1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Monday, March 24, 2008 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 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 ~O O 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X March 24, 2008 --- Visitors' Comments --- Commissioners' Comments 1.1 Consider/discuss take appropriate action on request from A Child's Place Learning Center to waive fees & allow them to use Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on request from District Clerk, Linda Uecker, to approve budget amendment to allocate additional $24,000 from the remaining Records Preservation money to finish the project of imaging all old records currently on microfilm 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on purchase of new vehicles for the Environmental Health Department and Animal Control 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt a Proclamation declaring April 2008 as Child Abuse Prevention & Awareness Month; approve use of courthouse grounds for a kickoff event on April 1st, 2008, and blue ribbons to be tied on courthouse trees during month of April 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to abandon, vacate, and discontinue Fossler Road and set public hearing for same 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action concerning Final Plat of Headwaters Ranch, Phase 1 & 2 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to open annual bids for road base, cold mix, aggregate, emulsion oil, and corrugated metal pipe 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action concerning the Western Surety Maintenance Bond #70271788 for Misty Lane in Megan Manor 1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on approving road list to forward to City of Kerrville for evaluation of possible annexation PAGE 6 11 17 20 23 29 31 38 41 43 46 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) March 24, 2008 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set date of May 12, 2008, at 1:30 p.m., for a Transportation Priorities Planning Workshop with Texas Department of Transportation 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set date of April 14, 2008, at 1:30 p.m., for a workshop presentation on possible establishment of "Paddling Trails" in conjunction with Texas Parks and Wildlife along stretches of the Guadalupe River in Kerr County 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on updating and overseeing Kerr County website 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Regional Water and Wastewater Matters and Range Improvements 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to designate by resolution Grantworks as the planning service provider for 2007 Texas Community Development Block Grant Colonia Planning Project 727125 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to designate by resolution authorized signatory for 2007 Texas CDBG Colonia Planning Project 727125 1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on Resolution from Texas Farm Bureau concerning eminent domain 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding real estate transactions (Executive Session) 1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on Road and Bridge Audit 4.1 Pay Bills 4.2 Budget Amendments 4.3 Late Bills 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports PAGE 53 57 60 71 79 82 85 100 101 102 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X (Continued) March 24, 2008 PAGE 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments --- 5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 103 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to finalize job descriptions of Human Resources Director and employees of the Human Resources Department 105 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding real estate transactions (Exec. Session) --- --- Adjourned 116 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 On Monday, March 24, 2008, 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 regularly scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court which is scheduled and posted for this time and date, Monday, March 24th, 2008, at 9 a.m. It is that time now. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. Will you please rise and join me for our morning opening prayer, followed by the pledge of allegiance. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at this time. If you wish to be heard on an agenda item, we would ask that you fill out a participation form. They can be found at the back of the room. It's not critical that you do that; it just helps me to make sure that when we get to that item, I'm aware that you do wish to be heard on that item. But if we do get to an agenda item that you wish to be heard on and you haven't filed a participation form, 3-24-08 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 get my attention in some shape or manner and I'll see that you have the opportunity to be heard. But right now, if there's any member of the audience that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at this time. Mr. Bohnert, if you'll come forward and give us your name and address and tell us what's on your mind. MR. BOHNERT: I'm Richard Bohnert, 200 Weston Road. I'm not sure if something that I want to discuss is on the agenda or not. I -- I turned in the form, and that may come up in something that's on the agenda, so I don't know -- it's discussion of some private property. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's -- I did not put anything on. I didn't put anything on the agenda related to anything on Wilson Creek Road. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't. JUDGE TINLEY: If this relates to that item, of course, -- MR. BOHNERT: Yes, it does. JUDGE TINLEY: -- this is your time to let us know what you're MR. BOHNERT: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: -- what you have to say. MR. BOHNERT: I have some items highlighted on some e-mails that I have received, if y'all would like to have a 3-24-08 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 copy of that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Judge, this looks like it may take about an hour and a half. Are we sure we want to do it this way? JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, I'm sure Mr. Bohnert's going to make it brief for us. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. I'm leaving at lunchtime; I can just give you fair warning. MR. BOHNERT: To me, there's some things that just haven't been. cleared up. I read over the minutes, and there are some issues on there that I'm still not clear of. And some of the property owners that we have sold property to, they're confused and don't understand what's going on, so they are seeking advice from their attorneys. And on these items, I'm kind of confused about this myself. I don't know if there's some personal issues or what, but when we were first put on the agenda, I have an e-mail here that says the agenda for March the 11th, 2008, and it should have been March the 10th. I did not find out about this until one of the neighbors told me, "No, it's always the second and fourth Monday." So, I called Mr. Letz about that. I don't know if this was intentional or what, but that's the feeling I got, that it was intentional that I would miss the Commissioners Court. 25 ~ And by some of the comments that are made on these 3-29-08 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e-mails, I don't know where Mr. Letz gets this, that we have other property to sell and that we have sold so much property and caused problems on that road. There have been two houses built on the property that we sold. One of those families just moved in after the 1st of February. Their house was just completed. Nothing on that road had been damaged up to the point where those houses were put in. The property that we sold up above, north of Wilson Creek Road, that was 246.99 acres. We had nothing to do with that development. We sold it to some people and they started developing that property -- that property, not us. Mr. Letz made a comment in there referenced to us having unsold tracts. I don't know if Mr. Letz has had some properties surveyed and platted out there and is wanting to sell some of our property or what. We sold all of the property we were going to sell, which the closing date on the last piece of property, which was the 150 acres, was on -- in January of 2007. The -- the closing was delayed because the purchasers could not make the final closing in December of 2006. The properties that have changed and caused these problems were out east of our property. The cattle guards that were removed, I still don't understand that. On Lane Valley Road, which is the road that Commissioner Letz lives on, those cattle guards are still out there. Why was our property chosen as the first piece of property for this to 3-24-08 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 take effect, when where our property is is the widest easement on Wilson Creek Road from Highway 27 all the way over to Schladoer Road? The other properties were -- one of the men that dictated to the property owners there where to put their property -- their fence line, at his residence, the fence is 30 feet from one fence of the road to the other fence of the road. And this is a man that works for the County, and he goes over to -- to people that purchase property from us and tells us where to put the fence. My question is, what authority does an employee of the County have to tell someone where they need to put their fence line, and then make it 10 feet past the County's easement? JUDGE TINLEY: Let me interrupt you for just a moment, Mr. Bohnert, -- MR. BOHNERT: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: -- to tell you that in this particular segment of the meeting, because of the nature of it and since it's not a listed agenda item, no member of this Court has the ability to respond to anything that you say. We're here to listen about your thoughts, suggestions, or concerns, but we cannot respond. MR. BOHNERT: That's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Continue. MR. BOHNERT: That's fine. So, Frank Manitzas surveyed out 4 acres for his son, and that's at 535 Wilson 3-24-08 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Creek Road. That house has been put in since we started selling property on Wilson Creek Road.. Mr. J.B. Beesland -- Beeland, I'm sorry, from Richmond, Texas, has bought what was the Holdsworth property out on Wilson Creek Road. He has added a house and another resident out there. That is right next to Clarence Burow's property. Sakewitz Lane has had, I know, at least one house put in there, because I put a bid on the air conditioning on that house. That house was just completed in 2007. This is three houses already that have -- have people living in there prior to when someone moved into one of the houses that -- built on the property that we sold. That has increased the traffic. Chester Kirchhoff's property there shows houses being built out there. That is also on Wilson Creek Road. Gordon Green is one of the people that is having a house built out there; it may be completed by now. The county road had been resurfaced in that area, and has since been damaged. There's areas where the blacktop of that road is already damaged, several locations. I would challenge each of you to go and take a look at this issue on Wilson Creek Road and see for yourself what is happening. I feel like I am being targeted, and the property owners who we sold property to are being targeted to make some kind of a -- of a statement here to the rest of the county. The people on Lane Valley Road have a lot of money, and they are not being affected by this. There are cattle 3-24-08 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2C 21 2~ 2; 2~ 2` guards out there too that have livestock running across the cattle guard -- I mean across the county road, and the fence goes up to that cattle guard -- or to the county road. The cattle guard goes across it to keep their livestock on their property. Those cattle guards are what is preventing open range. That is part of the fence. That's all I have to say. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there any other member of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item? Okay, we'll move on, then. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing really, Judge. It was a great Easter weekend, and good to be back to work, and let's do our job. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just one thing, that I had some conversations with some members of the City Council last week, and I'm looking forward to their meeting tomorrow where they're going to address a couple issues that I think the County's been really anxious for them to work on. One's the airport governance, and the other is to respond to us on more of a policy level, what my understanding is, on where we're going with some of our joint operations. Having said that, you know, to me, we didn't need to -- we've already met on these individually for, oh, years and years, and that we i really need to figure out where we're trying to go long-term, 3-24-08 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and then try to get there. And I know my most recent visit with Councilman Hamilton, and from his views, anyway, it will be interesting to see what we get back from City Council tomorrow, if anything. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And to preface all -- what you just said, you and I had a very nonproductive meeting, to say the very least, because we were dealing with a staff member who is marching to the orders as crafted by somebody other than, perhaps, City Council. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What Commissioner Williams is referring to, we were assigned the task of, I guess, a committee to work with the library, airport, and animal control. And we were told by the City -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you fixing to translate that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. As soon as -- you'll appreciate this, Commissioner Baldwin. I think we've heard this once before several years ago. We were told as soon as we sat down that we can't talk about the airport, 'cause it's off the table. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said, "Okay, that's fine." COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Primary focus. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We say that's good. We didn't get a whole lot of comments in an hour and a half, but 3-24-08 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 anyway, that's all. JUDGE TINLEY: What do you have for us, Commissioner Oehler? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only thing that I really have is the burn ban situation has caused me a lot of grief. I think it's probably one of the things that we -- we dread the most about making decisions on, and my situation where I have over half the area of the county in my precinct, and they tend to get more rain on the east end than we do on the west end, and the ones on the east end that join on Precinct 1 are raising stink and wanting to be able to burn, and they don't seem to understand that you can't just give individual permits, or if we can, I don't know how you do that. Just another one of those little challenges that we have to deal with, and people somewhat have to be understanding that, you know, it's better for us to err on the side of caution than it is to do it the other way. So, that's one of those things we have to deal with. And it is somewhat -- it's much better than it used to be, but -- by doing it county-wide, which was really bad whenever we had differential rainfall. But, anyway, that's just one of those things. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Incidentally, I'm putting the burn ban on at 6 o'clock this evening. There's some pretty high winds. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, mine hasn't been off 3-24-08 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but a few days during this time. We just haven't gotten the rain. You've been real fortunate on the east end. On the west end, we are just dry as a bone. I think we've had a total of about maybe an inch in the last month, and that just is not enough to justify taking the -- taking it off for any great length of time. So, anyway, just one of those little challenges, but that's probably one of the most controversial things that I face on my end. I'll be quiet. Go ahead, Buster. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I used to think that the septic tank program was the one that was going to put me in my grave, but I began to wonder if it's not the burn ban. That's major, major stuff. I tell you, the burn ban is one of my most unfavorite things on the face of the earth, because we're telling people what to do with their lives and property, which borders on insanity to me. You have the government telling people what to do. But the key is, you've got to, or they'll burn the goddern country up and all their neighbor's belongings. So, it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. But, you know, this thing -- I guess I'm becoming a crotchety old coot, maybe, but -- JUDGE TINLEY: I've heard that. I've heard that asserted numerous times. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, here's a -- actually, I became a rabbi over the weekend. But -- 3-24-08 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See his picture in the paper? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did y'all see my picture in the paper, Rabbi Baldwin? I got to get me one of those little hat things to wear. I don't know what they are, but I need one. But -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: With a propeller? (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That'll work. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Get one with a propeller on it. JUDGE TINLEY: Touche'. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- but when they -- I've had a few phone calls in the last week about, "Well, the burn ban in Precinct 2 and Precinct 3 is lifted. Why aren't..." I really don't care what they do down there. I couldn't care less what they do in Precinct 2 and Precinct 3. I'm responsible for people in Precinct 1. They don't like that, but that's just tough. That's part of life; I agree with you 100 percent. Easter's one of my favorite times, what it represents and what it means and everything. I just think it's just so neat, and it's -- how it relates to family and getting together with family. Well, this -- and I spent some good quality time with part of my family. They're -- of course, my daughter and them are still gone to New Zealand. 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 But I ran into -- this morning, real early, when I was out with my dogs, I ran into one of Rusty's deputies that spent the Easter weekend with his family, which includes three children that are stationed -- all three of them are I'm walking through the woods this morning, trying to get home with my dogs, all those thoughts of what that's like just flooded me, and how -- how grateful we are that we have serious. But just remembering these -- these folks that are out giving their lives so that we can be here doing this, and living life and going to Retreat Center and hunting Easter eggs with grandkids. You know, anyway, that's all. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. You know, different, as was Vietnam -- to a somewhat lesser degree, Vietnam -- than earlier conflicts in our country. Those of you that can recall World War II remember that everyone was invested in that conflict. I mean, from the tiniest child to the oldest individual, there was some sort of sacrifice -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: -- that was being endured because of 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 what sacrifices are being made by our armed forces this day and time, because the general population is not invested in that conflict. You know, we're worried about the major investment banks on Wall Street having a tough time of it, as opposed to what we can do in order to do our part in sacrifice for that war effort. Just yesterday, of course, we hit the 4,000 mark of troops lost, and, of course, there's many, many more that are wounded that we are responsible for, and I hope that we will properly discharge that responsibility to them in the coming months and years. But you're exactly right; we don't think about that enough, and we should. And I suppose the Easter season, when it comes to sacrifice, would be a really good time to think about that, and I appreciate your comment. Let's get on with the business at hand, if we might. First item is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on request from A Child's Place Learning Center to waive the fees and allow them to use Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center on Tuesday, May 13th, 2008. Ms. Fitzpatrick? MS. SMITH: I'm Julie Smith. I'm here for Sherri. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If you'll come forward and give us your name and address, and tell us what -- what your thoughts are on this? MS. SMITH: Okay. My name is Julie Smith. I live at 298 McDonald Loop in Center Point, and I'm the Executive 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 Director over at A Child's Place Learning Center. And our center is a nonprofit early childhood and early education center. And every year we have about 20 children .that graduate, I guess, so to speak, out of our preschool program into kindergarten, and we have a big ceremony for families and those kinds of things, and we have just outgrown our center in the last few years and being able to house extra -- especially grown-ups in our center, 'cause everything is so child-oriented. And last year we were fortunate enough to be able to use the just the swine area of the Exhibition Center for about four hours on an afternoon, and just have our little ceremony and let families come in and visit and, you know, kind of enjoy their last preschool moment with their child, and then finish up. And we were cleaned up and out of there by -- I guess by 9 o'clock. I think we were in there about 3:00 and we were out by 9:00, set-up, clean-up and everything. And so we're just requesting waiver of those fees again, if possible, for us to have that ceremony. JUDGE TINLEY: What sort of -- of reduction or waiver did you receive in years past? MS. SMITH: Well, we -- last year was the first year that we did it, and they just waived the -- the fee for -- the rental fee. And we added onto -- the County as additionally insured onto our current insurance so that we didn't have to purchase insurance through the County, and we 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 provided documentation to the County as proof of that insurance, so that there was no liability left on the County. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you a 501(c)(3) organization? MS. SMITH: Yes, we are. JUDGE TINLEY: You have documentation to that effect? MS. SMITH: Yes, sir. I don't have it with me, but it should have been included in the things I sent to Jody. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Included in your -- JUDGE TINLEY: We have totally reworked that entire rental scheme out there, as I'm sure Mrs. Grinstead told you. MS. SMITH: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Probably since you used it last year. MS. SMITH: I think so. JUDGE TINLEY: And the way it's being handled now is on a discounted basis. MS. SMITH: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: And the maximum discount for a 501(c)(3) is what, 75 percent? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 50 percent. JUDGE TINLEY: 50? MS. GRINSTEAD: You've agreed to waive the $350 rental fee, but they still pay for tables and chairs. 3-24-08 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. GRINSTEAD: That's how we're doing nonprofits. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we include A Child's Place Learning Center on our nonprofit list. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. The bottom line of what was just done is, whatever discount is offered or -- or waivers for 501(c)(3)'s, you will be included on that list. MS. SMITH: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: And you'll be treated the same as everyone else with 501(c)(3) status. MS. SMITH: Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. The next item is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on request from the District Clerk, Linda Uecker, to approve a budget amendment to allocate an additional $24,000 from the $78,629.90 remaining in Records Preservation budget, 28-635-411, to finish the project of imaging all old records 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 currently on microfilm. Ms. Decker? MS. DECKER: Yeah. Good morning. When Judge Tinley and I met on the budget last year, the amount that we came up with to finish this project was, you know, an estimate on our part. It's difficult to pin it down exactly, because we don't know how many images are on every roll of microfilm. All we can do was take an average and guess at how many rolls there were left. It's going to be a little bit short. Well, in my request, I'm asking for 24. I don't think it's going to take quite that, but I don't know. The money that this would be coming from is from the -- the general Records Preservation fund, which currently has 78-plus thousand dollars in it, and can be used for no other purpose. This would finish that particular project now, and I wouldn't have to deal with it next budget session. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, the $78,000 fund, that fund in there that can't -- that money can't be used for anything else -- MS. DECKER: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- but records preservation, that's generated from where? MS. DECKER: From court costs and fees from my office, as well as the County Clerk's office. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it is not -- there's no taxpayers' -- I mean, we don't budget that money there. 3-24-08 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. UECKER: No, that's a user fee, and that's why the Legislature has established that. There are actually three of those funds, one that is recent, that's fairly new that's just for my office, that doesn't have a whole lot of money in it yet. I think the County Clerk has one that does generate a lot that she uses. And this one is for anyone in the county; even the Commissioners Court can use this money to, say, maintain records of the Commissioners Court. The Treasurer can use it; anyone can use it. But the money is generated from court costs and fees. JUDGE TINLEY: And is limited to records preservation purposes. MS. UECKER: Only. JUDGE TINLEY: By whomever used. MS. UECKER: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. UECKER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the request. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm seconding it. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second for approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the 3-24-08 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 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move now to Item 3; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on purchase of new vehicles for the Environmental Health Department and Animal Control. MR. GARCIA: Morning. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Morning, sir. MR. GARCIA: You should have a copy of all the quotes there. Ken Stoepel came in with the lowest bid at 17,974, and also for one 4x4 vehicle for Animal Control at 20, 000. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, the second one, even though it has your name on it, is for the Animal Control? MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay. MR. GARCIA: All the bids were put in through my ~ department. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. GARCIA: We just incorporated Animal Control I with it. 3-24-08 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One for your department, one for Animal Control? MR. GARCIA: Three vehicles for my department and two vehicles for Animal Control. MS. ROMAN: Two for Animal Control. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, let me make sure I understand this. We're not talking about purchasing -- you're not -- the request here before us today is not to purchase two vehicles? MS. ROMAN: Two vehicles for Animal Control and three for -- MR. GARCIA: Three vehicles for Environmental I Health. MS. ROMAN: Five total. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That clears that up. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the budgeted amount for this? MS. HARGIS: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER MS. HARGIS: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER That was not a budget issue of -- LETZ: What was the dollar amount? OEHLER: 60,000. 60 in one. OEHLER: In Environmental Health. LETZ: 60? 3-24-08 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And the two was 40,000. MS. HARGIS: I think it was 100 all together. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It'd be 100; 60 and 40. JUDGE TINLEY: The total amount would cover all of them. Be a little short in Animal Control, but a little long in the -- in the Environmental Health, it sounds like, based upon the figures you just gave me. MS. HARGIS: You have some vehicles to sell or to trade in -- MS. ROMAN: Trade in. MS. HARGIS: -- that should offset the difference. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Janie, do you need both your vehicles 4-wheel drives? MS. ROMAN: No, we're just asking for one 4-wheel drive. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there's three of the regular and one 4-wheel drive, or four -- MR. GARCIA: There's four 4x2's and one 4x4. MS. ROMAN: 4x4. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there not a more fuel-efficient vehicle that would meet your needs than these F-150's? That's a question. MS. ROMAN: We're thinking. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which generally requires an answer. 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MS. ROMAN: For what we're using them for, I don't see -- I mean, like, the 4x4 -- I have to have a 4x4 to be able to pull the trailer that we just purchased. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. ROMAN: With livestock and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That's an answer. MS. ROMAN: So I would say no. MR. GARCIA: And the mileage -- the gas mileage for the 4.6 V-8 versus the 6-cylinder is not that much difference as far as the mileage that we drive for inspections across the county. It's -- it's -- JUDGE TINLEY: Are these V-6's or straight-line sixes -- 6-cylinder that you're referring to? MR. GARCIA: 6-cylinder. Yeah, V-6. JUDGE TINLEY: It's V-6's? MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir, but that's -- JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't make much difference. MR. GARCIA: No, these are the smaller V-8's. 4.6 I V-8. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- of the five vehicles. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the purchase of the five vehicles as requested, which would be four 4x2's and one 4x4, two of which go to 3-24-08 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 Animal Control, including the 4x4, and three of which would go to Environmental Health. Am I correct? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is budgeted items that were under the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One question, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do these prices include the cost of markings and so forth that you would put on the vehicle? MR. GARCIA: No. MS. ROMAN: For my department, we -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Either department. MS. ROMAN: Okay. MR. GARCIA: No. MS. ROMAN: No. But for my department, I don't need it, because we just purchased the new magnets that we're going to transfer over to the new -- to the new vehicles. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Same with you? MR. GARCIA: I have the magnets from the other vehicles. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. MS. ROMAN: And the cages -- excuse me, the cages 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 that we currently have on our trucks are able to be modified for the new trucks, to fit the new trucks. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Other questions or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question about the bond. What is the status -- where are we in the bonding issue? If we order these trucks today, do we have actual money to hand -- MS. HARGIS: Cash -- actually, cash was received a week ago last Thursday -- Thursday, and is in the bank. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick. JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question? MR. EMERSON: Just a general question. Since I didn't know anything about it, I'm assuming that the purchasing requirements in the code were followed to get the bids? MS. HARGIS: H.G.A.C. MR. EMERSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And for the -- it's a short-term debt. It's not a bond, per se; it's really -- we refer to it as bonds. It's actually a tax obligation certificate. JUDGE TINLEY: I've been trying to modify the Auditor's vocabulary now for a period of weeks. I just 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 haven't gotten there yet. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: A difference in terminology between county and city. JUDGE TINLEY: There you go. There you go. Any other question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: A11 opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move to our 9:30 item; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt a proclamation declaring April 2008 as Child Abuse Prevention and Awareness Month in Kerr County, and approve use of courthouse grounds for a kickoff event on April the lst, 2008, from 5:30 to 7 p.m., and blue ribbons to be tied on the courthouse trees during the month of April. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. I don't see any of our people, so we're going to go ahead and do this and take care of it. Fairly explanatory here. The -- we've done this annually now for three or four years. But the point I want to make is that this particular group -- and I've said this every year -- is my favorite group that I work with, because they actually do something. And you can see in your backup now that they are not alone any longer. There are 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 groups that are coming along beside them now and assisting and participating in the things -- in the things that this group does. And it's a very basic issue, and that is declaring Child Abuse Prevention Month, and doing everything that we can to get what that means out into the public. So, I'm going to make a motion that -- that we do declare April 2008 as Child Abuse Prevention/Awareness month. And also in that motion is the use of the courthouse grounds for a kickoff event on April the 1st, 2008, and they've requested that if you -- all you guys can be there, it would be most appreciated. That'll be from 5:30 to 7:00. And the blue ribbons will be tied on the trees like we've always done in the past. In order to kick this thing off, this is a -- this is a gift from -- from that group to the Commissioners Court. And it's the -- it's the little -- along in here are the little blue ribbons, as you can see, that you take and put on your lapel for each one of us to start wearing and representing this little group. And there just happens to be some potato chips and stuff in there. I don't know what this is, but here. JUDGE TINLEY: That says "Commissioners." be my motion, Judge, I think. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me see what the card says. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Question or discussion on the motion? Wait a minute, there may be cash in there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. I thought there was going to be a gift certificate to Belk, but it's not. Child Abuse Awareness Month, April 2008. Please join us for an awareness event at the courthouse Tuesday, April 1, 5:30 to 7:00, sponsored by Kerr County Child Services Board, and it's addressed to Commissioners Court. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or discussion on that motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: It's time to eat, Buster. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Getting close. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to abandon, vacate, and discontinue Fossler Road and set a public hearing for the same. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. It came to our attention that while Headwaters Ranch was being platted, that the deed 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 records showed a county road through their property and into Mrs. Walton's property. The road is not maintained by the County, and to our knowledge, has not been used for over 20 years. As the map in your packet shows, Mrs. Walton accesses her property through the Houston-Schumacher Road, and 911 has named her private drive as Fossler Road, the highlighted portion. Ranchland Enterprises and Mr. Walton own all land abutting the road, and want the county road to be abandoned, vacated, and discontinued, leaving Ranchland to plat and build their portion of the road as Midwaters Drive, and Mrs. Walton's portion to be a private drive. At this time, we ask that you set a public hearing for April the 28th, 2008, at 10 a.m. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The old road that comes in off of 1340, old Fossler Road, I guess, what is the status of that? MR. ODOM: That was -- that coming off 1340 is what goes through Mr. Poorman's property here, this development. And what it is, actually, was maybe an old road, Buster, years and years ago. We haven't maintained it at all. It -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. MR. ODOM: Ms. Walton -- you know, when you were out there, no one's, to my knowledge -- well, when you were a 3-29-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 precinct commissioner. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, when I was a commissioner out there. MR. ODOM: That has never been maintained by the County, and so what we wish to do is acknowledge that and to eliminate that easement, because the surveyor picked it up and it was on a deed record in '92. For whatever reason, they picked it up, and we need to displace that -- that thought that we don't have a road. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have the new Fossler Road highlighted here, but the old Fossler Road is not highlighted. That makes me ask the question, what about the old Fossler Road? How did they -- Bruce, how did they get in -- how did they get into ranch headquarters? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The Fosslers, right now they get in off -- through the Kerr Wildlife area down Schumacher Road. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But there was a road on 1340, and that's the one I'm seeing here. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So they just abandoned -- quit using that. MR. ODOM: That's right. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Actually, what happened, I believe, Buster, years ago, was they could come in off of 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 1340 through Headwaters Ranch, which is now being developed into Headwaters Ranch. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Through that and into Fossler, and kind of a loop system in there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it was. I understand. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But everybody has access -- everybody does have access to their property. This in no way hinders anybody's ability to access their property. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. ODOM: Doesn't create any problem for Mrs. Walton or anybody. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Both property owners are willing to do this, and this will stop any kind of encumbrance to any future owners of the property. And it's just really a trail through there; it was only used minimally at times in the past. And felt like this was a good way to clean up and get rid of an old easement that basically has been abandoned already, and the County just needs to do it, I believe, for the future owners of the property. 'Cause what'll happen is -- is two of the tracts in the new development are going to be encumbered by this easement, which really doesn't do anything, except it just encumbers it for something to go wrong in the future. MR. ODOM: In the future. Muddy the water in the 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 future. We want to eliminate that, because you still have to show that up in Mrs. Walton's property. COMMISSION ER BALDWIN: In her -- in her letter, it says that she is not opposed to the formal closing, provided that the whole route is closed. And that - - and we're doing that? MR. ODOM: Yes, whole thing. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That got to the point to where we needed a letter from the Headwaters owners a s well as Mrs. Walton that would take care of all parties. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That way we wouldn't have somebody left hanging out to dry. JUDGE TINLEY: What you're seeking today is for the Court to set a public hearing on April 28th, '08, at 10 a.m. on this matter, on the closing -- MR. ODOM: The closing of this matter. JUDGE TINLEY: -- of this road? MR. ODOM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move for the agenda item, that we set the public hearing on the 28th of April. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 indicated. Question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have one more question. On the property coming in right here, is -- that piece right here -- Bruce, that road, is it saying where it is? MR. ODOM: It shows -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be on -- MR. ODOM: -- to Mrs. Walton's. I don't know; I don't have -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be this right here. Wait a minute, I'm turned around. Come on, Bruce -- yeah, that would be accessing right here. MR. ODOM: What you see through Headwaters is the center line of the road was laid out by those metes and bounds all the way up to Mrs. Walton's. And I don't have any data -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. ODOM: -- on Mrs. Walton's, other than showing that part coming up against Headwaters development. So, what we want to do is to take any doubt that Mrs. Walton's -- whatever's called by 911 "Fossler Road" is eliminated, and that eliminates -- if we do this on Headwaters, it eliminates any thoughts of a road followed on those metes and bounds. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we're abandoning the piece 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 over here, too? MR. ODOM: That's correct, Mrs. Walton's. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, abandoning the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't want us to leave a certain length at the end. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what we're not doing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The entire road. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The entire road. Anything left to interpretation. MR. ODOM: And anything construed, because you can see how 911 laid it out on the other page there. We just want to say, anything that's construed in there as -- as County-maintained road is eliminated. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's actually county easement. MR. ODOM: Or county easement. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't really have -- we don't need this easement, and we sure don't want it any more. MR. ODOM: Certainly. It's been over 20 years, and by our actions, it was abandoned a long time ago. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other 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. 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move to Item 6; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action concerning the final plat of Headwaters Ranch, Phase 1 and 2, located in Precinct 4. MR. ODOM: The Court approved the preliminary plat of all phases of Headwaters, granting a variance to make the road in Phase 1 a paved country lane, and the roads in 2 and 3 a local road. All lots in the subdivision over 20 acres, so no overall drainage plan was required. Street profiles, ditches, and cross-drainage plan for 1 and 2 were submitted and reviewed by our consulting engineer. Ranchland has furnished everything we asked for in the platting process. The only issue at this time is vacating, abandoning, and discontinuing a road shown in the deed records as Old Fossler Road in Phase 2. They're building a road to be County-maintained within that right-of-way that terminates at a cul-de-sac. They also made a notation of where the old center line was located. At this time, we recommend approval of the final plat for Headwaters Ranch, Phases 1 and 2. For your information, there is also a third phase which they're working on, and we'll be coming to court on that when they finish it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard -- go ahead. JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Because that notation of 3-24-08 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this road is not indicated on this final plat, and the discontinuance and abandonment of that road is only a pending item for which we just set a public hearing, -- MR. ODOM: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- is it appropriate for us to approve this final plat without that notation on it? (Low-voice discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good point. MR. ODOM: Well, we do -- what I did, just -- we just got through with that. That's a very good question. But I would say that our intent was -- and that we've shown it in the previous -- JUDGE TINLEY: I may be looking at the wrong plat; let me make sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which one's the road? Two, or -- MR. POORMAN: Two is the one. There is a notation on there -- MR. ODOM: There's a notation. MR. POORMAN: If you'll look at that center line between those two tracts. JUDGE TINLEY: Just a minute. There is a notation; I was looking at the wrong plat. MR. ODOM: There is a notation on 2. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3-29-08 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: Leonard, my question was, Mr. Wells had some -- a couple of concerns in his letter that was attached. Have those been addressed? MR. ODOM: Yes. As of -- we had a letter from Mark Haufler that it had it coming, and I have a note here that we just received it this morning in the office, so I have no reservations now about that as far as the bond. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This isn't the bond; this is related to the horizontal curves. MR. ODOM: Oh, I'm sorry, you're talking about Wayne Wells. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wayne Wells, not Wells Fargo. MR. ODOM: Aggie brain here. We've worked that out. We did that through signage. And what we had was, as we worked this through, Jonathan, it had to do -- we had to follow the deed until we got this corrected on Phase 2. Phase 1 didn't require a whole lot, and so we looked at Phase 1 and 2 with the engineer and went over signage and curves. We've done that in Live Springs before, so we felt like that was comfortable. With Phase 3, we told them no, that you will redesign this by our standards that we had up there, and Phase 2 was the one on a local road we -- I had concerns on, because of the way we had to follow the metes and bounds on that old county road that they had in the deed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3-24-08 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: So, we feel comfortable that we've resolved the issue -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. ODOM: -- with signage. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want to make sure there wasn't something, you know -- MR. ODOM: We got it back down to a 30, and got off of 30 to 35. We felt like the signs would work this way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll move for final plat approval of Headwaters Ranch, Phases 1 and 2. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item as indicated. Further question or discussion? A11 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: A11 opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. POORMAN: Thank you, Commissioners. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 7; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to open annual bids for road base, cold mix, aggregate, emulsion oil, and corrugated 3-24-08 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 metal pipe. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. You should have the bids for the road base, cold mix, aggregate, and emulsion oils and corrugated metal pipe. We ask that you open the bids and allow us to come back on the next agenda to award. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: First bid we have is for base material from Walter Masters. Next bid that we have is for corrugated metal pipe from Wilson Culverts, Incorporated. The next bid is for emulsion oils from Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions, Incorporated. The next bid is for base material from Wheatcraft, Incorporated. The next bid is for emulsion oils from Sem, S-e-m, Materials. The next bid is for base material from Allen Keller Company. The next bid is for paving aggregates from Vulcan Construction Materials, and also hot mix, cold-laid asphaltic material from Vulcan Construction Materials. The next bid is for base material from Reeh Quarry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those all came together. JUDGE TINLEY: The next bid, paving aggregates from Martin Marietta Materials. Hot mix, cold-laid asphaltic material from Martin Marietta Materials, and base material from Martin Marietta Materials. The next bid, corrugated metal pipe from Contech. And that seems to be all of them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we accept all bids and refer them to Road and Bridge for recommendation. 3-24-08 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to accept all bids and refer them to Road and Bridge for review and recommendation. Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move to Item 8; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action concerning Western Surety Maintenance Bond Number 70271788 for Misty Lane in Megan Manor, located in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Megan Manor is a subdivision that was platted in the '80's, but never built until last year. Kevin Spraggins did the engineering for Nava Development, Limited. They wanted Misty Lane to be a County-maintained road and put up a maintenance bond for $25,086. It expires March 26th, 2008. On March 4th, 2008, the enclosed letter was sent to Kevin explaining the road i would not be accepted for maintenance by Kerr County Road and Bridge till the listed items were addressed. I'll also say that I met out there with our consulting engineer, Mr. Wells. Mr. Spraggins went over the deficiencies that we noted. At this time, I would like a directive from the Court on the 3-24-08 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 disposition of the maintenance bond, and suggest the road not be accepted until such time the list is of deficiencies are met and the consulting engineering firm pays the fees of $239.34 -- until they're paid. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, they renew the bond -- their bond until they get everything taken care of. That -- MR. ODOM: You want to renew it, then? Or -- we don't have to maintain it. Under -- under private road, a maintenance bond is not necessary. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, that -- I mean, if that's what they want to do. MR. ODOM: I haven't got a directive. I will be contacting -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are the two options that I see. MR. ODOM: Those are the only two options, and he was informed of that. And they said that they would take care of it. But I don't know how you take care of the grass growing at 80 percent until -- you know, till it's -- till it gets warmer. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, they can renew it, but the second time around, they can only renew it for one year? MR. ODOM: One year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN And then that's it? 3-24-08 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: That's it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They can't renew it a second time, can they? MR. ODOM: It would come to the Court, unless you gave a variance off it of it. But by our rules, you could extend it for another year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they could -- if they have it ready in six months, they can come and we can release it early. MR. ODOM: We could take it over for maintenance. It's not that severe as far as to take -- you know, it has to do with ditches, siltation dams cleaned up or rebuilt, and some vegetation growing back up in some areas. But it's basically -- it's a maintenance issue, and it's not something I want to pick up after. They should be able to take care of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is anyone working to correct these things now? MR. ODOM: As of Friday, there was -- I'm sorry, as of Tuesday, I believe, it was not, 'cause I went out and checked it Tuesday. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's pretty simple to me. They either renew their bond -- get permission from you to renew their bond and renew it, or that's it. 3-24-08 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: That's it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Life goes on. MR. ODOM: Okay, they'll be informed. Thank y'all. JUDGE TINLEY: You need -- you don't need any formal action from the Court, do you? MR. ODOM: No, I've -- a directive is what I need right there. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ODOM: I want to let them make their decision. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 9, then; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on approving road list for the City of Kerrville for possible annexation. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a follow-up to the -- our joint meeting with the City. I talked about a couple roads in my precinct, and we brought out that we probably should look at it for all precincts. I contacted Road and Bridge, and this is the list they have come up with of roads that are right at the edge of the city limits. These are more city roads than county roads, in our mind -- or my mind and their mind. Also, it's interesting that when they did this, TexDOT has not given the County credit for these roads, 'cause they view these as city streets, and so we're not getting our funding there. And 911 also views these as city streets from an addressing standpoint. But to follow up, to 3-24-08 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 put the list out and send it over to the City and have them -- this is what they said they wanted from us, so I'm just trying to get along with them, give them what they want. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have some concerns about this I want to kind of touch on with you, Commissioner. When we send this over for consideration, are we suggesting then that these be annexed? And if so, are we doing that knowing full well that the people who live on these roads, if they're annexed, are going to be subject to city taxation, something that they perhaps did not reckon for? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cities cannot annex without permission. This is for the City to go out and look at these, and then it's up to them to contact these people and see if they want to be in the city limits. Some of these people, from talking to me, do want to be in the city limits. I think it's to their benefit. Some of them probably do not. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I see a couple in my precinct that I can probably guarantee you they do not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if you want to delete it, delete any names -- I thought this was circulated to everybody. If you want to delete any of them, delete them. I mean, it's -- the ones that I was concerned about are right around Roy Street, where I have a lot of problems. That's what brought this up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what kind of 3-24-08 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 prompted all this, right. But we're not -- if we do this, take this action and send this list down there, we're not doing this for the recommendation of this Court to -- that these roads be annexed, are we? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this would be for them to evaluate, from my standpoint. But I think it is implied that, yes, they should look at probably some of these for annexation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then I want a couple of them removed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Which ones? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Particularly, I want Loma I Vuelta. THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, what was the street name? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Loma Vuelta, V-u-e-l-t-a, and Royal Oaks removed. I suspect the folks in the area where we did all the sewer work are not going to be too happy about an annexation plan that would -- that would carry some imprimatur from the Court that we are in favor of it, and that would be Frederick, George Muck, Royal Oaks, Shannon, and Loyal Valley. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go over those again, please. JUDGE TINLEY: Frederick, George Muck, Loyal Valley -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Shannon. 3-24-08 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Quail Valley is going to be in the next phase, isn't it? Isn't it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's Commissioner 1's street. The next stage. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What about Contour? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Contour is not -- it wasn't -- well, that's in Commissioner 1's precinct also. JUDGE TINLEY: You got Shannon? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I got Shannon. Commissioner Baldwin, do you want to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think I'd like to see them stay, just see what happens here. If the City feels like that -- or if the citizens feel like that I'm recommending annexation, they need to think again. I'm not recommending anything. I want to see how this -- your thinking will play out. I wouldn't bet on it either way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't either, but I think that some of these, the residents do want it. And I don't -- I'm not saying the majority of the residents on Roy want it, but I do know that some have expressed an interest in it, and I think it's of value. It's a matter of the City has overlooked a lot of these areas, because most of them have been problem areas and lower income, and I think that the -- I don't think that's fair to the citizens. And what has happened is, because of the lack of services -- the ones that 3-24-08 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Commissioner Williams took off are a little bit different, because we, with the joint venture with U.G.R.A., have put in sewer, but a lot of these are tracts that these people are kind of hamstrung. They can't do much with them because of our -- they're on septic, and they -- you know, it really is an adverse effect. So, anyway, I think this is good for the City to look at. They say we've never asked them to look at them, so now we're asking them to look at them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One of them that falls in that category you talk about is not even on the list, and that would be there behind Mack Hollimon, right between Mack Hollimon and the state park, what is now a city park. Right -- right where 534 intersects with 173, on Mrs. Hollimon's -- the fireworks stand there; there's a whole strip of land that runs behind Mack Hollimon that's -- that's problematic, and that's always been talked about as a need to correct that. And that would be fine, but it's not on the list. If it is, I'm missing it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure of the name of the road. MR. ODOM: I'm not sure, but the city limits comes up almost at the entrance to the park, is the city limits, so everything else comes by it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Am I right, Sheriff? Right there behind Ms. Mack -- Ms. Hollimon's old home, there's a 3-24-08 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fireworks stand there. Goes straight back, parallels with the back line fences of the people who live on Mack Hollimon. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's actually not a road in there, just that strip. MR. ODOM: I know where you're talking about. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's not on this list. MR. ODOM: It's not on there. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We11, from my part of this, Blue Ridge has -- they have just gotten some of their problem areas tied onto city sewer, and there's another one that's about to tie on; it's behind what was already -- the City of Kerrville allowed them to run a line down through, and the line runs right down the middle of Gasoline Alley. And so, you know, there's several businesses in there that would benefit by being able to tie onto that sewer line and be annexed. But even if they weren't annexed, it would be nice if they were allowed to eliminate some of those problems without having really enough space for septic. The others on the list would be -- well, Gasoline Alley is one of them, and Cummings. Those are right -- you know, those, part of one of them runs into the other. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ridge would be another one that I would want to take off as well. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But I kind of agree with Commissioner Baldwin. You know, let's see what happens with 3-24-08 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this. It's not something that I feel like that has to be promoted for them to do, but if the businesses and the people that live in those areas want it, then they should be allowed to have a say. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's what it is. I believe -- well, I know the the City's current law is they cannot annex unless people consent to it. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is a process. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The City Manager -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is a process. JUDGE TINLEY: I think there is. I think there can be involuntary annexation under -- under the appropriate service plan. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The City -- and, you know, I rely on the City Manager on this, but the City Manager says the city's -- the type of charter the City of Kerrville has, they cannot force people, except under possibly some very extreme circumstances, to annex. But, anyway, it's -- JUDGE TINLEY: I'll leave that to the municipal lawyers. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's -- you know, this is a -- at first they said they've never been asked to evaluate anything. I'm just asking them to evaluate those in my precinct and the list as noted. Any other changes? I'll make a motion to approve the list and authorize the County 3-24-08 53 ]_ G~ 3 L~ ~~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Judge to send a letter -- cover letter to the City Manager stating this list, as amended, has done so. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The list, as amended? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Which excludes the ones that Commissioner Williams mentioned in his precinct that he wishes to exclude? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Including Ridge Road. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I got Ridge, too. We have a motion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a second. Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) ~~ JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'11 move to Item 10; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to set the date of May 12th, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. for a Transportation Priority Plan Workshop with Texas Department of Transportation, with other entities being invited to attend and participate, being City of Kerrville, U.G.R.A., 3-24-08 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 K.E.D.F., and Kerrville Area Chamber of Commerce. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. My backup statement pretty well sums it up. I've had discussions with Mike Coward about river crossing, basically, and what needs -- and from those discussions, we got to talking about a priority plan, which then led to us talking about a priority plan workshop. And although Mr. Coward says TexDOT has no money to do anything, he still thinks it's probably advisable that we give a priority -- put together a priority opportunity for people to list the things they think they'd like to see occur in the future. He contends that we haven't done this in about three years. I think that's probably right. And that lots of things that were identified, with some exceptions, have either been accomplished or are in the process of being scheduled to be accomplished. So, he's prepared to invite his superiors and others from TexDOT to come down from -- come up from San Antonio, and they'll have a full-fledged priority planning workshop. I omitted one entity that should be included for invitation, Judge, and that would be the City of Ingram, and so I would want to include them as well for an invitation to the workshop. So, I would move that we set May 12th, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. for a Transportation Priority Planning Workshop hosted by Kerr County Commissioners Court. 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wonder -- I wonder if we'll talk about at this workshop -- we'll discuss building a road south of the river from Kerrville to Hunt, like we have every year for the last 49 years. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's probably one of the things that hasn't been accomplished yet. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's time to talk about it. MR. ODOM: At least the study. At least the study. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if we can't do that, maybe we could tie in Ingram to Upper Turtle Creek. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. God, wouldn't that be something? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. And 27 over to Hunt. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That gave me goosebumps when you said that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- is TexDOT going to give a presentation of what they have, I mean, on their list? I know the last time we did this, they had widening 27 from Kerrville to Center Point as one phase, and Center Point to Comfort another phase, and things of that nature. Are those going to all be on -- I mean, if they were going to do this, 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 I wish they'd present what we have on our list first, and then we can go off that list for discussion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 10- or 15-year plan. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's what's on his mind, but I'll convey that back, Commissioner, because it's a good point. We need to talk about what has been done, what's on the boards to be done, and what hasn't been prioritized yet before we start adding to that list. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think -- yeah, those roads you mentioned I know were discussed the last time we went through this. So -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They've been discussed for a long time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For a long, long time. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And the window of opportunity is -- is diminishing in some of those areas. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rapidly. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's part of the problem. You think you can get something accomplished, and all of a sudden, the land is sucked up for other purposes. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You have a row of houses right where the road should have been. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or Baldwin Cemetery. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, Baldwin Cemetery. Be easy to move Baldwin cemetery. 3-24-08 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One Baldwin at a time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I don't recommend it any more, though. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, Rabbi. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rabbi. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not as long as you become a rabbi. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through kicking that one around? Let's go to Item 11 -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We didn't vote on it. THE CLERK: We have a motion and a second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second. Further discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Now we'll go to Item 11; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to set a date of April 14, '08, at 1:30 p.m. for a workshop presentation on the possible establishment of paddling trails in conjunction with Texas Parks and Wildlife along stretches of the Guadalupe River in Kerr County. You're just workshop-prone today, aren't you? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, I am, Judge. And 3-24-08 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 paddling would be defined as something you do from some sort of a flotation device in the water. It would have nothing to do with your children or a paddle. Bob Miller, who I think, as of the end of this month, ceased to be the -- the Executive Director of Texas State Arts and Crafts Educational Foundation, had came -- came to me about this idea of his, and wants to establish paddling trails in the Guadalupe River. And I said, you know, what you need to do is talk to people who have some interest, like Upper Guadalupe River Authority, for one. I'm not sure whether or not he's talked to you good folks sitting back there in the back or not, but another good way to get the discussion on the table would be to have a workshop and you tell us what's involved, what you might anticipate, and what do you think various entities' participation would have to be to make this happen. So, if you're of a mind to hear from Mr. Miller about this thing, then suggesting a workshop on April 14th at 1:30 p.m. He would be the presenter, not me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I can tell you right now, I'm not interested in hearing his presentation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've been through this. You know, a couple of negatives about something like this is, one, you open up the -- you just think open range is a war. The navigable stream that Rusty has dealt with his entire 3-24-08 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 life here in Kerr County as a police officer, that issue is back on the table in a horrible, horrible way. I dealt with a paddling group one time when I worked for the State Representative over the other side of Fredericksburg, and it was a navigable stream; the state couldn't -- couldn't stop them. But within 30 days, they were demanding 10 feet of property on each side of the river to get out and do -- have life and picnics and sit around and hum and smoke dope or whatever it is they -- that those folks do, and then it turned into a storm. It turned into a private property issue. And those old Germans don't care a whole lot about paddling. And, you know, maybe I was just brought up wrong or something, but that's -- that's my experience in this kind of thing, and I won't participate in it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand your concern, and certainly those are issues. This -- this is something that apparently is in conjunction with Texas Parks and Wildlife, but there are some issues that are listed in this T.P.W. material which, you know, can be problematic, particularly access. If you're talking about private property, you're talking about access. That becomes an issue. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I tend to agree with Commissioner Baldwin. I think this is just opening up a Pandora's box to -- I mean, people have the right to use the 3-24-08 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 river. People use the river; they float down the river. I don't know that we need to advertise floating down the river. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've heard all I need to I hear . COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I agree with the previous two. JUDGE TINLEY: So much for workshops, right, I Commissioner? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One-on-one's not bad. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We'll move to Item 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on updating and overseeing the Kerr County web site. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda -- it really came out of a discussion with our Human Resources Director -- are you a director? Is that what you're called now? Whatever she's called. As to -- and during that discussion, it was a matter of, I -- I asked -- Commissioner Williams brought it to my attention that when we advertised for our Commissioner's Court administrative assistant, that in that advertisement, this job function went with that job. But it never came to our administrative assistant, because at the time, Mr. Alford was doing that work primarily through another department, and we didn't change anything. But since then, obviously, a lot of changes have happened in the county, and I really -- you know, I know Mr. Trolinger is 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 certainly capable of doing this, but I don't think this is what he needs to spending his time on, is updating our web site. So, I think he could train somebody -- what I'm really looking for is where the Court feels this function should go. I think we should work with -- I think we need to have one person as a responsible party. My preference is probably to give it to our administrative assistant. But -- JUDGE TINLEY: Since she's close to hand and you can enforce that responsibility, huh? MR. TROLINGER: I do have some input. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: A little bit. MR. TROLINGER: And I -- I believe if I just get direction on the content for the web site, say the -- you know, start with the home page. If Ms. Grinstead could help with that, I'd be glad to do the actual manipulation -- changes that are necessary. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. We just need to have a system to get things up there timely. I mean, I know -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or taken off. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or taken off timely. And someone that is monitoring it, so that I don't get e-mails about different things that are -- "Why don't we have this?" Or, "Why do we have old rules up there?" You know, "Why hasn't the burn ban been changed?" I mean, whatever the 3-24-08 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 issue is, we need to have a -- if we're going to have a web site, it needs to be up -- kept up in a timely manner. And whatever the best mechanism is, I'll defer to you as to how to do that, 'cause you know the whole technology system. MR. TROLINGER: Are there any issues right now that I don't know about? I didn't know there were any problems with keeping it up to date. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know, but I haven't looked at it recently. I haven't received any e-mails recently. This came just as -- it's on the agenda based on a conversation I had with Ms. Hyde, and just about who's doing it now and where should this be. Because -- and if it's not going to be done by Ms. Grinstead, it needs to come off of that job description. That may -- it may be in there still from a long time ago. MS. HYDE: Part of the job description was that, at the time when we had Brad doing a lot of the web updates, what Jody was supposed to do is give that information to Brad so that Brad could update it. And I think that we just need to redirect that so that, okay, you guys want something changed, Jody can give it to John. John can do the magic. Instead -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In your experience, Mr. Trolinger, as a -- as being a web master -- I guess that's what we're really talking about. Is that something that's 3-24-08 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 done every day? Once a week? How often do people typically do this? MR. TROLINGER: For county government, I'd expect to see it updated every time there's a major event. For example, the blue ribbons for next month, that should be on the web site. Newsworthy events. It should be updated, so that can be -- there's no particular time period. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what you're recommending is that Jody monitor the web page and be, you know, kind of the keeper of information that goes on and off, and then just get that to you and you'll take care of it? MR. TROLINGER: And all the departments. I went and actively polled the departments and said, "Hey, please give me content for your web site," about a year ago. Maybe it was two. And I'm -- I feel like I've got to extract -- you know, "Please post this." And I'd like to see it the other way around. I'd like to see people come to me or come to Ms. Grinstead and say, "Here, please put this on the web site," keep it up to date. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, but -- and taking off is of equal importance. MR. TROLINGER: Very important. So, any participation would be good. I'd be glad to make the changes. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That sound like a reasonable 3-24-08 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 path to follow? i MS. GRINSTEAD: Well, that's fine by me. And like we talked about before, I was going to give Brad the information, and he had everything pretty much ready to go, but I don't think it's ever made it to the web site, as far as, like, calendared events for the courthouse, community links, that kind of stuff. MR. TROLINGER: True. COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, that's the stuff that I'm -- you know, we talk about things in court. We say it one time, and I assume it's getting on the web site, and it doesn't, like that and some of these things we discussed. We just need to have a system to monitor, and that's why I want one person who is responsible for monitoring it, and not necessarily doing the inputting on it. That -- you know, that's -- and I don't think it's a -- a function that you need to be spending your time on. I don't think that's what -- I'm trying to get it out of your bailiwick, John. You need to be fixing computers and doing the actual work on the web site. Someone else needs to be monitoring the web site, in my mind. JUDGE TINLEY: The -- making it the responsibility of Ms. Grinstead, certainly as to matters that affect the Court, that's one thing. But I don't think it's appropriate to make her responsible for, maybe, information from other 3-24-08 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 elected officials' offices. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. JUDGE TINLEY: As it pertains to postings for the burn ban, certainly, she can pass that information on. Things from County Attorney's office, I think, should be handled by the County Attorney's office to the I.T. Department. I mean, that's -- I see that as part of the I.T. Department's overall responsibility. I don't want to make Ms. Grinstead responsible for all the courthouse and Road and Bridge and Sheriff and everybody else. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there's fixing to be three different functions. You have this blue ribbon issue, you have a car show that -- somebody's doing a car show on the front lawn, and National Day of Prayer. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's important to a lot of people. And those three things need to land -- JUDGE TINLEY: Those would be appropriate for -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, they would be appropriate. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When we put that in Ms. Grinstead's job description, I think, typically, like a lot of things, we thought that was a place for it because it would be convenient, and that Commissioners Court items would 3-29-08 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be at her command. But I think you made a very good point, Judge. Trying to ask her to round up things from every other department in county government is just asking a little bit too much. Her job description has expanded considerably since she came on board. So, taking care of what we do is one thing. I'm all for that. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- is Mr. Trolinger, then, to look at the clerk's web site, which certainly is an example, if things are updated or not updated? Or I guess the concern is that if we're going to have a county web site that this Commissioners Court basically said we want, someone needs to be responsible for that, that it's accurate and current information. I don't want outdated information from any department on there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There needs to be a real process, a form that's filled out. What is it you want on there? When do you want it on, and when do you want it to come down, and what do you want it to say? And I don't -- I don't think we have that, do we, Mr. Trolinger? MR. TROLINGER: Well, informally via e-mail, yes. For instance, a job posting from H.R., I'll get an e-mail that specifies, "Post this for this time period." JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but I think if the County Clerk wants something on there, it's the County Clerk's 3-24-08 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 responsibility to communicate that to Mr. Trolinger, and if it needs to go on a specific date, come off a specific date, that communication needs to be made by him. But I don't -- I don't think he should have a responsibility to be rattling up all these various folks on a daily or weekly basis to say, "You got anything to update?" COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. JUDGE TINLEY: It's each individual or department's responsibility, and they're accountable for their own web site and material. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you're missing what I'm saying. It's a reflection on this Court and the County when there's bad information on that web site; I don't care what department it's in. And I don't know how we can make the elected officials monitor the information they have. If there's a -- a document up there, whatever type it is, and it's outdated, it needs to come off. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't know how -- you know, maybe just a memorandum from you telling people they need to monitor it. I think I really like what Commissioner Williams said about a form as to when it comes on, when it goes off, and make it -- you know, I think coming-off information is probably more important than coming-on information, because that's -- you know, it's just kind of 3-24-08 68 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ridiculous sometimes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. JUDGE TINLEY: But that ought to be a discharge of direct responsibility between that elected official or department head and the I.T. Department. Now, granted -- granted, if your phone rings because of something that was put on there that is now outdated by, say, the County Clerk's office, and there was no direction to take it off, yeah, your phone may ring, but your response to that is you don't control what goes on from the County Clerk's office. That's done via the County Clerk and the I.T. Department. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Trolinger, could we not develop a form in electronic format that you circulate once and forever to every department head or elected official that -- that states what's required for a posting on our web site, the item, when it goes on, when it comes off, and they fill that out electronically and send it back to you? MR. TROLINGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we do that? MR. TROLINGER: Yes, I can make an addendum to the I.T. policies and post it on the I.T. page to make it available quickly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good starting point. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's great. MR. TROLINGER: I will do that. 3-24-08 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good solution. JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My only issue, our office has had a separate web page for years, even longer than I.T. has, that we keep updated, okay? I have one person in my office that keeps that. It's a totally separate deal with the link from the county one. Now, I don't anticipate making any changes to mine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- my view is, the counties -- or the departments that have their own web site, that's their own responsibility. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MS. HYDE: That would include the County Clerk's office at this time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand. I mean, I just used that as an example. First one that popped to mind. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we done with that question? MS. GRINSTEAD: We talked about putting on the calendar of events, things that happen at the courthouse. Do you want us to include what happens at the Youth Exhibit Center when there's an event that the public's welcome at? I assume we're putting that on too? JUDGE TINLEY: If it's an event to which the public 3-24-08 ~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 is invited, there's not some sort of membership in an organization or something -- for example, the wild game dinner, week from -- well, it's this coming Saturday. That would be one. MS. GRINSTEAD: Exactly. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wouldn't ask you to post going out to the home tool show or whatever out there. That's private enterprise, by example. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're being paid to -- for the use of that facility for that period of time. Just a thought. MS. HYDE: We had -- when we talked about this before, if y'all think way back, Brad was supposed to get that information, and that calendar was to include everything at the Hill Country Exhibit Center, because people were paying for it. And that gave people where they could go out and look at that calendar in advance so they could plan or try to help plan events in the future. And then the other part of that had to do with our community page that had links to local organizations within the community, but you guys set guidelines for who could be on that. It couldn't be, you know, to sell happy tools, or whatever the tool thing is. You know, it had to be approved through the Court. And that's in the order, so I'm sure that we could pull the order back out. And we had a guideline; we had paperwork on how it 3-24-08 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was supposed to be turned in, the whole nine yards. JUDGE TINLEY: I suppose an amendment to the I.T. policy needs to take those things into consideration, wouldn't you think, Mr. Trolinger? MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TROLINGER: The H.R.'s point being that should we or should we not have a calendar that the Commissioners Court sponsors as part of the oversight of the Youth Exhibit Center. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, then, that leads to the question of who's going to keep the calendar, doesn't it? MS. HYDE: We had determined in the order that Jody would keep the calendar, present that calendar to Brad, or the I.T. Department, and they would post it on the web site. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Weekly. MS. HYDE: It was supposed to be done weekly, I think is what y'all said. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds like a good idea. JUDGE TINLEY: That squares. Okay, thank you. Let's move to Item 13 and see if we can get that done before our break. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve the memorandum of understanding regarding regional water and wastewater matters and range improvements. Which 3-24-08 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one of you guys want to launch this balloon? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My colleague from Precinct 3 probably -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- will lead this I discussion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we received, several months ago, a draft memorandum of understanding from U.G.R.A. Commissioner Williams and I met with members from U.G.R.A. and went over some comments and changes and recommendations that we had. I think they have incorporated our changes into the document. In the backup, there's a draft -- 4, I believe, is the most recent one. I'll turn it over to Curg in a minute. The other red-line version shows comments that -- or changes that were made based on Commissioner Williams and my recommendation, and also changes that were requested by either City of Kerrville and Headwaters. That's kind of where we are. Curg, do you have anything to add? MR. STARKEY: We'd appreciate passage. You're the first step. City Council's tomorrow night. Wednesday is Ingram, and Headwaters will be in April. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And just -- I think the -- you know, I think everyone's read it, but just the overall -- my understanding, the purpose of this is to show the community and to show the entities that we're going to work together on 3-24-08 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 regional water and wastewater issues. There's nothing in that document that commits anybody to do anything, to spend -- no money is addressed. It's just a matter of, you know, that we're going to work together. It sets out a lot of the, I guess, issues such as the U.G.R.A. permits, City of Kerrville's permits, that shared permit that they have which is bulk of surface water available to the public of Kerr County. Also, the memorandum of understanding the County has with G.B.R.A. This kind of puts everything into one document. I think it's a good -- you know, a good thing to do to get everyone on the same page and commit to work together. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does it enhance in any way anybody's ability to get grants? To gets grants? MR. STARKEY: Yes, because we're all working together. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good thing. MR. STARKEY: Each of the government entities -- there are no private entities mentioned in this MOU, obviously, but each of the entities has a particular role to play right now. They have an asset to bring to the table. In some cases, some have several. Some have one. But those roles we envision will be changing as the county grows and as situations change and projects become from thinking to reality. Roles will change. And if we all work together, 3-24-08 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 then, one, we can enhance the availability of the water that we do have right now, maybe improve that, and also work on our wastewater projects throughout the county to enhance quality of life, protect the quality of groundwater, surface water, et cetera. And we do that as a cost-effective means to the taxpayer, because we all work together. We all work it out. This memorandum of understanding does not mandate any spending at this point in time. It does not mandate any contractual agreement at this point in time. What it does ask, and what it does ask in good faith, is that we do all really seriously work together for the common good of the common citizen in this county, for those that are here now and those that are to come. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to respond to Commissioner Baldwin's comment, because it's a good question. It does show those agencies from whom we're seeking grants that we're on the same page on these issues and we're willing to work together. To me, this is just memorializing what we've done in Kerrville South. MR. STARKEY: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what we intend to do going forward in the Center Point and the eastern Kerr County sewer project and water project. And it's a lot easier to explain to Texas Water Development Board or U.S.D.A., R.U.S. or whomever, that, yes, everybody's on the same page. We 3-29-08 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agree these are good projects, and we're going to work together. There are some other things in this memorandum which I think are important, and it shows that we're willing to lend support to the River Authority in its efforts with respect to obtaining water rights, not that we -- not that we have any tremendous expertise other than Commissioner Letz' expertise, which is -- which is probably greater than all of us put together. But I think it's just a good step forward, and I support it along with -- only other comment I would add is, while it looks like Kerr County has rewritten the whole thing, that's really not the case. I sometimes have a -- have a desire to state things a little more succinctly, and that's what we've done here. So, I support it. MR. STARKEY: This issue was a hangover from a previous life. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One thing that I really haven't spent much time on, probably one of the really important parts, is range improvement. That is an issue that Kerr County has been left out of the limited state funding that's come out, and probably some of the federal funding that's come out because we really haven't had a specific plan in place. And U.G.R.A. has taken the foresight here, and I really commend them for it, to do a study which is currently underway to really memorialize some of the data and look at some spring flows and things of that nature. But the purpose 3-24-08 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of this and this current study is to go to the Legislature in Austin, and to the U.S.D.A., and figure out how we can get additional funds for range improvement, whether it be cedar eradication, spreader dams, spring flow, you know, studies, whatever we need to really improve the quality and the quantity of water in the river. Because this is probably the cheapest way for us to get more water to Kerr County, is to get increased spring flow, especially in the western part of the county. I think it's a real good -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. And that actually was the only area that I was disappointed in this entire document, Chairman Starkey, is the fact that verbiage like, "God created cedar trees to cut down" -- (Laughter.) That's what they're for. They're not to drink water, and we need to cut the cedars. And I was kind of hoping to see that kind of language in there. MR. STARKEY: Honorable Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I assume when you go to Austin, I will hear that kind of language? MR. STARKEY: Honorable Commissioner, we are trying to be -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's this? MR. STARKEY: -- very politically correct today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. But you've got to take the gloves off on those guys up there. 3-24-08 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I hate -- or Mr. Starkey, I hate to come to this thing so late in the game. I've got one very tiny question about wording. MR. STARKEY: Sir? JUDGE TINLEY: Page 1, under Item 2, the sixth line down. "Appoint representatives who will mutually identify senior water rights..." The word "mutually," I think, either needs to be eliminated or substituted with the word "each." Either way, I think, works. But that's the only -- and, like I say, I apologize for coming at this late date. I realize y'all are in pretty much a final format. MR. STARKEY: Well, "mutual" would be to the mutual of benefit of all, in that context. Not that we would get into a competing -- competing bidding war between various entities to purchase water rights, so we mutually go out and do these things together. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Actually, -- MR. STARKEY: It also speaks -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- the point -- I think the Judge's point is right. "Mutually" should come out of there. JUDGE TINLEY: Or put it in before the word "attempt" in the next line, where it deals with the negotiation either way. I see your point, though. We're not going to try and get in some sort of a contest of who can acquire various rights -- 3-24-08 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. STARKEY: For the mutual benefit of all. JUDGE TINLEY: -- to the detriment of someone else. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we approve the memorandum of understanding -- is that with or without this change? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure if it's with or without at this point. JUDGE TINLEY: Take a look at it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just suggest you take a look at it. MR. STARKEY: We'll do that. JUDGE TINLEY: Been looking at it for months, right? MR. STARKEY: Yeah, for a while. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good things come to those who wait. MR. STARKEY: Three years to get to the starting point. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good things come to those who wait. JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to launch this balloon. MR. STARKEY: Pragmatism works on occasion. JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on the 3-24-08 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 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We`11 be in recess for 15 minutes. MR. STARKEY: Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate it. (Recess taken from 10:39 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we might. We were in a short recess, and we'll take up our timed item for 10:45, Number 14, to discuss and take appropriate action to designate, by resolution, Grantworks as the planning service provider for the 2007 Texas Community Development Block Grant Colonia Planning project 727125. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. With us here today is Ms. Betty Collier of Grantworks. She came down from Austin to talk to the Court and answer the questions and find out whether or not her company's going to be designated. And I can assure you, you are going to be designated, 'cause you're the only one that submitted a proposal, and therefore, we don't have to score; we can award. But I think it would 3-24-08 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be helpful, Betty, if you would step the Court through exactly what is planned, which I believe is entailed in your response; what you plan to do for Kerr County, Center Point, Westwood Park, Hill River Country Estates, and then we'll get to the resolution and see if we can make that happen. MS. COLLIER: Okay. Well, first, thank you for letting us be here today, and congratulations on getting this -- this grant. It is considered an area Colonia Planning Grant, which, as the Commissioner said, was focused on Center Point and the area right around Center Point. It's a $30,000 grant, which we will be driving the areas, mapping the -- doing a base map of all those areas, and then doing what we call a housing inventory and an analysis showing you the conditions of the housing, and then your road system and your storm drainage systems. All of this will be outlined on about five or six different maps. And at the -- after we've done the initial drive-through and initial mapping, we will come to you with those maps and do a short workshop and make sure that we haven't missed anything, or if there's not something that you need a little more explanation on, or any of the areas that maybe you feel like we just didn't quite do enough for, but we -- then we'll have a -- we'll go back and revise the maps under your advisement, and then we'll come back to you with the final product and a final written analysis of all of those areas, and a 10-year comprehensive 3-24-08 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plan for those areas. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is particularly valuable for future planning with respect to road improvements, waste -- stormwater takeoff, if that's a problem. You don't get into such things as environmental type things, such as sewers and so forth, water? MS. COLLIER: This -- this particular amount of money doesn't go into your -- well, you don't have water systems or sewer systems servicing any of those areas, correct? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have engineering going on right now for that purpose. MS. COLLIER: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For a Water Development Board grant. MS. COLLIER: But this will give us some guidance on future community development grants that may be eligible projects in those areas for -- for the County to consider. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a Texas Community Development Block Grant; is that correct, through the -- MS. COLLIER: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development? MS. COLLIER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, let me move 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 the resolution and see if anybody has any questions. There is a resolution in your packet, gentlemen, that awards this grant in the amount of $30,000 to Grantworks to do the work as detailed in their -- in their presentation to the Commissioners Court. And as I noted earlier, they were the only submittal to the RFP -- through the RFP process; therefore, we don't have to go through the scoring mechanism that we would if we had two or more responses. So, with that, I would move the resolution that's contained in your packet awarding this work to Grantworks for professional services, planning services under the Colonia Planning Fund Contract 727125. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We will go to Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to designate by resolution authorized signatory, being the County Judge, County Treasurer, and County Auditor, for the 2007 Texas Community Development Block Grant Colonia Planning Project 727125. Commissioner Williams? 3-24-08 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a companion ~I resolution, Judge, and it does exactly what you said. It sets out who are the signatory on behalf of the County with respect to this particular grant. And so everybody clearly understands, Grantworks does all the paperwork. Is that correct? MS. COLLIER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it would be -- any documents that have to be signed will be signed by the County Judge, or perhaps the Treasurer or the Auditor in the absence of the County Judge; is that correct? MS. COLLIER: This is setting up the signatory for the -- the Judge has already been assigned as the executive officer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. MS. COLLIER: This assigns all the other documentation. This is more for the money part. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. COLLIER: This will be who signs the check and who signs the draw and the purchase -- the purchase form -- purchase voucher forms. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's more the Treasurer and the Auditor. MS. COLLIER: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Move the resolution 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 84 as presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the resolution, as per the agenda item. Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you, Ms. Collier. MS. COLLIER: Thank you, Judge. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And let us know when you're going to be get started, please. MR. STARKEY: Okay, we will. It won't be long. I guess I'll see you next week. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. COLLIER: In San Antonio. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 31st -- MS. COLLIER: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: -- I believe is our -- hopefully it won't be an all-day session. MS. COLLIER: I hope not. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to our 11 o'clock timed 3-24-08 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 item, Number 16; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on resolution from the Texas Farm Bureau concerning eminent domain. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I put this on the agenda at the request of the Texas Farm Bureau. And after I visited with one of their local representatives, I talked to Bob Dittmar about this topic, and it's something I support, and I'll turn it over to the Farm Bureau. MR. DUNCAN: Yes, sir. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Court today. My name is Les Duncan -- JUDGE TINLEY: Please give your name and address to the court reporter. MR. DUNCAN: I'm sorry. My name is Les Duncan; I'm president of Kerr County Farm Bureau, and my address is 1257 F.M. 1340, Hunt, Texas, 78024. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. MR. DUNCAN: This resolution is being called for because in 2006, the Texas Legislature passed an eminent domain reform bill, and Governor Perry vetoed that bill. The Legislature overwhelmingly passed that bill, and it was vetoed too late in the session for it to be -- for the veto to be overturned. The Farm Bureau -- Texas Farm Bureau is attempting to get that bill passed again in the next legislative session. We are coming to you because the 3-24-08 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 governor cited opposition by city and county officials across the state to the bill as part -- as part of the reason for COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess I have one. I was just commenting to the Judge -- or showing the Judge something here. Basically, I'm supporting what you're about, but I do have one question that goes to Item Number 5 on the survey of eminent domain reform, which says, "I support a definition of public use that prohibits the condemnation of private property for economic development." There are situations that arise where -- where eminent domain has been used for the public's benefit -- not public use, but public benefit, through economic development. Does this wording in your survey -- it would seem to me that it would -- that it would stifle that. What if we had an opportunity -- I just ask the question rhetorically. What if we had an opportunity to acquire through eminent domain a piece of property upon which some sort of a facility that was going to ultimately provide 25, 50, or 100 jobs for Kerr County? That's not public use in the -- in the typical sense, but that is to the public's benefit by reason of economic development in that definition. How do you respond to that? 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 87 MR. DUNCAN: Well, do you mind if I refer to an expert in the -- more of an expert? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whomever. MR. DUNCAN: Regan Beck is a legislative -- from Austin, and I'll let him respond to that. MR. BECK: Thank you. My name is Regan Beck. I live in Austin, Texas, at 5112 Crestway Drive. And, in response to your question, I guess there was a huge outcry about that very type of thing with the Kelo case up in Connecticut. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. MR. BECK: What they were doing is, they were taking houses and they were condemning them so they could have an economic development in that area, because it would raise more tax money and have more jobs. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I remember that issue. MR. BECK: Yes, sir. And that's probably one of the things that really brought the whole eminent domain situation to the forefront of a lot of people's attention. We would be opposed to condemning property for economic development. If there's a secondary -- if you condemn property for a public use, for actually a public facility, that's fine. And if there's a secondary economic benefit, that's fine too. But to condemn property and take it from individuals to give to other individuals for economic 3-29-08 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 development, we're opposed to that. We think that that is not truly a public use. And you should only have this great power if it's for a public use. And that kind of situation where it's for economic development, we think you need to negotiate with those property owners, pay them the fair market value, and then go on with that economic development. JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, what you're saying is your position on this matter is that any ultimate or subsequent use by the private sector of property which is taken through the eminent domain process is something that you're against, period. MR. BECK: We're very concerned -- yes. Yes, we are. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. BECK: We would think if you take this, it should be either used by the public or have some benefit to the public, not given to other private individuals, no, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's the key point, and I support this. I think it is fine to use it for economic development to build -- say you want to build a convention center that's going to be operated or owned by the county. I probably wouldn't support it in this county, but, you know, I could see that being a public use. But for -- to use a governmental entity to condemn a piece of private property and turn it over to a developer to make a profit off 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 of, I am totally against that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what they're addressing here, as I read it. MR. BECK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that point. And that goes back to the Connecticut situation, where -- where they condemned the whole block or two or whatever, turned it over to the developer, and he's going to make apartment houses or something out of it. I agree with that. MR. BECK: That's -- yes, sir, and that's what we're really aiming towards. And, in fact, the Legislature already addressed that somewhat in Senate Bill 7 back in 2005. And we just want to carry that on further in the statute to solidify it, because -- so we don't have that I situation in the future. There's a case down on the coast right now; they're trying to condemn some property that belongs to these people that do shrimping; it's a shrimp house. They want to make a marina, so they want to take away that property from these people and make this marina, and ~I they want to do it by condemnation instead of just negotiating with these people, giving them fair market value. And that's what we're opposed to, those kind of things. JUDGE TINLEY: The ultimate owner and operator of the marina would become a private sector organization. 3-24-08 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BECK: That's true. JUDGE TINLEY: Or -- okay. MR. BECK: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Question. There was a constitutional amendment issue placed on the ballot, if I'm not mistaken, was there not, dealing with this very -- very issue, on eminent domain? MR. BECK: Yes, sir. You're talking about the one in the last election, this last vote? There was -- there was a constitutional amendment that said that if you're a condemning entity and you take somebody's property and you don't use it for the next ten years for that public purpose, it can revert back to those property owners. Right now, the way it works is, if you take that property ten years ago, whatever the fair market value is, ten years later when you was going to sell it back to those property owners, you would sell it at the fair market value at that time. What that amendment did was say, you can sell it back to those property owners at the same price that you paid for it, so those ~, property owners are not hurt. They go on and get the appreciation in value, because you never actually used their property that was really those property owners' in the first place. JUDGE TINLEY: Was there not -- maybe it was a referendum dealing with this very issue that you're placing 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 91 before us today, exercise of eminent domain power to -- to benefit economic development by -- by private owner. MR. BECK: Not that I'm aware. There is Senate Bill 7, which passed in 2005, and it dealt with this very same issue. The only problem with that Senate Bill that we see is there's a lot of exceptions, a lot of holes in it. And the biggest example, I would say, from that bill is the Dallas Cowboy stadium. They exempted that and excepted it so they could condemn that property for that stadium, and that's really been a -- I would say a black eye on stopping that kind of abuse. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. MR. BECK: Thank y'all very much. JUDGE TINLEY: My only question is -- I want you to hang in here for me just for a second. MR. BECK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On the survey, the Number 4 -- and I talked with Dr. Dittmar about it the other day briefly. It says, I support compensating a property owner for the devaluation of the remaining portion of the property because of lack -- because of loss of access to the property. I'm 110 percent with you except on that one. I can't quite get my brain wrapped around that. To give you an example -- just give you a small example, let's say this county condemns a strip -- a very narrow, but long, strip of property for a 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 92 road right-of-way. And that may total up a full acre at some point. And then we compensate that property owner for that 500 acres that's back there that he can't get to his property, or the 1 acre that he can't get to his property? See, in my mind, that needs to be defined more clearly. I mean, are we going to compensate him for -- who knows what's back there? MR. BECK: Well, sir -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this an open-ended -- MR. BECK: No, sir, it's not. Not at all. And the reason this case -- or the reason we have this as part of our survey is, currently, the courts have imposed a threshold test. If you've got a piece of property and, say, you take part of that property and the property owner still has a remainder, if the -- the remaining property is devalued because of the diminished access, the courts currently say, well, if they have any kind of access -- if this is a main road, but they've got a caliche road around the back, they don't have diminished access. It's got to be completely cut off. What we're saying is, if you -- say a roadway -- you go out and extend it out and you widen that roadway. All we're asking for is, whatever that property -- how much it's decreased in value because it's lost that access, you pay for that. In fact, in a lot of cases when you have a new roadway coming through, the remaining property is increased in value 3-24-08 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because they have better access. You know, they have the new road. But in those particular situations where they're cut off and just -- one example that we really see is, like, the Trans Texas Corridor. If you've got this big road coming through and all these people are cut off from going around to their property, and they've got to go 20 miles around, you've really diminished their access. Or they -- or they've got a farm-to-market road that's going across there, and it's cut off and they no longer have that farm-to-market road, they've lost part of their property to this, you've really hurt them. And this only applies to people that actually lose property to the condemnation. It doesn't apply to other people that are back away from it, but if you actually lose part of your property, that's when it would come into effect. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You won me over when you used the term "Trans Texas Corridor." I'm with you. MR. BECK: Yes, sir, thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know how a government entity would budget for something like that. I mean, how do you get prepared for it? I guess you just bite that bullet when it comes along. But I'm there. Okay. I'm ready. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- and I think it happened a great deal with that when I-10 went in; I'm sure all interstates, but I know there are quite of few of my 3-24-08 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 constituents -- I know -- I'm sure Bruce has some that ended up with landlocked pieces of property adjoining the interstate. They couldn't get to -- I mean, I guess you could walk down the interstate right-of-way, but you could you know, that's just the way it was done. I mean, and it's been a -- a huge financial hit to some of those people as to the value of the property. Now that the cities have grown, population's coming up, the larger tracts, those people are generally able to negotiate underpasses over the interstate or something like that. It's the little slivers that were cut off where people got hit pretty hard on that. One thing I would -- just a general comment. I like the format of coming up with a resolution, you know, that doesn't address a specific bill. Bills change so much, I always really have a problem with doing resolutions on a specific bill. This is a much more a general philosophy-type approach that I prefer, something like this. And which resolution, I mean, I think the -- my preference would be the first one. It's shorter. They say the same thing; the whereas's are almost identical. Doesn't make that much difference to me. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: From past experience with dealing with eminent domain and acquiring right-of-way for various things in my precinct, most times the people are not willing to sell. They're not willing to negotiate at any 3-24-08 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 price, and so it winds up going to district court to make that determination. And by doing that, they normally are compensated more than they would have been if they would have agreed to what would have been a fair market price that could have been agreed on by the county or state or government. And in that process, they wind up getting a tremendous amount of money for a -- for very small pieces of property lots of times, and access problems or whatever. But I don't -- you know, I actually support what you're trying to do. But the court system in the past has insured that a lot of that already happened. Even when the -- and that's what happens when the entities and the owners can not agree. But I know for sure that they were well compensated, more so than they would have been had they agreed to some price before it went to court. So, they have been protected in most cases, especially, I would say, in the last 15 or 20 years. The Interstate 10 thing was back in the '60's, and I know of instances where there was no access at all, and the property was just there and the only people that had an advantage were the ones that owned property adjacent to it that actually wound up purchasing it for very little, because it had no access. MR. BECK: Right. And what we've seen is there's been a number of recent cases that have really sort of eroded those property owners' rights, and that's what we're sort of 3-29-08 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 trying to address here, and as far as having somebody that's recalcitrant and won't even work with you, that's what we think eminent domain is for. So, you've got to go on and negotiate. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Totally agree. MR. BECK: But we just can't it done in a fair i manner. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Totally agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to approve the first shorter resolution as presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second. Question or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have one more -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- one more question, please. I've made kind of a study of Governor Perry. I can't figure out what makes the guy tick and work, and it's a full-time job. And you're -- ', MR. BECK: We would appreciate any insight you could give us as well. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, he understands clearly how I feel, believe me. In your talking points here, when you talk about the reason for him vetoing the bill -- I'm assuming this is yours. 3-24-08 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BECK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever. Is that one of the excuse -- reasons? It would require compensation to be paid to property owners whose land was not even condemned? And I go back to our picture that we drew earlier where we -- the County condemned a piece of property for the right-of-way, and that property owner still had some land in the back, and so we're going to compensate him, because you can't access it, can't get to it, can't do anything with it. Now, what about someone else, somebody else's property back there that wasn't affected in the condemnation? MR. BECK: And this only affects people that have lost property due to condemnation. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. MR. BECK: And it's lessened in value because of that. If you have not actually had any of your property I taken, you get no compensation at a11. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A11 right. But the governor tried to say that that was a part of the picture. MR. BECK: They went back -- there was a case in 1993 called Schmidt that was in Austin; it's where they did that 183 overpass. I don't know if y'all have ever seen it, but it was a lot of stop lights, and they made, like, an overpass, and some people sued and they said that they've lost value because the circuitry of travel, visibility, 3-24-08 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 traffic patterns, all of these things, and the Court said you cannot get paid for those things and those are more community damages than special damages just to you. And sort of what we heard his reasoning is, what we were trying to put back in there were those different factors, and we're not. We don't want that. We think that the only people who get paid is if you lose property. And, really, we're just interested in diminished access. We think that's what would really help, or could really hurt rural property owners. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Thank you very much. MR. BECK: Sir, thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The survey is just for us to -- if we choose to fill it out and send back to you at some future time? MR. BECK: Yes, sir. In fact, I guess that's what we had asked for first, is the survey, if y'all wouldn't mind just filling it out individually, that we had asked y'all to do that. And I guess, from my understanding, you prefer a resolution, so that would be fine with us as well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think y'all prepared the resolution. I just thought the resolution made more sense, if y'all were trying to get input to the governor. MR. BOHNERT: Could I ask a question on that? When you're talking about property immediately being affected, does that include if property beyond that piece of property 3-24-08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 had an easement, and that easement was affected to get to that piece of property? I mean, his access would actually be cut off also. MR. BECK: The way it is right now, no, they would not get compensated for that loss of the easement. The only people in the -- in the statute, that governor's condemnation and eminent domain, the only people that get compensated are the ones that actually lose property to part of that condemnation. Now, it may be a legal question that you have to research. If there was an easement or part of the easement, maybe they did lose part of their property. That would be a special situation we have to look into. But, generally, you have actually to lose some property, or possibly an easement, so possibly so. MR. BOHNERT: That would be legal access, is what I was getting at. MR. BECK: Right. Right. That question has not been brought up yet, so I can't say for sure. Thank y'all. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It would appear to me that you're not -- that the state -- state agency or entity would not be able to landlock somebody who already had an existing easement. You couldn't just cut the thing off. That's illegal. MR. DUNCAN: I have -- 3-24-08 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can't do it. MR. DUNCAN: I have a resolution that's already been filled out, the blanks, that I've already -- JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe we need to look at that one, yeah. Okay. Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. MR. DUNCAN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 19, if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on the Road and Bridge audit, internal audit for Road and Bridge having been completed. Ms. Hargis? MS. HARGIS: I think all of you have in front of you a copy of the audit stating that the internal audit found the Road and Bridge in very good condition, that they were following the internal control well, and we found no deficiencies. JUDGE TINLEY: So-called clean audit. MS. HARGIS: So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You need a motion to accept? Is that what you need? 3-24-08 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for 30 years, so it's kind of hard for me to change my language. Sorry. JUDGE TINLEY: It's not going to take me 30 years to change it, is it? MS. HARGIS: I hope not. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I've been presented with monthly reports for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; and District Clerk. Do I hear a motion to approve those reports as presented? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve the named reports as presented. 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 -- any of you gentlemen concerning your liaison or committee assignments? Commissioner 1? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Two? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we've dealt with some of ours at the beginning of the meeting. No. JUDGE TINLEY: Three? 3-24-08 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing additional. JUDGE TINLEY: Four? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Most of you, I think, have received an e-mail or a copy of an e-mail dealing with the inquiry that's gone on concerning possible pooling health benefits with the City. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Because of -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't see it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, you didn't see it. Bottom line is -- we'll get you copies of it -- the demographics are such that they just -- doesn't seem like it's worth pursuing at this time, because -- because the demographics are too far apart to make it feasible to pursue. We haven't even run this by our own consultant. The City's consultant says his analysis of the demographics indicates that, so that'll be on the shelf. If we need to look at it later, we will. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In that case, I don't need to see the e-mail. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. If it's not going to work, don't send me a copy. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We got out of that, didn't we? Okay. Any reports from elected officials? Department heads? 3-24-08 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sheriff. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Sheriff. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a good one. You and I already talked about it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I just want to make sure y'all were aware -- the meeting did get canceled last week -- the Sheriff's Office was approached and consequently received a grant for $135,000 to upgrade security here at the courthouse and at the J.P. 4 and Tax Office in Ingram. That will include cameras, panic systems that would be straight to Sheriff's Office radios and that, and below level downstairs, badge entry on that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that below level going to get the card entry? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, below level will be card entry. We'll get more of an exact as soon as their people can come up and we do the final walk-through and see exactly where they're going to start and how they're going to install everything, which should be about third week of April. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds like a winner. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Sheriff. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Welcome. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other elected officials? Department heads? Okay, let's go back on our agenda to Items 3-24-08 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 and 18. Item 18 is definitely going to be an executive session item. Item 17, let me call that item. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to finalize job descriptions of Human Resources Director and employees of the Human Resources Department. Far as I know, most of that should be something we can handle in the clear, open and public. Anybody think any differently about that? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Particularly the County Attorney? MR. EMERSON: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If there are any executive matters, we'll do those when we go to consider Item 17. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hello, Ms. Hyde. MS. HYDE: Hello. JUDGE TINLEY: That thing has been staffed almost into oblivion, hasn't it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a few changes. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, just a few. Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Minor. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Most of them are minor. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. MS. HYDE: There were a few recommended word changes. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go to Page 2, if I might. There's an inquiry you have in the middle of the page, when 3-24-08 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you're talking about retirement and 457. Should the worker's comp and unemployment be added? That's essentially a -- a payroll and personnel-type function, isn't it? (Ms. Hyde nodded.) JUDGE TINLEY: Wouldn't that naturally follow from the functions of your office of payroll administration and also the safety program, the personnel status, whether or not they're present for duty, whether they're on leave or sick or whatever? MS. HYDE: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I don't think you had them here; I think they're already implied. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had marked my copy okay, because in our discussions, I think maybe we failed to talk about workmen's comp and unemployment as such in this context, but I don't have a problem with it either way, in or out, you know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's added, I don't think it should be added under this bullet. 'Cause these are -- I think this bullet came out of discussions about -- JUDGE TINLEY: Retirement. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- retirement and the 457 -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- issues. And, to, me the worker's comp/unemployment comes either under insurance stuff 3-24-08 107 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 or dealing with payroll-type functions. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frankly, that's a better place for it, under insurance matters such as that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if you need -- if you think you need to add it under one of those two other areas -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a comment, because there are a lot of things that are underlined and changed and so forth. And going back to Ms. Hyde's notation at the back that the changes within the document were recommended by Commissioners Letz and Williams, during the discussion, Jonathan and I had a long discussion with Ms. Hyde, and what we tried really to do was to get a little better understanding of her -- for everybody's purposes, as to what her intent was with respect to the Human Resources Director's job description. And the changes that we've suggested, we think, accomplish that. At least in our minds, they accomplish that. They're better understood; they leave less to misinterpretation. They -- in my mind, they put down any -- any thought of job description expansion into areas that are not intended to be there, and I think it just leads to a better understanding of what the position's all about. But when we finished with that, and Eva was good enough to prepare this red-line for all these suggested changes, it was our thought that this discussion needed to take place here today. These were just the suggestions of two Commissioners. 3-24-08 108 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 They may not be acceptable to other people at this table. (Cell phone rang.) I'll call you back. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you still talking to us? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll call you back, too. JUDGE TINLEY: What are your feelings about how this thing has evolved and where it is right now in draft form? Do you think it properly encompasses the things that appropriately fit within your office that -- not only what you've been tasked to do, but also what should logically follow with the other functions that you are required to perform? MS. HYDE: I know this could come with some disagreement, so I ask that you give me a second to voice the entire concept. Everything that was in here that talked about financials has been marked out, but there's a large portion of my duties right now that deal with financials, so I feel at times I've gotten crossways because of some wording, or implied, this is what part of my job is. And I just want to make sure that y'all do understand that paying the bills, reconciling those bills, researching those bills, and then requesting for those bills to be paid is done in H.R. right now. So, I just want to make sure that you guys are in agreement with that, because if not, then we need to pull them out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't have a 3-24-08 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 problem with what you just described in terms of reconciling all the insurance coverages to make certain that those bills are correct, because we went through an experience where we paid bills that were incorrect. MS. HYDE: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So I don't have any problem with that at all, nor do I have a problem with -- with your being on top of the issues related to payroll. None whatsoever. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- yeah, and I agree ', with that. I mean, to me, yes, there's a lot of things that you do have a little working with financial on the insurance side and the pension plan types, payroll. Obviously, your own personal -- well, not your own personal, but your -- your department budget. But I don't see that you have -- outside of payroll, I don't think you have any business with the Sheriff's budget and financial matters. Which I knew would get his attention. And that's all I'm saying. I think it needs to be -- I mean, your focus is -- I mean, and that area is the Sheriff's, bills between his department and the Auditor and the Treasurer. MS. HYDE: I don't think there's anything in there that says that. I think that where there is some -- like we talked about in our meeting, my assumption had been that anything in here, it was understood it was relating to H.R. 3-24-08 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and personnel, but I don't think that everyone took it that way. And I think you guys brought up a really good point, because they can be read or misread. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MS. HYDE: So, you know, there's a lot of H.R, in there and personnel in there now. But, again, there's nothing in there that says you guys really want me to pay those bills or be responsible for them. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the actual disbursements, no, but everything up to the point of directing disbursement -- MS. HYDE: No, the reason -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- relative to all those functions, I think, is appropriately yours. MS. HYDE: I think that what we do right now, how we've put it together is, I get the bills, I reconcile the bills, and then I request payment. I take that upstairs to the Auditor. The Auditor looks it over, makes sure it's okay. I give it to them. They send it downstairs to be paid. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, when you administer -- develop and administer H.R. functions, I don't see how you can do the H.R. function if you're not authorizing payment of payroll. I mean, I don't -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She's basically authorizing it to be paid based on what has been presented her as the 3-24-08 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 timesheets by all the elected officials, where she has reconciled all that to make sure that it's correct before it goes to the Auditor, and ultimately to the Treasurer to be paid. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I don't see how you can administer without doing that. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, you can't. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says "administer" in here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody's saying the same thing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They are. JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds to me like there may have just been a -- a misunderstanding of communication, or maybe a failure of communication. What you're seeking, then, is confirmation of that concept? MS. HYDE: Oh, absolutely. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay. Okay. Sounds to me like you got it. Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Whether it was meant to have her to do as many things as she's doing or not, it is necessary she do all of the things relating to personnel, which includes, you know, reconciling the amounts to be paid. JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And insurance and all that stuff to be submitted for payment, make sure we don't overpay 3-29-08 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For example, we were in a little bit of turnover and change in Maintenance, and I think she got more involved in that department than, by her job description, she should have. And you did it -- not that you should have -- because you were asked to do it, and you did it, but that's not something that should be your normal job description to work with other department heads on their personal budget, other than a training standpoint to teach them one time. If we have anyone in any department that works for Commissioners Court that can't prepare their own budgets, we need to find new department heads. That's -- I think they need to be given the tools how to do it, and work with -- primarily with the Auditor or whoever to learn that. But that's kind of where I was on the financial side. I think that, you know, from a training standpoint, we certainly have to give all of our people the tools to be able to do their job, and that will mean, for some people, getting sent to some financial schools to understand budgeting. And that can be done in-house through you or through the Auditor 3-24-08 113 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 or through whoever. But at some point, you know, the -- the apron strings need to be cut. They need to be on their own, or, you know -- or whatever. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Go ahead and finish it. Don't just stop there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll stop there. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably need to train somebody to deal with the cattle guards in Precinct 3. You know, there's a -- there's a whole damn job all by itself, right there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds that way. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably requires staff. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A career opportunity. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Career opportunity. Just don't take out cattle guards without talking to people. JUDGE TINLEY: Probably going to require some foreign language training, too, wouldn't you think? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Taking out cattle guards comes in under Commissioner 101. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What's your pleasure, gentlemen? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you asking today in this agenda item? 3-24-08 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Approval? MS. HYDE: If y'a11 -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we approve the H.R. Director's job description as presented, which has had modifications, or as presented. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second that. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question or discussion? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Does that get you where you need to be? MS. HYDE: Mm-hmm. I'll have copies of the notes, and that way I can attach the notes. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, we're all in agreement I here? MS. HYDE: I hope so. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. Including you? MS. HYDE: I hope so. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, that's what I wanted to know. JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. The only 3-24-08 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other item we have is without question an executive session item. So, it is 11:47, and we will go out of open or public '~ session to go into executive session to consider Item 18. (The open session was closed at 11:47 a.m., and an executive session was held, the transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It is -- it is 12:06, and we'll go into public or open session. Does any member of the Court have anything to offer in connection with matters considered in executive session? Does any member of the Court feel like it may be necessary to give any further consideration to any matters that are on this agenda, that it might be more appropriate to recess, as opposed to adjourn the meeting? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you -- are you thinking about related to major executive session type items, or is there something else you're thinking about? JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not thinking about anything. I'm just trying to keep the options open if we want to keep them open. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I don't know of any. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have anything, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: In that case, we'll be adjourned. 3-24-08 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:07 p.m.) STATE OF TEXAS ~ COUNTY OF KERR ~ The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 27th day of March, 2008. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk Kath~~~~nik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 3-24-08 ORDER NO. 30770 A CHILD'S PLACE LEARNING CENTF,R USE OF HILL COUNTRY YOUTH EXHIBIT CENTER Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Include a Child's Place Learning Center on our Non-Profit List for rental fees for the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. ORDER NO. 30771 DISTRICT CLERK BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR RECORDS PRESERVATION Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. "hhe Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the request from the District Clerk, Linda Uecker, to approve a budget amendment to allocate an additional $24,000.00 from the $78,629.90 remaining in 28-635-411 (Records Preservation) to finish the project of imaging all old records currently on microfilm. ORDER NO. 30772 PURCHASE OF VEHICLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND ANIMAL CONTROL Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the purchase of five (5) vehicles; four 4x2s and one 4x4. Two vehicles for Animal Control, including the 4x4, and three vehicles for Environmental Health. ORDER NO. 30773 APRIL 2008 CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION & AWARENESS MONTH IN KERB COUNTY Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Declare April, 2008, as Child Abuse Prevention & Awareness Month in Kerr County, and approve use of the courthouse grounds for a kickoff event on April 1, 2008 from 5:30 - 7:00 p.m., and blue ribbons will be tied on the courthouse trees during the month of April. ORDER NO. 30774 ABANDON, VACATE AND DISCONTINUE FOSSLER ROAD Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Set a public hearing for April 28, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. to abandon, vacate and discontinue Fossler Road, located in Precinct 4. ORDER NO. 30775 FINAL PLAT OF HEADWATERS RANCH, PHASE 1 & 2, PRECINCT 4 Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Final Plat of Headwaters Ranch, Phases 1 & 2, located in Precinct 4. ORDER NO. 30776 ANNUAL BIDS FOR ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT FOR ROAD BASE, COLD MIX, AGGREGATE, EMULSION OIL AND CORRUGATED METAL PIPE Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Accept all bids and refer them to Road & Bridge for recommendation: 1. Walter Masters for Base Material 2. Wilson Culverts, Inc. for Corrugated Metal Pipe 3. Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Inc. for Emulsion Oils ~. Wheatcraft, Inc. for Base Material 5. SemMaterials, L.P. for Emulsion Oils 6. Allen Keller Company for Base Material 7. Vulcan Materials Company for Paving Aggregates and Hot Mix-Cold Laid Asphaltic Concrete Pavement 8. Reeh Quarry, L.P. for Base Material 9. Martin Marietta Materials for Paving Aggregates 10. Martin Marietta Materials for Base Material 1 1. Martin Marietta Materials for Hot Mix-Cold Laid Asphaltic Concrete Pavement; and 12. Contech Construction Products, Inc. for Corrugated Metal Pipe ORDER NO. 30777 ROAD LIST FOR EVALUATION BY CITY OF KERRVILLE hOR YUSSIBLE ANNEXATION Came to he heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Road List and authorize the County Judge to send a cover letter to the City Manager, including the List as amended: Remove: Frederick, George Muck, Loma Vuelta, Loyal Valley, Ridge, Royal Oaks, Shannon and Riverview. ORDER NO. 30778 TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES PLANNING WORKSHOP WITH TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letr. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Set May 12, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. for a Transportation Priorities Planning Workshop with the Texas Department of Transportation, inviting to attend the City of Kerrville, UGRA, KEDF, Kerrville Area Chamber of Commerce and the City of Ingram. ORDER NO. 30779 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER MATTERS AND RANGE IMPROVEMENTS Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Memorandum of Understanding regarding Regional Water and Wastewater matters and Range Improvements, looking at a possible correction on Page 1, Paragraph II, Line 6, eliminate the word mutually. ORDER NO. 30780 RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE GRANTWORKS AS PLANNING SERVIC'I? PROVIDER FOR PROJECT 727125 Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Move the Resolution as contained in the packet awarding Grantworlcs as the planning service provider for the 2007 Texas Community Development Block Grant Colonia Planning Project Contract No. 727125. ORDER NO. 30781 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNATORS FOR THE 2007 TEXAS CDBG COLONIA PLANNING PROJECT NO. 727125 Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin/Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Resolution to designate authorized signatory (County Judge, County Treasurer and the County Auditor) for the 2007 Texas Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Colonia Planning Project No. 727125. ORDER NO. 30782 RESOLUTION CONCERNING EMINF,NT DOMAIN FROM THE TEXAS FARM BUREAU Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Resolution from the Texas Farm Bureau concerning Eminent Domain. ORDER NO. 30783 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: Accounts Expense 10-General $ 190,282.11 14-Fire Protection $ 10,783.95 15-Road & Bridge $ 49,258.92 18-County Law Library $ 1,740.96 50-Indigent Health Care $ 40,483.91 59-Gent Contractual Oblig $ 1,000.00 76-Juv Detention Facility $ 237.43 77-LEOSE Funds $ 563.96 TOTAL $ 294,351.24 Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts. ORDER NO. 30784 MONTHLY REPOR'T'S Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports: JT' #2 JP #4 District Clerk ORDER NO. 30785 HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT JOB DESCRIPTIONS Came to be heard this the 24th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Human Resources Director's Job Description as presented.