1 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, August 24, 2009 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 C~ 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 I N D E X August 24, 2009 --- Commissioners' Comments 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action, at the request of Big Brothers/Big Sisters, to sign a joint proclamation designating August 30, 2009 - September 5, 2009, as "Mentoring Week" in the Hill County 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve the Central Counting Station personnel pursuant to Chapter 127 TEC 1.3 Consider/discuss, approve appointment of the Early Voting Ballot Board Judge for the term of one year in accordance with the TEC Section 32; consider and set number of members to be appointed by Early voting Ballot Board Judge 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to waive all OSSF permitting fees for Turtle Creek Volunteer Fire Department 1.6 Discussion and possible action concerning a resolution to adopt requirements for residential inspections in the county 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve and authorize County Judge to sign a "Certificate of Compliance" stating that the infrastructure for a specific manufactured home rental community has been constructed in strict compliance with approved development plan 1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve procurement of temporary construction easements contiguous to existing permanent utility easement in Oak Grove MHP from nine property owners in Ranchero Road to facilitate construction of Phase IV, KSWW Project 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate actions to approve cost of proposed budget on file in the clerk's office at a set rate of $25 for the book or $1 per page as set out by LGC 118.045 PAGE 7 8 9 9 11 11 19 25 27 25 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) August 24, 2009 PAGE 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate actions to set a public hearing for the County Clerk's annual records archival written plan for September 14, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. 28 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to work on private property, Precinct 1 28 1.7 Final Public Hearing regarding Texas Community Development Program Area Colonia Study & Plan 37 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve Texas Community Development Program Comprehensive Colonia Study and Plan for Kerr County and forward same to ORCA for review 1.10 Presentation by Randy Hooker on identity theft in the workplace 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set a public hearing for the revision of plat of Lot 3 in the Heritage Park Subdivision, Section 1, Volume 4, Page 96, Precinct 2 1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding approval of the 2010 Sheriffs' and Constables' fees 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to accept offer of funding from Alamo RC&D for use in mitigating OSSF problems and/or hooking up sewer collection system for property owners who missed deadlines in earlier phases of KSWW 38 52 72 73 80 1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on proposed change order(s) to courthouse windows, interior staining and installation procedures, and acceptance of alternate bid and/or change order 85 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve appeal from Kerr County to Texas Water Development Board on desired future conditions (DFC's) set by GMA9 for the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau), Ellenberger, and Hickory aquifers 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 4 I N D E X (Continued) August 24, 2009 PAGE 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve a resolution supporting the PWPG-Region J appeal to TWDB on DFC's set by GMA9 for the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau), Ellenberger, and Hickory aquifers; authorize PWPG-Region J members to represent Kerr County in appeal process 100 1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on Order Expressing Intent to Reimburse with Tax Exempt Obligation Proceeds for costs associated with constructing or acquiring various improvements within the county 102 1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set date, time, and place of public hearing on Kerr County FY 2009-10 budget 103 1.22 Consider/discuss, approve by record vote the proposed 2009 Kerr County tax rate and set dates and times of first and second public hearings on said tax rate 105 1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on presentation from Kerr County Safety Committee 114 1.24 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve and adopt the Personnel Policy 123 1.25 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding posting signs at each school zone crossing prohibiting use of wireless communication devices in the school zone in accordance with House Bill 55 129 1.26 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on personnel issue regarding insurance coverage (Executive Session) 139 1.27 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on an Animal Control personnel matter (Executive Session) --- 1.28 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding recent resignations of several members of the Kerr County Historical Commission and continuing service of all remaining Commission members (Executive Session) 140 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 I N D E X (Continued) August 24, 2009 PAGE 4.1 Pay Bills 140 4.2 Budget Amendments 140 4.3 Late Bills --- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 142 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments 143 5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 146 Adjourned 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 On Monday, August 24, 2009, 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 posted and scheduled for this date and time, Monday, August 24th, 2009, at 9 a.m. It is that time now. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Would you rise with me for a word of prayer, and then we'll do the pledge of allegiance. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, if there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard on a matter that is not a listed agenda item, this is your opportunity to come forward and tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to be heard on an agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a participation form. There should be some located at the rear of the room. It's not essential, but it helps me to be sure that I don't miss you when we get to that item. But if you 8-29-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 should not fill out a participation form and do desire to be heard on an agenda item, get my attention in some fashion when we're discussing that item, and I will give you the opportunity to be heard. But right now, if there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, come forward and tell us what's on your mind. Seeing no one coming forward, we will move on. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I don't have anything this morning, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. Ready to get going. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just that the far northeast, eastern part of the county got a little bit of rain, little bit of -- you know, it wasn't very widespread, but some people got up to an inch, so a little bit of good news from the far eastern part. I didn't get a drop. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Me either. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only thing I'll mention again is that the Mayhew Crossing is going to be under construction here shortly, and the -- and it will be closed on the weekend of September the 11th at 7 o'clock until Monday morning, the 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 14th, at 6 a.m. And it's on track. The only thing that will probably blow it off track is if we get a flood. If it takes a flood to do that, by golly, we'll find another date. JUDGE TINLEY: We can work around that, huh? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We'll work around it. That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's get on with our agenda; we got a rather lengthy agenda. First item is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action, at the request of Big Brothers/Big Sisters to sign a joint proclamation designating August 30th, 2009, through September 5th, 2009, as Mentoring Week in the Hill Country. This is a joint proclamation that is jointly done with the City of Kerrville, and I'm proud to present it to the Court this morning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the proclamation. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. 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 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 to Item 2; consider and discuss and take appropriate action to approve the central counting station personnel pursuant to Chapter 127 of the Texas Election Code. The Presiding Manager, Michelle Schneider; Tabulating Supervisor, Pam Cornett; Judge, Nadene Alford; Clerks are Eva Washburn, Linda Mott, and Mimi Valverde; and calls to the S.O.S. and web site will be handled by John Trolinger. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We will move to Item 3; to consider, discuss, and approve the appointment of the early voting ballot board judge for the term of one year in accordance with Texas Election Code Section 32; consider and set the number of members to be appointed by the early voting ballot board judge. Ms. Alford? MS. ALFORD: Good morning. We need to appoint the early ballot judge, which is recommended by the Republican 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 party, because they're the primary -- biggest party in Kerr County , for the judge, and they recommend Joe Armistead. And then I need you to set how many workers we can have for the early ballot board, wh ich is usually three or four. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you want to put in our court order "three or four"? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many do you want? And you ha ve no names, rig ht? MS. ALFORD: No. Joe, as the judge, appoints those, so he needs to know how many he can app oint. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. MS. ALFORD: He needs at least two, possibly three, depending on how big the mail would be. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do we typically have for a general election? MS. ALFORD: Usually three. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I would move approval of three -- move approval of Joe Armistead as the early voting ballot board judge, and the appointment of three -- assistants? MS. ALFORD: Yes, clerks. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Clerks. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Question or discussion on that motion? All in 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. MS. ALFORD: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 5; to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to waive all O.S.S.F. -- O.S.S.F. permitting fees for Turtle Creek Volunteer Fire Department. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Garcia. MR. GARCIA: We're just requesting the fees to be waived for the Turtle Creek Volunteer Fire Department, all ~ O.S.S.F. fees. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. 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.) i JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move to Item 6, for a discussion and possible action concerning a resolution to adopt requirements for residential inspections 8-24-09 12 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the county. Mr. Porter? MR. PORTER: Good morning, gentlemen. MR. PORTER: My name is Scott Porter, 209 Erin Drive, Kerrville. This past legislative session -- number one, I'm a former commissioner of the Texas Residential Construction Commission. The T.R.C.C. was sunsetted this past session. One of the items that the T.R.C.C. -- the law, the enabling act, was to have codes in the county. Prior to 2003, there were no codes in the county. With the -- with the act being abolished, expiring, that would take the counties back to having no codes and no inspections. When -- when it looked like the -- the T.R.C.C. was going to be sunsetted, there was a bill put out, 2833, that would mandate all new residential construction and anything over 50 percent increase in valuation be subject to 2833, which was that it had to be built according to the 2006 I.R.C. code, International Residential Code, or the code that was adopted by the county seat, at the builder's discretion. And also, along with that, there would be three inspections minimum that the builder would have to have that would be a pre-pour, prior to placing concrete, prior to closing the walls, and then a final. The option for the counties was that they could 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 require that information be submitted to someone at the county for reporting purposes, or the -- the county could pass a resolution just saying that they would like homes to be built to the I.R.C. code. Right now -- and this law takes effect September 1st of this year, the same day that the i T.R.C.C. expires. So, the reason I'm here today is because it would seem to make sense to not have a gap, a period from September lst to whenever, when any house could be built in the county any way that anybody wanted, without -- legally, without any codes and without any inspections. So, that's why I'd like to get this -- one of these resolutions passed, so that the codes would be applicable in the counties. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me again what -- what the codes are. MR. PORTER: It's the 2006 International Residential Code. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: International Residential Code. MR. PORTER: Right. That's been a conglomeration of codes that they put together several years ago. That's the standard code in the country, with local amendments, and that's why it would be the builder's option if you would do the I.R.C. -- 2006 I.R.C., or he could do what's in the county. What -- or what's in the county seat, which would be Kerrville, what they've adopted. It's a minimum -- the 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 la 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 I.R.C. is -- is put out as a minimum life safety code. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That doesn't mean that we have to do things like they do in California? MR. PORTER: Oh, absolutely not. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. MR. PORTER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Make life a little bit COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who conducts the inspections, and who bears the cost? MR. PORTER: The builder would bear the cost. The inspectors -- it's laid out in the bill. That would be an I.R.C. combination code inspector, a T.R.E.C. inspector, a -- a plumbing inspector that is approved by the Texas Board of Plumbing Examiners, a city inspector, and there may be one or two others. The builder would actually bear the cost of that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The comment I made -- you know, one, the builder isn't going to bear the cost of anything; the homeowner's going to bear the cost of 100 percent of this. I'm not in favor of it. I don't think it's necessary. I know it was in the previous legislation that was enacted. Didn't work very well, from people I've talked to in the community. I think this is -- I just don't see the need for it, and the cost down the road, I don't want to see the 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 '~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 counties get into this type of regulation, period. I think it'll, down the road, cost the county and the taxpayers MR. PORTER: I -- respectfully, I think it will cost the homeowners -- the consumers more to have their houses built without any code; that they would -- they would bear a much greater cost in repair. You know, a home is your largest single investment, and if it's not built correctly, it can cost thousands and thousands of dollars, especially that pre-pour. The average foundation repair cost in Texas in the last couple years was $30,000 to $35,000, so if you don't have a qualified person looking to see that it's done properly, according to code, then you can have these failures. And I think -- I think that it's a disservice to the consumers to allow these builders to come out and do anything they want in the county. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does -- I have a question for you, then. Does the -- any home builder have the right to hire an inspector? MR. PORTER: Yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all I need to hear. Thank you. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Homeowner can do the same. MR. PORTER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They could have their builder 8-24-09 1 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 check it out. MR. PORTER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And it would be that protection to make sure that that builder was doing what was -- what was specified in the national code. MR. PORTER: If -- if they could understand the code, yes. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if they have an inspector to come do it. MR. PORTER: Oh, yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They could have a private inspector. MR. PORTER: Correct. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That seems like the first layer, the first step of requiring these inspections, in that that enforcement would be done by the County at some point. This is the first -- if you take this step, it opens the door for the next step. MR. PORTER: Well, historically, the Legislature does not want to give you, the County, the power to do that. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not yet. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's not what your summary says. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the County, to my mind, doesn't want that power. 8-24-09 1 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 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't want it. I sure MR. PORTER: Well, you couldn't afford it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. MR. PORTER: It would be a very expensive proposition. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your summary refers to if there's a violation of those provisions, the County may take any or all of the following actions, and one of which is a suit to be brought by an appropriate attorney; i.e., the County Attorney, and then it perks its way up the court system. So, the County then becomes the enforcer. MR. PORTER: They may. They may. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if we adopt the resolution, they will. MR. PORTER: But they may file suit, and they may go after that builder. It doesn't say that they -- they absolutely have to. That would be if somebody had a problem, that's -- there has to be some form of -- some avenue for them to go. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know for a fact right now, the way the law is, the builder is liable for anything that goes wrong with that house. I believe it's for two years once it's built. 8-24-09 1 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 MR. PORTER: Ten years. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is it ten or two? MR. PORTER: Ten. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. There's your answer right there. If they're going to be liable -- of course, you're going to have a few fly-by-nighters, but the reputable builders are going to have to stand behind their product. I Why would they do something inferior? MR. PORTER: Sir, I was a builder here for 15 years. I know what these -- some of these builders do out there, and they don't -- a lot of them don't care. A lot of them do care. And -- and this part of this bill -- this bill was written in conjunction with the Texas Association of Builders and the Council of Governments and the county organizations. They're -- we, as an industry, builder-wise, want good houses. We don't want these guys out there. The other issue is, when I was building, I built a lot of houses out in the county behind locked gates. You don't know that that house is there. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Appraisal District normally finds it. MR. PORTER: Well, the Appraisal District, if they have to go through a double-locked gate, may not -- may not pick it up. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. They have a little 8-24-09 1 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 more technology nowadays than what they used to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they have a septic system, I we know it's there. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In most cases. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I can -- here's another scenario. What if a person like myself builds their own house? MR. PORTER: You're exempt, sir. It's exempted in the law. There's no way that the State is going to tell you, as an individual, what you can and cannot do with your homestead, so it's specifically exempted. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further in your presentation, Mr. Porter? MR. PORTER: No, sir. Any questions? JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Any member of the Court have any questions for Mr. Porter? Thank you, sir. MR. PORTER: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on this item, gentlemen? Let's move to our timed 9:15 item, Item 4; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve and authorize County Judge to sign a Certificate of Compliance stating that the infrastructure for a specific manufactured 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 home rental community has been constructed in strict compliance with the approved development plan for such manufactured home rental community. Commissioner Oehler? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This came to my attention about Wednesday, I believe it was, or Thursday, and I'm going to let Steve Dye take over and him explain what this is. And this -- this order was passed by the Commissioners Court in 1999 that gave the review and everything to these planned rental manufactured home communities. And we have one in my precinct out on Beaver Road that is -- I'm not exactly sure what all the facts are. That's what Mr. Dye is here to tell ~ us . MR. DYE: It's an existing mobile home park. It's been in operation -- I JUDGE TINLEY: Give us your name and address, please. MR. DYE: I'm sorry. Steven Dye, 1890 Summit Top, Kerrville. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. MR. DYE: It's an existing mobile home park that's been in operation for about 20 years now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Speak up, please. MR. DYE: It's an existing mobile home park that's been in operation for about 20 years now. And my client just wanted to get electricity turned on in one of the spaces, and 8-24-09 1 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 when he went in to apply for the electricity, they brought up this particular document and asked that he get a certificate signed by the judge to be able to turn his electricity on. Which disturbed us a little, because the original owner, Mr. -- not original, but another owner, the previous owner, Mr. Standifer, had gone in in 2005 and got electricity turned on with no problem, just signed and he was good to go. So, we don't understand. We're looking at -- it appears to us that it's applying to new mobile home parks, not an existing mobile home park. If this were true, I would think that any mobile home park out there, if they take one mobile home out and bring another one in and change out the electricity, should have to get it signed by the judge, get a certificate of compliance. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Dye, when Commissioner Oehler apprised me of this situation, I was surprised and, frankly, kind of disturbed. I'm aware that the state law allowed County Commissioners Court to pass orders dealing with manufactured home rental communities, and that's a whole separate statute that had all sorts of bells and whistles in it that was apparently adopted by the Court back in 1999, I believe, long before I got here. But, surely -- surely, that whole action was meant to grandfather existing parks, not ~, just little pieces of parks where homes may be moved in and out. If you had an existing park, I -- I can't imagine that 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 moving one home in and out would trigger having to comply with this entire statutory scheme. Now, I'm going to defer to the County Attorney for his thoughts on that, and maybe he's not had adequate time to research it, but -- MR. EMERSON: Actually, Judge, in the order, I think -- I would suspect what happened is the electric provider read the order and only made to it Section 2. But if you get to Section 4, it says, "This order applies only to a new or existing manufactured home rental community for which construction is commenced." There is no -- my understanding is there's no construction on this issue, so, the order -- the order, as far as requiring y'all's compliance and your certification, doesn't apply. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my thoughts with that in mind, Mr. Emerson, are that I don't want to create a precedent that they have to come to the Court or to myself under those circumstances. It occurs to me that while there may be some sort of critical time need -- somebody's needing electricity, and they're probably needing it pretty doggone quick. MR. DYE: Obviously. Bought it as an investment ~ property. JUDGE TINLEY: And somebody needs to get a roof 25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: -- need to figure out a way to stay 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 cool at this point. MR. DYE: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: But I don't want to create a precedent that might at least tend to give the impression that -- that this is an ongoing thing that's going to have to be complied with, 'cause I think it's clearly exempt from the provisions of this order. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- let me ask, what power company is it? Bandera Electric? MR. DYE: No. No, sir, it's KPUB. COMMISSIONER LETZ: KPUB? MR. DYE: Yes, sir. I spoke with the engineer also -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thought it might be Bandera, 'cause they just did a big reorganization of Bandera Co-Op. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The folks in question came into the office, and Commissioner Oehler wasn't here, and ~ they visited with me. And they handed me that document that -- that I guess the Court has a copy of, and it appeared to me that -- you know, that somebody at KPUB hadn't read it, referring to the wrong section. And it could have been some clerk or somebody up front taking the money or whatever, and -- but nonetheless, you're here and you folks have a problem. MR. DYE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the Judge is right; it 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 was never intended that -- that everybody who found themselves in this circumstance had to come back before Commissioners Court to get -- to get approval to move their home. And so somebody needs to reads the whole order there, somehow or another. We need to figure out a way so that doesn't happen again. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do you think it would be in order to have either Rex or the County Judge write a letter to KPUB saying that this does not apply? JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm -- I would think it would be appropriate to have the County Attorney send a letter to them that, unless there is something in the statute that actually triggers it, that any new service would be exempt from this requirement. That would be my thinking on it. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. I think we need to do something. I don't think we need to pass an order to do this, 'cause like you say, we don't want to set a precedent that every time somebody moves a home in or out, they have to get it -- come to court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Never was the intention. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not what it says. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But if it's a new park, brand new, that it has to comply with this law. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Or if they go in and do 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 a total renovation of a park, like a -- you know, start changing lines, roads and all that, then they have to bring it up in compliance. But if it's just an existing park, no. But, I mean, I'm -- is that time period okay with you? It will take a couple days. Or, I mean -- MR. DYE: That'll be fine with us, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are those people in that -- in that mobile home, or are they still waiting to get in? MR. DYE: They're waiting to get there. They're living somewhere else until they can move in. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. So, time is somewhat of the essence. MR. DYE: It would be nice to be able to get it quickly, yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Couple of days? MR. EMERSON: At the most. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you'll write the letter, I'll hand-deliver it. JUDGE TINLEY: Solve your problem? MR. DYE: Yes, sir. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Dye. Let's move to Item 9; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve procurement of temporary construction easements contiguous to existing permanent utility easement in Oak 8-29-09 1 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 Grove Mobile Home Park from nine property owners on Ranchero Road to facilitate construction of Phase IV, Kerrville South wastewater project. Mr. Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've had somewhat of a difficult time getting the necessary permitted easements, and so, in talking out this issue with the engineers, we decided to go with the existing utility easement that is present in Oak Grove Mobile Home Park, although it is somewhat congested in there, and then seek a temporary construction easement from the property owners who are on Bandera -- I mean, on Ranchero Road, who will be served by this particular line. So, we can do the work necessary and connect these particular houses. What this amounts to is seeking their approval through some very simple memorandum of understanding. We remove the fences and so forth and do the work, and put the property back the way we found it. And -- and we lay the line and connect the -- the homes on Ranchero Road to the sewer line. Sounds simple. It's taken a long while to get here, but that's what we need to do in order to move this forward. So, what I've presented to the Court was somewhat of a summary. The diagram of what we're talking about, the engineer thinks we probably need about 20 feet to work with and give us adequate room to do so, and if the Court approves this request, then I'll go out and seek memorandum -- the County Attorney will help me with the proper memorandum of 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 understanding and get everybody signed up, and hopefully get ready to go to bidding. Move approval of the agenda item as presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 11; to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve the cost of the proposed budget on file in the Clerk's office at a set rate of $25 for the book or $1 per page as set out by Local Government Code, Section 118.045. Ms. Pieper? MS. PIEPER: Yes. This is the cost that we normally do every year, and this is just for the proposed and then we'll be back once we get the final done as well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 24 drainac 25 Rancher 8-24-09 MS. HOFFER: We've got two requests for some One is at 1510 Basically, what the problem is is that the (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Let's move to Item 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to set a public hearing for the County Clerk's annual records archival written plan for September 14, 2009, at 10 a.m. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a public hearing for the County Clerk's annual records archival written plan for September 14, 2009, at 10 a.m. All in favor of the motion signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. MS. PIEPER: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 13; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to work on private property located in Precinct 1. Ms. Hoffer? 1 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 land itself is about 10 inches higher than the pipe, so it causes a lot of backup. It would benefit us, because if that water's backing up, then you've got water coming back up underneath the road. What we would go in and do is take some of that dirt out, drop it down so the water can drain properly, and possibly put some rocks in there just to keep from erosion. The other one is at 1500 Calcote. That one is a little bit different. There isn't a -- a problem with the land and the angle of the culvert, but it's the same setup, a culvert pipe running underneath the road. And the pictures -- if you look on that, one the people have goats, and there isn't a bit of vegetation on that property, so they have a major erosion problem. Where that drainage pipe is at, when it does rain, has caused a -- a huge erosion ~ problem. That one, what we were wanting to do, if we got approval to work on these two drainage issues, is probably -- we probably would have some leftover dirt from the 1510 Ranchero Road. Calcotte's just around the corner; we'd be able to put something in. Probably won't last because of the goat issue, but we need to get permission on that. The third one that I have is, there's a privacy fence on Michon. It's very, very close to the road, bad line of sight coming up the hill. They're rerouting a water line up there, and so that road has kind of been torn up. We talked to the homeowner on 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 Friday. They don't have a problem with us moving the fence back, getting a better line of sight coming up the hill. That one is a safety issue. Basically, what we've got here is, you know, we've got people coming in and requesting on the two drainage ones. We just need your guidance of how we handle that. JUDGE TINLEY: The -- each of the landowners in those cases has been receptive to you doing what you've indicated you feel like you need to do to -- to facilitate each of the problems? MS. HOFFER: Yes. They actually have come in and requested. JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the doing of this work would -- in the case of the two drainage issues, would benefit the entire area and the Kerr County road system by -- by solving these problems? MS. HOFFER: I believe so. JUDGE TINLEY: Of course, obviously, the third one's a safety issue that you want to get resolved for the members of the motoring public there. MS. HOFFER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think -- the only thing I -- I think we need to make sure that we get, in writing, approval from these people to work on their property. 8-29-09 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, waivers. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Waivers. Rex, maybe -- MS. HOFFER: I have -- we found a sample; it's just real generic, but -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Give to it Rex. MS. HOFFER: -- you fill in a blank. And we don't know if it would -- would work on this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think -- you know, because I know that one of the issues we had when we were working with cattle guards on Wilson Creek was going back to li this whole -- the issue of what was said and what was done and all that, and I just -- we need to make it real clear, especially in some of this, what we're doing, and they approve it and agree. Isn't that right, Rex? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. MS. HOFFER: Couple other questions, too, that kind of pertain to this. The guys sometimes will -- if they've got extra material that they need to get rid of, sometimes people will come and say, "I'll take some of that material." Now, again, we've got our vehicles going on private property. There's a concern with that, but it does help us tremendously. We're not having to make trips all the way back to the yard in Kerrville as far as getting rid of that material. Sometimes you can double, triple, quadruple the time on a job because of that. So, that -- we have concerns 8-24-09 1 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 with that. We have -- in Precinct 1, Gail Matter a lot of times has permission to park his property -- or his equipment on private property. A lot of times it's out of sight. We've had people shoot out windows in some of the equipment here lately. But, again, concern as far as should we be doing that? We -- like I said, we are not real sure, so we kind of wanted the Court's feeling on this, and how we handle, too, when we have people come in with drainage issues as far as us taking our equipment onto private property and doing those things. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I have no problem with it as long as you get with the County Attorney's office and get an appropriate waiver of liability, and also a -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Description of -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- description, pretty precise, of what's going to be done. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, now. Let's go through one more time about the having excess material that we don't want to haul a long ways, and somebody wants it. So, are we talking about public-owned material? MS. HOFFER: This is actually -- MR. EMERSON: I think we need -- we need to get another agenda item on that, Buster. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. All right, sure. JUDGE TINLEY: That one, as well as the issue of 8-24-09 1 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 parking the equipment, probably need to go on another one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you think, as far as this drainage issue and the County working on private property, when they go down and do the work for the water to run off to protect county roads, if you -- whether it's this document or your own, how do you want -- I mean, I don't have any problem if you don't have any problem. Do you want to -- MR. EMERSON: I wouldn't necessarily say I don't have any problems. I'd say anytime the public does work on private property, we may have a problem. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MR. EMERSON: In this particular case, the scenario the Judge described is a quid pro quo where the County's I benefiting from the work. But we need to be extremely careful about private benefit with use of public equipment, public assets, public finances. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Judge, there's somebody in the back back there. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry. MR. GARCIA: I'm -- JUDGE TINLEY: If you have something to say, sir, come on forward and give us your name and address; tell us what you have to say on this issue. ', MR. GARCIA: My name is David Garcia. My wife and I -- 8-24-09 1 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 JUDGE TINLEY: What's your address, please, sir? MR. GARCIA: 1500 Calcote. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. GARCIA: And it's because of the drain that's coming off that side of the hill, across the street from our property. It drains into our property, and it's been tearing away. So, you know, I got pictures of everything, and it's almost, you know, 5 foot deep, and -- and it's been tearing away at the property every time it rains or we have a big rain, and then when it dries out, you know, it dries out into a cave. But it's because of the -- the way it's drained that it's eroded so much, so it's not really -- it's kind of like the public facilities that has made this problem. So -- so, it's not really like working on private property, which is our property. I guess it is working on private property, but it's because of what the City did that it made this problem. It's not -- it wasn't -- it wasn't like that before, you know. It just caused that. I JUDGE TINLEY: Your property is the one where the significant erosion has taken place, Mr. Garcia? MR. GARCIA: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have goats on your property? MR. GARCIA: Yes, we do. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. This is the property you're referring to, Ms. Hoffer? 8-24-09 1 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 MS. HOFFER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: But your proposal is to take some of the material that you have to remove from one of the projects, and at least, since it's right there, try and use that as a methodology to resolve an erosion problem which could undermine your drainage at that point? MS. HOFFER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: At some future time. So, that would be a benefit to the county to shore that up where it would not run the continued risk of being undermined, the drainage at that point, that we'd have to go back in and fix anyway, I wouldn't we? MS. HOFFER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else? MS. HOFFER: Where that pipe is -- Leonard did say to me that where that pipe, when it was put in, is the natural flow of the water, so it's -- it's where that pipe needs to be. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HOFFER: It wasn't that we put the pipe in an area. That's the natural flow of the water. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HOFFER: Where that pipe is located. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, sir? MR. GARCIA: No. 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: County Attorney have anything further? MR. EMERSON: I think it might be a good idea to -- if y'all could just table this until after your break, and let us -- let me get some more information. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it might be even better to sit down and -- and down in your office in the next week or so, and have a long visit about it. I would prefer doing that as opposed to rushing into something, 'cause I'm not real clear how the -- how the City has caused this problem. And we're going to haul material from another place to fix this problem issue on private property. That's not going to last very long. You know, I just want to kind of get all that put together in my mind, 'cause you know how the City is. MR. EMERSON: I think that would be a good idea, 'cause from a legal standpoint, I'm not real sure I understand the whole situation. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. We're going to -- if it's all right with the Court, let's just table this thing. We'll be back with it. JUDGE TINLEY: It's your precinct, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be happy to abide by your 8-24-09 1 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, gosh, thank you. On JUDGE TINLEY: Well, this item. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not exactly. JUDGE TINLEY: We're limited to the agenda item. You understand that, of course, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: At least this time it's his. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to our 9:30 item. At this time, the Court will recess the Commissioners Court hearing. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 9:40 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: And I will convene a public hearing regarding the Texas Community Development Program Area Colonia Study and Plan. Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard with regard to the Texas Community Development Program Area Colonia Study and Plan? That's Texas Community -- Community Development Block Grant Contract Number 727175. Does any member of the public wish to be heard on that matter? Please feel free to step forward. Seeing no one stepping forward, I will close the public hearing regarding the Texas Community Development Program Area Colonia Study and Plan. 8-29-09 1 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 (The public hearing was concluded at 9:41 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will call Item 8, to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve Texas Community Development Program Comprehensive Colonia Study and Plan for Kerr County, that being Texas Community Development Block Grant Contract Number 727175, and forward same to the Office of Rural Community Affairs for review. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I'm going to turn this over to Marilyn Shashoua of Grantworks, who is the Planning Services Manager, and has been very much involved in this study for the eastern part of Center Point, eastern Kerr County, which involves housing, roads, and stormwater issues. And Marilyn has a presentation. The big book is your hands and in my hands, if any member of the Court wants to look at it. It is for the areas of Center Point, eastern Kerr County, and Westwood -- Westwood Park. Is that what it is, Jonathan? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, Westwood. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In Precinct 3. Marilyn? MS. SHASHOUA: Great. Thanks very much, Commissioner. My name is Marilyn Shashoua. I'm a planner at 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 Grantworks, and the Court hired us about a year ago to complete this plan. The idea of the plan in the beginning was you had a county-wide plan; I think it was about 2002. And the idea of this was, as sewer was going in for Westwood Park and Center Point and Hill River Country Estates, to look more in-depth at those three areas. So, this is funding that the state provides called an area plan, so it gets into much more specific details in the three areas. And so we kind of zoomed in, like the Commissioner was saying, on water, on housing, drainage, and streets in these three areas. And part of the charge was to determine low-moderate income status. So, this involved both physical survey of houses and door-to-door survey, which you could use in the coming four years if you decide to apply for additional funding to help people connect to the sewer, so that'll help you out later on. So, like we said, it was housing, streets, drainage, and then you got new colonia profiles. The Attorney General's office keeps records of the different colonias and their needs, and they -- part of this was we updated the profile, so in the notebook you can see the Judge has, there's updated colonia profiles from the 2002 plan. So, housing. So, what -- what the housing chapter does is it gives you a map of the various conditions. This is Center ~~ Point and the colonias, the ownerships. Are they renters or 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 owners? And then their low-mod status, if we could determine it. And, again, that was, you know, commensurate on the knocking on the doors and the people being home and the people answering questions. So, it's not a complete list, but it will give you a great database to go from. I think your Environmental Health Department also helped us immensely, because they have information on who has filed complaints for O.S.S.F.'s, and so we combined all that into one database for you, and I think that'll be real helpful for you in the future. Also, there's a second map for housing that attempts to show who's on wells in a pictorial fashion, so you can just sort of see in the shaded areas, those people are on wells. The rest are on public water. Then, of course, everyone's on septic right now. The State had asked us to try and map approximately where the septic tanks were, but in this case, in all three colonias, everybody's on -- on O.S.S.F., so everybody has a dot on their house. The housing needs, what we came up with is there's a state colonia housing standards, and it's just the basic standards. They're listed in that report. You know, lead paint, roofing, siding, your basic needs. We found 166 houses in all the three colonia areas together that did not meet state colonia housing standards, and then we rated the houses kind of a good, fair, poor. But it's a -- good is standard, deteriorating is fair, and 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 dilapidated is needs a lot of work. And then there were 13 properties in Center Point, and not in Hill River or Westwood Park, that really we saw as being abandoned, maybe health issues, that could be demolished. Let's see. Okay. And, I mean, demolishing those, it's about 7,500 a house, and so that equals up to about $100,000 for the county over -- over the planning period. The planning period is from 2009 to 2019, a 10-year period. So, that would be an expense in there. Most of the homes that did not meet colonia standards were in Center Point, but obviously, there's more homes in Center Point, and some were in another -- about 100 in Center Point and another 50 were in Hill River. And all of this is in the text, delineated more. So, the recommendations in the housing plan were to decrease those number of dilapidated structures, especially the ones that are abandoned, those 13. And the way to do this is just kind of usually to chip away at it slowly, do a couple every year, put it into the budget. There are issues with where you put the debris once you dispose of it, so oftentimes that's something worked out with either the contractors or the solid waste services to have some roll-offs for that in a certain time of year. Also, I guess ~! Habitat is very active here, and although they are -- have their hands full now, it looks like, for about the next five years doing huge Kerrville projects, I talked to them, and 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 they were interested in coming out to Center Point and the other areas later when they finish that, and might be interested in helping to, you know, demolish those structures and build new ones. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Marilyn, let me ask you a question at this point. There's a lot of money available right now under the weatherization program. MS. SHASHOUA: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are any of these homes eligible for consideration in that regard? MS. SHASHOUA: Oh, sure. And especially those are good for the elderly and disabled also. There is money -- the ones that are the reconstructs, weatherization may not help them. But definitely on the 284 rehabs, that would -- they could get some roofing fixed, some energy efficiency things worked out, or siding. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And these maps that you're providing us identify the location of these homes? MS. SHASHOUA: These would be the yellow ones, probably, mm-hmm. The red ones are almost past the point of -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. SHASHOUA: -- repair. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are the owners -- owners or inhabitants identified? 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 MS. SHASHOUA: In the survey, there -- there were ages, and I think that's in the database, but I don't think it's on the maps. But it is in the database that y'all received. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. MS. SHASHOUA: Let's see. Okay. So, back on housing, part of what we looked at in this report was affordability, issues of affordability and keeping these areas affordable. And one of the things that you could look at in affordability is that your subdivision ordinance -- since there's not much else, you know, County has to do that, but there's -- there's a whole -- pages in the report talking about things that you could look at in the subdivision ordinance, such as timely review of plats, and maybe some breaks for affordable housing as you get sewer. And where developers come in wanting to develop, we discussed in the southern part of Center Point, maybe some breaks for multi-family housing. There's clustered housing, which you don't have in your ordinance, which you could put in that would help maybe with drainage issues. They can fix the subdivision so that it's -- you know, meets the drainage criteria that you need, especially, you know, in these high-density areas like Center Point. And in the streets portion, we looked at the 8-29-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 County keeps really good records of what streets have been paved, so in the report, we talk about when was the last time most of these streets were paved? And most of them -- I think Westwood Park, it's maybe 2003 or so. Pretty good streets. Center Point, some of those have been at least ten years since they've been -- going on about ten years now. And then there -- of course, Hill River, and then there's a mobile home park -- Elmwood? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Elmwood Park. MS. SHASHOUA: Elmwood, yes. Those are private streets, so that would be a county consideration of whether they ever wanted to take over these streets. I know Hill River had said they are very interested in the County taking over those streets. But, of course, that's another political issue, and that -- we estimated that to be another $300,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, for the benefit of the Court, I want the Court to know that on streets and the forthcoming drainage section of this report, all this has been reviewed with the Road and Bridge, and all these maps and issues have been discussed with them. MS. SHASHOUA: They were very helpful in formulating the plan. So -- so, what you'll have at the end is that you have a street conditions map, one that shows existing conditions. 3A and 3B shows the phasing. And what we did, basically, we phased the street improvements along 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 with the -- what's going to happen most likely with the sewer installation, and with drainage, which I'll go over next. So, we`d basically, you know, put in the sewer and the drainage, and then fix the streets at the end so you're not ripping up streets, you know, several times. So, the drainage was the most interesting part, probably. We found over $500,000 in needs for Center Point. And we didn't really find any for Westwood Park or Hill River. Hill River is obviously on a bluff, so we focused the drainage chapter mainly on Center Point. There's two areas, one in north Center Point and one in south Center Point. And the north Center Point solutions, we had an engineer review this. He was responsible; he was out here several times and met with Road and Bridge also several times. We talked to TexDOT on all these improvements. So, the first one would be on -- in the bottom corner, you'll see those red -- they're kind of red dots with purple lines. This is along 27 where you've had problems with drainage in the past. And even though TexDOT put in a -- a culvert, their engineer felt like the -- the main problem with that is there's a gas station at the corner of Boxwood and 27, and that there's -- there's no way for that drainage -- there's just a driveway there. There's no -- the culvert doesn't come all the way through from -- and the drainage ditch on Boxwood. So, he recommended 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 sending that down -- putting in an underground pipe from -- at the end, taking that through Boxwood to 27, and then working with TexDOT to create an underground pipe all the way to the box culvert there at Verde -- at Steel Creek. So, that would be the first item. The second item, there was some reports of issues at the top of that subdivision where those green lines are, with a -- with both the culverts and drainage hitting the houses in the corner there. So, he also had some solutions for that. That area could be fixed for about 250,000. And the state, of course, would have to build whatever is built on 27, so that's -- they would take the lion's share of that cost. So, maybe, you know, $100,000 worth, if you can talk them into that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me interject also, Marilyn, at this point, I've invited Mr. Groves, as the project manager for Center Point/Eastern Kerr County wastewater project, to be here to listen to this this morning, because there is some notion that Texas Water Development Board might be interested in helping us with the drainage issues in conjunction with the sewer project, and that's why I asked Mr. Groves to be here today. So, we will talk privately about how we fashion, perhaps, a companion application that deals with wastewater. But the Court should know that there are two major areas -- and Road and Bridge is 8-29-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 47 very, very familiar with all these. Two major areas -- problematic areas in Center Point, both north and in the main body of Center Point. We've had repeated problems with waste -- stormwater takeoff, homes being flooded and so forth. And the only way we're ever going to get a handle on this or get this accomplished would be if we could get some assistance somewhere and get a major project underway, because it is a major project. MS. SHASHOUA: And it's real timely, because as you're doing the sewer and as -- and both of those projects are going forward, and as you're going to see more development, you want to fix the drainage in both cases. So, the third project in northern Center Point would be to fix that area around the ball fields that's flooding, and there's improvements for that. That's -- that was estimated only about 37,000. And so -- and it's also working partially with TexDOT just to get that water all the way to this -- to that culvert that goes across 27. So, there's some areas to work with TexDOT. What Texas Water Development Board has is a -- a study process that they would fund to, you know, further study all the drainage issues that we're pointing out here, because these are just preliminary planning studies. You would have to have a lot, you know, more detailed drainage studies before you built any of these, so that's what Texas 25 ~ Water Development Board has funding for, but not to build the 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 projects, unfortunately, I don't think. So -- unless you can get them built in conjunction with the sewer being placed. So, in southern Center Point, the engineer looked at four different options. Option A would be a total surface system with ditches. You would have to work with the property owner that has a stock pond in that area around Avenue A, and get the water all the way to Verde Creek, a southerly flow. That's the most inexpensive option. But, again, you have to work with a lot of property owners, get a lot of easements, and that's, you know, up to you whether you want to do that, but it's about half the price of all the other options. Option B is a southerly flow underground system starting from China Street all the way down to Verde Creek. Option C is a northerly system going up to the Guadalupe, but all underground. And then Option D was one we came up with at the request of Commissioner Williams and the Road and Bridge, is a combination, starting out with -- under -- let's see. Yeah, so you'd have roadside ditches from China to Second Street, and then you would go underground at Second Street and all the way out to Verde Creek. So, that was one of the options that seemed to be the -- both the -- the most economical. It takes out about $100,000 from Option B and C, which were complete underground systems, and it was a way to work with all the property owners, not having to go across their properties and get all 8-24-09 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 So, the recommendations were to alleviate the drainage in Center Point first, because that was where the Phase I of the sewer project is supposed to be started, and then working with Texas Water Development Board in that, and then alleviating the northern problems second when their sewer starts to go in. There could be -- you could move up some of those projects in the northern area if you feel that you can put those into your budget prior to that. That's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's some interesting corollary things that come out of this study. And, incidentally, the Judge has a copy, as do I, of all the maps and the various aspects of the study. It's available for the Court to take a look at at any time. And how we proceed depends on whether there's some assistance out there to help us, but there are some other things that are beneficial. In the database is some information with respect to floodplain issues which Marilyn and Grantworks have prepared, and we'll forward that to our Floodplain Administrator. We have the other information with respect to the drainage issues, which we'll -- Mr. Groves and I will get together and see what we can do about fashioning another application to Water Development Board. But also, one of the maps in this big portfolio 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 here depicts all the areas in Center Point where wells exist, as opposed to public water systems. That should be very beneficial to the Upper Guadalupe River authority as it prepares its companion proposal for water -- conjunctive use of surface and groundwater in Center Point and eastern -- and the eastern part of Kerr County. So, all of that comes out of this particular study, which I think is pretty beneficial. How we proceed remains to be seen, but the Grantworks folks have done a very comprehensive job in putting this information together for us. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, of course, this entire East Kerr -- Center Point and East Kerr project is a very, very ambitious project, but -- but a greatly needed project, and I want to thank you for all your hard work you've done on it. You've done a tremendous amount of work, and it makes sense to try and incorporate these other issues, the drainage issues and some of those, into this entire project as a comprehensive plan to alleviate those issues down there. And I just hope you're successful in obtaining the funding that you need. I know you're looking at all the -- all the sources and trying to continually find new ones. I just want to thank you for all your hard work on the project, and I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I appreciate your comments. Any questions from the Court? 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't need to do anything today, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to approve the plan so it can be forwarded to O.R.C.A. for its review and approval, the work that Grantworks has done. That's the issue. That's the only action the Court is required to take. We're not proceeding with any of these projects until we have more information or -- or know where the funding is and how to go after it. This only approves what Grantworks has done so we can forward on it to O.R.C.A. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'l1 move approval of the agenda item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of 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. MS. SHASHOUA: Can I make one more -- I've been instructed by O.R.C.A. to tell you, on September 1st, they're changing their name to Texas Department of Rural Affairs, so this will become the T.D.R.A. So, any communication you 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 might get back after this might be from the T.D.R.A. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that mean they have more money? MS. SHASHOUA: Probably not. Sounds fancier, though. JUDGE TINLEY: Charlie Stone's name still going to be at the bottom? MS. SHASHOUA: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. We have a 10 o'clock timed item, and fortuitously, we are at that time now, so let us proceed with Item 10, a presentation by Randy Hooker on identity theft in the workplace. MR. HOOKER: Morning, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir. MR. HOOKER: We have a little Power Point. We certainly appreciate the Court's time and Commissioners' time on identify theft in the workplace. I have a colleague of mine that is going to do our presentation for me; he's a little better speaker than I am. I don't stutter as bad -- he doesn't stutter as bad as I do, Mr. Robert Munoz. MR. MUNOZ: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Do you need my address or his address, or -- THE REPORTER: Just your name, please. MR. MUNOZ: Robert Munoz, M-u-n-o-z. We're from Midland, Texas. By the way, thank you for your time, Judge, 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 la 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 Commissioners. When Commissioner Baldwin was delivering our prayer this morning, he said rain, and I said rain and a lot of trees in Midland, because you guys have trees down here. We don't have any trees. Judge, may I move to the side, please? I'm short, but I'm loud, and I think the entire Court can probably hear me. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I knew somebody like that. MR. MUNOZ: You knew somebody like that? Ladies and gentlemen -- (Low-voice discussion off the record.) MR. MUNOZ: What I'm going to do is I'm going to talk about what's going on with identity theft. And, County Commissioners, I don't know how you do it. I don't know if you have a crick in your neck yet, but I've been watching him. You're okay down there? Okay. But, ladies and gentlemen, I live in Midland, Texas. I'm a certified identity theft risk management specialist. We represent a very, very unique company. Not only do we help employees stay at work, be more productive, call in sick less, hopefully keep your insurance costs down, but we implement systems to minimize the risk of fines, fees, and lawsuits due to identity theft in the workplace. If I may ask the Court, how many people have either been victims of identity theft or know somebody that's been a victim of identity theft? Would you please raise your right hand? Okay. So, several people 8-29-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 in the room. I'm going to go ahead and get started, ladies and gentlemen. My company has been in business since 1972. We've been publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange since 1999. Our corporate management team has over 230 years of experience. We've been featured in many, many magazines; Fortune, Forbes, Success, you name it, ladies and gentlemen. Our legal advisory council is backed up by many Attorney Generals. I don't know how many of you folks may remember Michael Moore, the gentleman to the bottom right here. I don't know if you can see that. Probably not. Do I need to turn this on, Mr. Hooker? But -- ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I remember Michael Moore, but that's not the one. MR. MUNOZ: Michael Moore is the gentleman that fought the big tobacco industry, Commissioner. What I'm going to do, ladies and gentlemen, is talk today about what identity theft really is, some laws relating to identity theft, the best answers to problems, layered protection. Now, who is being held responsible? There was an article written in Business and Legal Reports in September of 2006. It says, "A rise in identity theft has presented employers with a major headache. People are being held liable for identity theft that occurs in the workplace." Now, with the workplace being the site of more than half of all identity 8-29-09 1 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 theft -- excuse me -- human resource executives must stop thinking about data protection solely as an I.T. responsibility. And it says, "More education on appropriate handling and protection of information is very necessary." Now, I'm -- I don't know how many people know, but in about 2007, there was over 80 million victims of identity theft, and over 40 million were traced back to the workplace, okay? Now, a lot of people have the misunderstanding, ladies and gentlemen, they think that identity theft is just about credit cards. If you look at the -- the monitor, identity theft, credit cards, financial identity theft is actually one of the smallest ones. The number one type of identity theft today is number -- the second one there, Social Security. One lady in California found out 200 people were using her Social Security number to work under her name. Does anybody Google on the Internet? Anybody? Okay. Judge, maybe, whenever you guys have a chance today, gentlemen, Google search "identity theft," and then Google search "identity theft" tomorrow. You will realize that there's over 27,000 new victims every 24 hours of identity theft. Any veterans in the room? Okay. Veterans? The veterans -- did you guys receive the letter from the V.A.? 26.5 million veterans got our information compromised from one laptop, okay? I'm a veteran myself, and I got a personal -- I'm a chunky veteran. (Laughter.) 8-24-09 1 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 Now, by the way, guys, according to experience -- and excuse me that I have my back to you, young lady. According to experience, it took identity thieves five weeks to sell that information on the streets. We cannot stop it. According to the Federal Trade Commission, everybody may be a victim of identity theft by next December, because we cannot stop it. Now, the number two type of identity theft is on the far left; it's driver's license. People are getting ahold of people's information -- oh, you can't see it on the screen is what it is. Okay, I got it. This is useless for me right now. But somebody can get ahold of your driver's license information, ladies and gentlemen, stick their picture on it, commit a crime. If they don't come to court, cops come looking for us. That's just the way it is, okay? Now, identity theft is the only crime where we're guilty till proven innocent, I guess. Sheriff, I'm preaching -- I'm probably preaching to the choir with the Sheriff. Number three type of identity theft is medical identity theft, the one right in the middle. That is one that is actually killing people. Now -- is it Oehler? Okay. Let me give you an example, ladies and gentlemen. I don't know Commissioner Oehler; I don't know his medical history, but let's say that an identify thief gets ahold of his medical insurance, because they do not hold a job, so they don't have medical insurance. And the identity thief gets 8-29-09 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 penicillin administered to them, and let's say, for example, Commissioner Oehler is allergic to penicillin. Something happens to Commissioner Oehler six, seven months later, whatever the time is. They look at his file, because he can't speak for himself, and give him penicillin. What will happen to Commissioner Oehler? He'll get very sick or die. If you Google search "medical identity theft," you'll see that it's been publicized in every major magazine, just about. It is rising like you wouldn't believe. The number four type of identity theft is a gentleman behind bars, folks. Real quick story. A lady in Florida lost her purse, a schoolteacher. She goes to renew her teaching certificate, and was going to get fired, released from her duties, and she wanted an explanation. And they told her that a lady of her extracurricular activities could not be teaching the kids. She said, "Please explain more in-depth." Well, long story short, the lady that found her purse was a prostitute; she had three counts of prostitution on her record. But it was not her, okay? Financial identity theft is number five. And there's a possible type of identity theft on the bottom left which is called synthetic identity theft. Has anyone heard of synthetic identity theft? Do you know what I'm talking about, Commissioner Oehler? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mas or menos. 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 MR. MUNOZ: He said "comme ci, comme ca" in Spanish. Ladies and gentlemen, somebody could get ahold of somebody's Social Security number, somebody else's date of birth, somebody else's address, and make a synthetic person. Now, I don't know how many of you guys have seen this. Have you seen this, gentlemen? Anybody? Sheriff? You don't have one of these posted in your office? Ladies and gentlemen, this is the actual kit, the do-it-yourself kit that people can have for free from the government. But it will cost employees over 600 hours of their time and thousands of dollars of their money to restore their good name. And I'm going to come back to this in a second. Now, while we're at risk -- you know, folks, you can't read that, but our information is everywhere, ever since we're children. Our information is electric bills, water bills, gas bills, school records since we're in elementary. And on the very bottom, it says once the credit systems accept bad data, it is -- it can be next to impossible -- I just lost my screen. Is this not on -- let's see what's going on here, ladies and gentlemen. But our information is everywhere, ladies and gentlemen. So, what happens is -- I don't know how many people know, but Bank of America lost 1.2 million people's information. A.O.L. lost 40 million people's information, and the list goes on and on and on. Now, I'm going to 8-29-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 continue with my presentation; I have my little cheat sheet over here, as Mr. Hooker sets that back up. It's rebooting, Mr. Hooker. I apologize, ladies and gentlemen. Now, what I'm going to show you in a minute is the cost to businesses. It says employees can take up to 600 hours, mainly during business hours -- heaven forbid, they become an individual victim -- to restore their good name. And if you secure -- if you experience a security breach, 20 percent of your affected customer base will no longer do business with you, 40 percent may consider ending relationships, and 5 percent will probably be hiring attorneys. Now, when it comes to cleaning up the mess of identity theft, on average, it's 1,600 hours of work hours, up to 92,000 -- $40,000 to $92,000 per victim. Now, I don't know how many people you guys employ here at the county. Let's say you just have ten people affected, and heaven forbid there was a security breach. $92,000 a victim -- a person, that could be up to a million dollars in fines, fees, and lawsuits. What we'll do is mitigate that. ~' Now, Mr. Hooker should be popping that bad boy back up, and I'm going to put this back up on the screen in a ~ minute, ladies and gentlemen. We have to ask ourselves a question. That says, "Why should all businesses, corporations, schools, financial institutions, hospitals, and governmental bodies be concerned about identity theft?" 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 Well, the answers are potential liabilities, both civil and criminal, okay? The important legislation, laws that have passed -- I'll put these up on the screen in a minute; I'm going to whiz through them, I apologize -- is the FACIA, FACIA Red Flag Rules, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, HIPAA. I know you guys are in compliance with HIPAA; I'm not too worried about HIPPA. There are hefty fines out there because of medical identity theft, okay? GLB Safeguard Rules, new legislation, laws. These laws were actually -- the red flag rules were mandatory compliance by November last year. Good news is they went ahead and bumped it up to November of this year, okay? Individual state laws, Texas whistle-blower laws. Civil and criminal liabilities can range from 1,000 to 100 -- excuse me, to a million dollars in fines, fees, and lawsuits, penalties which include jail time for executives, which is crazy. Let's say, for example -- since Commissioner Oehler's close to me, I'm going to ask him if I can use him again. Let's say, for example, folks, I am an employee, and Mr. Oehler is my boss, and I do something wrong with somebody's nonpublic information, somebody's Social Security, date of birth, whatever it is. Bottom line is, even though I did the crime, I'm not looking to do the time. My boss is responsible for my actions, so he would be the one facing those fines, fees, and lawsuits. So, what we do is we 8-24-09 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 '~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 minimize that. We mitigate that, and show people their true responsibility, their legal responsibility when it comes to identity theft. Are you not getting anything? You just have to hit it one time. Okay. Now, Betsy Broder of the Federal Trade Commission says they're not looking for a perfect system, folks, because there's no such thing. They just want to make sure that every company in the United States is doing their due diligence and taking reasonable steps to act in good faith and comply with these new laws. And what -- everything that they're asking for, we do at no cost to the County, and I'll explain myself in a minute. I'll do everything possible to answer all the questions properly. This is -- is crazy. Some law firms throughout the United States are looking for companies and people that were victims of identity theft, and they're getting people in the -- in chunks to sue companies because they were a victim of identity theft, either accidentally or purposely, they misused the information. I can understand the purposely, but I can't understand the accidentally. Now, you guys trust Commissioner Oehler. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mas or menos. JUDGE TINLEY: Mas or menos. (Laughter.) MR. MUNOZ: Mas or menos. Because I'm showing him the information, folks. I apologize. And I'm going to show this to Commissioner Oehler, folks, so -- and I know you guys 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 trust him. Now, here's why and how we can help, ladies and gentlemen. Because everything that's outlined by the Federal Trade Commission, we do for you. We set up reasonable steps to protect nonpublic information. We help create a culture of security, we set up a potential of affirmative defense, and we do all this at no cost you. And, like I said, I'll explain to you why in a second. Now, we assist the county -- for example, Kerr County, in the process of Best Practice Act. We appoint the information security officer, give you the written identity theft plan. We do all the trainings. Once we give everybody the training on identity theft, we have everybody sign a form that's called a Use of Confidentiality form that stays here with Kerr County. Heaven forbid, if you should get audited by the Federal Trade Commission, you show you've acted in good faith, taken reasonable steps to protect and train people when it comes the identity theft, and we train them on all six types of identity theft, not just credit cards. Okay? The documentation that we give you, we appoint the information security officer, give you the identity theft training, we give you all the documentation that you need. Is it not coming up, Mr. Hooker? MR. HOOKER: No. MR. MUNOZ: Why don't you try to turn it off and turn it back on? Now, here's how we get paid, ladies and 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 gentlemen. Because, obviously, we get paid in one form or another. The Affirmative Defense Response System goes to Kerr County, which we give them all the proper training. Business and Legal Reports says offer some sort of identity theft protection for them. If they want to -- it's entirely up to them, 100 percent voluntary. Once we give everybody the training on identity theft, we tell them what's available to them if they want to, 100 percent voluntary. What we do is, we send people a credit report and we monitor their good name daily. For example, Commissioner Letz. Okay, you ever go to San Antonio? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Occasionally. MR. MUNOZ: Okay, let's say Commissioner Letz goes to San Antonio and applies for a new pickup. They're going to run his credit. Yes or yes? Okay. What we do, ladies and gentlemen, is we e-mail him this day, because we want to make sure that it's Commissioner Letz messing with his information, not somebody else. Not just credit card, ladies and gentlemen. Name change, change of address, derogatory information. Let me come back to this here in a second, excuse me. You're okay. This do-it-yourself kit from the government, folks, I'm going to share one thing on Page 19 of this do-it-yourself kit. Once again, I know you trust Commissioner Oehler. Mas or menos. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mas or menos. 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 MR. MUNOZ: Okay. It says this on Page 19 of the do-it-yourself kit, okay? It says even if an identity thief changes your address -- okay, let's say somebody gets ahold of Commissioner Oehler's information. They get a credit card in his name without his knowledge. Because, folks -- nothing personal, guys -- at our wonderful United States Post Office, you can get this little change-of-address form and change anybody's address online for free. Judge, you know what I'm talking about. Now, watch this, folks. Let's say somebody maxed out a credit card in his name. I don't know if it's $300, $3,000, $4,000. If Commissioner Oehler doesn't let the credit card company know within -- how many days, sir? -- 60 days that he's not the one spending the money on that credit card, he's responsible. So, here's what where we come in, because we're monitoring your good name, yours and your husband's or your wife's, for example. We send you -- we send all our members a credit report, monitor their good name. The number one thing we do for families, ladies and gentlemen, is the actual restoration. Instead of an employee having to take any time away from work, having to spend any money out of their pocket, we assign them a licensed, trained investigator to go to work for them. This is why we have over 40,000 companies, schools, financial institutions, governmental bodies that we take care of currently throughout the United States that -- 8-24-09 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 that we implement Affirmative Defense and offer as an employee benefit if they want to. Okay? Now, many times, folks, people call in sick more because they have legal situations on their mind; they can't concentrate and focus on work. They share it amongst people. So, when their legal life moves on them, they get -- we give them access to pick up the phone, call law firms, write letters for them if they get overcharged for repairs, they get treated unfairly. Okay? We review contracts before they sign them. As a thank you -- we want people to use our services, ladies and gentlemen. Because, currently, right here in the great state of Texas, we pay our law firm, Ross and Matthews, $1.4 million a month to be there for our members. So, we give every single family, husband and wife, a complimentary will, a legal will, medical directive, and a trust for the kids at no cost, just as a thank you for being a member. We also help with moving violation assistance. Now, we don't pay for people's fines, okay? But we make sure everything -- we do everything possible for -- not to get on the driver's record. If somebody's involved in an accident, there's a fatality, we help. If somebody gets sued, we take care of them. If somebody gets audited by the I.R.S., we'll take care of them. You know, once we are finished giving everybody the training on identity theft, okay, then we tell them what's 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 available to them if they wish to, because our service is ~'I only 6 bucks and 50 cents a week for the entire family, regardless of size of the family. Then we send the -- Kerr County, for example, a certificate that goes like this on your wall that explains to people that you have an affirmative defense here, and these stickers go on your -- on the front doors to let your customers and your clients know that you have an affirmative defense and you know what it -- what it means to protect people's non-public information. Okay? And that's how we get paid, folks. Do you guys offer AFLAC here, for example, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: AFLAC? No. MR. MUNOZ: I don't know what you guys offer. But that's the way -- we just set this up through the payroll deduction for 6 bucks, 50 cents a week, if they want to, and it protects the whole family; $26 a month for the whole family to have the number-one identity theft protection in the world. That's what we are; you can check us out on the New York Stock Exchange, the number-one plan in the United States. Now, if Affirmative Defense -- heaven forbid, if your employees were notified of an improper usage, ladies and gentlemen, this could act as an early warning system. Three or four, five people say, "Hey, you know what? I was a victim of identify theft." "So was I." "So was I." By the time you start looking at things in-house -- okay, thank you, 8-24-09 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 Mr. Hooker. I'll probably show the slides real quick, folks. Business and Legal Reports says offer some sort of identity theft protection for people if they wish to. Some employers can choose whether or not to pay for it, ladies and gentlemen. With all due respect, nothing personal, but I pay twice as much for my daughter's cell phone, which is 50 bucks a month, 'cause she doesn't need a cell phone. When I was a child, I don't remember having a home phone. This protection, the service is $26 a month for the whole family, husband and wife and all the children. Okay? Now, of course, I'm not an attorney, Mr. Hooker is not an attorney, but we can help. And I apologize for my technology here; I don't know what happened to my laptop. We have a solution, ladies and gentlemen. The biggest thing for the county is the Affirmative Defense Response System. It doesn't matter if five people, six, seven, ten people take the protection. That's not a problem. The most important part is the actual training of the identity theft, the paperwork that stays with you, the appointment of a security officer, the mitigating plan and everything. That's what is most important for Kerr County. I -- I live in Midland, Texas. I take care of Ward County, Howard County, Winkler County, King County, for example. Midland County. Okay, are we back up? Well, I'm done. (Laughter.) MR. HOOKER: I don't know how to put it -- should 8-24-09 68 1 I -- 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: Mr. Munoz, do you have -- MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: -- complete information about your program and services that you offer that you can leave with our H.R. Director so that we can further study this matter? MR. MUNOZ: Sure. JUDGE TINLEY: And all of those programs, of course, would necessarily go through her office. MR. MUNOZ: You bet. JUDGE TINLEY: If you'd be kind enough to leave that information with her, well, we'd be most appreciative. MR. MUNOZ: Not only that, Judge, I'll also leave -- this is a magazine called the Smart Solutions magazine, of companies that we help throughout the United States, and how we help their bottom line and what employees talk about us. You can -- I ask people to do due diligence. Who's your Human Resource Director, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hyde. MR. MUNOZ: How are you doing, Ms. Hyde? We're publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange; P.P.D. is our symbol, okay? I like to call it "Please Protect Daily." And we are the 33rd fastest growing company on the New York Stock Exchange. You can check out the Better Business Bureau -- B's -- Better Business Bureau. But the manager talks about 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 69 how we help their bottom line. I apologize for the laptop. But what questions -- if anybody has any questions that I can answer. Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Munoz? MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What you're asking is that the County, in effect, be a sponsor of this program; is that correct? There is no expense to the County? MR. MUNOZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The expense is to the individual who -- who signs up for your service? MR. MUNOZ: If they want the service, that's correct, sir. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. MUNOZ: Once we give everybody the proper training on identity theft, we have them fill out the use of confidentiality form. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who would be getting that training? MR. MUNOZ: Sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who would be getting that 23 24 25 8-24-09 MR. MUNOZ: Everybody gets the training. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everybody? MR. MUNOZ: Yes, even temporary employees. training? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 70 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whether they subscribe to your service or not? MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir. The most important part is the training, because liability follows data, ladies and gentlemen. Heaven forbid, you have an employee and they take information. It could come back and haunt the county. So, ~ we -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- is the -- you mentioned payroll deduction. I don't think that's going to be an option for Kerr County, based on our policy. Can the employees do it through an automatic withdrawal system? Are there some other payment mechanisms other than using the county payroll system? MR. MUNOZ: Yeah, they can do it individually. But we ask a lot of people -- it's funny the way some of us human beings work. When they -- they don't see it out of their check, they -- they prefer it better. A lot of people don't have checking accounts, savings accounts. But for us to go ahead and give the Affirmative Defense Response System, that's what we ask. We have other counties, actually, that -- that sometimes they say, "We don't do payroll deductions," but because of the Affirmative Defense Response System, they're -- they're allowing us to, because we implement the -- 25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our current policy is that we 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1:~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 only -- we don't allow other vendors to come in and do payroll deductions, so it would be a bad precedent for us to set, in my mind. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Munoz? MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: Could you also leave with Ms. Hyde a -- a listing of Texas counties that have -- or possibly other local governmental units -- MR. MUNOZ: Sure. MR. MUNOZ: Actually, the Association of Counties offers us as an employee benefit already, Judge. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Texas Association of I Counties? MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir. They offer it to their employees, our service, already. Okay? But what I will do is I'll request another listing for the Human Resource Director. That will come directly; it doesn't come through me. I'll request it for them. It will go directly to her, yes, sir. But our -- our Association of Texas Counties -- the association already offers us to their employees as an employee benefit. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We appreciate that. MR. MUNOZ: Thank you. 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 72 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much your being here today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. We appreciate MR. MUNOZ: Thank you. And I apologize for the computer here. JUDGE TINLEY: Ain't technology wonderful? MR. MUNOZ: It is. MR. HOOKER: When it works. JUDGE TINLEY: When it works. Thank you. Appreciate you being here. MR. MUNOZ: Thank you for your time. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 14 on our agenda; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to set a public hearing for the revision of plat of Lot 3 in the Heritage Park Subdivision, Section 1, as set forth in Volume 4, Page 96, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 2. Ms. Hoffer? MS. HOFFER: Sylvia Konrad owns Lot 3 of the Heritage Park Number 1 Subdivision. Lot 3 is 12 acres currently. She would like to subdivide the property into two lots; 3A would be 5.04, and 3B would be 6.96. At this time, we ask the Court to set a public hearing for September 28th, 2009, at 10 a.m. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we set a 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73 public hearing on the revision of plat for Heritage Park Subdivision Number 1 for -- what date did we say, Kelly? MS. HOFFER: September 28th at 10 a.m. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: September 28th at 10 a.m. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second. JUDGE TINLEY: That is as to Lot 3? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. MS. HOFFER: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. Let's move to Item 16; consider, discuss, take appropriate action regarding approval of the 2010 sheriffs' and constables' fees. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just recommending we keep them the same as we did last year. We adjusted them some last year. I don't think they need to be adjusted again. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are there any new ones? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not that I'm aware of. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. Let me ask -- I'm looking at the schedule, and what I'm seeing is proposed, the figures in the blue column, are actually increases. Are you -- what you're proposing is the 2009 column? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I did not -- JUDGE TINLEY: In looking forward to -- MR. LAVENDER: That's my submission, if you're looking at the spreadsheet. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't make any recommendations at all, other than what we did last year. I'm recommending the same exact fees as we had last year. I don't know what the constables have submitted to you. JUDGE TINLEY: All right, that answers my question. Constable Lavender? MR. LAVENDER: The spreadsheet that you're looking at is my submission. And -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. LAVENDER: -- also with that was a little policy or justification statement page. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which brings up a good question, to me. Looking at your -- policy statement, I guess, is what you're calling this thing. MR. LAVENDER: Justification. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Justification. And the 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 thought -- and I've also had this question. When the -- the services requested are originated, whoever originates this thing should be -- that benefits from this service should be the one that pays for the service. MR. LAVENDER: That's my concept. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's what I'm seeing here, and I agree with that. Now, my question is, are there times that -- under the present schedule, do you charge more than what we receive? MR. LAVENDER: I'm not sure I understand the question. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. The cost of service -- is the cost of service more than what the schedule has on it? MR. LAVENDER: That is very -- if you'll look at the last two numbered items on there, that's extremely difficult to calculate what the actual true cost for any one service of a writ or citation is. My reason or motive for this is that these fees have not changed since '04, as best I can research, and before '04 it's not listed online, so I don't -- without going to individual cases and seeing what the fees were for those cases, it's difficult to tell. So, I know that we are, in all effects, static since '04. And, of course, cost-of-living is not static since '04. JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like a few went up. 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 COMMISSIONER LETZ: '09. MR. LAVENDER: Yeah, '09. JUDGE TINLEY: Just recently. Not all, but a few. Basically, looks like the basic type service fees -- MR. LAVENDER: The citations went up by $5. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which I think where we should be is right where they are, because you have to look at some of these people. In some of the small claims lawsuits, you know, unfortunately, they come to us first hoping that it's a criminal case where it doesn't cost them, 'cause they don't have the money to pay some of these fees to be able to get somebody evicted out of their house, or -- or on a theft deal or what they feel is a theft deal. And it turns out that it's a civil deal, and then they're pretty well stuck, because they just don't have the fees. I think we can go up too high, and I think we're really set at a good -- good situation where we are now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're probably making a good point. My thought is -- is that the cost of service, if it is more than what the fee is, then the rest of the cost there is made up by taxpayers, the taxpayers and rest of the county. Why would -- why would me, as a taxpayer, want to pay for your service that has been provided to you? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't believe that it costs 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 me or my agency $65 to go serve a subpoena. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you don't believe that, but other people might believe that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can probably show you in documentation where gas and everything else is not going to cost $65 to go locally to serve a subpoena. JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, you're proposing that your fees as previously approved remain the same? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, I am. JUDGE TINLEY: With regard to constables' fees, is there any legal requirement that the constables -- constables' fees be the same as yours? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have no idea. They've just always been the same. County fees are county fees. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: And, Mr. Lavender -- MR. LAVENDER: Ultimately, you guys get to make the decision. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Lavender, you're proposing that, at least in Precinct 1, the constable fees ought to be as ', outlined in the spreadsheet? MR. LAVENDER: Well, I don't believe that we can separate them by agency or by precinct. I think the Commissioners -- it's my understanding from the statute that the Commissioners set the fee for all the agencies in the 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 county at one dollar value. JUDGE TINLEY: But, again, it's your belief that the proposed fees should be as you've set forth? MR. LAVENDER: Correct. And I believe that based on that the user should pay for the fees, not the taxpayers. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- question for either one of y'all. What are the maximum fees? MR. LAVENDER: There is no -- that is the fee that's on that schedule. It -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, but as -- what I'm saying is, does the state law -- most of these fees are set by statute, at least within a range. MR. LAVENDER: These are set by the Commissioners Court and have to be reported to the state so that they go into effect first of the year. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't believe there is a maximum. What we've normally looked at, there are a number of counties that have them lower, and probably one or two that are up to that 65 where -- where John's recommending we go to. But I just -- I don't believe that there is a maximum, and I think we're very well in the medium to high category on all these fees. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- on the notices, what does that fee mean? 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 79 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of the notices are posting it out here on the bulletin board. COMMISSIONER LETZ: These aren't notices in SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, 'cause that's one that wouldn't cover posting, with our local paper anyway. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, walking over to the bulletin board and putting it on there. MR. LAVENDER: When we -- when we do those in the newspaper for sales, that's charged to the litigants as an additional cost. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: These fees don't have the cost of actually filing a lawsuit or anything else. It's just the service of these certain type of documents. And I just don't see that those type of documents cost us that much. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, here comes another constable; maybe he wants to weigh in on it. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Rex was going to go pull his Local Government Code and the section to look at it to where he could answer any other questions. JUDGE TINLEY: So, maybe we need to defer on this item for now. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Till after the break. JUDGE TINLEY: What's the Court's pleasure? 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyone make a motion? I'll make a motion. THE CLERK: I have a motion and a second. JUDGE TINLEY: You have a motion and a second? THE CLERK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a motion and second, and a County Attorney. JUDGE TINLEY: To? THE CLERK: To have them remain the same as they were in 2009. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and a second for the sheriffs' and constables' fees to remain the same as previously approved. Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Thank you, sir. Let's quickly handle our 10:30 item; I see my good friend Joe Ramos from AACOG here. Good to have you here, Joe. MR. RAMOS: Good to be here. JUDGE TINLEY: Item 15 is to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to accept offer of funding from Alamo R.C.& D. for use in mitigating O.S.S.F. problems and/or 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 81 hooking up sewer collection systems for property owners who missed deadlines earlier phases of Kerrville South wastewater project. I'm going to defer to Commissioner Williams to introduce this item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I knew I was going to have Bertha here, but I didn't know I was going to have Joe here. face. MR. RAMOS: I thought she might need a friendly COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I appreciate that. MR. RAMOS: Since we're going to give you money. I thought that may be a contentious issue. JUDGE TINLEY: We want to be part of giving away 14 money. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. VENEGAS: Yeah. MR. RAMOS: I just have to remind the Judge and Commissioners, I'm not wearing my AACOG hat; I'm actually on the board of directors for the Alamo R.C.& D., so I'm wearing my Alamo R.C.& D. board of directors hat. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That explains it. MR. RAMOS: Just forget that I work for AACOG. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, that explains it. Bertha? MS. VENEGAS: Yes. I'm Bertha Venegas; I'm with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and my position 8-29-09 1 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 is to serve as liaison to the Alamo R.C.& D., which is Resource, Conservation, and Development. And Joe Ramos serves on the board of directors; that's why he's here with me today. I did prepare some folders with some information about R.C.& D., and if it's okay, I'm going to let y'all have those. But through the R.C.& D. program, there is a nonprofit organization that was formed in support of this program, and this program came from U.S.D.A., which is the U.S. Department of Agriculture. So, as a liaison to the board, I assist them in providing technical and financial support in -- in support of the R.C.& D. program. Now, this program serves ten counties -- a ten-county area, including Kerr County. And the project before us, we have received some funding from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and this is through their supplemental environmental projects, and they call them A.C.P.'s. And, basically, when they find an entity or a group, they are allowed to use this funding for environmental type projects, so they have given us $14,000 to put for water or wastewater assistance in Kerr County. So, I had contacted Commissioner Williams and explained to him that we had some funding and, you know, we would like to work with Kerr County to get that money spent based on the rules that they have set up for waste or wastewater systems. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That -- Bertha's call was 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 83 really very, very timely. We've been wrassling with an issue or two in the Kerrville South wastewater project where one particular person had a problem in that the individual missed the deadlines to begin with and didn't get hooked up. Had two properties; one got hooked up, one did not. And there were subsequently some problems with the septic system, and Mr. Garcia -- Mr. Raymond and his people can give more information on that. And so these funds could be used to correct that situation for that lady. They could also be used for the hookup fees for some others down there who've also missed the deadline originally and didn't get hooked up. And, so, Bertha's call was very timely, and I appreciate you coming and offering us $14,000. But when saw Joe Ramos here, I thought maybe you were going to go up to $28,000. But -- (Laughter.) MR. RAMOS: We'll take it under advisement for next year. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Might as well ask for 30. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But we'd be happy to accept -- I believe the Court would be happy to accept your -- your generous offer, and we can put it to use for those people in the Kerrville South wastewater project, Phase I. So, I would move approval of accepting the offer of 14 -- is it an even 14, Bertha? 25 I MS. VENEGAS: It's -- I'm going to say 14,000. 8-24-09 1 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 It's based on the interest it's earning, and so it's approximately 14,000. It's a little shy of that, but should be about that much by the time we, you know, hand it over to COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We would be accepting funding from Alamo R.C.& D. in the amount of approximately $14,000, which will be used for hooking up folks who missed the deadlines and correcting problems in the Kerrville -- Kerrville South wastewater project, Phase I. JUDGE TINLEY: That's a motion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is a motion. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second for approval as indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you both for being here. MR. RAMOS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate it, and it's good to see you again. MR. RAMOS: Likewise. Thank you. 8-29-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 MS. VENEGAS: Thank you for having us. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's take us about a 15-minute COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Bertha. Thank you, Joe. (Recess taken from 10:40 a.m. to 10:58 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we might, from our recess. It's 11 o'clock now, so why don't we go to our 11 o'clock timed item, Item 20, to consider, discuss, take appropriate action on proposed change orders to courthouse windows, interior staining and installation procedures, and acceptance of alternate bid and/or change orders on replacement of east and west entrance units. As I'm sure the Court will recall, we accepted a base bid from Wildwood Designs, and that design called for, obviously, the interior staining of the wood surfaces of the window units to match the existing stain color of the trim. The -- the issue before the Court in that respect is whether or not the Court wants to accept a change order that that all be done at the factory rather than on-site. There's some aesthetic issues and environmental issues to be considered, primarily, and I'm going to let Mr. Peter Lewis speak to that momentarily. The other issue is, we were given two alternatives. One would be to either totally replace the -- the door and 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 surrounds on the east and west sides of the old portion of the courthouse and put in hardwood doors similar to the one that we have here on the east side. It would involve installing another hardwood door down there. Or whether or not we were going to accept a lower amount to merely refurbish those, but install only a wooden door down at the west end. And the proposal today is to totally replace the east and west units -- entrance units in their entirety; i.e., accept the other option in the bid. Plus there would be an upgrade on the doors and the sash units with the doors. And, of course, both of them would involve cost to the County, because they'd be upgrades. And at this point, I'll let Mr. Lewis come forward, and I hope I've properly introduced this thing. MR. LEWIS: Yes, you have, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Or adequately confused it, so you can straighten it out. MR. LEWIS: Judge and Commissioners, thank you. You did describe the issues very well. To address the staining issue, the specifications call for a stained finish. It did not specify factory finish. There were some cost savings from the contractor to do the staining on-site. As we began to discuss it and discuss it with the Judge, we had a meeting last week to talk about staining, because the contractor will need to be in a series of offices for a 8-24-09 1 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 period of time to sand and stain the windows after they're installed. So, we talked -- an option in terms of saving some time was to have these units stained at the factory, and then the on-site work would be minimal. And there are some costs to -- there are some additional costs associated with that. What we think is that, though there are some intrinsic -- there's some value to the County in terms of it would be less disruptive to the ongoing work in each of these offices. We discussed the issues of what the particulate sanding would do. Now, the contractor would control that to the best of their ability, but it still would be inconvenient, and the sand and dust and volatiles that come off of the staining process. And so we offered that, asked the contractor to come up with a proposal to change the window units themselves to a factory finish, and then any work that would be done on-site would be generally touch-up. Now, understand that there will be inconvenience when you take a window out and replace it, but we would work with the contractors and with the County to come up with a schedule so that no particular space would be left vulnerable overnight for any period -- an extended period of time. They would work one or two rooms at a time going around. In fact, they described a sequence of operations that would start with the public restrooms and work around in that direction all the 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 way around the building. So, that's that issue. And then the issue with the exit doors, the original bid documents did call to refurbish those end units. That was after much discussion with the Judge about the merits of -- of refurbishing those. The County had recently -- I understand had recently done some work on this unit down here and spent some -- spent some dollars refurbishing it, but you're beginning to see it weather again. And the contractor has suggested, and we think it's a good suggestion to consider, that those units be aluminum-clad exterior units, stain-grade interior, though they would be factory-stained. But there are some additional costs associated with that in the short term. I think in the long-term, there are savings to the County, that it's of value, that they will be -- there will be little or no maintenance to those units, just like the rest of the windows. They would be consistent with all the windows. The detailing would look the same, so there's -- there's some cornice work and different things around the door that they would duplicate in either in a clad material or a polymer material, but it would have, again, zero -- very little or zero maintenance during the life of the units. And they come with a 20 -- these come with a 20-year warranty from the factory and from the manufacturer, and it -- it is our recommendation that these are -- both of these are -- 8-24-09 1 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 will add value to the county. And I understand there's some costs associated with this. We think that the cost is minor compared to, I think, the long-term value that the County will realize, and during the installation, the short-term value in that it will minimize inconvenience to the County and its operation. JUDGE TINLEY: The time on site on the factory-stained versus the -- versus the in-house stain, the time that the contractor is actually working in a particular office should be reduced, as well as the environmental hazards and -- and the fumes? MR. LEWIS: And the fumes, right, the volatiles. JUDGE TINLEY: The fumes itself will be significantly decreased, would they not? MR. LEWIS: Yes, they would, sir. Now, going back to a factory finish would push the delivery time out about three weeks. But I think, there again, we're into a -- there's still plenty of time before we get into any -- you know, the rain that we're going to get this winter. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The what? MR. LEWIS: I said the rain we're going to get this winter won't come until they're finished with the window installation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a sample of what these 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 90 doors would look like, or something we can look at? I mean, I just -- I can't imagine a clad -- aluminum-clad door looking all that good, the ones that I've seen, but maybe y'all have a lot better quality than I'm thinking about. AUDIENCE: I'm sure it is, yeah. It's a -- I can get some pictures, or we can do a field trip to a job or whatever. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pictures are preferable. AUDIENCE: Okay. MR. LEWIS: So the answer is yes, and we'll get those to you. MR. EMERSON: I just need to ask one quick question, since we're right at the start of the job. And this would be to Peter, because I'm not intimately familiar with the bid specs. Is this changing the bid specs substantially to the point where it should be re-put out for bid? Or is it still within substantial conformity to the initial bid specs with just a -- like, a change order? MR. LEWIS: It is still in substantial conformance with the original bid specs. All of the bidders were bidding on-site stain finish, so it is the County's -- it is the County's option to make this upgrade. All the bidders would have had the same response to an upgrade as well. MR. EMERSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, yeah, I'm totally in 8-29-09 1 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 favor of the staining at the factory. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But on the doors, I kind of want to hold off a little bit, kind of look at those, because I -- which doors are we talking about? MR. LEWIS: This door at the end of this hall and the one that's on the opposite end. That's painted; this one's stained. But not -- the front doors are being refurbished. That plan stays as-is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. LEWIS: They're so unique that -- ~' COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I was really concerned about, 'cause it's such an important part of the courthouse look. JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two end doors. JUDGE TINLEY: -- the whole unit, the surrounds and the doors, would have a uniform appearance with the windows. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: The only thing, then, that would be just refurbished would be those front doors. MR. LEWIS: All the trim on these is also clad, or -- and so you won't expect to be painting these again, whereas a painted window should be painted every five to seven years. Or it just depends on its exposure, if you -- 8-24-09 1 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 if you want it maintained. It's a consistent finish around the building. You can -- as we walked around the building and assessed it, we noticed that there are various finishes on the windows. Some have been painted an off-white; some are kind of a vanilla, and I guess they were done at different times. This would be a consistent finish that would, again, be guaranteed not to fade, chip, rust, weather, et cetera, for 20 years, and I think that the County will be very pleased with that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess what I'm wrestling with a little bit on the doors, there is -- the cornice, that little -- the decorative part of it can be replicated on a clad finish pretty close, or with a resin? MR. LEWIS: Right, with the resin, so that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's not going to look like a metal gym door? MR. LEWIS: No, it will not look -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just wanted to make sure. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Surely not. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not what he's been talking about the whole time. When -- when did we put in this door here, this new door at the end of the hallway? MS. HARGIS: It's always been there. JUDGE TINLEY: No, the new door's only been there 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 93 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Judge. MR. LEWIS: Not the opening. They replaced the door in that opening. MS. HARGIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's been there only three years and it needs to be refinished? MR. LEWIS: I mean, the stain is starting to take wear, and the -- actually, the varnish is starting to wear. And -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, if we put -- if we just keep doing what we're doing, we're talking about redoing -- MR. LEWIS: Ongoing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- those doors every three years? MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. And, in fact, some people recommend you do it every year on a stained and sealed door, if it has a -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we change -- MR. LEWIS: -- west or southwest exposure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to John's metal gym doors, we won't have to do anything for 20 years? MR. LEWIS: You have very minor -- very minor I maintenance. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three years, 20 years. Let me think through this. (Laughter.) 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, if you'll recall, this, quote, new door that's at the east end here, there have been times when we did manage to have some wet weather, that that thing swelled, and it actually drug across the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: -- threshold before. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we've had it cut COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually cut down. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And now it's dry, so you can probably see under it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, all under it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we approve Change Order 1 and 2 as presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 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: The motion does carry. 8-29-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't need to see the pictures. I trust y'all. MR. LEWIS: Thanks. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 17; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve the appeal from the -- from Kerr County to the Texas Water Development Board on the desired future conditions set by Groundwater Management Area 9 for the Edwards-Trinity Plateau, Ellenberger, and Hickory aquifers. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I handed out the appeal. It is basically the same appeal with a few minor changes to reflect that it's coming from the County, as opposed to Plateau Water Planning Group-Region J, but the substance of it is the same. A couple of -- what was handed out is only the appeal for the Edwards-Trinity. And also, the note that Upper Guadalupe River Authority is also doing something similar, and there's some reasoning behind thinking we ought to have three appeals presented. And then I think the City of Kerrville and other entities are likely going to file resolutions in support of the appeal. I did, on the front page of the contact information, put County Judge Pat Tinley, but I did put my e-mail address for correspondence on that. And this is pretty much it. Now, I can go into the -- more details on the appeal if people want to. The basic problem with it is that the DFC for the 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 96 Edwards-Trinity did not -- or the modeling in GMA-9 did not consider a lot of the newer data that has been presented. Water Development Board, the model was not included to -- updated to include that information. There were several studies that Region J did that were not looked at. One most importantly is a spring study done in 2006 -- 2005, and the spring study is really critical because the Edwards-Trinity provides all of the spring flow for the Guadalupe River, and it is Region J's feeling that any DFC for that aquifer needs to consider spring flow as one of its concerns. They set it at zero draw-down, but depending on where you put the -- how you monitor it, which is another issue, it may not have any impact. It may never look at spring flow, so it potentially could happen where the spring flows are diminished, whereas the DFC is still being met, and that's unacceptable. The Guadalupe River needs to be protected, that river and that flow. The other part of the problem is, there's currently only one monitor well in the Edwards-Trinity Plateau aquifer, and the aerial extent of that aquifer is about 600 square miles in Kerr County, and it is not -- any DFC has to be quantifiable, and based on the pathology of that aquifer, it is not possible to monitor it with one monitor well. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is that one well? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't ask me. I think it's actually the well over there by the fish and wildlife -- I 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 mean the fishery. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Parks and Wildlife. JUDGE TINLEY: Hatchery. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Resource station. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's up in that area, but don't hold me to that. So, that is that appeal. Region J did not appeal the Ellenberger and the Hickory Aquifers, and they're really not that critical, but I got remotivated over the weekend and would like the permission of the Court to write those appeals as well. Those are two aquifers that may exist in this county. They have -- there's no producing wells from either of them that anyone's aware of. There's some old data and maps that the Water Development Board had to show coming into the northern part of the county, but it seems absolutely idiotic, in my mind, to do desired future conditions of an aquifer that we have no wells producing, have no way to quantify if a well is producing out of it, and no knowledge of the aquifer being in the county. And I think it's just somewhat stupid to even appeal it, and that's -- and I won't use the word "stupid," but the rest of that will probably be put in the appeal if y'all will agree with that appeal. JUDGE TINLEY: When you mentioned that term, 8-24-09 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 98 That's caused some sort of a firestorm here of late. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I probably shouldn't say that. And one other thing that got my reinvigorated over the weekend, I was e-mailed a speech from Jack Hunt, and he is one of the directors of the Water Development Board, one of the board members of that board in Austin. And his speech and my appeal -- I say "my appeal" -- the appeal that I wrote, are almost mirror images of each other. I was very surprised at his comments. He was very disillusioned with the DFC process. He thinks it's a big mistake, and he made a speech about three weeks ago to the -- whatever that association of groundwater districts in Texas is, and really hopes this thing is changed. Which is good news from the appeal standpoint, because it means at least I've got one ally on the board in Austin. And we'll see where it goes. That's it for this agenda item, so I'll make a motion that we approve the appeal for the -- let me state it correctly here -- for the Edwards-Trinity Plateau Aquifer. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item and the appeal. Question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, one question. I may be on the wrong one here, Jon, I'm sorry. 8-24-09 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm not asking you to speak for John Ashworth, but I'm wondering, has he -- what is his opinion of all of this? And has he written an opinion or anything? COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's in a little bit of an awkward situation from the standpoint that he's the consultant for Region J. He has read it. He read it more from a factual standpoint, to make sure everything written in it was -- you know, 'cause we do cite his studies, that those citations are correct. And his words to me were, "It's a good appeal." But we really -- it's probably the only Region J meeting we had when we actually voted on this. I didn't really think it was a -- I mean, we're using his data for part of the appeal. But I don't think it's appropriate to ask our consultant, who's being paid by the Water Development Board, to really weigh in on it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. He just happens -- in my opinion, is the top of the line, the guru all of this stuff. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He, I think, concurs with it, from what he told me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 8-24-09 100 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 your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll go to COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, wait. If we can do a second motion, I'll make a motion that we authorize Commissioner Letz to finalize and write the appeals for the Ellenberger Aquifer and the Hickory Aquifer, which will be basically substantially the same format as the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I second that motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. ~~ (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Anything further on that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tha t's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Let' s go to Item 18, if we might, to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve resolution supporting PWPG-Region J appeal to the Texas Water 8-24-09 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Development Board on DFC's set by Groundwater Management Area 9 for the Edwards-Trinity, Ellenberger, and Hickory Aquifers, and authorize PWPG-Region J members to represent Kerr County in the appeals process. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a resolution that I handed out. I've already made quite a few changes to it. This is pretty minor, more typo-type changes. The important part of it is on the second page, and it's the -- Section 1. "Commissioners Court of Kerr County hereby expresses support for the appeal of the DFC filed by Plateau Water Planning Group-Region J." And second one is, "Commissioners Court of Kerr County hereby authorizes Plateau Water Planning Group-Region J Chair Jonathan Letz or his representative to represent Kerr County during the appeal process with Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District, GMA-9, and the Texas Water Development Board." This does not include the Ellenberger and the Hickory Aquifers; we'll come back with a separate resolution at a future time for that. I'll make a motion to approve the resolution. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Subject to the modifications that need to be made. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Need to change the signature line there. It says "President" instead of "County Judge." 8-24-09 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- JUDGE TINLEY: That's already been accomplished. I have it in-hand. Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move to Item 19; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on Order Expressing Intent to Reimburse for Tax-Exempt Obligation Proceeds the cost associated with construction or -- constructing or acquiring various improvements within the county. Ms. Hargis? MS. HARGIS: Good morning. This resolution and order is a housekeeping item for us, in preparation of possibly doing a capital tax note. This allows us to be reimbursed if we have any engineering, architectural fees, or anything of that nature from this issue. It does have a -- a limit in there. It doesn't mean we're going to get that much; it just gives us the opportunity to sell up to 4 million, 1. We did the same thing on the 2008 issue. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In is -- this is a requirement for bonding? MS. HARGIS: It is a requirement, because it 8-24-09 103 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 protects you from spending any funds that you -- if you spend funds before you actually adopt and approve the issue, and it -- it applies to that issue, you cannot go back and recapture those funds. This way, if you have -- have to spend money before you actually do the issue, like we've talked about we might need some engineering, architectural work done prior to, we can pay those fees out of the issue once it is sold. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. MS. HARGIS: And reimburse ourselves. Otherwise, you cannot. So, it's more or less a protection of our funds. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would offer a motion to approve Order Expressing Intent to Reimburse with Tax-Exempt Obligation Proceeds bond issue. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll go to Item 21. That item is to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to set date, time, and place of public hearing on the Kerr County FY 2009-10 budget. I put this on the agenda. It's an annual requirement for us to have a -- a public 8-24-09 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 hearing on our budget. What date did we plug that in for, Ms. Hargis? 28th? MS. HARGIS: I believe so, in conjunction with the tax rate. It is the 28th, isn't it, Diane? (Low-voice discussion off the record.) MS. HARGIS: Yeah, the 28th. You have to approve the budget before you approve the tax rate. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What time? MS. HARGIS: I think we scheduled it at the regular meeting, but I don't know what time. JUDGE TINLEY: It's the regular meeting on the COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we in September? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, we're in September. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I thought, whoa. Whoa, we don't have time to get this posted. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No wonder. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry. September the 28th, which is our -- our second -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're going to go quick here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Makes a lot of difference. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, a month. JUDGE TINLEY: How about 10 o'clock? MS. HARGIS: That's fine. 8-24-09 105 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Since we'll be here, fine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we set the public hearing on the budget for 10 o'clock -- September 28th at 10:00. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Now that I got the right date. I have a motion and second to set the public hearing on the Kerr County FY 2009-10 budget for 10 a.m. on September 28th, 2009. 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 go to Item 22; to consider, discuss, and approve by record vote the proposed 2009 Kerr County tax rate and set dates and times of the first and second public hearings on said tax rate. Ms. Bolin? MS. BOLIN: One thing to change before we get started on this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this what you handed out? MS. BOLIN: This is the propaganda that I handed out Friday. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in my -- JUDGE TINLEY: I've got it here, Jon, if you want to look on mine. 8-24-09 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I got one right here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tax rates, and she handed out some propaganda on Friday. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, I got that. MS. BOLIN: Okay. The calculated effective tax rate was .4054, with the roll back rate being .40 -- .4908 for the county -- combined county. The proposed tax rate that we, between the Judge and Ms. Hargis and I, came up with is .3971, which is exactly the same as this year. The lateral roads is .0328 was the calculated, and we're staying with what we've had at .3 -- .0322. The combined rates for lateral roads and the county is .4382 calculated, and proposed is .4293. Because what we're proposing is less than what the calculated was, we do not have to do the public hearings. We do not have to do our publications in the newspaper. Everything is if it's in excess of the lower of the effective or the rollback rates. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's "calculated" rate? MS. BOLIN: The calculated is what I take -- that is this year's taxable value, based on last year's taxable value, and it's all calculated together to give us a rate to equal what we would have brought in last year to meet -- JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, what they called the "effective" tax rate. 25 I MS. BOLIN: Effective tax rate, correct. 8-24-09 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Used to be the effective rate. MS. BOLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now it's called calculated. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Emerson, have you reviewed the statutory references that Ms. Bolin has made with regard to the waiver of the necessity for public hearings in the event the actual proposed tax rate is less than both the effective or calculated tax rate and rollback rate, even though there will be generated more tax funds this year than in the previous year? MR. EMERSON: Judge, in Section 26.05 of the Property Tax Code, the section she's referring to is Subsection smaller (d), and what it says is the governing body of a taxing unit, other than a school district, may not adopt a tax rate that exceeds the lower of the rollback tax rate or the effective tax rates calculated as provided by this chapter until the governing body has held two public hearings. And it goes on from -- from there, but the key word is "exceeds." JUDGE TINLEY: Key word is what? MR. EMERSON: Is "exceeds." In other words, you can't pass a tax rate that exceeds the lower of the rollback tax rate or the effective tax rate calculated without the hearings. Since the proposed rate does not exceed those, I 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108 don't think there's an issue. JUDGE TINLEY: So, we can proceed to merely set the adoption of the -- the formal adoption of the tax rate without the intervening public hearing, so long as the proposed tax rate does not exceed either the effective or calculated rate, or the rollback rate? MR. EMERSON: That's what the statute states, Judge. And it's my understanding that Ms. Bolin did talk to the Comptroller's office, and they did confirm that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any reason -- I mean, I know there's no legal requirement to do it, but there's nothing wrong with holding a public hearing as well. JUDGE TINLEY: Out of an abundance of caution, if the Court wants to hold one or two public hearings, it's certainly something we can do. We've got them -- we've got them programmed into the calendar, into the schedule. The only down side would be the publication costs. We would have to issue notice. I think those are quarter-page ads, -- MS. BOLIN: They are. JUDGE TINLEY: -- if I'm not mistaken, minimum. MS. BOLIN: And the other problem that I have is that the ads that would go in the paper for notices, everything says "exceeds." There's nothing that says that we're going below. Everything that the State requires says "exceeds" the effective or rollback rate. 8-24-09 "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 109 I, COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what's triggers the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, it would be probably more confusing to try to do it. JUDGE TINLEY: Could be. MS. BOLIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We can just have a workshop and let people come in. JUDGE TINLEY: We can schedule two public hearings on the proposed tax rate, period, and run some summary kind of notice, publication notice, that -- MS. BOLIN: That's strictly up to y'all. JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't have to conform to this statutory format, it would seem. Would that not be appropriate, Mr. Emerson? MR. EMERSON: I think it would provide lots of public notice. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the idea of doing a public hearing on it. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I think we should. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too, but not -- not this -- this -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But not the format. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The notice -- yeah, the format of the notice. 8-24-09 110 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 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Being as we don't have to comply with that, why should we? JUDGE TINLEY: Is the Court's wish to have one or two public hearings? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one's probably sufficient. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One, I think, is -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One's good. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. At this point, under the agenda item, we are here to take a record vote on the proposed tax rate; is that correct? MS. BOLIN: Yes, sir, of .3971 for the county, .0322 for the lateral roads, a combined rate of .4293. JUDGE TINLEY: For lateral road and -- MS. BOLIN: And the county. JUDGE TINLEY: And the county. MS. BOLIN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Now, that does not include debt I service? MS. BOLIN: No, the .3971 would have everything in I it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, it does. MS. BOLIN: The breakout will be at our adoption. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to approve 8-24-09 111 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 the proposed tax rates for 2009-2010 year as submitted. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it, but I have a question. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the proposed tax rates as presented in the memorandum from Ms. Bolin, for a total rate of .4293. Question or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You've answered my question, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me call for a record vote on that motion. Commissioner, Precinct 1, Mr. Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I vote aye. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, Precinct 2, I Mr. Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, Precinct 3, Mr. Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, Precinct 4, Mr. Oehler? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Aye. JUDGE TINLEY: And the chair also votes in the affirmative. Do I hear a motion with regard to a public hearing with regard to the tax -- proposed tax rate? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we set a public hearing for -- someone give me a date. 8-24-09 112 1 2 3 4 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do it on the 28th. MS. BOLIN: You want it on your next Commissioners Court, or on the same day as the public hearing for the budget? MS. HARGIS: No, before. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the 14th of September at 6 7 10 a. 8 9 10 11 same? 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. BOLIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: And that public notice be given of COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion's been made to set a public hearing after public notice -- the public's notice for September 14, 2009, at 10 a.m. on the proposed tax rate. Question or discussion on that motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you very much, Ms. Bolin. MS. BOLIN: Okay. There is one other thing that relates to the tax rates. There was a bill passed that became effective in June that's for 100 percent disabled 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 113 veterans. To date, we have 65 that have applied and qualified, which gave us a $10 million deficit in our taxable value. This number is going to go up. The Appraisal District does not know how many, but this is the notice that I got on Friday. Our taxable values dropped by $10,690,085, which means we've lost $45,000-plus in revenue, based on this year's tax rate. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So far. MS. BOLIN: So far. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Any questions? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We have some funds that were not budgeted, I believe. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There are some funds left over that were not budgeted from the proposed budget. Not a lot, but there was an amount left that was unbudgeted, basically, that we hope will cover that. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That it won't affect the tax rate. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's just F.Y.I.? MS. BOLIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's no action required? MS. BOLIN: No, sir. 25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate it. 8-29-09 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 '~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. BOLIN: You're welcome. JUDGE TINLEY: Let us move to Item 23 -- excuse me. The 11:30 item, I have been advised, has been passed until the next regular Commissioners Court meeting on the 14th of September. Is that correct? Is that correct, Ms. Grinstead? MS. GRINSTEAD: That's what he told me. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's then go to Item 23; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on presentation from the Kerr County Safety Committee. MS. HYDE: Good morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Morning. MS. HYDE: We made one book for y'all to look at so far. And, Judge, I think I messed up. If you want to change who's on the safety committee, was I supposed to put that in there, or can they do that? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, everybody's on here but I me. very safe. JUDGE TINLEY: That's a change we can make. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, everybody in town. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can take care of that. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That must mean you're not MS. HYDE: As you can see, there was a lot of 8-29-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 115 officials are now either directly involved or have someone within their office that is -- is filling in for them. We have talked to Larry from TAC. He's trying to fill -- fill us -- or not fill us up; come down in September and work with Tim and the elected and appointed officials and go through the courthouse and look at ways and areas that we may be able to improve safety. From a different perspective, Tim has been working with Jannett, and they made fire evacuation route posters that -- that folks are going to place in their offices. MS. PIEPER: This is -- there's several here, if y'all want to take a look at them. They're not complete yet -- do you want to pass one over? -- because we have no budget yet. We're going to laminate these and put them up in the individual offices. And that shows your primary route and your secondary route. It also shows where the defibrillators are located at, one on each floor, and the closest fire extinguisher. So, we don't have every fire extinguisher on here; it's just the closest one to that particular office. Buster, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't see any fire extinguishers. MS. PIEPER: Well, these are not complete yet, so 8-24-09 116 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 MS. HYDE: She's going to give you one that has MS. PIEPER: Here, this is for you. MS. HYDE: Just for you. MS. PIEPER: Your office, sir. MS. HYDE: So you can see. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Look at this. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Buster gets a special one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wonderful. Do you have any MS. PIEPER: Yeah, I reverted back to my childhood with the red pen. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question, again. What -- whose rules do we come under as far as the type of fire extinguisher? Who am I asking this to? Tim? MR. BOLLIER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The type of fire extinguisher, size of fire extinguisher, location of fire extinguisher and things like that? See, I'm hung up in the fact that I think -- I believe that the Fire Marshal for the city of Kerrville must sign off on this thing before it becomes reality. Am I wrong in that? MR. BOLLIER: No, sir, you're right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, is it him that has the rules and regulations of all of these things? 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 117 MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir, you're right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. BOLLIER: The fire extinguishers, which I have done by Hill Country Fire Extinguisher, whose name -- whose name is Bruce Myers, who comes by here, and we comply by the City of Kerrville's Fire Marshal Code. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Code, okay. MR. BOLLIER: We have to have fire extinguishers within 75 feet of each office, which we're 75 feet -- we're -- like, Jonathan's office is there. There has to be a fire extinguisher within 75 feet of him, which that is minimum requirement. We are at minimum requirement right I now . COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. But -- so you could MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir, you can set as many as you want, okay? But it was like -- Bruce was -- Bruce and I had the discussion on the telephone, and it's like Bruce said, you know, we can put a fire extinguisher in every office if that's what we want, but the fire extinguisher isn't there for us to fight fire. You know, if a fire breaks out, he wants us out of this building, not to fight a fire, because that's not what we're trained to do. That's why we have the fire department. And I agree with that. I would like to see us add a couple more fire extinguishers, because there are 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1a 20 21 22 23 24 25 118 some offices that are sharing one fire extinguisher. I mean, the likelihood of having two fires break out in two offices are -- you know, the -- that happening is very slim. But still, I would like to see us add a few more. Not a bunch; maybe three or four, five, you know. But at that -- at the cost of the fire -- Bruce's cost, it's $46 a fire extinguisher. That's on the wall and mounted and tagged. If you go to Walmart and buy a fire extinguisher, you still have to have it tagged by the Fire Marshal Code -- by the city code in Kerrville. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay. MR. BOLLIER: So it's cheaper for us just to go through Bruce, get a 5-pounder, put it on the wall, and it's tagged. And then Bruce checks them every year. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's not me. MR. BOLLIER: No, Bruce Myers. Not Commissioner COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you for making that clear. MR. BOLLIER: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not in the fire extinguisher business. MR. BOLLIER: Did I answer your question, sir? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Let the record show," huh? 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 119 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You did, thank you. And they -- he knows the code and he complies with the code and the whole thing? MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir, he has to. (Low-voice discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the question? What's the deal? MR. BOLLIER: Next question. MS. HYDE: Was that your only question, sir? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah -- yes, ma'am. Thank MS. HYDE: The book that we gave you is a book that each of the committee members is keeping up with as well. As we continue going forward, there's some things that we might want to request, but we would bring that to Commissioners '~ Court to make sure that the Commissioners are in agreement. And y'all might have some recommendations or some different ideas about what we -- what we're looking at. The $46 per -- you were talking four or five, right? MR. BOLLIER: Four or five. I don't think we need I more than that. MS. HYDE: No. And then -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How many of those -- how long 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 do these things last? Do they eventually have to be replaced because of -- you know, what about recertification? MS. PIEPER: They have to be recharged. MR. BOLLIER: They have to be recharged. He'll come in -- he comes in, and when he checks them, if they need recharged, he usually replaces one, which doesn't cost us anything, and then he'll take the old one and do whatever he ~ needs to do that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Bruce, they get retagged or recharged, recertified every year. We have the same ones that we've had for 15 years out at the Sheriff's Office. They just -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just wasn't sure how that I worked. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They just update them, update the tags, as long as you don't use it. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you asking the Court today to take any action with respect to what you're in the process of doing? This is an informational -- MR. BOLLIER: Informational. MS. HYDE: It's information. JUDGE TINLEY: There's a lot of different things that the committee is looking at. Some are more elaborate than others, but you're, in large measure, in the investigative stage of trying to figure out priorities from 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 121 starting this thing from the ground up. What do we do first? What do we do next? What are the costs involved? And develop as you go? MS. HYDE: Right, absolutely. That's why we gave y'all the minutes. Going forward, we'll shoot y'all out the minutes as well so that you can see it. We've heard a lot of information that's been out there on -- on costs and what we're looking at doing and what we're trying to do, and right now it's still as the Judge said, it's investigative. As far as the hazmat, we'd like to kind of put that one a little bit to bed. We are discussing within the group that in the courthouse, we'd like to have one central location for the hazmat materials, which is going to decrease our cost, which is with the guy that does the -- most of your chemicals, most of your stuff. That way, our M.S.D.S. can be put in one centralized location. A copy of it can be kept in the County Clerk's office so that if, God forbid, there was a fire down in Tim's area, our M.S.D.S., we've got a second location so the Sheriff or Fire Marshal or whoever can see it. Any cleaning supplies and stuff like that, people can still request and get, but that way he's in charge of that. JUDGE TINLEY: And as part of his reconfiguration process downstairs, he's getting all those items -- MS. HYDE: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- under control where there's less 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 122 exposure for those items to come in contact with the general public, 'cause he's securing all of that? MR. BOLLIER: They'll be under lock and key. As a matter of fact, as we're speaking, that's what's they're doing downstairs right now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. MS. HYDE: So, really and truly, this was just so that y'all could see it. Y'all will get the minutes. If y'all have any suggestions, please let us know. We'd love for y'all to attend. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin, you got any more questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do last name of Larry from TAC? MS. HYDE: Boccaccio. Would you tell us the COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boccaccio. You did it. MS. HYDE: Only 'cause I've talked to him about six times and practiced. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. MS. HYDE: Normally I call him Pistachio. JUDGE TINLEY: You thought she was going to say the cable guy, huh? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, the cable guy. JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions? MS. HYDE: For us to change the people, do you have 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 to do the -- to add to it, we can just add to it, right? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a court order that MS. HYDE: You did the original. Do we need to do a new one? Can we just -- can you just update it, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: We'll have to check the original order. If so, you can bring it back. MS. HYDE: Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's quickly go to Item 24; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve and adopt Personnel Policy. Ms. Hyde? MS. HYDE: I'm coming. One's for Cheryl and one's for each of y'all. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just kill another tree? MS. HYDE: We just killed another tree. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Two of them. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe we ought to start making this out of cedar, cedar trees. That would be a real blessing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boy. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Promote the use of paper. MS. HYDE: On the very front, it's the things that we've cleaned up. And as a team -- we met last Wednesday, and as a team, the team has requested that y'all look through 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 124 this, give it one more look over. There are some grammatical -- Commissioner Williams, I'm going to tell you, there's still some grammar in there that needs to be cleaned up. We're working on it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So you don't want me to read it, right? MS. HYDE: Well, you can read it, absolutely, sir. I've got a red pen for you. We also wanted to ask, to insure that it's all right with y'all, on Page 57, under 5.13, it talks about department heads. Rather than put elected/ appointed, elected/appointed throughout, is it permissible to utilize the word "department head" to include elected and appointed officials? COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page are you on? MS. HYDE: 57. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you want to use? MS. HYDE: Under employee categories, you got elected officials that are called department heads. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. MS. HYDE: Appointed officials, department heads, exempt and non-exempt. So, for the purpose of this, is it all right if we use "department head" interchanged for "appointed and elected officials"? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just put a parenthetical 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 125 clarification at the beginning of it, and you can do that. MS. HYDE: Okay. I just want to make sure that the Court's okay with that. JUDGE TINLEY: As long as you clearly show that as part of your definition, shall include elected officials and appointed officials. MS. HYDE: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Seems appropriate. MS. HYDE: And then in Section 10.02 -- Commissioner Williams, you worked with me a lot and with John on the I.T. policy. There's only one section, and John's -- where's John's? John? He's not here. There's only one other suggestion or -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you on? MS. HYDE: -- recommendation. 10.02 is where it starts. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see it. MS. HYDE: 74. And due to some of the things that have gone on within the state of Texas, we currently have nothing that maintains our e-mail ongoing. You're going to have to help me out, Rex. So, the recommendation or the suggestion is that, because e-mail is part of public information, that we need to have some way to store e-mail -- what's the word I'm looking for? MR. EMERSON: You're doing good. 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 MS. HYDE: Store e-mail so that it's sitting out JUDGE TINLEY: Archive. MS. HYDE: Thank you. Whether it is for an emergency -- God forbid, but our system completely cruds out and we lose everything, or if we have the need to go back and look for three or four years for something regarding a court case or public information request. Because, although each elected official knows what their limitations are and what they're supposed to keep and how long, you can't help it if that hard drive fries. And right now, the only place your I e-mail really resides is on your hard drives. Although it goes through the server and it comes back down, we do not have a -- a repository -- depository, something-tory, where it sits forever. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Suppository. MS. HYDE: I'm trying my damndest -- darndest here. (Laughter.) And John's not here, so I don't have the official terminology, but I know Rex and I have talked about it. Bottom line is, gentlemen, we need a place to store it so that at any given time, we can get it back. And that's by the recommendation of not only the State, and how they do their library records, and how they keep their retention records for public information. They reside that on a separate server, and that's just e-mail. 8-24-09 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there a way -- and this may be a proper question for John. Is there a way that we can put that onto a separate tape or something of that nature, through the server? Where it comes -- MS. HYDE: Yes, sir, he can put it on a separate server. I've talked to John as well. JUDGE TINLEY: Not talking about a separate server, working off the server, but to capture that information and put it on a separate tape, for example, or -- MS. HYDE: Well, if I understood John correctly, you don't want to use tape. You don't want to use CD's. You basically want to use a separate server, which is just another box, another hard box, which is fairly inexpensive. And then you put it there and reside it there so that he can pull over once a week, semi-monthly or monthly, so that in the case of a drastic bombardment and it just dies, he can pull from that last date. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This -- I mean, John's going to be the one to answer this, but I know there are online services that you can automatically back up your -- your personal computers continuously. This -- I mean, it -- all our e-mails go through Microsoft Outlook. That's what it comes up on here. So, it seems to me you ought to be able to go just to an online server that automatically, any mail -- e-mails go in; just automatically takes them. That seems a 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 128 lot better than John -- MR. EMERSON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems a lot better than John having to go into everyone's computer and getting into that -- MS. HYDE: He doesn't have to get in everyone's computer. But I'm going to let Rex go on this one. MR. EMERSON: Well, we're getting -- number one, we're getting way outside the agenda item. But I think the real essence of what she's trying to make relative to the personnel policy and I.T. is that nobody's supposed to be deleting business records, which e-mails are business records. And that's why she got sidetracked there as to how we're going to store them. But that's really the bottom line for purposes of this agenda item. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And it will be back on the agenda how we do it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And you want us to take another hard look at this thing? MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HYDE: Please. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. I realize we have an 11:45 item, which appears to be an executive session item. We have one more open session item that I want to go ahead 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 and -- and resolve in order to get that cleaned up. We'll go to Item 25; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action regarding posting signs at each school zone crossing prohibiting the use of wireless communication devices in the school zone in accordance with House Bill 55. Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Road and Bridge gave me those pictures that I'm sending around. Nobody's ordered any yet. To enforce the cell phone use in school zones, it has to be posted. And that, again, is just like the State does with everything else; we have to pay for it to be posted. It is the state law, but we have to post it in the school zones that are out in the county. TexDOT is posting it in all the school zones where they are on state highways, being China Street and all that kind of stuff. They're in the process of getting those signs now. For us to post it on all the school zone signs that are actually on county roads, like Ranchero and Valley View and the different little ones, we're looking at between 15 and 20 signs. We drove them last week, and we can purchase those right now through San Marcos -- I know Road and Bridge had a place in San Antonio, but City of Kerrville is going through San Marcos to get them quicker at $35 a piece, so that they can be posted that way. Not near as bad as what we thought we were going to be. In fact, the City of Kerrville is ordering them for TexDOT, because they can get them quicker than TexDOT can get them right now, so 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 TexDOT's reimbursing the City of Kerrville. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many total signs? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd say if we get 20 right now, okay, -- JUDGE TINLEY: $700. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- I think we -- we counted up extras. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And this is -- this is a "y'all shall do this" thing? It's not a law that's an option for us? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is a state law that went into effect September the 1st, and it says that to enforce some of the -- the signs shall be posted. JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't say you have to put up signs? It just says if you want to enforce them, that -- that particular provision, you got to post the signs? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And it doesn't really say "if" you want to enforce it. It just says they shall be posted to be enforced. So, it's kind of -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. It's a weird -- you know, it's not -- they did not state in that law that they're giving us an option, but they did state that they shall be posted to be enforced. 8-29-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 131 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, does the -- does the law prohibiting the use of wireless in school zones apply to law enforcement and other public service vehicles? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Does not. There's a specific exemption in there, emergency vehicles and law enforcement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you can keep on, you know, using your laptop, reading the paper, eating, putting on makeup, whatever you want. You just can't talk on the phone. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At least we're not in the same predicament S.A.P.D. is. I think they've estimated it's going to cost them right at $1 million just to put up signs for the school districts they have. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Legislature. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One more time. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All I'm saying is, we request permission for somebody to give the information we have over to Road and Bridge so that those signs can be ordered and placed in the county school zones. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You seem to favor it, Commissioner Letz. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We are -- we are already receiving calls from the school districts wanting to know when we're going to put up signs. 8-29-09 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Any offers of reimbursement? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whose budget does this come out of? Yours? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, since the school district requesting it is in Precinct 1, doesn't he have a budget? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, he might have a SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably Road and Bridge. It's a sign. I don't know. MS. HOFFER: I was going to ask where it's going to come from, 'cause we've been in the hole in our sign line item since probably halfway through the budget year. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know what to tell you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you something, Rusty. Just -- let's see; let me look at this agenda item. Yeah, this covers it. How -- how are you going to prove that I was talking on a cell phone? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're going to watch you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. You see me talking on a cell phone, you stop -- stop me, issue me a citation, and I'm going to argue with you in court that I wasn't. I mean, prove it. How do you do that? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's the same thing. 8-24-09 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're going mandate cameras COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are you talking about whether or not you're talking on it or mumbling on it, or just holding it to your ear? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Actually, I'm scratching my ear with it. I SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is just one of those laws, we don't have a -- a choice. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be almost an enforcement issue. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it is. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think the main thing -- and Bexar County was the test site for all this when they went ~'~I through the states. And the main thing they showed is that the number of speeding tickets written in a school zone dropped dramatically when they -- when they enacted this in their school zones, because people were paying a little bit I more attention. It wasn't that they were, you know, so much on the phone; they were paying more attention to being in the school zone so that they slowed down. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They had to slow down so they 25 ~ could hide that they were talking on the phone. 8-24-09 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about the use of hands-free devices in a vehicle? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It doesn't address that part. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does not address that part? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It says "communications." I'd have to pull the actual -- MR. EMERSON: Hands-free. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know if it said "hands-free" or "communication device." COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Driving through a school zone, they're going to assume you're talking on your cell phone. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's going to affect Commissioner Letz more than anybody. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. It's going to cripple Jon. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only thing I would do -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That thing grows out of his I ear . SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: She did bring it to me, that it does say "hands-free device or wireless communication device." Hold on. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Hold on. 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 135 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Prohibited or ex -- or SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It states that, "An operator may not use a wireless communication device while operating a motor vehicle within a school crossing zone, as defined by that section. A wireless communication device means a device that uses a commercial mobile service, as defined by 47 U.S.C." COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That means wireless on your ear, too, the way I hear it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These guys who have a bluetooth -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is another deal on there that says, "unless the vehicle is stopped or the wireless communication device is used with a hands-free device." COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. Finally got to the point. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You've been blessed, my child. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're saved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a -- well, I'll put it on speaker. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, can we ask the Auditor to come back to us next meeting and suggest some 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 136 places to get money? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sheriff's got to have some left over in his -- JUDGE TINLEY: Salary. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- jailer line item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: His jail budget. He certainly has enough to pay for these few signs. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He really does. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: At least it's not for, you know, Court-appointed attorneys, Rusty. It's only $700. I mean, we're not talking about the -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When the bill comes in, let's see where y'all want to take it from. I'll go and send it across. JUDGE TINLEY: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got to do it. Move approval of -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Costs money. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- of acquiring the signs and posting them in school crossing zones prohibiting the use of wireless communication in school zones. JUDGE TINLEY: Is your motion going to include 25 ~ motion does not include where the money comes from. That 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 137 will be determined. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What -- if you want to know what it says about shall we or not, it says, "A municipality, county, or other political subdivision that enforces this section shall post a sign that complies with the standards." JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second the motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval of the agenda item for posting of the signs. Question or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just to make a point, I think maybe the County Auditor can identify for us, when she learns what the total cost is going to be, whether this comes out of the Sheriff's jail funds or Road and Bridge sign funds or some other fund. I JUDGE TINLEY: You're narrowing her search, however, aren't you? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, I am. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thanks. JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (Commissioners Baldwin and Williams voted in favor of the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed? 8-29-09 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Commissioners Letz and Oehler voted against the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: Well, thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate that. Chair votes in favor of the motion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, sure. You care about kids, don't you? JUDGE TINLEY: My business. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the children. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. At this time, we've concluded all of the open or public session items on the agenda. We do have some more work to do in Section 4 of our agenda, but in order that we can finish up our agenda at this time, the Court will go out of public or open session, and it is 12:04 p.m., to go into executive or closed session to consider items on the agenda with regard to that type of activity. (The open session was closed at 12:04 p.m., and an executive session was held, the transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's 12:26 p.m. We're now in public or open session. Does any member of the Court have anything to offer with regard to matters considered in executive or closed session? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do. 8-24-09 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Item 26, -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for H.R. office to continue insurance coverage -- I believe it's on a spouse. COMMISSIONER LETZ: A spouse of an employee. MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Of an employee. MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: And pay the increased premium? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir, $25 increase in JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Any other matters to be offered in connection with matters considered in executive or closed session? 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 140 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move that this Court remove the name of Joseph Luther as a member of the Kerr County Historical Commission. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. Commission. Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any other matters to be offered in connection with matters considered in closed or executive session? If not, let's move to ~, Section 4 of the agenda, payment of the bills. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the bills. Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carried. We have a number of budget amendments that are delineated on a budget 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 141 amendment summary, being Budget Amendment Request Numbers 1 through 23, it looks like. MS. HARGIS: We changed the format. We're hoping that helps y'all. Is that better? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is for me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I called, you know, said it's really confusing what we've been seeing and I would really like for it to be simplified, and five minutes later she came COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it looks good. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, great. Thank you. MS. HARGIS: I do want to make note that we did have to move around $51,000 in attorney fees. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In what? MS. HARGIS: Attorney's fees, the defense attorneys. 51,000 in attorney fees. Let me get to where you can hear me. JUDGE TINLEY: On Item 17 is one of them. MS. HARGIS: The total of all the appoint -- Court-appointed attorneys was 51,000 and some change. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do I hear a motion for approval of Budget Amendment Request Numbers 1 through 23 as delineated on the summary? 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 142 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the Budget Amendment Request Numbers 1 through 23 as delineated on the summary. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have any late bills? MS. HARGIS: No. JUDGE TINLEY: I've been presented with monthly reports from Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; District Clerk; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2; Kerr County Treasurer's report for July 2009; and Constable, Precinct 3. Do I hear a motion that those reports be approved as presented? COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the designated reports as presented. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 143 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do I have any reports from any of the Commissioners in connection with their liaison or committee assignments? Commissioner I Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Our "hysterical" commission just changed drastically, and maybe y'all can read about it in the paper. That's all. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have -- go back. Sorry, I almost forgot. I was so wrapped up in water, I forgot about the ETJ. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, god. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I met with Councilman Motheral last Friday. I think we have a long road to go. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We do have a long road to go? 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The basic position that he relayed is that we need to come up with a blended set of rules, which I don't think is extremely difficult, but I will -- it's not a done deal. But the other part of it is that they are insisting that all platting gets run only through -- or through the City. And the County can sit along and come to meetings if they want, but it's the City's responsibility. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He just has a total disregard for state law, doesn't he? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, so we're -- I said, i "Well, we'll have to work on that later." What could I say? I~ We'll see where that goes. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Very brief, not really as a liaison. Just Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department station is going up. Framework is up, and it shouldn't be long before it gets the skin put on it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're going to have it ready for the annual fish fry, October the 10th fish fry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really? JUDGE TINLEY: Is it going to be totally complete? 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 145 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's what Mr. Kevin COMMISSIONER LETZ: At a good price, I hear. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You ever do fish-fry's for other volunteer fire departments? (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not out of my precinct, thank ', you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dang. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, no, Bill. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You want to get all yours -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I tell you what, I will show you how to do it, but I will not participate. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get his to come out to yours so they can learn how to do it. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. They need to come out, see how it's done. That way they can take the information back for the following year. I'm done. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you know, the timeliness of that construction project, we may have need for him shortly in connection with another steel building project. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Never can tell how that might I come in. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, sir. 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 146 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any reports from elected officials? Department heads? Yes, sir? MR. EMERSON: Very quickly, back in January we talked about solar energy. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Talked about what? MR. EMERSON: Solar energy. I forget who originally brought it up, but I was the dummy who volunteered to pursue it. So, I've been messing around with solar energy for the last six months off and on, working with multiple entities. And the short version of this -- of these reports is that it's about $7,000 per kilowatt installed for the solar panels. You can save potentially up to 25 percent of your electricity, it looks like. But just to give you an example of the capital investment it would take to do it, the Juvenile Detention Facility, the estimated capital investment is $406,000, and that's not anywhere close to being the largest facility. Sheriff's Department is close to $900,000. The courthouse was a pretty good chunk. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: And I believe the -- the latest report we got on third-party funding, it weren't there yet. MR. EMERSON: No, sir, it is not there yet. And I will be more than happy -- and I will, in the next week, copy all of this and forward it to you. And if one of you, in your infinite wisdom, would like to pick it up and run with it, I'll be more than happy to provide assistance. 8-24-09 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that what you call dumping it on somebody else? COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can save the paper; I don't need my copy. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't send me a copy. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't need a copy. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You started this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just file it in your -- in your solar panel -- JUDGE TINLEY: You're serving notice that your stewardship of this project is ended? MR. EMERSON: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any other elected official? Department head? That's you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: According to her, now we're all department heads. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's in the Personnel Policy. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see. It doesn't apply I to us? JUDGE TINLEY: We're making a distinction up here in my agenda. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. God, here it i comes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Walk Across Texas. 8-24-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 148 MS. HYDE: Walk Across Texas. TAMU and the Extension Office requested participation in Walk Across Texas. There is no money involved. All it is is getting people to get up off the couch. This is all the information. I've been talking to elected and appointed officials, and we're trying to get eight teams within the county. K.I.S.D. is going to do it. The City is going to do it. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to walk. If you go back, there's other things that you can do; running, cycling, spinning, -- I'm not real sure what that is -- stairmaster, rollerblading, swimming, gardening, push-mowing, raking, planting, dancing. You know, it's any sort of get up off your duff and get out there and get it moving. So, we're trying to get, like I said, eight to ten teams within the courthouse, eight people per team. We would love for Commissioners Court to be a part of a team -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, wow. MS. HYDE: -- as well. JUDGE TINLEY: We'd want to be our own team, and unfortunately, there's not eight of us. MS. HYDE: But we would make a big exception for -- there's six of you counting Jody. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We can, all five, get in the wagon and just have somebody pull us around town, MS. HYDE: If that's what you want. 8-24-09 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we do this as a team? We do this -- I mean, so -- MS. HYDE: You can do it as a team. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We all -- so they can all come out to my house and dig in my garden. MS. HYDE: You have -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, no. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, no. MS. HYDE: It's -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can work in my shop and do the same thing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, no. MS. HYDE: It's a good thing. This is just another thing, working with other ways to help get our employees up off the couch. We're trying to look at our insurance, and this is just another way to help us. And a lot of this stuff -- I know y'all roll your eyes and think it's silly, but walking, the wellness that I've asked for, things like that, that's all part of trying to get us where we're insurable at a lower rate, at a better rate, and perhaps even be accepted into TAC's insurance fund. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really? JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Any other department I head? MS. HYDE: I got one more. 8-24-09 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh. MS. HYDE: This one, Judge, I just need permission from you to give it to Rex to get him to look at the contract and then to give it to you. It's our medical insurance contract. That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? We are adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:40 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 28th day of August, 2009. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY: Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 8-24-09 ORDER NO.31405 PROCLAMATION FOR BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS MENTORING WEEK IN THE HILL COUNTRY Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve Joint Proclamation with the City of Kerrville designating August 30, 2009 - September 5, 2009 as the Big Brothers Big Sisters Mentoring Week in the Hill Country. ORDER NO. 31406 CENTRAL COUNTING STATION PERSONNEL Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin/Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the appointment of the following Central Counting Station Personnel pursuant to Chapter 127 TEC: Presiding Manager Tabulating Supervisor Judge Clerk Clerk Clerk Calls to SOS & Website Michele Schneider Pam Cornett Nadene Alford Eva Washburn Linda Hott Mimi Valverde John Trolinger ORDER NO. 31407 EARLY VOTING BALLOT BOARD JUDGE AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF BOARD Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve appointing Joe Armistead as the Early Voting Ballot Board Judge for the term of one (1) year in accordance with the Texas Election Code Section 32, and approve the appointment of three (3) Clerks by the Early Voting Ballot Board Judge. ORDER NO. 31408 WAIVE OSSF PERMITTING FEES FOR TURTLE CREEK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve waiving all OSSF permitting fees for Turtle Creek Volunteer Fire Department. ORDER NO. 31409 PROCUREMENT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS IN OAK GROVE MOBILE HOME PARK Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve procurement of temporary construction easements contiguous to existing permanent utility easement in Oak Grove Mobile Home Park from nine (9) property owners in Ranchero Road to facilitate construction of Phase IV, Kerrville South Wastewater (KSWW) Project. ORDER NO. 31410 COST FOR A COPY OF THE PROPOSED 2009-2010 KERB COUNTY BUDGET Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve setting the cost for a copy of the proposed 2009-2010 Kerr County Budget at $25.00 for the book, or $1.00 per page as set out by LGC 118.045. ORDER NO. 31411 COUNTY CLERK' S ANNUAL RECORDS ARCHIVAL WRITTEN PLAN Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin/Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve setting a Public Hearing for the County Clerk's Annual Records Archival Written Plan for September 14, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. ORDER NO. 31412 TEXAS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (TXCDBG) COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY AND PLAN FOR KERR COUNTY CONTRACT #727175 Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Texas Community Development Program (TXCDBG) Comprehensive Colonia Study and Plan for Kerr County (TXCDBG Contract No. 727175), and forward same to Office of Rural Community Affairs for review. ORDER NO. 31413 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVISION OF PLAT OF LOT 3, HERITAGE PARK SUBDIVISION, SECTION I Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve setting a Public Hearing for September 28, 2009 at 10:00 am for Revision of Plat of Lot 3 in the Heritage Park Subdivision Section I, Volume 4, Page 96, located in Precinct 2. ORDER NO. 31414 2010 SHERIFFS' AND CONSTABLES' FEES Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the 2010 Sheriffs' and Constables' Fees remaining the same as 2009. ORDER NO. 31415 ACCEPT OFFER OF FUNDING FROM ALAMO RC&D FOR USE IN MITIGATING OSSF PROBLEMS AND/OR HOOKING UP SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR KERRVILLE SOUTH WASTEWATER PROJECT Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Accept offer of funding in the approximate amount of $14,000.00 from Alamo RC&D for use in mitigating OSSF problems and/or hooking up sewer collection systems for property owners who missed deadlines in earlier phases of Kerrville South Wastewater Project. ORDER NO. 31416 PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER(S) ON COURTHOUSE WINDOWS INTERIOR STAINING AND INSTALLATION PROCEDURES AND ACCEPTANCE OF ALTERNATE BID AND/OR CHANGE ORDER ON REPLACEMENT OF EAST AND WEST ENTRANCE UNITS Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve proposed change order(s) Nos. 1 and 2, as presented, to Courthouse windows interior staining and installation procedures, and acceptance of alternate bid and/or change order on replacement of East and West entrance units. ORDER NO. 31417 APPEAL FROM KERB COUNTY TO THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD (TWDB) ON DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS (DFC'S) FOR EDWARDS- TRINITY (PLATEAU) AQUIFER Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Oehler/Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve appeal from Kerr County to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) on Desired Future Conditions (DFC's) set by GMA9 for the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer. ORDER NO. 31418 APPEAL FROM KERB COUNTY TO THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD (TWDB) ON DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS (DFC'S) SET BY GMA9 FOR THE ELLENBERGER AND HICKORY AQUIFERS Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Authorize Commissioner Letz to finalize and submit the appeal from Kerr County to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) on Desired Future Conditions (DFC's) set by GMA9 for the Ellenberger and Hickory Aquifers (the same as the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer. ORDER NO. 31419 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PWPG - REGION J APPEAL TO THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD (TWDB) ON DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS (DFC'S) SET BY GMA9 Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve Resolution supporting the PWPG - Region J appeal to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) on Desired Future Conditions (DFC's) set by GMA9 for the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau), Ellenberger and Hickory aquifers, and authorize PWPG - Region J members to represent Kerr County in appeal process. ORDER NO. 31420 ORDER EXPRESSING INTENT TO REIMBURSE WITH TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATION PROCEEDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE COUNTY Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve Order Expressing Intent to Reimburse with Tax Exempt Obligation Proceeds for costs associated with constructing or acquiring various improvements within the County. ORDER NO.31421 SET DATE TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR 2009-2010 KERB COUNTY BUDGET Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve setting a Public Hearing for September 28, 2009 at 10:00 am for the 2009-2010 Kerr County Budget. ORDER NO. 31422 PROPOSED 2009 KERB COUNTY TAX Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a record vote of 5-0-0 to: Approve, by record vote, the Proposed 2009 Kerr County tax at .3971 for the County, (which includes debt service), .0322 for lateral roads, for a combined rate of .4293: Commissioner Baldwin aye Commissioner Williams aye Commissioner Letz aye Commissioner Oehler aye County Judge Tinley aye ORDER NO. 31423 PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED 2009 KERR COUNTY TAX RATE Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve setting a Public Hearing for the Proposed 2009 Kerr County Tax Rate for September 14, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., and that public notice will be given for same. ORDER NO. 31424 POSTING SIGNS AT SCHOOL ZONE CROSSING PROHIBITING USE OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICES IN THE SCHOOL ZONE Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-2-0 to: (Commissioners Letz and Oehler voted against, Chair voted in favor), motion passed: Approve acquiring and posting 20 signs at each school zone crossing prohibiting the use of wireless communication devices in the school zone in accordance with House Bill 55, with the Line Item for funding to be determined by the County Auditor. ORDER NO. 31425 KERB COUNTY EMPLOYEE/SPOUSE INSURANCE COVERAGE Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Authorize Human Resources Department to continue insurance coverage on a spouse of an employee, to pay the $25.00 increase in premium. ORDER NO.31426 KERB COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSION MEMBERS Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Authorize the Commissioners' Court to remove the name of Joseph Luther as a Member of the Kerr County Historical Commission. ORDER NO. 31427 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: Accounts Expense 10-General $ 231,041.04 12-Election services $ 10,752.50 14-Fire Protection $ 15,000.00 15-Road & Bridge $ 40,271.13 16-2008 Capital Projects $ 620.00 18-County Law Library $ 6,510.57 19-Public Library $ 33,333.37 21-Title IV-E $ 179.10 23-Juvenile State Aid Fund $ 1,000.00 27-Juv Intensive Prog-State $ 2,233.00 31-Parks $ 3,945.00 37-Center Point Wastewater $ 6,579.04 50-Indigent Health Care $ 11,013.22 76-Juv Detention Facility $ 11,781.62 82-SO Law Enforcement $ 737.84 83-216th District Attorney $ 1,565.65 TOTAL $ 376,563.08 Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts. ORDER N0.31428 BUDGET AMENDMENT NOs. 1-23 Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve paying the Budget Amendments as presented. ORDER NO. 31429 MONTHLY REPORTS Came to be heard this the 24th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Monthly Reports from: JP #3 JP #4 District Clerk JP #2 Kerr County Treasurer's Report for July, 2009 Constable Pct #3