paisano? MR. ODOM: P-a-i-s-a-n-o. MS. HARDIN: Okay, that's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the little bird thing, right? COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER MS. HARDIN: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Antonio. LETZ: Roadrunner. BALDWIN: Roadrunner. Oh, okay. WILLIAMS: Also a -- LETZ: Paisano Pete. BALDWIN: Also a restaurant in San i->3-o6 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ^3 29 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's also an Italian term of affection to a friend. Paisano. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll bet it's the bird. (Laughter.) JUDGE TINLEY: Didn't know that we had an Italian romantic here with us, did you? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve the list of road names changes that are proposed, with the exception of the first one, Pfeister to Lavender; we delete that one, and change the spelling on the seventh one to Paisano. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second that motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item as modified. 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 go to Item 11, if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action regarding narcotics enforcement in Kerr County. Sheriff, what do you have for us today? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it's not absolutely good news for y'all, but it's also not bad news. As we all know and we've been hearing and everything, the grant that has -- _ ~;-..e 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 federal and state grant that has kept our 215th Judicial District Narcotics Task Force in place for over 17 years has finally come to an end. It will end officially on the night of December -- March the 31st. So, starting April 1st, we will not have a narcotics task force in this county. A lot of things go into making a loC of this up. Also is the fact that, at one time, we had anywhere from 15 to 17 officers working narcotics in Kerr and the immediate surrounding counties. There was about 10 to 12, depending on -- 10 to 11 I sometimes; the Sheriff's Office had one or two also, but normally about 10 that made up the 216th Judicial District Narcotics Task Force, and five that made up the D.P.S. narcotics section here. And I'm aware of that, 'cause my dad was the first D.P.S. narcotics one stationed here in 1975, and then it grew all the way up to about five to six people, including a lieutenant. We11, unfortunately, the State's, I think, also redirected a lot of their stuff into intelligence for Homeland Security. We now have two D.P.S. narcotics agents stationed here. They are not going to change that. In fact, there's a possibility their secretary will even end up moving to San Antonio, or having to commute back and forth, So, we've lost a lot here for that, so we're down to two D.P.S. narcotics agents, which a lot of times get called to other areas to work -- vaork narcotics, and we're going to lose all of our i-z-nc 1 ,~ 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ,~ 23 `~` 2 4 25 101 narcotics enforcement as far as 216th. The Sheriff's Office has been very fortunate with the 216th. I've had two officers always assigned to it. But we have referred -- been able to refer all of our narcotics enforcement to the 215th Narcotics I know you remember the deal with the organized crime that started out as something different, so we stayed involved in it, but it ended up in a number of lab seizures and 23 or so indictments on organized crime cases for the conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine. What I'm getting to is -- is we -- and I will say this from the bottom of my heart. We honestly have to have narcotics enforcement in Kerr County. I don't think any of y'all disagree with that. If you look at my jail populations and the inmates and the cases we work, I would say -- if I said 85 percent, I would be speakinq very low in terms of percentage of people that end up going through our system that did not have some type of narcotic problem to begin with. Either the burglaries were because of a narcotics habit, or the thefts were or whatever, but it's going to be related to narcotics. And this could be a very expensive venture to do. Now, last budget, the Court looked at me, and I believe Nicholson was the first one that came up with it right at the last minute, was -- and Letz, was to cut me four patrol officers. And I fought that strongly, because I have six i z~~-aF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "" 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ cG 23 24 25 102 officers per shift right now, which is desperately needed. It's hard to work 1,100 square miles with even six officers per shift, especially when you figure in training time, vacation time, sick leave time, and trying to keep our overtime down. Now, the Court did give me up a little bit in overtime, from 25,000 or 20,000 to 30,000 this year in my overtime budget, and I'm looking at this. And to give you an idea how this works -- I think it may change at the City now. Before -- before this last year, the City's overtime budget for their officers was over 100,000, but we've been able to always stay within ours of 20,000 to 30,000 this year. I cannot create a narcotics unit without having to access into my patrol unit. I understand it's a hard fiscal year for the County, and adding a five-man unit or something like that would be just almost impossible for the County and us taxpayers, including myself, to absorb. So, I have a recommendation. We always have had two igned to the narcotics task force. Right now, know it was -- was fixing to go away, I offered them -- one of them to come back immediately and fill that position as patrolman, or else I couldn't guarantee them a job, 'cause that was part of the agreement back when the task force was created. So, he took that. He took a several thousand dollar pay cut, because the task force officers were paid more, but i_?~_n~ 1 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 103 he is now back on patrol. So, that leaves me one person that is a Kerr County employee that's at the task force, and that is -- that's their commander, Bill Hill. What I would propose to the County to do, and to allow me to do, is to budget me another $25,000 for the remainder of this year -- or this budget year. What that will do is allow me to fund half of Bill Hill's salary as a commander, and bring him back to -- to the Kerr County Sheriff's Office as a lieutenant, because he would be over the entire Narcotics Division that we would create. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, so we give you 25,000 for one-half of Bill Hill. Are you telling me that he's -- as a lieutenant with Kerr County Sheriff's Office, he's going to be making 50 grand? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. As a lieutenant with Kerr County Sheriff's Office, he is -- because of his education, okay, and his time with the County already, Bill will be making -- it's about 7,000 less than what he's making today as a commander for the Narcotics Task Force. But he will be -- currently, it's 52,5, and he will be making -- starting at 45,7 a year. Okay? So, it's about a $7,000 pay cut that he will have to take. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's the commander, and you're going to have a second-in-command -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 1 - :. 3 0 6 104 1 .... 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 '°' 2 9 25 COMMISSIONEP, BALDWIN: -- thing? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. Just like we have our structure set up now, okay? My criminal investigators have a lieutenant, and then after that, it's the Chief Deputy or myself that's in charge. And this division would be set up the same way. What I am proposing is that we take -- and this is hard to do, 'cause I'm just saying my prayers that it all works. I take one person off each patrol shift and assign them to this narcotics unit. That will drop my patrol shifts to five, which will be very difficult to do and keep our overtime down, but I promise you, we will try and stay within that ability. It will give Kerr County Sheriff's Office a five-man primarily narcotics unit, Bill being the lieutenant, and four investigators under him. And that way, this year, okay, the County will not have any other funding, other than half -- half of Bill's salary, and there's a little bit of incidentals in there, and that's why it comes up to the ~5. I think 22-something would actually be half of his salary. And -- but I'm going to have to also count on this unit. This unit will supplement patrol in a number of -- of areas, and we'll have to have somebody in this unit on call constantly, because the only way to help our patrol from getting overdone and over-stretched is that if they have any type of narcotics seizure traffic stop, anything like that, you know, while they're working patrol, they're going to have i -,~ ~~t, 105 1 2 3 4 J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to be able to immediately call one of the unit -- one of the can stay on patrol. Or if we have a large number of burglaries or rash of burglaries or something, I'm going to need to call this unit out, all of them, to work the where we have in the past. So, I'm going to have to give and take. It's going to be 95 percent narcotics, but it will have to be some of the other to help us out and be able to maintain our -- our stats and our call ratios and our clearance rates that I think we have now that are -- that are fabulous. The problem -- the impact in next year's budget -- this year, of course, Bill's -- and when I say half, it's really -- actually, it's a little less than half. In that grant that we've been operating off of, the benefits are the only thing that the County's been payinq. So, the benefits -- Bill's benefits are paid through this budget year, okay? 'Cause that's what the County budgeted. So, you're not making benefit payments; you're just making the half salary, which would really be a little bit less. The problem that I have is, all of my investigators, you have -- the way the structure is and the chain of command is, you have the lieutenant who is in charge of that division, and then all the investigators are considered sergeants. That's the way D.P.S. works. That's the way the City works. That's the way we work. Because they .3-nh 106 1 ", 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -~- 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 are above a patrol person, okay? When I put this out to allow It will end up being -- I very well may have two of my investigators -- current investigators apply to be moved into the narcotics unit, and I very well may have two or three of the patrolmen apply, however it works. So, starting out right now, I may have two current into the narcotics, which should be sergeants also. These people have a lot of dangerous activities, and -- not any less than patrolmen, but, I mean, that's what they do. And I may end up with a couple patrolmen in there. The salary difference for the remainder of the six months -- remainder of this budget year, I don't have a problem with, and they're just going to have to understand that. But come next year, it really needs to be equalized to where all these people are going to be sergeants, and that could be the difference between a patrolman and a sergeant. Plus, right now, why I pur the 25,000 in there, Buster, instead of just leaving it "" 29 up. 25 1-?3-n~, It wouldn't -- the 3,000 wouldn't quite cover that, the Z2, is that if I lose two investigators now into that unit, then I've got to replace those two investigators, and that is already set at that sergeant's pay, so theirs would go 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 but, you know, by the end of each year, we normally -- not so much in the Sheriff's Office any more, but in the -- in the jail, in salary line items -- and I've already had some, 'cause, like, right now I have a nurse that is budgeted for that we haven't had in three months, or two months. So, there's always a little bit in there, and at the end of the year, I may have to make some minor budget amendments to finish out covering this year. But next year I would request that they all be sergeants, and the lieutenant stay at the salary he will be at. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me say something right quick about next year. And I hear exactly what you're saying. We are going to have -- I think it was February or March, and I can't remember which one, we're going to have an off-season -- off-season meeting about things like this, and I would hope that during our off-season meeting, that you would bring a plan for next year. Real numbers of what you're each proposing. COMMISSIONEP. LETZ: Don't wait till September to talk about this. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. And the difference right now, total, okay, would be about 12,000. I can tell you that. Total for an entire year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For next year? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, besides the lieutenant's 1-_13-06 108 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 salary of 42. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, did I understand, the 25,000 you need this year, is that money coming from line items within your control now, or that's going to have to come out of reserves? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Going to have to come out of reserves. I have no place to draw that. We did cut our budget. Now -- now, at the end of the year, I may have that much in jailers' salaries, 'cause you always have jail openings. That could cover that, but I can't say that right now. I need it to be budgeted starting April 1st, that -- the amount so that we can add Bill in. Now, one thing -- and we still have meetings pertaining to this, but as you well know, starting up a full narcotics enforcement unit also takes a lot of equipment. We have to have different cars. We have to have body bugs. We have to have recorders. We have to have secure radio channels. We have to have a whole lot of things that go along with this. And there have been meetings with a private individual that wants to very well -- the final meetings will be within a week or two, okay, that has -- and I will keep that private individual private right now; they want to remain anonymous -- that has offered that, as long as us and the City work together on all this, I think we will get all our equipment funded from a private individual, and it won't cost the County. i-_~-oF 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty, what happens to the equipment that's in the possession of the 216th now? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER.: Technically, by the grant guidelines, they have some money in a bank account, and then they have some equipment, like their desks or their cars or things like that, you know, some of -- some of that type of stuff. Now, by grant guidelines, the State of Texas can keep any money they have in their bank account, any of their seizure money. Which may happen; we don't know. And by other grant guidelines, if the State doesn't, then it actually goes to the City of Kerrville. The City of Kerrville is the grantee agency for that task force, so everything would go to them. The Chief and I have talked about dividing it all up amongst all the agencies that participated in the task force for the 17 years. I don't think he has a problem with that, but we also -- we don't know -- we don't know what the City Council is going to want to do. The other problem with most of that, except for the money -- the State will come in and take the money. Most of the equipment that is in that and that they have, except for a few computers right now, is not very good equipment. The State has gradually cut some of the task force funding over the last number of years, and gradually they have not been able to replace a lot of the equipment they have, okay? Most of their body bugs now end up being pocket tape recorders, 1 _ ~ ~~ h 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 110 'cause they don't have that equipment, and that's the way it's gone. So, a lot of the equipment has pretty well outlived its real usefulness. But, as I stated, I think for this one time to start up, this -- this private donation and what we're working with them will work. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the -- most of the vehicles y'all had over there, Clay, was seized vehicles anyway. I mean, they're putt-putts. MR. BARYON: No, we have purchased vehicles that we had purchased over the years. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. BARYON: They're -- a lot of them have 100-plus thousand miles on them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not the best looking fleet that I've ever seen. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, and the other part -- I won't argue that point. The other thing is, if -- some of these advantages I don't like, but if I use four patrolmen to make up this unit, then that will free up four patrol cars, okay? 'Cause each one -- what I will do with those and what we will have to do is, the oldest cars, and I do have several, since we bought with our seizure funds some cars last year, and cut down the number the year before, so now I do have cars with over 100,000 miles on them. So, we'll have to look at that. But the oldest four I will take out of patrol, take the .3 ~~F 1 "" 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 •°~- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 29 25 111 markings off of them, an~~ assign them to my regular Criminal Investigation unit. The guys that have them that are driving the different-colored cars now, and we will take those cars that they have right now and assign them to the narcotics officers. But there -- we're still going to need some that -- you know, there is -- this is going to be undercover work. There's going to be a lot of different type of work this year on incidentals; you know, buy money type stuff where you do need that kind of stuff. I can probably survive on that out of my seizure fund that I have already currently, so I'm not asking for that this year. Next year, we may ask for a little bit to help to get into the buy money; I don't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, what's the City of Kerrville doing? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: City of Kerrville, the Chief and I have talked. We're both very strong that we have to have something. They've gone through a lot of transition at this time, anyhow, and they've had a number of options. Not -- not anything bad against the City. They have two officers assigned to the task force right now. Those two officers will be offered positions back at the city, as long as the Chief has his way of doing it, and he does have the option to put them in. Then he wants to very likely temporarily assign two officers for the remainder of the budget year to work with the County's narcotics unit, so that will make our unit go from a ?~-nh 112 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 ~1 23 2q 25 -- a five-man unit to a seven-man unit, which is a lot less than what we've been used to, but I think we're going to work narcotics a little bit different, which -- and I think we're going to be very good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're going to have -- the City and the County are working together on this overall? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: City and County. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Chief and I get along, and we have to work together. Part of the stuff with the private donation of equipment and the -- and Clay and the current task force commander and the new captain that's over all that with the City sat down last Friday and went over, you know, kind of the caish list or kind of the equipment they needed. And they have been coming up with a list for me and the Chief to meet with this private person and give that kind of information, to where we can -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about other counties? What are they doing? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have a problem. I don't know what they're going to do, okay? COMMISSIONEP. LETZ: Boerne -- or Kendall County? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We11, there's a problem in -- in not -- in us not wanting to. Some of that grant stuff and the way the new stuff's -- to even try and keep your own 1 - '_ 3 - u c 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 seized stuff, all right, the State -- this is another one of those State of Texas deals. In the legislation they passed, if you have a multi-jurisdictional -- being outside of Kerr County -- task force, and it is not blessed and sanctioned by the Department of Public Safety, which I'm just not sure I want to get into all that at this point, then any of your seized proceeds go to the State of Texas and do not stay locally, and I'm not ready for that to happen. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we don't want that. Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, I think -- and I'm not knocking the state. I think, unfortunately, because of the Homeland Security and all the rest of that, I think we're at the point that I wouldn't doubt if you don't see D.P.S. narcotics end up going more and more like the Texas Rangers. There's about 130 Texas Rangers across the state. They're an assisting agency. You know, if we need help, we need direct access to labs, we need them to come in and work a case or help us work, they're there to do it. You know, fabulous cooperation, but they don't have enough of them to go around and do their own investigations. The locals are going to be stuck doing that. But I want this all in place. I would like to have it approved and ready, because the problem we face -- and I don't think it'll happen. There is very few members left of our Narcotics Task Force today, because most of them t-~ ,-, t, 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~1 22 23 24 25 that could get -- like the one I pulled back, if they -- they were looking at either no job at all or going back to their agencies when openings came up, and we have pretty well lost most of our task force, okay? I know of one member that probably won't have a job when it -- when it folds, because he was just sponsored by an agency, and they just -- that's going to be the end. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, do I understand correctly that this is not just unique to the 216th? These funds are drying up statewide? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is statewide. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I didn't quite understand what you said about the commander. Is he rejoining Kerr County Sheriff's Office? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He is a member of the Kerr County Sheriff's Office. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's going to remain with -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I want him to remain a member. We have the commander -- and Clay and I have sat down; we have rewritten all our policies on how we deal with things and narcotics unit and money and buy moneys and keeping the records, 'cause this can get very tedious. It can also get -- we have to have the right agreements in place, especially if we run across meth labs and that, because of the -- the dismantling and the environmental hazards of a 1-23-96 115 1 ~. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^° 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 methamphetamine lab can get extremely expensive on hazardous is, by far, the best one around. You know, I think it would be an extreme benefit to keep Bill. I feel sorry for him, that he's going to have to take $7,000 a year cut, but there's nothing I can do about that. That's where it fits in with our pay scale the County has adopted, and where I think it should stay. So, what I'm asking for is an emergency funding out of the general fund for $25,000 to qo into the salary line item to help me set up the -- the Narcotics Task Force. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with everything that you've said, except I question the -- you know, in order to go into the reserves, we're talking about declaring an emergency, and I don't know that -- I don't know that you can classify this as an emergency. I don't -- in my mind, you cannot. But we have an attorney that is in the room, and I bet he could tell us if it is or not. But I definitely am in favor of everything that you've said. You know, at first glance at drug problem? And the same thing with the federales. You know, where -- what are they thinking? And I'm -- I know that Homeland Security is drivinq that thing, but, again, to me, that's -- that's a goofy way to do things. But maybe it is a local issue, period. And whatever it is, we need to do it and ~-- -n~, 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 we need to fig it, and I'm all for it. And I think one of the interestinq things about it is these three -- these two guys and the commander over there have been together for how long? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Twenty-five years, I've been here. They haven't quite been here that long, but right at 25 years. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A long time. And I think it's just a good little -- neat little family, good fit, and it's time for us to move forward with it. Can we do that? MR. EMERSON: Declare an emergency? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. It'd be rough to do, wouldn't it? MR. EMERSON: Yeah, it's pretty gray. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Let me ask you this. Since I do need guidance and I do need the authority, can I have a motion, or is it possible that you can approve the plan that I have to do a narcotics unit, taking four off patrol, which lowers my patrol, and having Bill as the -- the commander or the lieutenant at a salary of the 45,000? I can give you exactly what it is, okay? And then if, at the end of the budget year, I -- I honestly think, gentlemen, that I can probably, because of the openings in the jail -- you know, I have a nurse that's been there -- or that's been open ever since the budget year started. I've got a couple jail positions that I just now got filled, so there probably will 1-: >-uh 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 117 be funding there. And then, as we run low on funding, at that point I will come back for a budget amendment to complete out the funding for the year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I think is the appropriate way to do it. I'll make a motion that we approve the narcotics unit as outlined by the Sheriff, with $25,000 funding to come from Jailers Salaries line item. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If needed at that time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Transfer it now, then go bark to jailers. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right now, as of the end of December, my -- my percentage in jailers' salaries that I should have, okay, is 75 percent left right now, and as -- or end of December. And the way it was sitting in jailers, okay, was 76 percent, and that's about almost an $800,000 deal. Now, the -- the nurse is -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me modify my -- or amend my motion to say, and the Sheriff will approve the plan. The Sheriff will, at our next meeting, have -- present budget amendments to place funding in the appropriate line items within his budgets. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And in that plan, this is creating a -- not a commander, but what? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lieutenant. ~_-oe 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2q 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a lieutenant. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Lieutenant -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In the Sheriff's Office. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- position. And we're not going to name him here, so -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe that's for me to name the lieutenant. We will go through an interview process on who the investigators will be. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second it. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to approve the Sheriff's plan to create a narcotics unit, that unit to be headed up by a new -- newly created lieutenant's position, with funding to come from sources as provided by the Sheriff at our next meeting, and with appropriate budget amendments -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: -- out of his current budgets. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, it also does need to -- I don't know how you want to do this, if you need to take away four positions off my patrol and add them as new sergeant/investigator positions. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's part of your plan. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not in the order. Not in this. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, you mentioned that 1-~'3-"6 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 29 25 in this year's budget, you have four fewer positions? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I don't have four fewer now, okay? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did I misunderstand? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You misunderstood. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What did you say? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. If you remember, during our budget process, y'all attempted to make me have four fewer positions, but we got those back, except for the two clerks and the one unfunded position that was on reserve. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He just wants to say ugly things. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I wouldn't ever say ugly things about y'all. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sometimes I hear talk about the County having layoffs. I don't think we've had any layoffs. Has anybody been involuntarily terminated because -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, I believe that -- not in my department, but I believe there was a couple departments during the budgeting that did lose -- that some people had to leave employment. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not relevant to this issue. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. Thank you, gentlemen. 1- Z 4- ~ 6 1 2 3 4 G E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~~ GJ 120 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Rusty. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, not as a part of this order, but a comment on the side, and I think it may be the most important thing we do, is this off-season conversation about next year's budget. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Definitely. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When was it? Do you remember? This was your idea. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It was Jonathan's idea; I just named it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six-months review. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was your idea. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's my idea to have a lot of things. I think March was the timetable we were going to do that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: March, to have an off-season meeting? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Look at organization and staffing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Organization and staffing of all -- many departments. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you'll let me know the date, I'll definitely -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can expand that to any. If we're having a six-months review, we can discuss any aspect 1 ~~ (1 ~ 121 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we ought to plan on a full-day workshop close to that date. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to Item 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to confirm Commissioners Court appointments/liaison assignments. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's in front of you, Judge, is -- is the order that was in effect through the 31st. This would give us a new court order with the same assignments, unless there are members of the Court who wish to do differently. JUDGE TINLEY: I have one question, Commissioner, on KEDF. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: It was my understanding that -- and I may have this confused with the executive committee participation that you and I have on that KEDF organization. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: I was unaware that Commissioner 1-~. i- ~ b 122 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 L 4 25 Nicholson was the alternate on the KEDF. Maybe -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I think -- I think the Court set that up because I've never been a participant in KEDF as a member of this Court. My -- my appointment to KEDF and subsequent involvement has always come -- it originated in the business community, and has just continued as a business appointment. It was never an appointment from the Court. That's why the Court decided to have an alternate. DODGE TINLEY': Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the list as submitted. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But -- wait. Hold on just a minute there, cowboy. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The last one, Juvenile Detention Facility, my name is on there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we put my name on there because I was an agin'er; that I opposed a lot of things that were going on out there. And I remember Commissioner Nicholson commenting on that, that it would be good to have a -- have a dissenting voice or a debater there, and I agreed to do that. However, once that started, then the Juvenile Detention Facility Director chose not to even deal with me. I mean, why would she want to deal with somebody that disagreed i-as-n, 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 with her? So, she simply bypassed me and went to the Judge, and -- and visited with Bill and the Judge. And I will not have my name on something that I'm -- that I'm not able to participate in. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that would be one amendment. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Count me out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We will amend the current list by removing Commissioner Baldwin from JDF. Any other suggested changes? JUDGE TINLEY: Are we going to add someone there on the Juvenile Facility in lieu of Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If the Court so desires. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm probably the one with the most direct -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's what Commissioner Baldwin alluded to. JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to use common sense and logic, that would seem to be the appropriate thing to do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we'll pen in County Judge in place of Commissioner Baldwin; is that correct? Move approval as amended. Let's see if that flies. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the Commissioners Court appointments-slash-liaison i-~,~ o~ 124 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 assignments as per the list furnished, as amended. Any question or discussion on that? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) DODGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. ~No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to Item 19, if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations and set public hearing on same. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, it's three minutes before 12:00. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a hint? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm just telling you I'm fixing to get up and walk out if you get off into one of those long things. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unfortunately, I don't have copies for everybody on the Court or the public of the newest revised version, because Kathy isn't here today. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be red-line or otherwise? COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there are no red lines. I'll just -- my recommendation is that we -- you know, I don't like doing -- y'all probably don't like it either. If we approve these, set a public hearing date, that gives us 30 1-23-Oc 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 days to get them out. There are some -- quite a few changes. I have met, since our last meeting, with Bruce Motheral, incorporated some of his. His, you know, ideas, I think, were incorporated. Now, he's not here, I don't believe. I also met with Les Harvey, another engineer, and I met with Rex, and we've incorporated all the comments and things from those individuals. The areas that really changed -- and I don't -- you can look at them later -- is in the road area. Added some plan and profiles of roads which we never added before, which does drive the cost up a little bit. We've also added some more specific data on speed limits and stopping data and traffic counts, and more clearly defining the types -- road categories are the same, but it's more clear as to what an arterial road and what a collector is, based on the number of lots served and traffic counts that's attributed to those lots. So, I think it's that type of thing. Not a huge substantive change, but there is some more engineering on roads, is the bottom line. I'd like to see what -- Leonard has not looked at this, to get his input. I think he probably will like what we've done. Most of these came out of our meeting with these two engineers. Other than that, it's pretty much like we had looked at before. There's no real big change anywhere. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not -- looking at the styling of the agenda item, you're not talking about us -- all i ~ ,-ut, 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 you're talking about here is setting a -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm talking about -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- public hearing date? COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- approving this as the final draft version to set for public hearing. And then, in 30 days, we will have a public hearing, and during that period we can either receive written or other comment. After that, all that will be incorporated in the final version. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For official adoption -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- by the Court. Okay, that's fine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And during that period, the biggest discrepancy at the moment -- and the new version has, in big letters across the front, "Appendices not included." During this 30-day period, I will also -- probably during the next two weeks, I will go through and really -- you know, these are -- fee structures and certification wording exactly, things of that nature, will all be worked out and added, and will all be combined in the final version. That's where we are, but it's a little bit unusual, I know, to approve something that y'all don't have in front of you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Or approve something before you have the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you got to approve a draft 1- -~~h 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 for the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. I agree with it. Let's go. Let's do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to approve Draft 012306, -- believe me, there's lots of them; I better number them -- the draft version of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and set public hearing -- when is our second meeting in February? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have a calendar in the front of your booklet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, indeed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: 27th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Public hearing at -- how about 1 o'clock February 27th? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or 1:30. 1:30. And copies will be made available at Road and Bridge, a number of copies out there, and Kathy. They'll be available after Wednesday this week to the public. And there will also be a locked version on the county web site. The reason I emphasize "locked" is that some have asked that we get an unlocked version, which I'm not -- really don't want to do, 'cause then they change things that I don't want to be changed. 1 - . 3 - n 6 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y"eah. MS. HARDIN: Does that mean we get an electronic copy? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seconded it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we have a second. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to have some comments -- JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second for approval of the draft of this date of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and set a public hearing for 1:30 p.m. on February the 27th, '06. Any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to have some comments about minimum lot sizes, but I think we probably can talk about that under Water Availability. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gkay. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a -- a comment, just 1 - ~ , - U c I ._., 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 29 25 129 in general. People, read this, 'cause there are some changes. I made these as strict as I think we possibly are going to go, with the idea -- knowing that caliche roads are out now, with the idea that it's easier -- I would rather add things back in after we receive public comment, and that is the way to spur public comment. You know, if they don't have a problem with us getting -- making this a little bit stronger in some areas, maybe we should do it. But, anyway, so there -- that's the way I wrote this final version. All right. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on Kerr County Water Availability Requirements, and set a public hearing on same. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Y'all would die if I gave you the new version of it. There is a new version out, slightly -- but it really doesn' t change much. I simplified one point. In Kerr County Water Availability, a couple -- the area that we changed this last time is monitor well requirements. We've deleted the requirements for a monitor well r_ompletely, with the funding or all that stuff, and it has been replaced with this paragraph: "All subdivisions where total acreage in the subdivision is more than 20 acres shall be required to provide a monitor well location within the central portion of the subdivision. Such well location shall be a minimum of 50 feet by 50 feet in size and shall be 1- L 9- u 6 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 130 located between the road right-of-way an~~ an area that's suitable for drawing a monitor well. Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District shall be granted access to such waive this requirement by providing the developer with a letter stating that the monitor well location is not required for septic subdivision." So, all we're saying is that in 20 acres or larger, they have to provide a small location. They can go to Headwaters. If Headwaters doesn't want one in that location, for whatever reason, they can waive that requirement. The other change is on the minimum lot size and the high density development areas, down to one quarter-acre lot sizes. That was the recommendation. I think Mr. Motheral said that, you know, he feels that it's more appropriate to get that higher density development to help the economics. I did not change the average. So, what it means is you can do a little bit higher -- you still have the 2-acre average, but you're going down to one-quarter acre minimum, so -- which means you have to have a fair amount of green space in those subdivisions that are in high-density development. Those are the -- I believe the only two changes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's a very smart move, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 1-~'3-05 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the average on the other is still 5 acres? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The average is still 5 acre. If you're using groundwater, it's 5 acres, outside of high-density development areas. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr, Paul Siemers? MR. SIEMERS: Yes, sir. Thank you. Been a long time since I've been here. Still as fun as ever. I have written what I'm going to say, basically. I'm just going to hand it out to y'all, so you can either listen or you can read, or neither. As you -- those of you who were here five years ago, when I was so busily involved in the petition to stop a golf course that I thought -- that the group of us thought were going to create a water hazard -- more than just a water hazard, a problem for the community water, I'm here to talk about water. That's the reason I'm here, because I have a concern relative to the proposed county water availability requirements that allows lots less than 5 acres. Such allowances are not compatible with sustaining the aquifers in Kerr County for the future. Averaging is fine, but less than 5 acres per person -- per family is -- is not good for the aquifer. It's important to note that the aquifers in this county, under this county, provide the water for everybody; not just the county personnel, but the -- residents, but those 1-23-~i 132 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2~ ~3 24 25 that live in the city also are dependent on aquifer water to a certain extent. And while I recognize the need for the important -- and the importance of affordable housing and land and economic development, they will not be the defining issues for the future of Kerr County. The defining issue will be the availability of water, water for the public consumption and the river sustainability. It's, therefore, necessary that water be managed as a sustainable resource in a manner that will ma]:e sure that it's here in 15 years or 50 years or however long. There is a wealth of science data. The state water plan, and -- the er,isting state water plan, the proposed plan, and lessons of history clearly show that aquifer water under at least 2 acres oL land is required to support one person -- one person -- in a sustainable manner at the -- at the demand rate proposed in the order, the 200 gallons per person, per day. This fact was most clearly demonstrated in the '70's when the aquifer under the city of Kerrville declined, resulting in the aquifer being replaced by the river as the primary source of water for the city. The city -- this decline occurred during normal conditions, not drought conditions. Annual supply and demand data since that period of time have confirmed that without the river and without the ASR, the aquifer under Kerrville will be -- would decline and eventually be depleted. I'm available for a detailed 1 '3-Oo 133 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~l z2 23 24 25 discussion of any of these issues, but I'm trying to be quick, I am concerned about two main issues. That's being more than the number of acres divided by five, regardless of whether the water is extracted by individual wells or a community we1L. The aquifer knows no difference between one well and two wells in the long term. Water out is water out, and if recharge doesn't equal water in, you have a water deficiency eventually. I am very concerned about the high-density areas, quarter-acre lots, half-acre lots, 1-acre lots, 2-acre lots. If it takes a 2-acre lot -- 2 acres to support a single person, how are you going to support a family of three, four, or five or more on the equivalent of 2 acres? A quarter-a~~re lot, a half-acre lot, on average -- at an average of 2 acres, is one -- at least the half -- twice the demand that the aquifer can sustain. Such development is particularly of concern to me in the fact that it's in the area near -- surrounding the city of Kerrville that had a problem 30 years ago, and only has survived because of the steps that were taken then, And in the east county, as you go to Center Point, there is a known depletion of the aquifer along the river corridor already, and to exacerbate that by allowing high-density development there 1-23-~~E 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 is the wrong way to go. I want to make a point here; that, you know, the argument to me has always been there's plenty of Ingram and Center Point, with a big bubble right at Kerrville. So, you can't - you have to manage your water where the people are. And that is the problem I see here with this -- this rule allowing this high-density development to -- encouraging high-density development, actually, in -- in the region where there are known deficiencies and depletion has already been demonstrated to have occurred. The City has -- the city, as a matter of fact, according to the Headwaters permit and the regional state water plan, would already be operating in a deficit during a drought of record. We would have -- if we have a -- when we have that drought of record, as we continue to grow, we will have an evacuation sort of like New Orleans, except for a different reason; we won't have any water. I'm a prophet of doom. I'm sorry, but that's the way -- (Laughter.) That's what science says. I am an engineer. I am a scientist. I have dealt with fluid dynamics for a long, long time, and that's what fluid dynamic science tells you . You can't allow development and growth to continue in an area 1 - ~ J - ~ h 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 where there's already been a demonstrated problem. There are two questions -- and I'm being short here. There's two questions that I hope that the Commissioners would answer, ber_ause this ~s what the order that is written allows; it allows demand to exceed the supply. When that happens, where is the water going to come from, and who's going to pay the price? The people who bought the land that don't have any water any more, who have to lower their well 50 feet? Who is going to pay the price for the problem that occurs because you allow high-density development and development on lots smaller than are capable of supporting a family? Therefore, I am recommending that the Court reconsider this proposed -- this proposal and any Water Availability Requirements document that allows water demand to exceed supply. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Siemers, Anybody have any questions for Mr. Siemers? Thank you, sir. MR, SIEMERS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be glad to visit with him later, on a full stomach. I JUDGE TINLEY: He indicated he was willing to get into an in-depth discussion with anybody with regard to these issues, and S appreciate that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I am concerned also about making the change and allowing higher density development. I think the -- the rules that we have now have served us pretty 136 1 2 3 4 5 F 7 A 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 well in terms of protecting water. I'm guessing. I have to look to Paul Siemers and Jonathan Letz, who are experts on that. They've also served to manage growth -- population growth, so I'm reluctant to give up that -- those restrictions. On the other hand, I read a really good article by Bill Blackburn about some of the issues facing Kerr County and affordable housing. I think everybody agrees that that's an issue. So, I know restrictive land use drives up the price of land. That drives up the price of housing. So I don't know what the balancing act is here, but I just want to let you know that in the next 30 days, I'm going to be thinking about and talking to people about the wisdom of relaxing the rules on development. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think your final point is exactly the point that I want to get out, is that we need to have a good public dialogue on it. We've been talking about I it a lot, but we -- obviously, I've wrestled with this for months trying to come up with the wording that I'm comfortable with. I had to meet with a lot of people. I think that's exactly it; we need to put it out to the public and get input. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Things can be changed, and I think everyone knows that I'm, you know, very open to -- I'm trying to make the best rules for kerr County, and that's been my intent all along. And that being said, I'll make a motion i-~?-ur 137 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that we approve the Draft 012306A of the Kerr County Water Availability Requirements as a draft version for public comment, and set a public hearing -- Judge, can we do the public hearing at the same time and have both of them back and forth? Or do we have to set two different times? JUDGE TINLEY: Your rationale is that -- that the two are really interdependent and are intertwined? COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference would be to do it at 1 o'clock as well. JUDGE TINLEY: 1:30, you set the other one. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1:30. I'm sorry, 1:30. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a problem with that? Do you have any problem with that, Rex? I MR. EMERSON: Not offhand. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: We can call -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do both of them at 1:30? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason is that -- you know, my logic is -- and if we have to do one first and one second, do this one first. But the reason is that they're -- they are very interrelated. And -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're two different documents, though. i-3 nE 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 lg 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ; Yeah. I mean, that's why I asked the question, if it's a problem. We can do it either way. If we -- we can do this at 1:30 and the other at 2:00, but then we may have a dead period between for a few minutes, which is fine as well. It's whatever is -- works the best for the public. DODGE TINLEY: Two separate documents, You're going to act on them separately, irrespective of what the public hearings are. I'm thinking that, to avoid repetitive comments in two different public hearings, and for efficiency, it might be best to kind of run them together, 'cause there's so much overlap between the two. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I just -- I mean, you had opened up a public hearing to listen to both issues. ~ Well, I see a storm in that, but, I mean, I'm not going to argue with you. Let's do it. Let's just do something. I hear a catfish calling. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think someone's -- I made a motion. I think it needs to be seconded. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: And that's for 1:30 also? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve the draft of the Water Availability P.equirements 012306A, and set a publi~~ hearing on same for February the 27th, '06, at i-~~ „t, 139 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 L2 23 24 25 1:30 p.m. I have a motion and a second to that effect. Any question or discussion? A11 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 carries. Let's move to Item 16; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt a proclamation declaring May 5th and 6th as the Fourth Annual Relay for Life Days in Kerr County. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This says, Judge, we would be setting aside May 5 and 6 and urging people to participate ~n the Relay for Life, the proceeds of which go for cancer research. I so move. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. A fun, fun, function. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion the second, is that -- are we to you're going to be in the long - that event? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: nade and seconded. If -- by conclude from that that - the long-distance run in He will be, yes. I'll be out there wandering around. JUDGE T7NLEY: I see. Any question or discussion on 1-~3 On 190 1 2 3 4 5 H 7 8 Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 E: 19 20 21 L2 23 24 25 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: Do we have any items to be considered in closed or executive session? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess we're not going to eat ~~atfish. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Section 9, bills. Probably need to get the Auditor in here, if we could. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the bills. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 7've got one question on Page 9. MR. BARYON: You need the Auditor? J~JDGE TINLEY: Yeah. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do you want to hear a real quick status report while -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question on this first. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- while he's getting the Auditor? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sorry. 1-23 U6 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 141 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Page 9, at the top of the page there, Alternate Housing. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're -- how does it happen that we're paying other counties to take care of juveniles? JUDGE TINLEY: Boot camp. We don't have those programs or facilities here. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. That's all. JUDGE TINLEY: The -- when the Department makes a recommendation to include certain components of an out-of-home placement, sometimes it includes a specific recommendation for boot camp, and we just don't have that available here. MR. BARYON: She apparently has already gone to lunch. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any other questions concerning the bills? 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 get to budget amendments. We have Budget Amendment Request Number 1. This was one that the County Auditor furnished as a result of a request from us at the last meeting to do the shuffle around x-_~~-ue 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~2 23 24 25 for moving items to a contract service to take care of the County Auditor, and move the balance of what was available in his salary line item over to the official salary, or the Auditor -- her line item as acting Interim Auditor, and the various rollup charges with that. She's furnished us with that budget amendment, indicating the creation of an account for contract services. And then there are -- there's one page showing all of the machinations of the -- of how she arrived at these various changes, as well as a copy of the District Judge's order designating her as the Interim County Auditor. Essentially, what she's done is give us what we asked her to give us last time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Can you tell me, or tell the general public what the bottom line cost is here? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 596.74? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there's also that 11,000 number right up here. Where's the money coming from? DODGE TINLEY: If your question is, is there any additional funds added to the budget, no, there are not. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. JUDGE TINLEY: This is merely a shifting around -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. JUDGE TINLEY: -- within the Auditor's budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, that would be -- we're taking 22,000 out of Contract Services -- no. i z3-~~~ 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 '' 1 22 L3 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Adding. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's adding to Contract Services. That's for Tommy? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 22,000. And then 11,000 for the actual Auditor. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we're -- JUDGE TINLEY: We're eliminating the balance of her salary of 33,103.84. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. And there was the FICA issue, and then we're adding 596 to the retirement. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like a dadgum good deal to me. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a plus situation all around. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. 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. i_~~ ~,:h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not aware of any late bills. I've been presented with monthly reports from Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; County Clerk, both general and trust funds; District Clerk; County Attorney; and Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as submitted? COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. So moved. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second for approval of the designated reports as submitted. 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. Do we have any reports from any of the Commissioners in connection with their liaison or other assignments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Neither does he. JUDGE TINLEY: Nor does he? Any reports from elected officials? i-z5-u~ 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, you -- you better be quick. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll be quick. It's really a little bit of good news. Overall crime stats for last year, for 2005, when we ran them, in all offense codes -- in other words, in all offenses combined, dropped in Kerr County by 5 percent. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Crime dropped in Kerr County by 5 percent? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Overall crime dropped. We had -- and that's actual offenses. Now, we did have this last year 11,397 calls that we responded to, compared to 2004, we had 11,985 calls, so it dropped almost by 800 calls. Bookings, the -- this is where it gets a little bit confusing, but not too bad. The bookings for 2004, total number of people booked into our adult jail was 3,424 people booked into the jail. In 2005, it dropped to 3,352. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three thousand what? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 352. Now, the bad part is, our average daily population in 2004 was 158 in the jail. Our average daily population in 2005 was 151. And, again, remember, we're just getting closer and closer. We're down right now. It hasn't been bad; they've got some through court, but the 80 percent that we should stay at with the Jail Commission and that is 153, okay? So, we're still going to ~3_ii i= 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 have to do something. It's 146 today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't you see if you can run them through the court system a little faster? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can't do any more than your judges will do. And -- but those are the -- I thought it was good overall, that we have -- we have just a flat rate of 5 percent less crime rate in the county, and calls and jail inmates, everything going down. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Sheriff. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good law enforcement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Sheriff. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports? Any other business to come before the Court? We stand adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:25 p.m.) 1-^3-n6 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 STATE OF TEKAS COONTY 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 27th day of January, 2006. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY: GY~G~~_--___ _ _- Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter i ?-oF ORDER NO.29531 ACCEPT OFFER OF ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REDIRECT AND PROCESS CHILD SUPPORT PYAMENTS Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin/Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Accept offer of the Attorney General to redirect and process child support payments on orders established prior to January 1, 1994, from the local registry to the State Disbursement Unit. ORDER NO. 29532 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 4 & 5, BYAS SPRINGS RANCH, VOL. 5, PAGE 250, PCT. 4 Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Set Public Hearing for March 13, 2006 at 10:10 a.m. for revision of Plat for Lots 4 & 5, Byas Springs Ranch, Vol. 5, Page 250, Pct. 4. ORDER NO. 29533 DISCUSS CONCEPT PLAN ON DIVISION OF PROPERTY ON BASS & WAGNER ROAD, PCT. 4 Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Accept Concept Plan and grant a waiver on the 5-acre average rule and that no well can be drilled on the 8-acre tract. ORDER NO. 29534 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR REGULATORY SIGNS IN KERB COUNTY Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Set Public Hearing for March 6, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. to increase the speed limit on Klein Branch from 30 mph to 45 mph. ORDER NO. 29535 REDUCE REGISTRATION FEES TO $1.00 DURING THE RABIES DRIVE ON FEBRUARY 4, 2006 THROUGH FEBRUARY 18, 2006 Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve reducing the registration fees to $1.00 during the Rabies Drive on February 4, 2006 through February 18, 2006. ORDER NO.29536 FINAL REVISION OF PLAT OF TRACT 152-A OF SPICER RANCH NO. THREE, VOL 5, PAGE 176, PCT. 1 Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz/Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the final revision of Plat of Tract 152-A of Spicer Ranch Number Three as set forth in Vol 5, Page 176, Plat Records, located in Precinct 1. ORDER NO. 29537 DISCUSS ROAD NAME CHANGES ON PRIVATELY MAINTAINED ROADS IN PCT. 4, IN ACCORDANCE WITH 911 GUIDELINES Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the list of road name changes that are proposed, with the exception of the first one (delete Pfiester Lane West), and change the spelling of the seventh one to Paisano: None to Roddy Tree Ranch Road West New Road to Durst Doell ,._. None to Pecan Springs Farm Road West None to Storybook Lane West None to Petticoat Lane West None to Shady Grove West None to Paisano Circle West ORDER NO. 29538 DISCUSS NARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT IN KERR COUNTY Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve Sheriffs plan to create a Narcotics Unit, to be headed by a newly created Lieutenant's position, with the funding to come from sources as provided by the Sheriff at our next meeting, and with appropriate Budget Amendments. ORDER NO. 29539 CONFIRM COMMISSIONERS' COURT APPOINTMENTS/LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve Commissioners' Court Appointments/Liaison Assignments as per list furnished, as amended: Airport Board Historical Commission Library Board AACOG EMS Board 9-1-1 K.E.D.F. Maintenance & Courthouse Investment Committee Ag-Barn Animal Control Law Enforcement/Jail OSSF/Environmental Health Juvenile Detention Jonathan Letz and Bill Williams Buster Baldwin Dave Nicholson Bill Williams & Buster Baldwin as alternate Buster Baldwin Buster Baldwin and Jonathan Letz County Judge & Dave Nicholson as alternate County Judge County Judge, Auditor and Treasurer Bill Williams and Jonathan Letz Dave Nicholson Jonathan Letz Dave Nicholson Bill Williams & County Judge ORDER NO. 29540 KERR COUNTY SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SET PUBLIC HEARING ON SAME Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve Draft 012306 of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations and set Public Hearing for February 27, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. ORDER NO. 29541 KERB COUNTY WATER AVAILABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND SET PUBLIC HEARING ON SAME Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Draft 012306A of the Kerr County Water Availability Requirements, as a draft version for public comment, and set Public Hearing for February 27, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. ORDER NO. 29542 ADOPT A PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 5th AND 6th AS THE FOURTH ANNUAL RELAY FOR LIFE DAYS IN KERB COUNTY Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve adoption of Proclamation declaring May 5th and 6th as the Fourth Annual Relay for Life Days in Kerr County. ORDER NO. 29543 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: Accounts Expense 10-General $ 144,039.23 14-Fire Protection $ 6,508.00 15-Road & Bridge $ 34,347.38 50-Indigent Health Care $ 1,420.08 71-Schreiner Road Trust $ 2,198.20 76-Juvenile Detention Facility $ 11,542.01 ~~- Total $ 200,054 90 Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts. ORDER NO. 29544 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY AUDITOR Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Amendment Expense Code Description Increase/QDecrease 10-495-553** Contract Services + $22,702.66* 10-495-102 Official Salary + $11,225.54 10-495-103 Assistant's Salary - ($33,103.84) 10-495-201 FICA - ($1,371.10) 10-495-203 Retirement + $546.74 **-New expenditure line item for budget *-Balance for contractual services expense through 09/30/06 #-See attached worksheet ORDER NO. 29545 MONTHLY REPORTS Came to be heard this the 23rd day of January, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz/Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports: JP #2 JP #4 County Clerk -General and Trust Funds District Clerk County Attorney JP # 1