1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, March 12, 2001 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X March 12, 2001 PAGE 2 --- Commissioners' Comments 3 3 1.1 Pay Bills 7 1.2 Budget Amendments 8 4 1.3 Late Bills 10 1.4 Read and Approve Minutes 11 5 1.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 12 6 2.1 Preliminary revision of plat - Tracts 231-239, Northwest Hills Phase II, & set public hearing 13 7 2.2 Preliminary revision of plat - Tracts 6 & 7, Estates of Turtle Creek, Section One 18 8 2.3 Preliminary revision of plat - Tract 16, Silver Hills, & set public hearing date 18 9 2.4 Preliminary plat - Paso Creek Ranch 27 2.5 Variance to correct numbering of lots in 10 Falling Water Subdivision 35 2.6 Concept plan for Cypress Springs Estates 37 11 2.7 Public Hearing - Revision of plat, Tracts 5A and 6A, Whiskey Ridge Ranches 51 12 2.8 Revision of plat, Whiskey Ridge Ranches 53 2.9 Open annual bids for materials (Road & Bridge) 54 13 2.10 Review annual audit for year ending 9/30/00 60 2.11 Publish notice for bids - depository of County 14 and District funds 66 2.12 Allow County employees to participate in 457 15 Deferred Compensation Plan offered by VALIC 67 2.13 Reclassification of Receptionist position to 16 Administrative Jail Secretary 70 2.14 Accept donations to County to match grant funds 17 for purchase of ballistic vests, Sheriff's Dept. 79 2.15 Go out for bids on video equipment 82 18 2.18 Draft amendment to Kerr County OSSF order regarding property transfer inspection 19 procedures, set public hearing on same 86 2.20 Discuss "sunset" workshops regarding county- 20 sponsored or funded programs 135 2.16 Rescind Court Order #26871 and reaffirm Court 21 Order #24184, 30-mph speed limit, CP River Rd. 144 2.17 Resolution supporting inclusion of locally 22 elected officials as majority of any board existing or proposed by House Bill 7 145 23 2.19 Proclamation declaring March 18-24 as National Agriculture Week in Texas 147 24 2.21 Membership in Association of Rural Communities in Texas 147 25 --- Adjourned 150 3 1 On Monday, March 12, 2001, a regular meeting of the Kerr 2 County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' 3 Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the 4 following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's 7 9 o'clock in the morning on Monday, March 12, Year 2001, and 8 we will call to order this regular meeting of the Kerr 9 County Commissioners Court. If y'all will please stand and 10 join me in a word of prayer, followed by the pledge of 11 allegiance. 12 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, if there's any 14 citizen who wishes to address the Court on an item not 15 listed on the agenda, you may come forward and do so. Is 16 there any citizen who wishes to address the Court on an item 17 not listed on the agenda? Seeing none, we'll move directly 18 to the Commissioners' comments. Let's start with 19 Commissioner Baldwin. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll pass. If 21 Commissioner Letz is going to talk about Tivy baseball, I'll 22 pass. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to use my 25 time, Judge for an announcement, and I've got a couple -- 4 1 some guests here this morning which I'd like to introduce as 2 well, because it ties to this announcement. I have one for 3 the working press here. This has to do with the Kerrville 4 South wastewater system nearing getting a little closer to 5 an approval on the Kerr County application for a quarter of 6 a million dollar grant. Before we get into that, I'd like 7 to ask Calvin Weinheimer and Janet Robinson, please, to 8 stand, and Jim Brown, and join with us in this, because this 9 is a dual project in which we -- we're both going to be 10 working to hopefully complete this. 11 Our application for a quarter of a million 12 dollar system grant from the T.D.H.C.A. has moved another 13 step closer, and it was recommended for funding in the year 14 2002. And this, as you know, is one of two grants that will 15 be -- that the County has applied for to do a portion of 16 Kerrville South wastewater collection system, which 17 U.G.R.A., in contract with Kerr County, would be 18 administering those funds and putting in a collection 19 system. And the wastewater collected would then be 20 forwarded on to City of Kerrville, who has, on more than one 21 occasion, expressed its desire to be a regional wastewater 22 provider. This is a good step in the right direction, and 23 it appears that this is the grant that we were fearful we 24 would not be funded for, and it now appears that we will 25 receive final approval for this. 5 1 The second grant is a half million dollar 2 colonias grant, and we should know more about it in April 3 and May, but we expect, as a result of the work of the 4 Grantworks folks in Austin, that we will receive final 5 approval for that. This being the case, then, two grants 6 for $750 thousand should enable us to do the project, and I 7 want to express our appreciation to U.G.R.A. for its 8 willingness to participate and for approving, putting up the 9 matching funds which are required for this grant. And, 10 Calvin, Jim, Janet, anybody that needs to say anything with 11 regard to this? 12 MR. WEINHEIMER: I'll take a minute, if you 13 don't mind. I think that this grant and the local matching 14 funds, which are to be provided by U.G.R.A., fund the 15 beginning of a very important project which is designed to 16 assure the continuation of that -- of the quality of the 17 waters of the Upper Guadalupe River, its tributaries, and the 18 groundwater supply. Hopefully, this first step is going to 19 be followed by approval of the other grant application that 20 we have out there, and will mark the continuation of joint 21 efforts between the Court and City of Kerrville and U.G.R.A. 22 to address the wastewater issues of the area. I want to 23 commend the Court and thank the Court, as well as the City of 24 Kerrville and the U.G.R.A., for their participation and 25 partnership in addressing these important issues. This is a 6 1 fine example, in my opinion, of local governmental entities 2 working together to promote the quality of life for the 3 citizens of Kerr County. Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Calvin. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Very good. Commissioner 8 Letz? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess after that 10 introduction from Commissioner Baldwin, I've got to talk 11 about Tivy baseball. I think everyone -- I don't know if 12 everyone knows or not, but they've had an outstanding 13 beginning of the season. They were undefeated going into 14 the Austin tournament, and they were in the championship 15 game where they did lose to Austin-Bowie, which is a 16 tremendous 5-A school, good program. Kind of like -- not to 17 take anything away from Tivy, but like a college team 18 playing a high school team, and Tivy got beat 7 to 3, or 10 19 to 3 -- I can't remember what the score was. But, anyway, 20 they had a great -- two of the games they won in Austin were 21 through the tiebreaker setup; had a number of base runners. 22 There was a time limit on those games. So, anyway, it was a 23 great tournament, and Tivy's had a great season so far. 24 And, unfortunately, they do have two injuries coming out of 25 the Tivy tournament. One is Kyle Yates, who has a hurt 7 1 hand; not sure if it is cracked, broken, or just bruised 2 badly. And then Trey Russ has a -- probably a hurt -- well, 3 he has a hurt knee, and whether it's going to require 4 surgery or not, we'll determine today. But, they've had a 5 great year and should continue. That's it. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Speaking of baseball, 7 I'd like to commend the Ingram Tom Moore High School on 8 their tournament played in Bandera this past week. They -- 9 it finished third. They came very close to -- to winning 10 the game that they -- that could have put them in the 11 championship game. They've gotten off to a pretty good 12 start, too, and so baseball in the area is looking good. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Well, I'll comment on 14 the Tivy High School Mock Trial Team. They competed in the 15 State Championship this weekend, and it's my understanding 16 they finished in the top 10 and were very, very close to 17 being in the finals. So, the excellence of that program 18 continues, as does all the programs with our local schools. 19 It's a good time of year, lots going on. Okay. Let's move 20 on to the approval agenda. We have some bills to pay. 21 Mr. Auditor? Does anyone have any questions or comments 22 about the bills? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the 24 bills. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 8 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 2 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 3 approve the bills as presented and recommended by the 4 Auditor. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, 5 raise your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 10 amendments. Budget Amendment No. 1 is for Nondepartmental, 11 District Court, 216th. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The first part of this 13 is for Nondepartmental, and I'm requesting a transfer of 14 $200 from Contingency to Computer Supplies. The other part 15 is the transfer of $629.90 from Capital Outlay 16 Nondepartmental to Capital Outlay in the District -- 216th 17 District Court. It's for the replacement of a fax machine. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Are those both for the 19 replacement of a fax machine? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: No, the other part of it is 21 for just some cabling that I had to purchase for the 22 network. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 9 1 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve 2 Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any further questions or 3 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 8 Amendment Request Number 2 is for the Court Collections 9 Department. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is a request to 11 transfer $137.77 from Capital Outlay in Nondepartmental to 12 Machine Repair in the Courts Collection Department. It's 13 to -- it's to extend our -- increase the hard drive on a 14 computer in that department. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 18 Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 19 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any further 20 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 21 right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 10 1 Amendment Request Number 3 is for the County Judge and 2 Commissioners Court. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This transfers $100 4 from Machine Repair to Postage. It's for -- to pay a -- a 5 bill for -- to FedEx. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a reason we're 8 -- our postage is running higher? I mean, is it just -- 9 we're spending -- I mean, is it more mail, or Express -- 10 just more in general? Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 14 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 15 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any further 16 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 17 right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have 22 any late bills, Tommy? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I have one that I just 24 received this morning from the Maintenance Supervisor for 25 the -- for the painting of the courthouse walls. It's for 11 1 $450 from the contractor. It -- 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Who's the contractor? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: It's Ochoa Painting Company. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Ochoa? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That means -- that 7 means to me that the Maintenance Supervisor has said the job 8 is complete and he's real happy with it and he signed off on 9 it and wishes -- wishes to spend the public's money? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 15 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 16 approve a late bill and issue a hand check in the amount of 17 $450 to Ochoa Painting Company. Any further questions or 18 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 MR. TOMLINSON: That's all. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Tommy. At this 24 time, I'd entertain a motion to waive reading and approve 25 the minutes of the February 12th and February 26th 12 1 Commissioners Court meetings. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 5 second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court waive reading 6 and approve the minutes of the February 12th and 7 February 26th Commissioners Court meetings. Any further 8 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 9 right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this 14 time, I'd entertain a motion to approve and accept the 15 monthly reports as presented. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Over here. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 21 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 22 accept and approve the monthly reports as presented. Any 23 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 24 right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. All right. 4 We'll move directly into the consideration agenda. First 5 item for discussion is Item Number 1, consider approval of 6 preliminary revision of plat for Tracts 231-239 of Northwest 7 Hills, Phase II, and set a public hearing for the same. 8 Commissioner Baldwin. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. If you 10 remember, this -- this plat has been around for a month or 11 -- actually, more, and they're simply taking small lots and 12 making them into larger lots. Mr. Johnston, do you want to 13 talk further about that? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: There is three of them; 237-A 15 combines two lots, 235-A combines two lots, 239-A combines 16 two lots. Then 233-A combines a total of three lots. It's 17 making the lots larger in all cases. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know there's a 19 change in the name of the road before the cul-de-sac from 20 Sutherland Drive to Presidio Drive. Has that been cleared 21 by 911? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, I think it's 23 presently -- it's been renamed somewhere along the line. 24 He's just bringing the plat up to reflect what -- actually, 25 it's called Presidio Drive. 14 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin, does this fall 2 under the -- the category of that one paragraph that we had 3 left out of the Subdivision Rules? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: I think it would. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you read that 6 paragraph for us? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Paragraph -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, if I could, it 9 appears that when we recopied the revision of plat language 10 from Section 232, we left off Paragraph (f), and Paragraph 11 (f) -- well, Franklin can go ahead and read Paragraph (f). 12 MR. JOHNSTON: 232.009 of the Local 13 Government Code, Paragraph (f), "The Commissioners Court is 14 not required to give notice by mail under Subsection C if 15 the plat revision only combines existing tracts." 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what that does -- and 17 that's -- it inadvertently was left out, and it will be 18 changed as soon as we get it back on the agenda to add that 19 provision back in. It does not eliminate the need for minor 20 replats, as we used to call them, or minor revisions, but 21 just if you're -- if you're eliminating lot lines and making 22 larger tracts, we do not need to go through the public 23 hearing process. And, I would recommend that we grant a 24 waiver on this one and others until we get that -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Public hearing or 15 1 public notification? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Public hearing. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't that be the 4 same for 2.2, Jon, as well? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both, yeah. It goes to 6 the public notification and public hearing process, which is 7 outlined under Section 232, and it's just an oversight on my 8 part, leaving that out. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Technically, this time 10 we would be granting a variance to correct that, and then 11 we'll get it right in the rules. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's another one, 13 I believe, on the agenda, maybe two more today of the same 14 situation. This is not changing lot lines; this is just 15 eliminating lot lines. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I'd recommend we do 18 grant a variance, and so that they do not have to go through 19 the public hearing process, unless -- 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is that a motion? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve the 22 preliminary revision of plat for Tracts 231 through 239 of 23 Northwest Hills, Phase II, and set public hearing date -- 24 what is the public hearing date? 25 (Discussion off the record.) 16 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do you want a public 2 hearing? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, no. No, we're 4 waiving that. I'm sorry. Just reading this here. You're 5 right. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 9 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 10 approve the preliminary revision of plat for Tracts 231 to 11 239 of Northwest Hills, Phase II, and grant a variance to 12 waive the requirement of public hearing contained in the 13 current Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Any 14 questions or comments? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only question is, I 16 don't think I heard the words "public hearing" in what he 17 read. I heard "public notification." 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that referred to 19 Paragraph C, which C -- Paragraph C refers to public 20 hearing. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, both of those. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, at what point 23 will we -- is notification required? 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you're changing -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're changing -- if 17 1 you're revising it. Aside from eliminating lot lines and 2 making bigger lots. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be the reverse, 4 if you took a big tract and broke it down into small tracts. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would require a 6 public hearing. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But if you're making 8 it bigger and you're not changing the lines, you're just 9 eliminating lines to make them bigger, then you don't have 10 to go through that, which makes sense. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: There's a few other little 12 minor -- in the title block and such, there's some minor 13 changes I've talked to the surveyor about, and he's going to 14 make those changes. He's going to take the word "replat" 15 out and put "revision of plat" in the title. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is the 17 preliminary. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: This is preliminary, yes. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Any further questions 21 or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 18 1 2 is consider approval of preliminary revision of plat to 2 combine Tracts 6 and 7 of the Estates of Turtle Creek, 3 Section One, and consider not requiring notice by mail under 4 Subsection C, 232.009(f). 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe this is the 6 same thing as we just did in Northwest Hills, only a smaller 7 tract of land, and this is a case where we're taking two 8 smaller 5-acre lots and combining them to make a -- one 9 10-acre lot, and so I would move that we grant the variance 10 in the preliminary revision of plat. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 13 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 14 approve the preliminary revision of plat to combine Tracts 6 15 and 7 of the Estates of Turtle Creek, Section One, and grant 16 a waiver to the notice requirement under the -- notice and 17 public hearing requirement under the current Kerr County 18 Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Any further questions or 19 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Tract number -- Item Number 24 3, consider approval of preliminary revision of plat for 25 Tract 16 of Silver Hills and set a public hearing date for 19 1 the same. Commissioner Williams. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this one's a 3 little different. This one's a little different. The Court 4 may recall that this is a companion one to the next one, 5 which is the Paso Creek Ranch Subdivision, and we'll talk 6 about that at the right time. But, you may recall that the 7 owner purchased a parcel of land in the Silver Hills 8 Subdivision for the purpose of giving himself -- giving his 9 subdivision another ingress and egress instead of just the 10 one that -- which would come off of Center Point River Road. 11 This would take them out through Silver Hills and out onto 12 Highway 173. And, they purchased a piece of property in 13 Silver Hills, and that's what this is all about. However, 14 just this morning, the County Engineer gave me a fax from 15 Headwaters Underground Water Conservation District, and it 16 says that upon reviewing that plat, there are some problems 17 with the septic and the wells. "Due to the close proximity 18 of the well and septic system on proposed Tract 16B, the 19 District Field Technician visited the site and evidenced at 20 the site surface pooling in the area of O.S.S.F. disposal 21 area, approximately 40 feet from the well. District 22 requests remediation of this O.S.S.F. disposal area, as the 23 replat notes state that Tract 16B shall be responsible for 24 fresh water source on 16A. There is no evidence of any 25 other well or water source for 16A or 16B except the well on 20 1 Tract 16B with surface contamination within 40 feet of the 2 well. Upon notification of remediation of surface pooling 3 in the area of the O.S.S.F. disposal area, the District will 4 make another site visit and again review approval of 5 proposed plat." Any comments on that, Frank? Or I see 6 Mr. Domingues. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Charles Domingues is here this 8 morning. He probably has more information on that. 9 MR. DOMINGUES: I understand from Bob Worsham 10 that the contract was let to revise the wastewater field and 11 move it, and that it should be completed at this time. We 12 don't -- U.G.R.A. has not notified the Headwaters of it. 13 We'll have to notify Headwaters that it has been 14 constructed. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know 16 that. The Court doesn't know that. All we know is what 17 we've got in our hand. It hasn't perked up or perked down, 18 whichever it's supposed to do. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. If this is 20 a preliminary, can we make that a condition? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we could, 22 conditional. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And all the paperwork. 24 Before the final can be done, it has to be approved and -- 25 and by the right agencies and so documented and so on. I 21 1 think on that basis, if the work is being done, we can save 2 having to revisit the preliminary again. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have any 4 problem with that condition as a condition of preliminary? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Oh, yeah, it can be placed as 6 a condition. The verbiage on lot sizes in the new 7 Subdivision Rules, are they average with wells? Or are they 8 a minimum of 5 for the smallest lot? Or can we get water 9 from the neighboring lot? I'm not real -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's an individual 11 well, it's a minimum of 5. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: They have 3-acre lots, but 13 they're saying they're getting water from the neighbor. Is 14 that something that is not covered in our rules? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but if it's under a 16 public water system, it's an average. If it's under a 17 private, individual well system, it's a minimum. And, 18 I'm -- I'm not going to make the determination that getting 19 water from your neighbor is a -- qualifies as a public 20 system. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, right. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be the 23 intention to bring the water underneath the proposed road; 24 is that correct? To 16A from 16B? 25 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir. 22 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, it wouldn't 2 qualify, but -- to me, that would be a 5-acre minimum there. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For its own well. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Unless it's served by a 6 public water system. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, if it's not served by a 9 public water system, then it falls back to the 5-acre 10 minimum. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the T.N.R.C.C. 12 rule with respect to what constitutes a public water system? 13 Fifteen or more connections? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I think. Is that 15 right, 15? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Something like that. Some 17 number, 14, 15. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This falls in 19 never-never land, somewhere in between, doesn't it? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's a -- I think 21 it could probably -- actually, I think T.N.R.C.C. -- the 15 22 means it has to meet certain new requirements from the 23 reporting standpoint. I think if you serve one, you're 24 technically a public water system; is that right? I mean, 25 I -- 'cause I know our Subdivision -- or the Subdivision 23 1 Rules, the water availability portion, addresses systems 2 that have less than 15, and they have to meet certain 3 requirements -- the same requirement. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: They have to be signed off on 5 by Headwaters. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And meet the same basic 7 requirements that the other systems do from a health 8 standpoint. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask a 10 question, Charles. Is there any reason why you would bring 11 that road through and split this tract that way? Why 12 couldn't you bring the road through closer to the -- to the 13 right-hand side and eliminate having two separate tracts? 14 MR. DOMINGUES: There's two major reasons for 15 that. First reason is, the location of the road as it is 16 here is the best location for construction and to keep it 17 maintained. If you move it farther to the north, if you 18 notice, you're getting into a draw, and it would be more 19 difficult to maintain the road at that location. And, this 20 is the location that the owner of the piece of property 21 would like it to be. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was thinking more 23 to the south, not to the north. 24 MR. DOMINGUES: Oh, to the south? Well, if 25 you move it farther to the south, then it would create a 24 1 smaller than 3-acre tract. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move it to the tract 4 line. 5 MR. DOMINGUES: The property owner wants the 6 area on both sides of the road. You're looking at -- 7 Tract Number 16 is a tract on the size of which it can be 8 divided into three tracts under the new Subdivision 9 Regulations, because it is over 15 acres. He wants to 10 divide it just into two tracts, which makes one extra-large, 11 over the 5 acres, and the other one a smaller tract. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no public water 13 system. Only way you can do an average is -- 14 MR. DOMINGUES: A public water system is a 15 water system where one person or an entity supplies another 16 one -- another person or entity with water, no matter what 17 the size of or the number of lots, or people that -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they have to meet the 19 requirements of our subdivision water availability 20 requirements still, and there are rules regarding that. 21 There are rules regarding water systems -- 22 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- less than 15, that 24 they're going to have to meet. 25 MR. DOMINGUES: Less than 15, there's not 25 1 near as much stringent requirements as there is over 15 2 under T.N.R.C.C. or Headwaters. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. So, are you 4 saying that you're going to have a public water system on 5 this tract? 6 MR. DOMINGUES: Oh, yes. There's a lot of 7 public water systems out there with less than 15 acres. In 8 fact, I would say most of them are less than 15 tracts. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think the -- what the 10 developer needs to understand, if he's going to move forward 11 with this configuration, one, he's going to have to solve 12 the Headwaters problem with regard to the well and the 13 septic system, and two, he's going to have to demonstrate 14 that the -- that the well and the septic system is going to 15 serve Tract 16A and meets the requirements and water 16 availability rules, which means you're going to have to go 17 to Headwaters and satisfy their requirements for a public 18 water system with less than 15 hookups. 19 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That would work. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: That works. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That works. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: So long as he understands 24 that there's two hurdles he has to jump through now. 25 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir. 26 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I guess we're to 4 a preliminary with these conditions; is that correct? 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: We can do that. 6 MR. JOHNSTON: This road, by the way -- this 7 road going through there will be a public road, and they'll 8 be built to local public road -- local road standards, to 9 meet Paso Creek standards, which I believe is 20 foot wide 10 of paved area. 11 MR. DOMINGUES: I'm not sure. I don't 12 remember what the width is, but it will be the same type of 13 road construction as the roads in the Paso Creek 14 subdivision. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move it, with the 18 conditions that we've discussed, Judge. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you going to set the 20 public hearing for 30 days from now? Or -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Set a public hearing 22 for 30 days, the first meeting in -- 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: April the -- 24 MS. ALFORD: 24th. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 24th. 27 1 MS. ALFORD: The second meeting -- the 23rd, 2 excuse me. 3 MS. SOVIL: 23rd. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, the developer will 5 have letters from Headwaters regarding both of the 6 requirements. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 8 Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 9 approve the preliminary revision of plat for Tract 16 of 10 Silver Hills, with the condition that the developer satisfy 11 the problems noted with the septic system and well, and also 12 that the developer have the well qualified as a public water 13 system with less than 15 hookups by the Headwaters 14 Underground Water Conservation District, pursuant to the 15 Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and set the 16 public hearing for the final approval for 10 o'clock on 17 April 23rd, Year 2001, here in the Kerr County Courthouse. 18 Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, 19 raise your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. The 24 next item is Item Number 4, consider the approval of 25 preliminary plat for Paso Creek Ranch. Commissioner 28 1 Williams. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When last we saw 3 this, the bulk of the discussion had to do with a hydrologic 4 study with regard to Paso Creek and its effect on the -- on 5 the proposed subdivision. Franklin, do you want to pick it 6 up from this point? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. Hydrology study has 8 been completed. It's in the form of a 3-ring binder. 9 Mr. Williams has a copy of it. I think we have four or five 10 copies floating around. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here it is, if anyone 12 wants to read it. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: It establishes the 100-year 14 floodplain and also talks about the 7-day flood elevation 15 where it was on the -- on this side. The developer is 16 proposing to put in a public road through the site, which 17 would enter off of Center Point River Road and proceed 18 through the tract we just talked about, Number 16 in Silver 19 Hills, which will be the high water outlet, or just another 20 outlet road; goes right through. I think the road would be 21 -- the number of tracts would indicate the road would be 22 what we call local road in our specifications, 20-foot paved 23 road, 2-foot shoulders. The only comments I would have are 24 the road, where it enters the subdivision, crosses a low 25 water crossing, crosses the Turtle Creek. I guess 29 1 eventually it will cross another creek up -- also, and that 2 -- I don't think this low water crossing right now is the 3 same width as the road. I'm not sure low water crossings 4 need to be the same width. I think they would be; it's a 5 road. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: So, have to take a look at 8 that. I think, based on our Subdivision Rules, that the '78 9 flood was prominent in that area and discussed in the 10 drainage study; that, somewhere along the road right-of-way 11 on a publicly accessed area, there should be a monument that 12 shows the elevation of that flood, just for reference for 13 people that live out there, which was 1,541 feet above 14 median sea level. The -- that comes under 5.05 of our 15 Subdivision Rules, concrete monuments. That says they're 16 required within a special flood hazard area to study access. 17 I have one question. On Lot 15, where there's -- along the 18 lot line, there's a 15-foot-wide drainage easement, and 19 that's also access to that lot. It's on a cul-de-sac, and 20 it's 60 foot of frontage. And, I guess they would use that 21 -- that drainage easement would be part of that frontage, 22 and I'm not sure we've run across that before. I don't 23 think this has been -- this hasn't been built yet, or -- you 24 kind of know the location, but seems to indicate a drainage 25 area where the road -- where the driveway comes in. Might 30 1 be something to look at to make sure it's done -- not into a 2 flooded area. I think they were my main comments. I think 3 there's a tree existing in that road where it comes off of 4 Lower Turtle Creek that would probably need to be taken out. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, where Tract 6 15 and 13 kind of flag back up to that cul-de-sac -- 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- is that 60 feet 9 coming off the cul-de-sac? Is that what that 60 is for? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: That's 60 foot of frontage. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: My only question was that 13 15-foot drainage in there in that overlaps the frontage, if 14 that's -- that's not really contemplated, I don't think. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we have -- 16 I've never seen it. We don't have any provision against 17 doing it this way, put it that way. And, it makes -- I 18 mean, 60 foot, you're only talking about -- assuming it 19 splits the difference, you know, at most -- well, at most, 20 15 feet on any tract, and probably 7 to 8 feet. So, it 21 shouldn't be a problem. It's just kind of like a greenbelt 22 area between the lots. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Does that drainage easement 24 split that line, or is it all on one side? 25 MR. DOMINGUES: Put it all on one side, 31 1 mainly due to the fact that this drainage easement is -- or 2 the drainage construction will not take place down the lot. 3 What it's really there for is in case the adjacent Tract 13 4 does build something that prevents the water from going 5 across, like if putting in his driveway puts a terrace up 6 there, it will give the water or the easement down through 7 there the right to be able to go down there through there 8 and then spread out across the -- the natural ground. It's 9 not a very large drainage through there, but it's just for 10 the purposes of being able to put something through there 11 legally. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it will be on Tract 13 15? 14 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has no bearing on the 16 flow coming off of 14 and 16? 17 MR. DOMINGUES: It has something to do with 18 the flow coming off of 16, but not 14. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: That does dead-end to another 21 adjacent property, but it's a ranch or something, I guess, 22 so it's not -- not like it's going to be in someone's back 23 yard or -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that point, I mean, 25 but it's -- you know, you certainly know this. I mean, to 32 1 me, if your purpose is trying to get that water to go out in 2 general, once you get down to the tract, open it up, you can 3 stop it, just have an easement in the -- in an upper area, 4 and so you're not channeling the water onto the -- but 5 that's -- 6 MR. DOMINGUES: The -- the intent is not to 7 channel water. Once it gets past the road, to let it flow 8 across the ground in its natural state. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move the 10 preliminary plat approval for Paso Creek Ranch, which is in 11 Precinct 2, to include the comments and additions as 12 outlined by the County Engineer. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. I have a 14 comment. I think, you know, looking at this -- I've looked 15 at it several times. I think it looks like a very nice 16 subdivision. Good job. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 18 Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 19 approve the preliminary plat for Paso Creek Ranch, Precinct 20 2. This is not something we need a public hearing on? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is -- no. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 25 comments? If not, all in favor -- 33 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's a 2 comment waiting right there. 3 MR. DOMINGUES: I have one comment. Really 4 doesn't have to do with the approval of the subdivision, 5 itself. What I'm interested in is the low water crossing 6 across Turtle Creek. Since there is a requirement to have 7 crossings the same width as the road, and this crossing does 8 not comply with that, even though it is a well-built 9 concrete structure and it has very large cypress trees on 10 either side of it, the owner, due to the fact that it is 11 going to be supplying a very minimum property owners, would 12 like to leave it in its natural state and have the road on 13 either side a little bit wider for cars to stop, because it 14 is a very short crossing as far as length goes, and there is 15 a good visibility from one side to the other side. It's not 16 something that, you know, you all of a sudden see a car. 17 There is good visibility. I would like to request that 18 variance -- a variance from the Court, and what procedures 19 would we need to go through to be able to do that? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the County 21 Engineer had indicated he's going to go back and take a look 22 at it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think we want 25 to do that today, unless -- until he reports back. 34 1 MR. DOMINGUES: Just let Frank report back. 2 That will be fine. I just needed to know for sure. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: I think they can request a 4 variance with the final plat. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I think -- I mean -- 6 MR. DOMINGUES: Well, we need to request it 7 kind of before the final plat, at the construction stage, so 8 that we'll know whether or not we have to build it or not 9 build it, and to be able to foot -- to supply a final plat, 10 we would need to know what the cost is in construction to 11 put up the bond and everything. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Franklin can go out 13 and take a look at it, bring it back as a variance, as a 14 separate agenda item. And, I would tend to agree. I mean, 15 because of the -- that being a fairly major tributary of the 16 Guadalupe, it would probably be easier to leave that bridge, 17 if it's sound, than trying to tear it out and rebuild it, 18 then do a lot of -- 19 MR. JOHNSTON: It's a short duration, just -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, we've 21 heard -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You also, 10 years 23 from now, though, are going to come back and the 24 Commissioners Court's going to say, "What group of idiots 25 left the bottleneck here for this highly traveled road?" I 35 1 can guarantee that's going to happen. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We'll know which 3 idiots it was. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to vote 5 against it. 6 MR. DOMINGUES: Buster, you can always come 7 back and say, well, they have a back entry. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just refer them to 9 the engineer and to the surveyor; they said it's not 10 necessary. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. We have a motion and a 12 second. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in 13 favor, raise your right hands. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 18 5, consider variance to correct the numbering of lots in 19 Falling Water and change the revision of plat of Falling 20 Water as recorded in Volume 7, Page 76, Precinct 3. 21 Commissioner Letz. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll refer this to Frank, 23 and I'll -- Franklin, are you looking for -- 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Dale isn't here. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dale's on Grand Jury 36 1 duty. He's upstairs, and it depends on how long Grand Jury 2 duty lasts; he may or may not be here. But, I'll -- 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. Basically, on the 4 series of replats we've -- we've worked on on Falling Water 5 over the last year or so, it's up -- two separate sides of 6 the -- of the subdivision plat has two Lot 98s, and the 7 owner requests a variance to replat this to change that one 8 lot number, and asking for a variance and allow the Court to 9 issue an order and let the surveyor mark on the original 10 mylar, it's my understanding, the letter "A" on the lot 11 that's on Settlers Way -- fronts on Settlers Way, to 12 distinguish it from the other lot. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just a numbering 14 change. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't have a 16 problem with it. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 21 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court grant a 22 variance to correct the numbering of lots in Falling Water 23 to add a Lot 98A in addition to the existing Lot 98, as 24 recorded if Volume 7, Page 76, Deed Records of Kerr County, 25 Texas. 37 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make -- might just make a 2 note for the record that the variance is to not have to go 3 through the whole revision of plat process again, which 4 would require two meetings, notification, et cetera, and 5 nothing would be gained by doing that. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 7 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Commissioner 12 Griffin, do you want to pass on Number 6 till Mr. Crenwelge 13 can be here? 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, I suspect Dale 15 needs to be here for that one. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I visited with him when I 17 saw him on this. He -- you know, we -- 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You think we can -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, probably, we can 20 go through it. If there's problems, we can defer it. He 21 could be up there all day. I don't know how heavy the 22 docket was on Grand Jury today. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You and I discussed 24 this, so how about you sort of going through the situation? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is one of the -- 38 1 Larry and Dale and, I think, Franklin and I all -- we all 2 sat down and looked at it. This is in Cypress Creek -- 3 looks like Cypress Springs Subdivision, which is Larry's 4 area. And, just because -- I got involved because it was 5 started before Larry got on the Court. And, the basic issue 6 was, when this was originally platted, it was done and 7 brought before us in three phases. Phase I, which is kind 8 of under -- being sold, and basically Phase II and III 9 were -- I think they even had four phases. The other phases 10 were just set up into the large tracts, and would -- would 11 tend to be the same thing being done with them and lot size, 12 roughly, brought in later. There was even discussion at the 13 time, as I recall, when Bruce was Commissioner out there as 14 to the number -- about the road sizes and all that, to 15 accommodate the maximum number of lots that would be out 16 there. 17 Well, since we did that and that was all 18 done, we changed the Subdivision Rules and changed the lot 19 size requirement. And, when we -- I guess the four of us, 20 including -- five of us, including the developer, sat down, 21 looked at it, and, you know, it's kind of -- it's -- a 22 question came up as to whether these were under the old 23 rules or new rules, and there's an argument that could be, I 24 think, stated either way. And as, I think, an 25 accommodation -- and Larry and I agree too, and I think 39 1 Frank agrees too, that -- to let Phase II go in under a 2 smaller -- or recommend Phase II go in under a 3.3-acre 3 average lot size, and Phase IV could go up to the full 4 5-acre lot size, 'cause it is a gray area as to whether this 5 is a -- really grandfathered under 2 and a half acre lot 6 size. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Phase II was actually 8 included in the original approval as one big lot, so 9 that's -- the question, then, is -- is that when you start 10 to subdivide that as a platted subdivision, that which rule 11 applies? And Jonathan, I think, has come up with an answer. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we've covered that in 13 the Subdivision Rules, because the Subdivision Rules say if 14 you revise your plats so that you increase the number of 15 lots by more than 20 percent, then you fall under the new 16 rule, as far as water availability is concerned. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the total 18 subdivision won't exceed the requirement. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's not the total 20 subdivision; it's what was platted. I think what was 21 platted, if -- when you increase the number of lots by 22 20 percent, so I think that's something we need to look at. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: That is -- 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Because what we have is, 25 obviously, the number of lots is going to be -- including 40 1 what has previously been platted, is going to increase by 2 more than 20 percent. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the other -- I 4 mean, the -- the other way the developer could do this, 5 which would be more red tape for us, as I see it, though, 6 would be to cancel everything except Phase I, replat it, 7 because he's got the acre -- all of the densities in Phase 8 I, and he has these other areas where he's never going to 9 even meet the 5-acre limit. I mean, he could get more lots 10 total on that subdivision by going another route, to me, and 11 canceling the -- and just doing a new plat on -- 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: On the averages. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To play the average game. 14 If he goes in and cancels and revises that subdivision and 15 only has Phase I as Cypress Springs, then comes in with a 16 new plat, he will be able to easily meet the 5-acre 17 requirement under the scenario we outline. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: But I don't see where you can 19 come in and take in the whole thing under one -- one plat 20 when he's already platted part of it. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He'd go in and cancel it. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Go ahead and cancel 23 Phase II and III. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then call that a new 25 subdivision. 41 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: And then have a new 2 subdivision for II and III. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Isn't that what we're talking 5 about, basically? 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. What we're 7 talking about now is that Phase II would still be a part of 8 the original approved platted subdivision, which had Phase 9 II as just one big lot which had not been divided at that 10 time. And, so, what this would do is this would essentially 11 allow the same -- well, not quite the same, because it would 12 be bigger, but it would allow about the same spacing that 13 Phase I had. And -- but, as Jonathan says, if you go and 14 cancel II and then replat it, then he can make -- he could 15 make them much smaller lots and still meet the average. So, 16 it's a -- 17 MR. JOHNSTON: 'Cause one's holding the 18 average down; they're all 1- to 2-acre lots. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Phase I's real small, 20 small lots, so he's -- that's hurting. That's pulling the 21 whole average down for the other 800 acres or 600, whatever 22 it is that he has left to plat. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, you know, he 25 can -- to me, its an easier way to do it. And, again, the 42 1 other option is -- it may be cleaner to go the other option 2 and cancel it and replat it, but I think it -- I mean, it's 3 just -- it's -- 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The net result may be 5 better this way than the other way, however. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You'd end up with -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fewer lots total. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You'd end up with 10 fewer lots this way than you could, theoretically, the other 11 way. So, that's the limit. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, that's why -- that's 13 why it's on the agenda, to make it -- you know, a direction 14 more than anything else, I think. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody had his hand 16 up. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else on the Court have 18 any questions? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. What about this 20 -- this letter that we got from Headwaters? What about 21 these concerns -- this list of concerns here? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those, as I understand -- 23 well, I -- granted, I didn't read it extremely thoroughly, 24 but when I read it, it was -- they were looking at this as a 25 new subdivision. They interpret water availability and 43 1 those requirements, and there wouldn't be a -- I mean -- 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Phase III is essentially a 3 new subdivision. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Phase III. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Phase III would be, yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Phase II -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's already -- 8 the wells are already out -- it's already under a public 9 water system. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. So, it's under a 11 public water system, so what we're talking about is having 12 no more than total number of acreage divided by 5. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Correct. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what were working on. 16 Who has the water system? Aqua Source? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Aqua Source. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aqua Source. I'm not 19 sure that Headwaters was aware of the whole -- of the -- of 20 what is actually out there. I mean, I'm not trying to, you 21 know, say we disregard them. I just don't think they were 22 aware that there was -- they certainly weren't aware of the 23 meeting that Frank and Larry and the developer and I had, 24 but I think they need to see what the requirements are. 25 And, there may be a second well requirement; I'd have to 44 1 look at the actual rules and water availability, you know. 2 If they're going to -- if Aqua Source may be required to 3 drill a second well, there may be that well requirement. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it's more than 5 75 acres? 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And this is, in 7 essence, a preliminary anyway, so that -- that would have to 8 be satisfied before we would grant final plat approval. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: This is a concept plan. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is a concept 11 plan, so we're -- we're talking about direction on the 12 sizing of these particular lots that are now comprising 13 Phase II. That's the question. And then they'd have to go 14 off and do all the -- the right Headwaters things and -- in 15 fact, the whole ball of wax. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when he did 17 Section 1, he did a whole bunch of real small lots. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And one great big one, 20 so he could get around the system later on, which is where 21 we are today. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. He wasn't -- the 23 original developer, who is not the current developer -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- laid out, I think, 45 1 four full phases. And, in the original plat, we just did 2 Phase I, and at that time met the Subdivision Rule 3 requirement for lot size in Phase I. And, he just showed 4 Phase II, which was part of the approved plat, as just one 5 big lot, 'cause he hadn't gotten to that yet. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Now, the question is, 8 what can the lot sizes be in the second phase? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if they were 10 approved as part of the first one, whatever they were under 11 the rules. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's sort of why we 13 came down and then said, well, let's talk about that, 14 though. Actually, they're going to end up larger, on 15 average, than the -- 16 MR. JOHNSTON: With the water system on the 17 first -- with the rules in effect at that time, he can put 18 in 1-acre lots. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could have. And, this 20 is going to end up with about -- what did we say? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3.3. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 3.3 average acre lot 23 size. So, it's actually bigger than the rules were for 24 Phase I. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But less than the 46 1 current standard. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But less than the 3 current standard would be if you were starting from scratch, 4 yes. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, remember, the current 6 standard contains a requirement for revising existing plats. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Over 20 percent. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: If you increase the number of 9 lots by over 20 percent of the original total, which is 10 clearly -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Oh, this would certainly be 13 more than 20 percent. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the -- I don't have 15 the current rules in front of me, the "20 percent" language. 16 Does it refer to lot sizes -- water availability, or is it 17 more lot size? 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Water availability. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, see, the water 20 availability on this one is -- 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Public water system. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- public water system. 23 May have to drill a second well. I have to look at the 24 rules. I can't -- believe it or not, I can't remember 25 everything in there. 47 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No pun intended; let 2 me just test the water. I'll make the motion that we -- 3 that we approve the -- that we -- 'cause it's a concept 4 plan. Not approve anything, but we -- we agree that, in a 5 preliminary plat, that the lot sizing be based as shown on 6 this concept plan, which is in accordance with the 7 average -- that would turn out to be 3.3 average lot size in 8 Phase II. And, of course, all the wickets would have to be 9 gone through after that. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, that's the lot sizing in 11 Phase II? 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Are we addressing Phase III 14 at all? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Phase III has to be 16 5-acre. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Phase III is going to 18 have to be under the new rule, 'cause it wasn't platted with 19 the original -- it was just shown as a sketch; III and IV 20 were just shown as sketches. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Before we act on that, 22 we have -- Mr. Siemers, you want to address us on this? 23 MR. SIEMERS: Yes, sir. Paul Siemers. I 24 live at HC-1, Box 156N in Hunt. I'm having a hard time 25 following the logic here. I guess I have a couple questions 48 1 I'd like if I could get an explanation on. I guess I was -- 2 Judge Henneke was explaining how I would understand this. 3 If you had a -- one large lot, part of an earlier plat, 4 you're replatting, and that new -- that plat -- new plat 5 would have to conform to the new rules. But, I still -- 6 even with the further explanation, it wasn't clear to me 7 that if -- if Phase III goes in, the average lot size in 8 Phase II and Phase III still would not be 5 acres, if I 9 understood what was said. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Phase III is a stand-alone. 11 You can't lump II and III together. 12 MR. SIEMERS: Okay. That's what I'm trying 13 to -- 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: They're going to have to 15 satisfy a 5-acre minimum average. 16 MR. SIEMERS: Okay. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: The question is, what do we 18 do with II, which was originally platted as one subdivision 19 with I. 20 MR. SIEMERS: How many -- could I ask, how 21 many acres are in I, II, and III? Does anybody know? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says here Phase II is 23 400 acres. Phase III is 362 acres, and I think Phase I was 24 about 300? 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: About 300. 49 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was about 1,100 or 2 1,200 total, I believe. Isn't that about right, Frank? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 4 MR. SIEMERS: I guess the only true comment I 5 could have, 'cause I haven't had a chance to look at this, 6 is that I just agree with Judge Henneke that -- that Phase 7 II, because it is a replat, as I remember the rules, would 8 require this thing to be -- to conform to the new -- to the 9 new regulations. I'll try to understand this by preliminary 10 plat. Thank you. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let me restate the motion. 12 Franklin, do you have something else you want to -- the 13 motion that's been put forward by Commissioner Griffin is 14 that the Court approve the concept plan of Phase II of 15 Cypress Springs, with an average lot size of 3.3 acres, and 16 the concept plan of Phase III would have to meet the full 17 5-acre average lot size requirement. Is that accurate? 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, that states 19 it -- really, we don't need the last part, because that is a 20 totally separate issue. But -- 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Just for -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- with the 23 understanding that -- yes, that's a proper form of the 24 motion. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, 50 1 Commissioner Griffin. Larry, how does that -- how does your 2 motion for this concept plan approval comport with the last 3 paragraph of the letter from Headwaters? 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: All of the 5 Headwaters -- since this is a concept plan, all of the 6 Headwaters -- we don't have a preliminary plat. All the 7 Headwaters concerns, inputs, whatever, will have to be 8 addressed in the platting process. If we can't meet those 9 requirements, then we -- you can't plat it on that basis, 10 whatever. So, it does not -- does not take away any of the 11 concerns that Headwaters raised in their letter. They still 12 have to be addressed; going to have to be addressed between 13 Headwaters and the developer. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I second it. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Seconded by Commissioner 17 Letz. Any further questions or comments? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to vote 19 along with you, because it's a concept. That does not mean 20 that I will be with you when we get down to the -- 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. I may not be 22 there either. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I agree. I mean, 24 some of the -- I think the developer needs to really look at 25 it, and it may make more sense to cancel it and redo the 51 1 whole thing. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It will give him an 3 opportunity to take it and do it right. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 5 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carried. The concept 10 plan is approved. Okay. Seeing as how it's 10 o'clock, 11 let's now recess the Commissioners Court meeting and open 12 the public hearing for the revision of plat for Tract 5A and 13 Tract 6A of Whiskey Ridge Ranches in Precinct 3. 14 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:00 a.m., and a public hearing 15 was held in open court, as follows:) 16 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there any member of the 18 public who would like to address the Court on the issue of 19 the revision of plat for Tract 5A and 6A of Whiskey Ridge 20 Ranches in Precinct 3? 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Once again, is there anyone 23 who'd like to address the Court during this public hearing 24 on the revision of plat for Tract 5A and 6A of Whiskey Ridge 25 Ranches in Precinct 3? Yes, sir? 52 1 AUDIENCE: Judge, we got notice about the 2 replat, but we don't know what the replat consists of. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Neither does this 4 side of the bench up here. 5 AUDIENCE: So I don't know if you want a 6 comment or not. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what we're doing 8 is -- go ahead, Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me go ahead. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me, could y'all 11 share one of those and let us have one too? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't have one? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'd like to 14 participate in this process. 15 (Discussion off the record.) 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What it does, this Lot 5A 17 and 6A, there's a lake in the back side of it, and they're 18 adjusting the lot line to put the lake all on one -- all on 19 Lot 6A. And, it's a -- the change is, one lot goes from 20 37.76 -- or from 40 acres to 37.76, and the other one goes 21 from 41.61 to 43.85. So -- but it's just for the lake and 22 so that all the lake -- the entire lake's on one property, 23 on one lot. 24 AUDIENCE: Yeah. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Once again, is there 53 1 anyone -- any member of the public who'd like to address the 2 Court during this public hearing on the issue of revision of 3 Lot 5 and 6 of Whiskey Ridge Ranches? Sir, are you -- 4 AUDIENCE: I'm satisfied. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: You're satisfied? Okay. 6 Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing and return 7 to the regular session of Commissioners Court meeting. 8 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:05 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 9 meeting was reopened.) 10 - - - - - - - - - - 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item for consideration 12 is Item Number 8, which is consider approval of revision of 13 plat to Tracts 5A and 6A of Whiskey Ridge Ranches in 14 Precinct 3. Commissioner Letz. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just discussed this, 16 so I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the revision 17 of plat as presented. Only comment I have is that we should 18 use the verbiage "revision" as opposed to "replat" it. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 21 seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the 22 revision of plat for Tracts 5A and 6A of Whiskey Ridge 23 Ranches in Precinct 3. Any further questions or comments? 24 If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 54 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is 4 Item Number 9, which is open the annual bids for materials 5 for the Kerr County Road and Bridge Department. Do we have 6 any bids? 7 MS. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 8 (Discussion off the record.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, folks. Pay attention. 10 First bid is from Joe Drymala, Drymala Sand and Gravel. 11 Crushed gravel, B, $7.90 per cubic yard. And rock asphalt, 12 looks like $6.90 per cubic yard. 13 Second bid is from Rountree Materials, and it 14 is Grade 1, Type B, uncrushed gravel, $7.75 per cubic yard. 15 Grade 2, $7.25 per cubic yard. Type C, crushed gravel, $8 16 per cubic yard. $7.50 per cubic yard for Grade 2. For 17 f.o.b. Kerr County, Type B, $12.75 per cubic yard, $12.25 18 for Grade 2. Grade 1, Type C, crushed gravel, $13 per cubic 19 yard, f.o.b., and $12.50 per cubic yard. 20 The next bid is from Schwarz Construction 21 Company for equipment by the hour. Cat D-6 dozer, $70 per 22 hour. Scraper, $80 per hour. Cat 12-G motor grader, $70. 23 930 loader, $75. 12-ton flat wheel roller, $55. 12-ton 24 pneumatic roller, $55. And 1,500-gallon water truck, $50 25 per hour. No bids on asphalt distributor or chip spreader. 55 1 Base material bid from Masters Construction, 2 Type A, crushed limestone, f.o.b. supplier's plant, $8 per 3 cubic yard; f.o.b. Kerr County, Type A, crushed limestone, 4 Grade A, $14 per cubic yard. 5 Next bid is from Walters Building and Supply. 6 It's for corrugated metal pipe. 15-inch arch $4.85. 7 18-inch arch, $5.82. 24-inch arch, $7.74. 30-inch arch, 8 $9.70. 15 coupling -- 15-inch coupling bands, $7 each. 9 18-inch coupling bands, $8 each. 24-inch coupling bands, 10 $11.60 each. And 30-inch coupling bands, $14.50 each. 11 For paving -- for emission oils, we have from 12 Koch Materials Company. CRS-2, 75 cents per gallon. 13 HFRS-2, no bids, and AEP, no bid. 14 From Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions, paving 15 aggregates, no bids. For emulsion oils, CRS-2, 73 cents per 16 gallon. HFRS-2, 73 cents per gallon, and AEP, 95.88 cents 17 per gallon. Corrugated metal pipe, no bids. 18 From Bobby Jenschke, equipment by the hour. 19 Cat D-6 dozer, $110 per hour. Scraper, $110 per hour. Cat 20 12-G, $85 per hour. 930 loader, $105 per hour. 21 1,500-gallon water truck, $65 per hour. 22 For equipment by the hour from E.J.I., Cat 23 D-6, $100 per hour. Scraper, $100 per hour. Cat 12-G, $76 24 per hour. 930 loader, $80 per hour. 12-ton flat wheel 25 roller, $70 per hour. 12-ton pneumatic roller, $60 per 56 1 hour. 1,500-gallon water truck, $50 per hour. Asphalt 2 distributor, $120 per hour. And chip spreader, also $120 3 per hour. 4 More bids on -- on paving aggregate and 5 emulsions from Texas Corrugators. For corrugated metal 6 pipe, we have 12 -- 15-inch arch for $7.45. 18-inch arch 7 for $8.75 per linear foot. 24-inch arch, $11.75. 30-inch 8 arch, $14.25. 15-inch coupling bands, $11 each. 18-inch 9 coupling bands, $13 each. 24-inch coupling bands, $16 each. 10 30-inch coupling bands, $19.50 each. 11 We have a bid from Champion Asphalt Products 12 on emulsion oils. CRS-2, 66 cents per gallon. HFRS-2, 66 13 cents per gallon. AEP, 75 cents per gallon. 14 Next bid is for Bedrock Materials Limited in 15 Center Point. For base material, Grade B, f.o.b. supplier's 16 plant, Grade 1, $9. Grade 2, $9.75. Grade C, crushed 17 gravel, f.o.b. supplier's plant, Grade 2, $9.75; f.o.b. Kerr 18 County, Grade B -- Type B, Grade 1, $12.35. Type B, Grade 19 2, $13.10. Type C, Grade 2, $13.10. For hot mix cold-laid 20 asphalt concrete pavement, f.o.b. Kerr County, black base, 21 $58 per ton. Cold mix, $59 per ton. Next is also from 22 Bedrock Materials, for paving aggregates. Type B, crushed 23 gravel, $8.25 per cubic yard. Type PB, f.o.b. Kerr County, 24 no bids. No bids on remainder of the items. Okay. 25 From James D. Reeh in Comfort, a bid on base 57 1 material, f.o.b. supplier's plant, Type A, Grade 1, $5.20. 2 Grade 2, $5; f.o.b. Kerr County, Type A, crushed limestone, 3 Grade A, $13.23. Grade 2, $13.03. 4 Next bid is from Smyth Mines LLP in Uvalde. 5 Paving aggregates, Type B, Grade 3, $7.95 per cubic yard. 6 Type B, Grade 4, $8.45. Type B, Grade 5, $7.45. Type PB, 7 Grade 3, $18.25. Type PB, Grade 4, $18.25. Type PB, Grade 8 5, $18.25. No bids on trap rock and no bids on the other 9 items. Next, we have Smyth Mines LLP. On the hot mix 10 asphalt concrete pavement, we have f.o.b. Kerr County, black 11 base for $22.23 per ton. Cold mix $21.98 per ton. The next 12 one is also from Smyth Mines. It is for the hot mix asphalt 13 concrete pavement. Black base, $22.23 per ton, and cold 14 mix, $21.98 per ton. 15 Next is from Vulcan Materials out of San 16 Antonio, f.o.b. Kerr County. On hot mix asphalt concrete 17 pavement, f.o.b. Kerr County, $24.11 per ton. I guess 18 that's for black base. For cold mix, it would be $24.11 per 19 ton, as well. Another bid from Vulcan Materials Company. 20 This is for paving aggregates. Type PB, Grade 3, $22.69 per 21 cubic yard. Type PB, Grade 4, $22.69. Type PB, Grade 5, 22 $22.69. Trap rock, all three grades, is $28.22 per cubic 23 yard. 24 Wheatcraft, Inc., for base material. Type A, 25 Grade 2, $7 per cubic yard, as well as $8 per cubic yard for 58 1 three-quarter inch down, and $8 per cubic yard for 3 to 6 2 inch. Type B, Grade 2, $6 per cubic yard. On the paving 3 aggregates, Type A, Grade 3, $8 per cubic yard. Type A, 4 Grade 5, $7.50 per cubic yard. Type B, Grade 3, $8.50 per 5 cubic yard. Type B, Grade 4, $9 per cubic yard. Type B, 6 Grade 5, $8 per cubic yard. And no other bids on the other 7 aggregates. 8 That completes the opening of the bids. At 9 this time, I'd entertain a motion to accept all the bids and 10 refer them to Road and Bridge Department for evaluation and 11 recommendation. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 15 Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 16 accept all of the bids for materials and refer them to the 17 Road and Bridge Department for evaluation and recommendation 18 to the Commissioners Court. Any further questions or 19 comments? I would like to comment that the -- that Leonard 20 and Franklin and Truby have obviously done an excellent job 21 of soliciting bids, based on the number that we have this 22 year. I think it's about three or four times what we've had 23 in any of the two previous years, so our thanks and 24 congratulations for their efforts. All in favor, raise your 25 right hand. 59 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: You gentlemen think you'll be 5 back with us today? Or -- 6 MR. ODOM: I don't know, sir. That's a lot 7 to assimilate. If you wish to go ahead to -- some of it may 8 be that I need to check, and I personally think that I 9 probably need some time. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, if you let us know, we 11 can recess and convene again tomorrow without having to 12 repost, or we can simply take it up -- 13 MR. ODOM: Do you want to go ahead and set it 14 for recess, and I'll get back with you and tell you? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll announce that at the 16 end of today's meeting. 17 MR. ODOM: Okay. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay? 19 MR. ODOM: I think that would give us a 20 little leeway. Maybe I can get it together. Some of this 21 may need to be checked to see if they even bid properly. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Okay. We have a 23 few minutes before our typical morning break. Tommy, is 24 Mr. Sundberg here? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 60 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: We can do the audit. Do you 2 want to do the audit? Let's take up the next item, Item 3 Number 10, review the audit for year ending 9/30/00 by 4 Pressler, Thompson and Company. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: I think everyone has a copy 6 of the audit. Doug is here to make a -- to present a 7 summary of findings, or -- and basically address the County 8 financially and to answer any questions that anybody might 9 have. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Mr. Sundberg? 11 MR. SUNDBERG: I'd like to start off on Page 12 2, which is our opinion letter, Auditor's Report. 13 Basically, you have an unqualified opinion which states that 14 these financial statements present fairly the financial 15 position of Kerr County and its -- and its operations as of 16 September 30, 2000. On Page 4 and 5 is the balance sheet 17 covering all account groups and fund types, assets, 18 liabilities. You've got your governmental fund types and 19 the special revenue, the debt service. The funds that make 20 up those are detailed in the back, later pages of the 21 report. The proprietary fund type, which, of course, is the 22 Juvenile Detention Facility, and then your general fixed 23 assets and long-term debt are shown there. 24 If you'll turn to Page 6 and 7 -- and stop me 25 if you have any questions as I go through here -- which is 61 1 the revenues and expenditures and changes in fund balance. 2 We'll keep mainly on the General Fund. Total revenue of 3 $8,283,000. Expenditures of $8,082,000, for an excess 4 revenues over expenditures of $200,000 for the year. Other 5 financing sources of $105,000, giving you excess revenue for 6 the year of $306,000. Beginning fund balance of 7 $2.8 million, ending with $3.1 million as of September 30, 8 2000. One thing I might note in there, in the other 9 financing sources and uses is an amount of $125,000, which 10 is the -- which is entitled "Capital Financing." This is 11 the capital lease that was taken out this last year for -- I 12 believe it was for the Sheriff's Department vehicles. 13 There's six of them, I believe, that were in there. That's 14 what that represents. 15 On pages -- starting on Page 8 is the budget 16 comparison. General Fund, you budgeted $7,681,000 for 17 revenue. Actual revenue was $8,283,000, so you brought in 18 $602,000 more than anticipated. Expenditures, you had 19 budgeted $8,225,000, and you actually expended $8,082,000, 20 or $142,000 less than anticipated. Following that forward 21 to Page 12, which finishes the General Fund budget 22 comparison, you had budgeted for other financing sources of 23 $10,450. Actual was $156,034, and you had budgeted overall 24 for a deficit of $533,000. You actually had an excess 25 revenue of $306,000, or $840,000 more than anticipated in 62 1 the budget. 2 On Page 15 is the statement of revenues and 3 expenditures for the Juvenile Detention Facility. They had 4 total revenues for the year of $1,800,000, operating 5 expenditures of $1,282,000. They had operating revenue -- 6 net revenue of $520,000. Other operating income and 7 expenses was earned and interest paid on the mortgage on the 8 facility out there, netting $158,000, for a net profit for 9 the year of $361,684. Beginning retained earnings of 10 $424,000 and ending with $785,000 as of September 30. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent. 12 MR. SUNDBERG: The rest -- from there on is 13 notes and -- and combining schedules. A couple things in 14 the notes I'd just like to point out is on Page 23 is a 15 detailed analysis of the taxes -- delinquent taxes 16 receivable as of September 30, what funds are affected by 17 that, and the amount for each one. And also, on Pages 26 18 and 27, Note D & E is relating to the long-term debt. Note 19 D of Kerr County details the -- the liabilities that are in 20 existence as of September 30 and the debt requirements over 21 the next five years. Below there, Note E on top of Page 27 22 is the same information relating to the Juvenile Detention 23 Facility, balance due on the mortgage and the debt 24 requirements over the next five years. 25 The last thing I'd like to -- to mention 63 1 is -- is way back on Page 78, which is a new schedule this 2 year. It details out the federal revenue expenditures that 3 you received during this past year through the Department of 4 Agriculture for the lunch program out at the Juvenile 5 Detention Facility, and then the two smaller grants through 6 the Department of Justice. That, and -- along with the 7 management letter that you have, is our report for this 8 year. Are there any questions on anything? It was a pretty 9 good year, I believe. Things were in pretty good shape, as 10 you can see by the management letter. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any 12 questions or comments? 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A comment, that I'd 14 just like to congratulate all the County employees, the 15 department heads and elected officials for a good year, 16 because when you take in more than you planned on and you 17 spend less than you budgeted for, you can't get much better 18 than that. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't get any better 20 than that, that's true. Good Auditor, good Treasurer, good 21 employees, good citizens of Kerrville. God bless you. 22 MR. SUNDBERG: Thank you, sir. If there's 23 nothing else, there's one other note that I would like to 24 just address to you for just a minute. Tommy and I have 25 talked about this; I don't know if he's addressed it with 64 1 you or not, but in 1999, Governmental Accounting Standards 2 Board issued Statement Number 34, which is drastically going 3 to change the way the financial reporting is done for 4 governmental entities. It's being phased in over the next 5 three years, based on your income levels. There's 6 revisions -- there's revisions to what we're presently 7 reporting. There's a whole set of new financial statements 8 that are going to be added to it, and it's going to be quite 9 an undertaking, to say the least, and they're going to be 10 totally different. It wasn't well thought of when it first 11 came out, but there are some larger governmental entities 12 that have already put it into effect, and according to what 13 I'm reading, they seem to like it. It gives them more 14 information, more easily understood, supposedly, and so 15 we'll see. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doug, it's referred to 17 by some name; I can't remember what it is. What do we call 18 this new system? 19 MR. SUNDBERG: Well, it's GASB Statement 34. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: GASB. 21 MR. SUNDBERG: Governmental Accounting 22 Standards Board. The big leagues back east decided we 23 needed to see this, and so here we are. And, like I said, 24 it's being phased in. Next October 1st of 2002 is when Kerr 25 County will have to have it into effect, and it's going to 65 1 entail a lot of additional stuff. Now, whether that's going 2 to require, I mean, additional software for Tommy to account 3 for all this, I don't know. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know yet. 5 MR. SUNDBERG: But I just wanted to -- you 6 know, to address it and make you aware that it's coming and 7 we're going to live with it. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Thank you. 9 MR. SUNDBERG: So, anything else? 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a motion to accept 11 the annual audit? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved -- second. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 15 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 16 accept the annual audit for year ending 9/30/00 by Pressler, 17 Thompson and Company. Any questions or comments? If not, 18 all in favor, raise your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion passes. Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thanks, Doug. 24 MR. SUNDBERG: You bet. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we take our break, 66 1 let's take up the next item quickly, consider and discuss 2 publishing notice for bids for a depository of the County 3 and District funds. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: There's the Treasurer. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know if she wants to 6 break or if she wants to do her item before we break. 7 MS. NEMEC: Judge, if we can do 2.12 before 8 the break -- 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 10 MS. NEMEC: -- it would really help. Thank 11 you. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: This item on the agenda is 13 actually for the Treasurer, but I will -- when she was 14 ailing and not at work with her leg, I -- I took it on 15 myself to go ahead and put it on the agenda, so that's the 16 only reason I'm here. But, I attached a copy of the -- of 17 the Local Government Code that -- with the agenda, and all 18 this is about is to get approval to go out for bids for 19 depository in -- in conjunction with -- with state law. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 23 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 24 approve publishing notice for bids for depository account 25 contracts for County/District funds. The way the law reads, 67 1 we have to do this at our first meeting in May; is that 2 correct? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, it's not only to receive 5 the bids, but to also -- 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Publish -- 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- make a decision. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. I think we have to 9 publish at least 20 days before -- 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: -- the first meeting in May. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: And so we want plenty of time 14 to get our -- our spec -- our bid specs out to everybody 15 concerned. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 17 comments? If not, all in favor raise your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 22 12. 23 MS. NEMEC: Thank you, Judge. I'll just let 24 Diane Moore explain more about it. I think this was on the 25 last agenda, and y'all asked that it be brought back because 68 1 of the wording, so -- 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: The item is to consider and 3 discuss allowing Kerr County employees to participate in a 4 457 Deferred Compensation Plan offered by VALIC, and for the 5 County Treasurer to deduct from the individual employees' 6 checks the amount they so stipulate. We got a presentation 7 on this last meeting, and because, again, of the wording -- 8 the way the agenda item was posed, we could not take action 9 on it. Does anyone have any questions of Ms. Moore or our 10 Treasurer? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a -- I want to 12 move that we approve. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second -- third. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 16 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve 17 allowing Kerr County employees to participate in a 457 18 Deferred Compensation Plan offered by VALIC, and for the 19 County Treasurer to deduct from the individual employees' 20 checks the amount they so stipulate. What are the plans for 21 educating the employees in this? 22 MS. MOORE: I will get with Barbara and any 23 of the Commissioners that would like to participate, and we 24 will make a schedule of how you want us to proceed. If we 25 want to go at -- on an individual department basis, the 69 1 first thing would be to make a presentation, get a payroll 2 stuffer out to the employees, and schedule a series of 3 presentations to the employees at their specific locations 4 at a time that is convenient to the employees and the 5 department heads where they're working to explain what the 6 plan affords to them. And then, secondarily, we would meet 7 individually with those employees that want to participate 8 to help them to decide how much to put away and how it 9 should be invested, and then there's a series of seminars 10 that we can give over the course of the year, plus we would 11 be doing individual evaluations with the employees as the 12 statements come out and on an annual basis for review 13 purposes. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Barbara, do we want an 15 effective date on this? 16 MS. NEMEC: What are we, in March right now? 17 Middle of March? I think -- would you be able to schedule 18 -- be available the next couple of weeks for seminars? 19 MS. MOORE: Sure. 20 MS. NEMEC: And we could make it effective 21 April 1st. 22 MS. MOORE: Sure. Yeah, just a question of 23 getting the information out to the employees that the 24 seminars are available. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin, does 70 1 your motion include an effective date? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does do that. And 3 I wanted to note that she talks in chapters, with -- with 4 one single breath. I don't know if y'all noticed that or 5 not. I mean, it wasn't paragraphs; it was a full chapter, 6 with one breath. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 8 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: And, the motion's effective 13 start date is April 1. At this time, we'll take a break. 14 Let's come back promptly at 10:45. 15 MS. NEMEC: Thank you. 16 MS. MOORE: Thank you, Buster. 17 (Recess taken from 10:32 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) 18 - - - - - - - - - - 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, it's 10:45 on Monday, 20 March 12th, Year 2001, and we will reconvene this regular 21 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Next item 22 for consideration is Item Number 13, consider and discuss 23 reclassification of receptionist position to Administrative 24 Jail Secretary. Sheriff? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe I gave y'all 71 1 the backup on it and what her job duties would be. This 2 does not impact the budget this year, as it has been. Where 3 we're drawing the -- the additional funds from, if y'all 4 recall, under the old budget last year, the two nurses' 5 salaries, they were upped to about $31,000-something, which 6 was budgeted, and they were -- we actually figured them in 7 at about a 20.9, which was way too high. Since we lost one, 8 we changed all that back down to a 20.1, which would be 9 where a new nurse would start when we fill that vacancy. 10 So, the remainder amount in that -- between the difference 11 would be a -- the original nurses would have been starting 12 at $31,682 the way the former Sheriff had it worked out. 13 The nurses I hire will start at $26,003, which will be a 14 $5,679 difference. 15 In this one, the current receptionist -- we 16 have one full-time and one part-time receptionist, and they 17 are in the Sheriff's Office part, itself, and her salary 18 right now is $17,092. What I would like to move her to 19 would be an administrative secretary in the jail, and you 20 can see the job description, which would be a 17.1, as being 21 $21,879, which would leave a $4,787 difference, where the 22 $5,000 would make that up pretty easily on that. The 23 problem I'm having, we're doing -- we've worked about 11 24 months now on restructuring, reorganizing the Sheriff's 25 Department, and the salary stuff. We did away with a lot of 72 1 the upper chiefs, I guess you could say. I thought there 2 was too much chiefs. We did away with corporal positions, 3 we did away with a lieutenant position and things like that, 4 and now I'm starting to work on reorganizing and getting the 5 jail to run properly and the way I think it should. 6 And, one thing I've noticed, some of our 7 stuff, especially our out-of-county housing, mainly on the 8 medical side of it, has not been getting billed to the 9 out-of-county -- or the counties where it should be billed 10 to, because a lot of this stuff is done by either a records 11 clerk or a jailer. I have no secretary that can oversee and 12 keep all this stuff going in the jail. I think that's a -- 13 a real concern of mine, because we are housing a large 14 number of inmates from out of county. Last week it was 38 15 that we had, which, at a year, if we kept it going for one 16 year at 30, would average a little over $400,000, not 17 counting the medical expenses that those counties should be 18 reimbursing us for. And, with that kind of money moving in 19 and out of that jail, you know, I really do need an 20 administrative secretary to help keep things organized and 21 keep things running correctly. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sheriff, did you just 23 say that -- that you billed the other counties for the 24 medical expenses? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We should be, yes. 73 1 Yeah, we -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You do? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our department does. We 4 bill anything -- we send them copies of the bills and all 5 the rest of that on the medical expenses. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not done here in 7 the courthouse with the Treasurer and Auditor? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That seems strange to 10 me. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When they get the bill 12 over here, they don't know whether it's an out-of-county 13 inmate or an in-county inmate. The bills a lot of times are 14 sent by the inmate's name when they go to the hospital, but 15 a lot of that has slipped through the cracks and has not 16 been billed to these other counties. That's one thing I've 17 discovered in getting into that, and I don't think that is 18 right in any way, shape, or form, and we need to -- to get 19 the organization part going. Now, I'll be the first to 20 admit, I think we have one of the best jails in the state, 21 but organizing it, getting things running smoothly where one 22 person is responsible for all that all the way through and 23 putting that together is essential. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. It does -- you 25 said that it does not impact this year's budget, 'cause you 74 1 have the leftover from the nurses' program, but it does 2 impact the budget next year by $4,700 next year, and then 3 on? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It could, yes, depending 5 on how it was done. Because, see, the original budget for 6 the two nurses, due to the way the former Sheriff had it, 7 both nurses were set at 20.9 constantly; this Court didn't 8 drop that down. When we went through it, the Court said, 9 look, if -- if we lose one and hire one, don't -- let's try 10 and get it back down to a normal -- not normal salary, but 11 an equivalent salary that would work. What happened, the 12 former Sheriff had taken a jail position and combined it 13 into -- took one jail position and split that salary to two 14 nurses, okay? So we lost a jail position, essentially. 15 And, I still -- I'm not getting that position back at this 16 time. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I am lowering that. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, that's going to 20 carry on, so the net effect would still be the same in 21 following years. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if I 24 agree with that or not, but -- 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it should. And the 75 1 Sheriff understands that, you know, the approval -- if the 2 Court approves this reclassification and higher salary, that 3 does not automatically increase the personnel budget for 4 next year. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, it does not. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- my argument to 7 all that is that the former Sheriff -- what this Court 8 approved in the budget for nurses' salaries, she did not 9 stay in that. She went ahead and hired and spent a lot 10 more -- hired and paid them a lot more salary than what this 11 Court approved. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: By alleviating a jailer 13 position, she did. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Without the approval 15 of this Court, which affected the budget. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That may -- well, it 17 affected that line item. It did not affect the overall 18 budget, because she used the funds that were budgeted for 19 her; she just took a jailer's position and put it into the 20 nurses, which cost me a jailer's position. And this is not 21 affecting the overall bottom line of the budget, the way 22 it's been set, okay? I'm just trying to organize the jail 23 to where we run a little bit more efficiently with some 24 things. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, going back 76 1 to the question that Commissioner Baldwin asked earlier 2 about the billing -- the billing that you do to other 3 counties for the medical expenses attributed to their 4 prisoners. When you get a remittance back, does the 5 Auditor -- is the Auditor advised of that so that those 6 numbers are then applied appropriately and we get a clear 7 picture of what we actually spend for our own inmates? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The way that works -- 9 and that's one thing the Auditor and I have to sit down and 10 really get set, and this is part of the reorganization of 11 that, is the -- the Sheriff's Office -- we send out the bill 12 on the number of out-of-county inmates, whether it's medical 13 or whether it's, you know, just their normal housing, okay? 14 And, most of the time, we don't see what they send back, 15 because that comes straight to the Auditor's office. So, 16 their check would come to us -- or come to the Auditor's. 17 We'll send the bill out, but they send the check to the 18 Auditor. Now, most of the time, we get a copy of that 19 check, you know, eventually from the Auditor, and that's so 20 we can start trying to balance, but there's just -- there's 21 a lot of organization that needs to take place in 22 streamlining that and making sure everything runs smoothly 23 and that all the counties get billed appropriately and Kerr 24 County gets back what they're supposed to. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that -- just a 77 1 quick follow-up, then. It would be your intent to have that 2 reconciliation take place so we get a clear picture of what 3 we're spending on our own prisoners, as opposed to the 4 whole -- 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 8 Because, see, there's another part of that billing. If the 9 inmate is on prescription meds, and part of that medical -- 10 the prescription is deducted from a commissary account, then 11 the commissary part of the Sheriff's Office -- or of the 12 jail bills that county for the remainder of the 13 prescription, okay? If it's an indigent-type. But, none of 14 that's really been organized to where it's under one person 15 to oversee and control that, and I need that administrative 16 secretary to help put all that stuff together in the jail. 17 A lot of it's been trying to come through the -- through the 18 Sheriff's Office secretary, which we have -- everybody's 19 wearing more than one hat as it is. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. I 21 agree that you need some help in there, and you've done 22 right, but I also think that it needs to be billed out of 23 this courthouse. But -- and, what, we're a month and a half 24 away from our budget process? It could wait until then. 25 But, I move we approve the Sheriff's request. 78 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 3 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 4 approve the reclassification of receptionist -- full-time 5 receptionist position to Kerr County Jail to Administrative 6 Jail Secretary. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one more 9 thought, Rusty, following up on what we just talked about. 10 If I look at this job description, you've got, "Reconciles 11 bank statements for the inmates' trust funds." 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you add to that 14 the reconciliation of the other, as well? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, you'll see in 16 there, it also -- she's responsible for the out-of-county 17 housing and medical billing, and reconciling that commissary 18 inmate trust fund so that we keep track of it all under one 19 person. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 21 comments? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment I have, 23 Judge, is the Treasurer has looked over the job description 24 and it meets with -- 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, the Treasurer was 79 1 gone all last week and she has not looked over it. We used 2 a guideline of Nash's and put in the actual duties, and 3 then, of course, she would not be an exempt employee; she 4 would be nonexempt, and put in the verbiage that Nash has in 5 the rest of his -- 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think there's some 7 more to the format that goes after this, though, that needs 8 to be included. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we make the 10 reclassification subject to the approval of the Treasurer of 11 the actual job description? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's fine. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 15 comments? That's a good one. If not, all in favor, raise 16 your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is 21 Item Number 14, consider and discuss acceptance of donations 22 to Kerr County Sheriff's to match funds provided by grant 23 from the Bureau of Justice to purchase ballistic vests for 24 Kerr County Sheriff's Department patrol officers. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What this goes back to, 80 1 I came to y'all, oh, a couple months ago on applying for a 2 50 percent matching fund grant as a partnership grant with 3 the Bureau of Justice to purchase bulletproof vests. What 4 that does is they pay 50 percent of the overall cost, and 5 the County is liable for the other 50 percent if we do the 6 order. We -- my original intention was -- we had some other 7 grant money in that $11,000 grant that we get each year for 8 equipment that I would have liked to have used for the 9 matching part, but when I get down into the grant 10 guidelines, no other grant can be used to match the 11 50 percent; the County has to, and that's what we found out. 12 So, that $11,000 I have cannot be used to match this 13 50 percent. 14 In the Local Government Code -- and with some 15 research done by the County Attorney's office, there is a 16 way that the County can accept donations for a specific 17 purpose of law. And, so, what we are doing here is, there 18 were a lot of concerned citizens -- there are a lot of 19 people that did feel like they wanted to donate for this. I 20 had several calls on it. So, at this time, we've received 21 an overall donation of $3,005. Now, there's a couple more 22 that still are contemplating -- or we're waiting on 23 receiving a few more. The overall County match on 20 vests 24 is going to be right at $6,000, so we're a little bit short 25 yet on what -- I want to replace all 20 patrol officers' 81 1 vests. Now, I could still replace, you know, 10 or 15 of 2 them at this time with this matching, but I'm hoping to get 3 to replace all 20 of them. So, what the Local Government 4 Code says is the Commissioners Court may accept donations 5 for that purpose. Not me, not the Sheriff's Office. 6 So, what I have done, I have an itemized list 7 of the people that wish to donate. I have their actual 8 checks or things like that in my pocket, and if y'all wish 9 to see -- some of these people want to remain anonymous and 10 that, but if the Court wishes to see this, I'll -- there'll 11 be a permanent record of who all donates what and that. 12 But, I would ask that y'all accept donations at this point 13 in the amount of $3,005 so that we can deposit these checks 14 and that and don't have these people holding out -- some of 15 them are from back February the 19th, and we're still 16 holding their check. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that we 18 need to put a specific number in there, though. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't think we do, either. 20 I think what we -- what's appropriate for us to do, because 21 this is ongoing, but it's for a specific purpose, is to 22 accept donations for the purpose of meeting the matching 23 funds requirement on the ballistic vest purchase. And, I 24 think what that will allow the Sheriff to do is to continue 25 to accept donations without having to come back to us every 82 1 time he gets a new check. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: And tie to it a specific 4 purpose. 5 MR. LUCAS: That's right. That's right. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 9 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 10 accept donations to Kerr County for matching funds 11 requirement for a grant from the Bureau of Justice to 12 purchase ballistic vests for patrol officers. Any further 13 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 14 right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. And we want 19 to thank everyone who contributes to that fund. It is a 20 worthwhile, obviously, purpose. Item Number 15, consider 21 and discuss going out for bids on video equipment funded by 22 the Hal and Charlie Peterson Foundation grant. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's kind of 24 exactly what it is. The Hal and Peterson Foundation, we 25 did -- we had asked y'all for permission to apply for a 83 1 grant to place video cameras in all of our patrol cars. 2 These are unique cameras. They're fabulous cameras. And, 3 you know, due to the size of the grant and being over the 4 $25,000 the County is required to send out bids for that to 5 see what we get back. You have a copy of the bid that we're 6 asking to send out, and we'll follow all the rest of the bid 7 requirements, the guidelines on publishing and that. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: How long do you want these 9 bids to be out? What timeline do you want them to bring 10 back? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I would like to 12 send them out probably today or first thing in the morning 13 to -- there's not very many vendors that actually do police 14 videos that are -- are secured and -- and take care of 15 patrol car situations, heat and everything else. So, I'd 16 like to get them sent out and get them back as soon as 17 possible. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you want 30 days? Two 19 weeks? Thirty days? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can we do two weeks? 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: That -- that's pretty tight. 22 Next Court meeting is March 26th, which means we have to 23 have the bids in by the close of business on March 23rd. Is 24 that sufficient time for you to actually get appropriate 25 solicitation? 84 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, because there's 2 only really, like, five or six different vendors that 3 actually sell police videos, okay? It's not just a little, 4 you know, hand-held camcorder that you put in a car. And -- 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This has got the lock 6 box for the video -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The lock box that goes 8 in the trunk, it's got a heater/cooler situation with that 9 in the trunk there. And, I think we can get those mailed 10 out within a day, at the most. We already have packages 11 ready, and then get back -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a camera and 13 a recording device; is that right? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, and an audio 15 device. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sheriff, I'm going to suggest 17 that that's a -- an unreasonably tight time frame. If you 18 get them out tomorrow, which is the 13th, vendors won't get 19 them till the 15th. They have to have them back by the 20 23rd, so you're -- you have a weekend in there. You're 21 really only giving them about three days to look at the 22 specs and prepare a response. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we'd be better served 25 if we waited until the first meeting in April, even though 85 1 that may be a little longer than you like. We'd have a 2 better solicitation if we could do it that way. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's fine. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: April 9th? Okay. So, we'd 5 ask the bids to be received in the -- in the County Clerk's 6 office not later than close of business on April the 6th, to 7 be opened at 10 o'clock on April the 9th. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Opened and evaluated? 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opened and awarded. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved -- or was 11 that a second? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A third. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Come on, guys, someone go the 14 right way. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dadgumit. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 19 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize 20 the Sheriff's Department to go out for bids on video 21 equipment for patrol cars to be funded by the Hal and 22 Charlie Peterson Foundation grant, with the bids to be 23 received by the County Clerk's office not later than 24 5 o'clock p.m. on Friday, April the 6th, to be opened and 25 awarded at 10 o'clock a.m. on Monday, April the 9th, Year 86 1 2001, here in the Kerr County Courthouse. Any further 2 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 3 right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's one other 9 comment I'd like to make, just for the Commissioners' 10 acknowledgment. It doesn't really concern this, but it does 11 concern grants and that. I just think y'all ought to be 12 aware, my Chief Deputy is the one that's been applying for 13 all these grants, and -- and we've been very fortunate, and 14 so far this year the Kerr County Sheriff's Office has 15 received over half a million dollars in grant money, and it 16 has tremendously helped our budget. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate that, 18 Rusty. Really do. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: In light of the fact we have 20 a number of people interested in Item Number 18, let's take 21 -- go ahead and jump down to it, take up Item Number 18, 22 which is consider and discuss a draft amendment to the Kerr 23 county O.S.S.F. order regarding property transfer 24 inspections and procedures, and set a public hearing on 25 same. Commissioner Letz, it's my understanding you're going 87 1 to kick this one off? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll get started on it, 3 then Larry's going to go through with the details. But, I 4 wanted to give a little bit of background as to how this 5 came to be on the agenda. Two things have happened. One, 6 I've received calls from a number of people that were 7 concerned about us not having any inspections at time of 8 real estate transfers. That's one issue that I, you know, 9 heard. The other one was, U.G.R.A. requested -- or several 10 board members, Janet Robinson, Tom Myer, requested a -- that 11 myself and Larry go to a meeting with them, and Jim Brown 12 was also present, and discuss this issue. And, at that 13 meeting, the biggest -- the main concern, I think, that was 14 voiced by U.G.R.A., and I think it's shared by me, is that 15 they were concerned about quality of the river and the -- 16 its tributaries. And, U.G.R.A. had a concern and -- and, 17 basically, an opinion that since we have had septic rules in 18 place under real estate transfers, we have caught a number 19 of offending -- caught a number of offending systems that 20 have been corrected, and during that time framework over the 21 past 15, 20 years, the quality of water in the river has 22 improved. 23 Along with that and at that same meeting, 24 U.G.R.A.'s board and/or members from that board, and Jim 25 Brown also, advised that they were proceeding with 88 1 discussions with T.N.R.C.C. to institute their statutory 2 ability to put in their own septic rules within 1,500 feet 3 of the Guadalupe River and all its tributaries, and that 4 that, you know, would -- basically had been presented to 5 T.N.R.C.C. and was running through the system. Out of all 6 of that, I -- and I think Larry probably came to the same 7 feeling; that, one, if, in fact, the quality of the 8 Guadalupe River has been improved through the real estate 9 transfers -- and I certainly want to continue that. I don't 10 want to see the quality of that river go down. Two, I also 11 think -- I think that there is a -- I was very much, I 12 guess, not in favor of U.G.R.A. pursuing instituting their 13 own rules within a 1,500-foot area of the river, for two 14 reasons. I think it would be very confusing to the public 15 to identify that and having two sets of separate rules for 16 the county. And, also, I think that the County is in a 17 better position to handle this, because we're an elected 18 body; they're an appointed body. I think that I would -- my 19 preference is to keep it in the County entirely. 20 When it came down to the final analysis as to 21 what the problem was, it was just the real estate transfer 22 inspection that U.G.R.A. thought was a detriment, or 23 possibly a detriment to the quality of water in the river. 24 And, out of that, Larry and I have talked back and forth 25 quite a few times, and we're trying to come up with a -- a 89 1 policy and a procedure that is acceptable to me, and 2 hopefully the public and the rest of the Court as well. 3 Right now, I think it's just he and I that have really had 4 input into it. And, a couple of things to meet my threshold 5 requirement that had to be met on U.G.R.A.'s standpoint, and 6 that is that whatever the rules were, they had to be very 7 explicit as to how the inspection was going to be taken care 8 of and what the requirements were going to be. And I wanted 9 to keep it as much under T.N.R.C.C. state rules as possible. 10 I think we have -- or are coming very close 11 to doing what we haven't done so far. The -- we did not -- 12 currently, there's a 10-acre acreage limitation under 13 T.N.R.C.C. rules. That has not changed; we're not doing 14 anything with that. That acreage limitation is -- still 15 applies. There is a requirement that all properties be 16 inspected; however, if your system is not failing and 17 being -- failing and a nuisance, as defined by T.N.R.C.C., 18 you do not have to fix it. If you -- however, if you don't 19 fix it, your system will not be licensed. If you do upgrade 20 it to the current standards, it would be licensed. So -- 21 and that was a big concern of mine and big threshold of 22 mine, to make sure that -- I don't think there's any reason 23 to require and basically mandate people to upgrade their 24 systems when they're working, and this rule does that, in my 25 opinion, or hopefully does it. 90 1 That's kind of, I guess, a background as to, 2 you know, why it's back on the agenda and where we are on 3 it. I'm going to turn it over to Larry to do some of the 4 actual language. He's far more versed in referring back and 5 forth between T.N.R.C.C. Section 285 and, I guess, 366 of 6 the Water Code. And, we -- people who have read it -- and 7 it may be a little bit confusing, but we referred to 285 8 continually in the new Section 10, and basically every time 9 we refer back to Section 285, all we're doing is we're 10 referring back to state law. I mean, it's not changing 11 anything. Only thing that we're really adding is -- or 12 trying to add is that there is an inspection, and it is 13 hopefully one that will be clearly outlined to the public, 14 and it will be minimally invasive to their property. 15 Hopefully, minimally invasive to their expenditure as well. 16 So after that introduction, I'll turn it over to Larry and 17 let him try to walk through. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A couple of other 19 general points is that -- that one of the things that we 20 looked at was -- and did an awful lot of research on -- and 21 I, myself, with the help of T.N.R.C.C., did an extensive 22 online search of all of the inspection procedures that we 23 could find that were used in other states -- in other parts 24 of Texas, which are -- are few and far between. Most of 25 them have essentially the same kind of inspection system 91 1 that we used to have here, which we didn't like. 2 One thing that was my threshold input is that 3 if we're going to have a -- an inspection at real estate 4 transfer, that those procedures and processes -- which will 5 not be a part of this rule, and I'll go though that when I 6 get to the rule, but those will be written separately. And 7 -- and my insistence was and is that that process will be 8 approved by court order of this -- of this Court; that we're 9 not going to just turn that over to anyone, Designated 10 Representative or anyone else, and say, "Do whatever you 11 want to do." That the specific inspection instructions 12 would be approved by this Court. That would also give us 13 the possibility of changing that order very -- much more 14 easily than we can change this rule. The rule, we have to 15 go through the public hearing, we have to go through the -- 16 we have to go through T.N.R.C.C. approval, et cetera, where 17 this separate document will only -- it would be like our 18 Subdivision Rules. We can have a public hearing on it, but 19 it's up to the Court to update it, so we'd have a much 20 better way of upgrading and updating the inspection 21 procedures as new technologies come along. 22 And, in doing this research, we found an 23 awful lot of new technologies that are out there, some of 24 which have been very well-developed that I think will pay 25 off in the long run if we can keep after it, and those are 92 1 things like the use of boroscopes, which those of you who 2 have ever been around the oil well business know that they 3 use. It's used a lot in other engineering, where you 4 actually have a flexible way of looking into -- with a light 5 to look at things. There's also ground-penetrating radar 6 that is now down to a little thing about like a metal 7 detector, where you can actually characterize down to 4 or 8 5 feet below the surface without invading anything, without 9 uncovering, without doing anything. That's a little farther 10 off, but we ought to be -- and our Designated Representative 11 should be looking for those kinds of technologies and their 12 availability to us to be able to make the best inspection 13 with the least invasive process. 14 There's another thing that's transpired since 15 the initiation of our new rule, the one that we did last 16 December, and that is that the real estate community has 17 asked that we reinstitute some kind of inspection transfer, 18 because I think they're -- they're seeing the possibility of 19 buyers and sellers getting crossways; that, actually, the 20 old procedure of having something that the new owner got, 21 even if it was just a report that here's the status of this 22 system the day you're buying it, that that's a better deal. 23 And, we'll hear more, I'm sure, about that at the public 24 hearing that we'll have to have for this new rule. 25 There was a new -- the new draft that I had 93 1 as of last Wednesday is in the packets here and was 2 distributed to our normal recipients of -- of that sort of 3 thing. T.N.R.C.C. had told me, when we started to draft 4 this one that's in your package, that we had to have enough 5 detail in the -- in the rule that you could tell how an 6 inspection is going to be run, and I have asked that we have 7 this totally separate document that we will just refer to 8 earlier. And, so, by carefully wordsmithing this thing, I 9 tried to draft the rule that's in your package to be as 10 simple as possible, and yet have some meat in it. 11 I bounced that off of T.N.R.C.C. on Friday 12 and, lo and behold, they called me back and said, "Why are 13 you putting all that detail in there?" And, so, I said, 14 "Because you told me I had to." And, as a result of that, I 15 will make some amendment proposals today to this before we 16 take it to public hearing, because we can even simplify this 17 rule further. We'll have a very short statement in -- in 18 the new version that will refer -- not refer directly, but 19 it just says that, hey, we're going to do what 285 says and 20 we're going to run inspections accordingly. Then, in the 21 process document off to the side, we'll be able to say 22 exactly how we're going to do it. And, so, I'd like to hear 23 any other discussion we've got right now, and then I'll 24 propose some amendments to the package that you have. And I 25 have copies that show all of that. You don't have to write 94 1 them all down, if you buy them, but I've got copies that I 2 can redistribute, and I've got a number here that we can 3 distribute to the -- 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Are there any -- 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- people attending. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- comments from the 7 Commissioners? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to 9 comment that the Court knows that I thought that it was a 10 grave omission to leave those state inspections out of the 11 rules when we adopted them before, and I want to commend you 12 both for your work and thank you for the efforts that you 13 put into bringing this back to us for inclusion in the 14 rules. I think it's a real positive step. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I do, and I'm not 17 going to be quite as nice as my good colleague here has 18 been. But, I would like to say that the inspection language 19 that is in here, you've come a thousand miles. That is one 20 of the things that we have needed to get -- we can probably 21 get a little more specific in the separate document, I 22 think, but if it can outline that thing so that we will know 23 and I will know and the home buyer would know exactly what 24 steps we're going to take, et cetera, et cetera, I like the 25 direction that we're going here. But, I want to go back a 95 1 couple of questions. At the beginning of Section 10, (a), 2 "Upon the transfer of ownership or possession of a lot or 3 tract of land which has one or more O.S.S.F. thereon by 4 sale, contract for deed, or leasing for a period exceeding 5 three years..." Where did the leasing language come from? 6 And, I don't -- I don't see -- I don't see how that works. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: These are -- these -- 8 this would be primarily aimed at long-term lease rentals, 9 obviously something over three years. Most -- most lease 10 terms are shorter than that, so they're -- we're not talking 11 too many properties here at all. But, where a lessee may 12 move into a -- a property that's a long-term lease, all this 13 does is provide to the owner at that point -- because a lot 14 of people buy property, turn around and immediately lease 15 it. What this is going to do is just insure that if it 16 hasn't -- if it's not a licensed system, it's just saying, 17 "Here's the system you got." And -- because, in many cases, 18 lessees are responsible for maintenance costs. They don't 19 -- you know, it depends on how the lease is written. So, 20 this is just an opportunity for the lessee and the owner to 21 know what the condition of the O.S.S.F. is. It's not 22 necessarily to license it. In fact, if it's a licensed 23 system, nothing happens. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner, this is 96 1 probably also a reflection from the real estate industry, 2 because typically in a mortgage, a lease for longer than 3 three years triggers the "do-on-sale" clause in a typical 4 mortgage. So, this has probably also been something that 5 the real estate industry has been interested in, to conform 6 it to the typical requirements of a mortgage. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was a little 8 surprised T.N.R.C.C. liked that idea of the long-term lease. 9 Not short-term. Most leases are written for a year, 10 sometimes two in most lease properties. But, if it's a 11 long-term lease, it covers that too. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We may go back to 13 that. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you get off of 15 that, I mean, I have something I thought of when you brought 16 that up. I would rather have in this language something to 17 narrow it more to a lease that uses one of the O.S.S.F. 18 systems, because I can see how most grazing leases and farm 19 leases are a year in term, but it would be possible to have 20 a 5-year grazing lease, and that's certainly not 21 contemplated by this inspection; you know, a rancher's 22 residence. All he's doing is leasing his graze. So, I 23 think if we limit it to a lease that uses one or more of the 24 O.S.S.F. systems on the property. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it kind of 97 1 refers to that in the prior sentence. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, I mean, I 3 think it makes it a little bit more explicit, 'cause those 4 leases certainly -- you know, it could be longer term, and 5 we're not trying to pull any -- 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's what 7 this said, but if we can clarify that, we certainly will. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just state an ag 9 exemption. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: No. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it addresses 12 it. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It addresses it. If I 15 could move on now, in your second little box, the first 16 "yes" box -- 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Was the license to 19 operate the O.S.S.F. issued less than 10 years before the 20 transfer?" I was just curious to know where the 10 years 21 came from. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was -- that was 23 in consultation with T.N.R.C.C. They said it's probably a 24 good idea. But, that inspection, if it's a licensed system, 25 is a very cursory one. That's to make sure you don't have 98 1 ponding effluent and that kind of thing. If it's a licensed 2 system, you know what's in the ground, so you're not 3 concerned about having to dig it up and find out what's 4 there, but you look for just obvious signs of failure in 5 that case. And then that's all you're going to tell that 6 new owner, is that, hey, this is a licensed system, and at 7 the time of inspection there was no obvious sign of failure. 8 That's it. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was concerned -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's in our 11 separate manual over here, when inspecting licensed systems. 12 That's pretty narrow, because you're not having to dig it up 13 and find out what's there. That's in the license process, 14 so you've got the book on that one. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was just curious why 16 it wasn't 7, 8, or 9 and a half or -- 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, we played with 9 18 and then 12, and T.N.R.C.C. said, hey, 10 is probably a good 19 number. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten's a nice number. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's a sum that 22 others have used, and that gives you a minimum of -- maybe 23 that if the system is less than 10 -- really, what they're 24 saying is if it's less than 10 years old and it's been 25 licensed, don't fiddle with it. 99 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm, yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Don't do anything. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Let's move down 4 to (b), Inspection Procedures And Standards. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On the third line, it 7 says, "...and independent research by Kerr County." What is 8 that? 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the independent 10 research that's been done by U.G.R.A. and moi, primarily. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wondered if it was 12 your research. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, that's -- in 14 looking for ways that we can have an inspection system that 15 makes sense and that's easily understandable to the lay 16 person, that ends up in this separate document, and 17 that's -- the independent research is actually done by 18 U.G.R.A., acting as our Designated Representative, which I 19 consider part of Kerr County, and the Court itself. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. 21 I'm going to come to that in just a little bit. And the 22 second paragraph down there, that word "lease" again. And 23 then, on Page 4, number (5) in the middle of the page, (5)a. 24 This -- these are things that the Designated Representative 25 shall conduct when he's conducting the inspection. 100 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Some of the steps he 3 will go through. "a. Evaluate the system site for obvious 4 signs of failure." And, to me, this entire thing kind of 5 hinges on that right there. What is the definition of 6 failure? 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. The -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't find it. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The definition at 10 T.N.R.C.C. -- and, by the way, on what I'm going to propose, 11 that one comes out. That's no longer there, because we're 12 going to leave that to 285, but the reason it was in the 13 draft you have is that T.N.R.C.C. said that that's really 14 the first essence, even with a licensed system. And, that's 15 totally noninvasive. That's where you look to see, is 16 sewage backed up in the house, is it running out on the 17 ground or that kind of thing. It's obvious signs of 18 failure. It is totally noninvasive. And, so, I said, 19 "Well, how about putting that in there?" And they said, 20 "Yeah, that would be fine." And I said, "Can that be one of 21 the particulars?" And this is one of the things, Friday 22 afternoon late, when I talked with them, they said, "Why do 23 you have that in there? You don't really need to put that 24 in because that's in 285." I said, "Yup." 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's also my 101 1 definition of failure. If I walk out in my yard and I see 2 puddles, there's something wrong. I would think the word 3 failure fit there pretty well, but I couldn't find the 4 definition of failure anywhere in the state law. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's not in 366 and -- 6 under Water Code, and it's not in 285, per se, except it's 7 sort of in 285. If you look back in the tables, in the 8 figures, it's got it in there, because if you design the 9 system, it says you don't get these things and the system is 10 working the way it's supposed to. So -- but that one's 11 going to come out when we get to that point. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And I may come 13 back to that at a later time. I don't like the word. I 14 think there would be a better word, unless we define it 15 specifically. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the reason we 17 took it out. When they said you could take it out, I took 18 it out. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And you've 20 already covered this Section 8 down there, the state of the 21 art capabilities. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You had been 24 talking -- you previously brought up some things today, the 25 metal detector thing and some of the studies that the -- 102 1 Travis County, I think, was -- 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- doing. Is that 4 what you're referring to as state of the art? 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. And they're 6 looking at -- they're looking at ways of taking small bore 7 samples. We're talking about a little auger about 3 inches 8 in diameter, and if you know where the terminal ends of the 9 drain fields are, for example -- and you find that by 10 probing. Not digging it up, by probing it. Then you take a 11 core, and you can read the tea leaves from that to see 12 whether effluent is making it all the way to the end of the 13 drain field. If it's not, perhaps it's stopped up. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, something like 15 that, if we -- if we could wait till something like that's 16 in place, I'd feel a lot better about things, as opposed to 17 digging up people's yards. Another definition, when we're 18 doing these things and inspecting them, what -- what do you 19 think the definition of "grandfather" is? 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The new -- the 21 proposed 285 has a better definition than the current one 22 does. There is one in the works, as you know. A new 285 is 23 out for public comment now. But, according to the current 24 one, all it says is that if it's a pre -- I believe it's 25 1988 system, which was the first year that -- that there was 103 1 a state standard -- help me here. Is that right? '88 was 2 the first -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- first year there 5 was a state standard. If it was prior to that, then it's 6 grandfathered, as long as the system is not creating a 7 public health hazard or nuisance. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or failing. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever that means. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's as close as you 12 come to a definition of failure, that it's a -- it's a 13 threat to public health or a nuisance. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You have to sort of 16 tie those together and say failure is what that really is 17 trying to define. So, that is grandfathered. You know, 18 there's a very important point -- in fact, Commissioner Letz 19 and I had a discussion on it this morning, and that is we 20 want to make sure, in this separate document, that if we're 21 dealing with an unlicensed system at the point of 22 inspection, if it meets the requirements of 285; that is, 23 it's not creating a public nuisance, it's not creating a 24 hazard to public health, we are not going to require that 25 that system be licensed. But it can't be licensed unless 104 1 it's fully inspected. That's up to the owner. If you want 2 to get a licensed system, then you're going to have to dig 3 it up and find out what's there to know that -- whether or 4 not it's -- what you've got to change, if anything, to get 5 it licensed. So, there is not a thrust here that says we 6 end up, every time we inspect a system, if it's not licensed 7 by -- oh, golly, it's got to end up with a license. That's 8 not going to be the case. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And T.N.R.C.C., by the 11 way, understands that and buys it, 'cause they said, "Don't 12 go digging up systems that are working." 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would that apply 14 to the recent variance that we rejected here? 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No matter -- the state 16 law says no matter how you found out that a system has 17 failed, you've got to have it fixed. So, prior to when we 18 were doing the very invasive inspections, yeah, it's 19 possible to find some that have failed and that you must 20 fix. But, you didn't -- the new rule will not allow us to 21 do that. "Us" to do that, the Court, Kerr County. We will 22 not go dig up a system to see if it's working. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the one you're 24 talking about is in Center Point? I believe, Bill, that 25 would qualify. I mean, it would not be a licensed system, 105 1 but the transfer could go on. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But it would have been 3 inspected much differently than it was inspected in this 4 case. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's how I would 6 have interpreted it. I just wanted to hear it. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the reason I ask 9 about the word "grandfather" is, recently I had a personal 10 friend purchase a piece of -- a home out in Kerrville South. 11 There is no sign of failure or a nuisance or anything 12 hurting the environment. No -- no sign of that at all. 13 And, at the time of transfer, U.G.R.A. goes in and requires 14 them to update to an aerobic system, which, in my mind and 15 the homeowner's mind, for no reason whatsoever, because 16 that -- I mean, they're grandfathered. They're licensed. 17 They're sitting there, they're functioning properly. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It was a licensed 19 system? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe so, yeah. 21 Been there a long time. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Shouldn't have 23 happened. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shouldn't have 25 happened. And it happens more than that one time. So, I 106 1 think that we need to -- because of that, I'm real hesitant 2 about going through with this without really defining what 3 grandfather is, being real clear of what -- you know, those 4 systems that are licensed out there, that -- you know, if 5 there's not a -- any sign of nuisance, then they shouldn't 6 be -- 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That -- that exactly 8 is the reason that I think this Court needs to control this 9 document that's off to the side. We're ultimately 10 responsible for that. And, the D.R.'s going to do what we 11 tell him to do in that regard, so -- just like he will with 12 the rule. And -- and I think the D.R. understands that, you 13 know, that's the way it has to work. So, if we can control 14 the approval of that document, though, we would expect him 15 to have great input from the technical side. Ultimately, 16 that document gets approved by the Court so that we can look 17 over things like that. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, I agree that -- 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And the appeal process 20 from that homeowner, in the case you're talking about, if we 21 had a rule that was written -- our process and procedure was 22 written correctly, that person comes directly to the 23 Commissioners Court on appeal. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So -- and that's the 107 1 way it should be. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. A couple 3 other things, and then I'll be through. When T.N.R.C.C. was 4 in here in the beginning, the very first meeting, they made 5 the statement that an inspection at the time of sale is 6 really not enforceable. The County or a government cannot 7 hold up a sale. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct. We're 9 not doing that. That is correct. That's what they did say. 10 They said, "You cannot hold up a sale for the inspection." 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: All the rule says -- 13 all the process would say is an inspection will be done at 14 the time of sale. It does not stop the sale. You can go 15 ahead and close. If the buyer and seller want to go ahead 16 and close it, that's fine. All we're saying is the system 17 then has to be inspected. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that -- can I 20 follow up on that question? 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: By the way, that's the 22 only rule -- this kind of rule is in several counties in the 23 state of Texas, and that approach is the only one that 24 T.N.R.C.C. buys, is that you can't stop the sale. You can't 25 hold it up, but you can require an inspection. 108 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a follow-up 2 question. So, you conduct an inspection. You have not 3 stopped the sale, but if there is remediation that's 4 required -- 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. You've got 30 6 days. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that -- 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's all in 285. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Unless 10 otherwise noted in the contract of sale? 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause if remediation or 13 something is required, that's under 285, which is outside of 14 our rules. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz made 17 a comment earlier about U.G.R.A. is concerned about the 18 river and tributaries. I would hope that everyone 19 understands that we all have those same concerns. I mean, 20 I'm certainly not in favor of damaging the environment, and 21 I know no one in this room is either. I mean, that's not my 22 point. Did you say that U.G.R.A. had already gone through 23 the steps to obtain their jurisdiction? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know how far 25 they've gone along. They have -- I know they've had 109 1 conversations with T.N.R.C.C. I don't know -- 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The bottom line is, 3 yes, they do have that jurisdiction. The only thing that 4 T.N.R.C.C. was going to require is that they bring their old 5 rule up to date, because it was like our old rule that was 6 out-of-date because of the January 1st, '99 changes that 7 were made to 285. So, if that was the only -- they could do 8 that, but they didn't -- U.G.R.A. -- I didn't find any 9 sympathy on their part that they wanted to go write another 10 rule. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As long as we could 13 get together. That was the reason that Commissioner Letz 14 and I met with them. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It was a very 17 productive, very positive meeting. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, the fact that 19 they were moving through that process is -- is offensive to 20 me, without -- before coming to this Commissioners Court and 21 visiting about it. The Designated Representative is not 22 here today. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We have a board 24 member. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our Designated 110 1 Representative is not here today. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, Designated 3 Representative is not here. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The person that works 5 for us. And, I think that person should be here, just in 6 case I had an interesting question or someone that pays 7 taxes in this county or a member of the community would like 8 to ask him some questions, I think he would -- should be 9 here. I attended a -- a J.P. court Friday where U.G.R.A. 10 had filed charges against a constituent of mine, and I went 11 to the courtroom, and the Designated Representative was not 12 in that meeting, either. And, the court lasted about two 13 and a half minutes, and was found in favor of my 14 constituent, that it was just a -- a frivolous -- some kind 15 of frivolous deal that had absolutely no meaning. But, 16 nevertheless, our Designated Representative drug a guy into 17 court and cost him money, and had to take -- took him away 18 from his job, et cetera. And, it's these little things like 19 that that, in my mind, has to be cleared up. 20 The things of -- the young man that works for 21 the Designated Representative, that a lot of people in the 22 community have grown accustomed to of calling him personally 23 and asking him questions, and, "Come out and take a look at 24 my system," et cetera, simply disappeared. I bumped into 25 him -- he left, I think, the employment in November, maybe, 111 1 and I bumped into him at Christmastime. He said, "I don't 2 even work there any longer." Well, our Designated 3 Representative hasn't been in here yet to tell us that. I 4 mean, I'm sure everybody knows, but that's the kind of thing 5 that he needs to come in here and report to the 6 Commissioners Court. He has since, I understand, hired a 7 new person. He has not been in here to introduce him to the 8 Commissioners Court. I don't have a clue who he is, and I 9 think I should know who he is, and I think the general 10 public needs to know who he is. But, it's those little 11 things that drive me crazy, that makes me distrust the whole 12 system. If we can't take care of the little things, how in 13 the world do we expect an employee of ours to take care of 14 these big things? And, this is big stuff, in my opinion. 15 That's all I have to say. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment, before I 17 turn it back to Larry, is I concur with what Commissioner 18 Baldwin says, and I think that is the reason that we have to 19 have very explicit rules and procedures as to how the 20 Designated Representative, whoever that person is, operates. 21 And they have to be clear cut so the public is aware of the 22 process, the Court is aware of the process, and clearly the 23 Designated Representative is aware of the process. And, the 24 problem I think -- or one of the problems we've had in the 25 past has been ambiguity and inconsistency, and that's -- I 112 1 think we can solve that by these procedures. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I think by working on 4 that side of it and working -- and, you know, we can solve 5 that part, which is certainly -- we should be able to solve 6 that. And I think the other side of it is then we would, 7 you know, continue the protection of the surface water in 8 the county, which I think that's what, as Commissioner 9 Baldwin also said, we all want. And I think, by the 10 procedure that's been outlined, with a few tweaks here and 11 there, we're on our road to getting there. Larry? 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a couple of 14 individuals who would like to address us on the topic, and I 15 think it would probably be appropriate to hear from them now 16 before we go into any amendments. Bruce Oehler? You yield 17 to Mr. Morgan here? Gordon Morgan. 18 MR. MORGAN: A lot of what I had to comment 19 on has already been addressed here, and I commend y'all for 20 doing so. This is really a packet of information. There's 21 no question that I'm like everyone that appears here, and 22 that is that I certainly have a biased opinion, and the 23 literature that backs up my opinion is, without question, 24 biased also, which is what you received from U.G.R.A. and 25 Charlie Digges and everyone else. But, that is the real job 113 1 of the Court, is to take the biased information and sift 2 through it and try to come out with reality and the truth. 3 Some of the things there that I just want to 4 make a comment on, if you will -- they're numbered as little 5 individual packets, but the first one has to do with the 6 bill that Mr. Griffin talked about, which was 1875, which 7 was in 1987, became effective in 1988. And, the intent of 8 that bill is set forth in the second page on number (e). 9 And, all of us can argue about whether that is the intent; 10 I'm just making a contention that it is. And, in (e) it 11 says, Except as provided by Subsection (f) of this section, 12 an on-site sewage disposal system may not be required to 13 comply with the design, the construction, and the 14 installation requirements of this act if the on-site sewage 15 disposal system is installed before the effective date of 16 this act and if no significant increase in its use has 17 occurred, or if it has received approval for construction 18 from a legally authorized licensing authority before the 19 effective date of this act, which would be 1988. 20 And then in (f) below, which was an 21 exception, if the authorized agent determines that on-site 22 sewage disposal system described by Subsection (e) of this 23 section is a nuisance. And, if you look at the next page, 24 or two -- actually, it's two more pages, and there is the 25 definition of nuisance. Now, this is taken from the current 114 1 state rules. And there, when we read the definition of a 2 nuisance or failing system, it's sewage, human excreta, or 3 other organic waste discharged or exposed in a manner that 4 makes it a potential instrument or a medium in the 5 transmission of disease to or between persons. And the 6 second thing, an overflowing septic tank or similar device, 7 including surface discharge from or groundwater 8 contamination by a component of the system, or a blatant 9 discharge of that system. That would mean, I think, what is 10 -- most people refer to as a walk-over type thing. It 11 should be blatant. It should be recognizable, obvious to 12 the person. 13 There's one word there in the -- in the (A) 14 part that says "potential," and I would hope the Court would 15 see the wisdom in defining that potential, because every 16 system has potential. One just installed has the potential 17 of failure, so I would hope that would be defined even 18 further. And, in (49) down there -- which I don't know 19 whether it's noted in yours or not, but in (49) it talks 20 about the permit, and it classifies that as two things: The 21 authorization to construct, and a license to operate. And, 22 at the present time, those are considered as one item. I 23 think they should be separated so that the system, if it's 24 granted -- 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that has been 115 1 done. I'll have to verify that, but I think they have been 2 separated now. 3 MR. MORGAN: In Number 2, there's a letter 4 from Upper Guadalupe River Authority signed by Lane Wolters, 5 and in it is an excerpt from Dr. Carlisle's summary or 6 strategy of management decisions to be made by Kerr County. 7 And in that in B, he says, at the bottom, to institute the 8 county-wide licensing program for all on-site systems to 9 insure soil and system compliance for all new systems -- 10 and, now, he said new systems. I think in the past, we've 11 had a problem in defining new standards. Is the term "new 12 standards" the new criteria that is used to judge a system, 13 or is new standards the criteria that is used to set up a 14 new uninstalled system? Food for thought. 15 To do with the U.G.R.A. Board of Directors 16 and Commissioners Court in a meeting of June 1988, in that, 17 they spoke about a 5-year sampling program of springs and 18 tributaries of the Guadalupe River. And, it goes on to say 19 that these were found to be contaminated in the high density 20 areas with septic tanks, and it -- it defines fecal coliform 21 bacteria, nitrates, phosphates, and chloride concentrations 22 in excess of the Texas Water Commission Standards. I would 23 wonder -- this was in 1988. I would wonder if they have a 24 new study, because a new study might determine whether or 25 not the program that has been in effect has ever really done 116 1 anything, or if the Guadalupe still has the same conditions 2 that it was earlier. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I heard it 4 improved conditions. 5 MR. MORGAN: Oh, improved? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think U.G.R.A., to 7 answer that question, does have additional -- they've told 8 me -- I haven't seen it, but I think we need to request that 9 from U.G.R.A. so the public can see the changes from '88, 10 when the study was done, to the present. 11 MR. MORGAN: Yeah, that would be great. The 12 next page, Number 4, is a document that is put out by the 13 Texas Association of Realtors. It is a document that is 14 specifically biased towards the information about on-site 15 sewer facilities. So, in a contract for the purpose of 16 purchase of a property that has a septic system, this should 17 be included. This is normal procedure. And in this, if you 18 will look, it tells the type of system -- or asks the 19 question. It says who has done it, who the installer was, 20 and it goes on down, when it was installed. If you go to 21 the next page, they will also have a copy or a drawing of 22 the system. 23 And, I thought it was interesting, when we 24 read one of Kerr County's data on License to Operate On-Site 25 Sewage Facility, down at the bottom, it almost eliminates 117 1 any type of -- certainly, any guarantee that it's even going 2 to work. It just says it's working as of this very moment, 3 and I would wonder if that might not be expanded. And I 4 know from liability, the reason it's not. But, I think that 5 we ought to -- if we -- if we have an inspection and cost 6 involved thereof, I think something should be gotten other 7 than just, "It's okay this minute, but tomorrow it may not 8 work." 9 Here is a copy of a diagram of a system. 10 This is an actual contract that's in the process now, 11 supposed to be closed the 16th of this month. Under Special 12 Provisions, this is wording that can well be put in -- or 13 anyone's wording can be put in that says, "The seller will 14 provide a current license to operate for the system obtained 15 from Kerr County's Designated Representative in the 16 purchaser's name at the time of closing at the seller's 17 expense." So, that goes right back to the previous 18 permitting system that we had, and the seller grants the 19 purchaser the right and permission for an independent 20 inspection of the system during the option period at the 21 purchaser's expense. That means he's going to -- the 22 purchaser, if he wants to have an inspection, can, and it 23 will be his responsibility to pay for it. He should obtain 24 the seller's consent before any excavation is done. In 25 other words, if the inspection is contracted for, then they 118 1 should have the owner's permission for doing any digging up. 2 In the Carlisle study, which much of what we 3 do today was based upon -- and this is on Number 5 -- he 4 sets apart a system for evaluation. He says that in the 5 on-site systems, that they should be designed in such a way 6 that the water leaving any boundary, either by surface or 7 subsurface flow, meet the discharge limits reasonable to 8 protect water quality of the county. Since on-site systems 9 are routinely installed as close as 10 feet to the 10 boundaries, this means that all system installations should 11 insure that the wastewater is treated to a reasonable limit, 12 and there he sets forth the limits of the ammonium nitrates 13 and so forth and so on, and these should not go further than 14 10 feet. And, that may well come into the idea of where we 15 test it and how can we determine a functioning system 16 without digging up everything in the back yard. 17 Number 6, finally, is really, in a sense, 18 what the subject is today, and that is that there are some 19 questions that -- many of them have been answered, but I had 20 a -- I had a problem with the -- the fact of some of the 21 language relative -- and "concerns," I guess, is more apt 22 than "a problem." One of the things that concerned me was 23 the statement about minimum; that, as I understand it, all 24 of these things are going to be changed in -- in a separate 25 document. But, it says that on the date -- this is Number 5 119 1 on the agenda item today. It says that, "On the date of the 2 inspection the Designated Representative shall conduct the 3 inspection of the system to include at a minimum the 4 following." I would hope that it would be "minimum and 5 maximum" in there. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It has been changed. 7 MR. MORGAN: Okay. All of the other things, 8 I would hope the Court would research the dollar impact, 9 what -- you know, or how much increase in manpower might 10 that entail and what the other things are, but I hope 11 that -- that this will stimulate or at least bring up enough 12 questions that it will thoroughly be thought out before 13 Section 10 is ever added to the basic rules and regulations. 14 And, it sounds like you're on that track. I hope that -- 15 that you come up with something that will be reasonable in 16 expense, something that will be practical and helpful to the 17 people, and something that will actually make a difference 18 in the quality of our water. Thank you. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Does 20 anyone have any questions before he gets away? Okay, 21 thanks. Bruce, are you going to say anything? 22 MS. OEHLER: I just have very little to say 23 about all this. The one thing that I didn't know that was 24 in the new proposal was about the lease, leased property. 25 There's no change of ownership. If I have a home that I 120 1 want to lease to somebody, I don't know that that should 2 constitute any kind of an inspection, because you have no 3 transfer. Nothing's really changed. It's still being 4 occupied, it's still under the same owner, and I don't 5 believe that needs to be in there at all, period, because 6 there is no sale. It's a -- it doesn't matter how long you 7 lease it for. I may change renters five or six times in a 8 year; you never know about that. You may have the same 9 family in there for two, three years. I don't see what that 10 has to do with whether that system needs to be inspected or 11 not. I think that needs to be left out, but I do commend 12 you for changing the things I believe that Gordon has talked 13 about. He spent a lot of time doing this, putting this 14 together, and I know Larry has and Jonathan, and I just 15 don't want U.G.R.A. to control what the County does. I 16 think the County has that right and has that ability to do 17 what is right for all the people, because you are elected. 18 U.G.R.A. is appointed by the government. And, I hope that 19 could change someday and have elections for U.G.R.A. 20 members, or it disappear, one of the two. Thank you. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Anyone else have 22 any comments or questions at this time? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I only have one 24 more. If -- I think that we're not rushing into this thing, 25 but it's -- this change -- seems like every 30 days, we 121 1 begin to change these things a little bit. But, if we ever 2 formed a committee to really take a look at something, I 3 think this that this would be the program that we would form 4 a committee of constituents that would take a close look at 5 it. And, the first thing that pops into my mind is that 6 this Section 10 that is being proposed today, is it enough? 7 Are we sure that it is enough? There could possibly be some 8 things out there that we're just not -- just not seeing, and 9 if a -- a group of peers would take a long, hard look at it, 10 maybe -- maybe we can come up -- come up with a real, live, 11 firm document that we don't have to tinker with every few 12 days. So I'd like to see us form a committee to take a look 13 at it. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other comments? 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would like to 16 propose some amendments, yeah. On Page 4 -- and, by the 17 way, I do -- again, I have copies of this that I -- I'll 18 hand out to you, but it would probably be better to go 19 through it first. There's not that many, but on Page 4 of 20 the draft that is in your package, at the bottom of the 21 page, paragraph -- take the easy one first -- Paragraph (8). 22 That was a typo. Should be paragraph C and indented further 23 to the left. That's actually a separate thought other than 24 the -- what's in (4), (5), (6), and (7) above. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: (8), Sub C? 122 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sub C. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sub C to Section 10. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sub C to Section 10. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Then, in paragraph -- 6 above that, in Subparagraph (4), there's a through e. 7 Strike those, all of them. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you're striking all of 9 Paragraph (4)? 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, not all of it, 11 because the lead-in phrase is still there, but paragraphs a, 12 b, c, d, and e, you can strike that and substitute -- so 13 that it reads, "On or before the date of the inspection, the 14 applicant or applicant's representative shall, a, be 15 prepared to identify to the Designated Representative the 16 locations of all components of the system, including 17 drainfield lines or other effluent distribution components." 18 In other words, what you know is there, you can point out to 19 the Designated Representative. And that's -- and that's it. 20 Then you would have b, "Have exposed for inspection the 21 clean outs on tanks and distribution systems, and the inflow 22 and outflow connections of all treatment tanks," which is 23 not nearly so onerous as digging. All you're doing is 24 getting the excess, just like you were pumping it. The only 25 thing we're adding to that is the inflow and outflow 123 1 connections to make sure those aren't leaking, because 2 that's where those systems -- any primary tank system in 3 particular would tend to -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Griffin, 5 may I interrupt you just for a second? 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mine reads -- 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That stayed, with a 9 little modification. I'll give you a copy. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see any 11 changes quite yet in a or b. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, there is. 13 There's additions to b. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's additions to b 16 and then c, which is sort of -- d came out entirely, by the 17 way. And, c -- c and d in the original came out entirely, 18 and then the c paragraph, as proposed to be amended, would 19 be a simplification that says, "Be present for the 20 inspection and, at applicant's option, arrange to have the 21 applicant's maintenance service provider present." In other 22 words, if you have an aerobic system and you're under 23 contract for maintenance on it and you would like to have 24 your person there -- your maintenance person there for the 25 inspection, you can do so, so that maintenance person can 124 1 hear firsthand what the inspector has to say about the 2 system. That's all. 3 A, b, and c, those three that I just read, 4 replace a through e in the original that you had in your 5 package. And then, under (5), this one's really changed. 6 That's also got a through e in the submitted draft. Strike 7 all of those and replace Paragraph a to say, "Evaluate the 8 O.S.S.F. site characteristics to determine compliance with 9 30 TAC 285.1, Table X," which is the minimum number required 10 separation distances for on-site sewage facilities. That 11 is, if you'll recall -- I know everybody reads it all the 12 time. This is -- Table 10 is the matrix table that outlines 13 how far a well has to be from a -- from a septic system and 14 how far have you to be back from property lines and that 15 kind of thing, and that's all that is. 16 And then b -- Paragraph b will be changed to 17 say, "Evaluate the O.S.S.F. for signs of failure which 18 preclude the system from meeting the purpose as stated in 30 19 TAC 285.1." That's -- that is all of it. So, all that's 20 saying is -- and now we go to our procedures manual to say, 21 how do you do that? How do you determine if all of those 22 high falutin' statements of purpose at the very front of 23 285, which talks about water quality and protection of 24 public health and all that sort of thing -- that's the 25 starting point. That's all it now says. And, I've got 125 1 copies of this. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Larry, on that one, if we 3 substituted the word "nuisance" for the word "failure," 4 since nuisance is a defined term, wouldn't that accomplish 5 the same thing? 'Cause we're referring to 285 where they 6 talk about nuisance. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The problem is that 8 nuisance is only part of the -- it does not -- that doesn't 9 talk about water quality, and the purpose does, so that if 10 you're -- if -- you know, you may not be creating a 11 nuisance, but you could be polluting the tributary to the 12 river or whatever. If you're doing that, then that's not -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could still have 14 signs of nuisance would preclude the system from meeting 15 purpose as stated. You're still talking about purpose in 16 285. I mean, nuisance is a defined term; failure is not a 17 defined term, and that way, there's less ambiguity. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's a valid point, a 19 good one. And the reason I didn't do it that way is that 20 285 can change, but 285.1 will always be what the purpose of 21 285 is for. And, if the State wants to change that, fine. 22 And that's the reason I didn't try to get too much in the 23 definition that says, look, our purpose is the same as 285's 24 purpose. We want to protect the water quality, we want to 25 do all the good things that it says. But, that's certainly 126 1 something we can -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Look at. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would like to submit 4 it this way, and we can certainly, at the public hearing 5 for -- when we post a public hearing, we can certainly 6 consider that amendment and the leasing question, and 7 there's several other things we can still address here. 8 But, I want to get it as close to something that we know 9 that T.N.R.C.C. buys. And, they like it for -- if you spout 10 their stuff back at them, they like it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Going to pass those out? 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Yeah, I've got 14 plenty of copies. There's several that you can -- more than 15 enough. And, I would propose those as amended in accordance 16 with what you see here now. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two things. One -- well, 18 regarding the timetable, and two is the follow-up to 19 Commissioner Baldwin's comment about a committee. On a 20 timetable, you know, I think my preference is -- I haven't 21 talked to Larry about this point -- is to, rather than set a 22 public hearing now, to wait till the next meeting when all 23 the Commissioners have a chance to look at this and read it, 24 and I guess how it's amended today. I think it's always 25 better, I mean, especially on an issue that I think is very 127 1 important, that the -- the document that we're going to have 2 the public hearing on is exactly the document that everyone 3 has looked at and the public is aware of. So, on time, 4 that's my preference on that. And, on the committee point, 5 I share the -- I guess, the philosophy of -- on this point 6 of Commissioner Baldwin on having a committee review it. 7 But, at the same time, after having -- going through two 8 years of gyrations on the Subdivision Rules with a 9 committee, I almost think that it's -- it might almost be 10 counterproductive to appoint a committee at this point to 11 look at the rules. But I would -- I do think that it might 12 be a real good idea to appoint a committee to evaluate the 13 rules for the next -- you know, for the next -- for a period 14 of time. Or, you know, maybe appoint it for six months to 15 evaluate how it's working, to see if there are problems and 16 see if we're -- if we have done what we were trying to do. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, after talking -- 18 after the new rule? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, put the new rule 20 into effect. It will go on for six months or whatever; 21 appoint a committee, and be sure and have that committee 22 report back to the Court as to whether they fixed the 23 problem or haven't fixed the problem. And if we haven't 24 fixed it, we go back to the drawing board, but at least give 25 it six months to work without changing it again. Or -- 128 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like that, Jon. I 2 like that. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me propose an 4 alternative, in the interests of sort of moving things 5 along, but still accomplishing some of the things you talked 6 about how we handle this. I would like to go ahead and 7 accept the draft, if you will accept the amendments that I 8 just proposed. Go ahead and accept and approve that to set 9 the public hearing, with the understanding that this time 10 around -- 'cause we learned a lesson -- I learned a lesson 11 last time, that we are going to have an effective date for 12 this new rule, if we do end up with one. That we would have 13 an effective date far enough downstream -- and T.N.R.C.C. 14 said they will do that for us. We could have a -- a -- and 15 that gives us plenty of time, then, to have a public 16 hearing. We can massage it two or three times, if we want 17 to, after that and still get the new rule written and 18 adopted so that we can send to it T.N.R.C.C., and still have 19 a date so we -- everybody knows when it's going to start. 20 In other words, we won't just wait for their signature and 21 we have that sprung on us like we did this last time, 22 because that created some confusion, understandably, at 23 U.G.R.A. So, we'll have a date certain that the new rule 24 goes into effect. It's downstream. If you follow what I'm 25 getting -- 129 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a real 2 good point. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We could go ahead and 4 set the public hearing for this, because if we are -- 5 really, what this does is, nothing says we can't amend this 6 thing further afterwards. Well, what this does is gets the 7 dialogue started, and I don't see a whole lot of reason to 8 wait for that. We could set a public hearing now to open up 9 that dialogue, and then throw it out, entirely change it, do 10 whatever we think is the right thing to do after that. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This amended document 12 would be the one, then, on file for people to get copies? 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem 15 with it, but I haven't read it. I don't know if any of the 16 other Commissioners object to that because they haven't read 17 the amended form. You know, I would rather wait. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What is on Page 4 is 19 all that's changed. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And if you'd like to 22 read it, maybe we can bring this back up later. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I -- the substance of 24 what's here really hasn't changed, so, I mean, I think it's 25 appropriate for us to go ahead and set the public hearing, 130 1 but we do need to -- to bring some finality to this right 2 now. So long as we're talking about it, there's always a 3 question in people's minds as to where do I fall in there? 4 So, I think for the public's benefit, it's something that we 5 ought to do with all deliberate speed. So, my suggestion 6 is, in conjunction with Commissioner Griffin, that we go 7 ahead and adopt the amendments and set a public hearing, and 8 we can set it for -- the earliest we could have it would be 9 April 23rd. If we want to, we could have it the first 10 meeting in May, if we just want to give a little additional 11 time. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The 23rd would work. 13 (Discussion off the record.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: First meeting in May would be 15 too early -- I mean April would be too early, so we're 16 looking at the 23rd. That's the way I think we should 17 proceed, because of the need to bring some finality to this. 18 If we wait until the next meeting to approve it, set a 19 public hearing then, we're looking at -- at the second 20 meeting in May. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When? Our second 22 meeting -- we can't -- if we wait till the next meeting, we 23 can't have it the second meeting in April. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, the second meeting in 25 March is the 26th and the second meeting in April is the 131 1 23rd, so we have less than 30 days. So, that would kick it 2 into May. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've read it, and I don't 4 have any problem with using the document as amended today. 5 And there's already a hard copy of it. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's do it that way. Let's 7 first consider the amendments. Do I have a motion to 8 approve the proposed O.S.S.F. order, as amended? 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make that motion. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I can't, 'cause 12 I made the amendments -- I guess I can, yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You wrote them. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, I just did. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Who was the second? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 18 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 19 approve the proposed O.S.S.F. order as amended. Any further 20 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 21 right hand. 22 (Commissioners Williams, Letz, and Griffin indicated by raised hand that they were in 23 favor of the motion.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 25 (Commissioner Baldwin indicated by raised hand that he was opposed to the motion.) 132 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I vote no, Precinct 1. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. The next order of 4 business would be to set the public hearing. And -- and do 5 we want to set this distinct from our regular agenda by 6 setting a public hearing for -- say, at 2 o'clock in the 7 afternoon? So we don't end up being compacted with -- 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- whatever regular business 10 we have? 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right, 2 o'clock on 12 the 23rd. I'll make that proposal. 23rd of April? 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 2 o'clock on the 23rd 15 of April. Is that not right? 16 MS. SOVIL: Yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Second? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 22 Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court set a 23 public hearing on the proposed revised O.S.S.F. order for 24 Monday, April 23rd, Year 2001, at 2 o'clock p.m., here in 25 the Kerr County Commissioners Courtroom. Any further 133 1 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 2 right hand. 3 (Commissioners Williams, Letz, and Griffin indicated by raised hand that they were in 4 favor of the motion.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nay. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to qualify my 9 no vote on that. Recently I, in my mind, voted to set a 10 public hearing, and somehow it was construed that I not only 11 voted for the public hearing, but I was voting for the 12 program, too, so I'm going to be real careful with this one 13 from now on. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, that brings up a 15 question. And I think -- I mean, it goes back to -- well, 16 the curfew is where I know -- where the -- and I voted 17 against that one. Is it a requirement that we approve it 18 before we can set a public hearing, or can't we set a public 19 hearing and then approve it? 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: The philosophy is that in 21 order for the public to know what the public hearing is 22 about, you need to have a document on file that's going to 23 be the basis for the discussion at the public hearing. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's -- it's not the 25 final document. 134 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Doesn't necessarily have to 2 be the final document. It can be amended after it, but the 3 public needs to have something that they can look at in 4 order to evaluate their position on the issue. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is where we 6 started from. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that there 8 ought to be some verbiage where we're not formally approving 9 it and, at the same time, accepting the document for public 10 -- or for public viewing, because, I mean, it puts you in a 11 situation the same way. I mean, it happened on the curfew 12 issue the same way. That's the one I voted against it. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: I understand your concern, 14 and we could probably use the language "accept for purposes 15 of public hearing" rather than "approved," and I don't have 16 a problem with that. I think it's semantics. I think it's 17 the concept, which is that the public has the right to know 18 exactly what's going to be debated at the public hearing. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, it's semantics, 20 except that you're voting to approve it. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's where I had 23 the problem. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: But the difference was 25 between "approval" and "adopted," but we can use "accept for 135 1 purposes of public hearing" instead of "approved" and be at 2 the same place. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. We've 5 worked long and hard this morning. Let's come back at 1:30 6 and wrap up. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, there are a 8 number of people here, I think, who were standing by just to 9 hear Item 20. Could we take that up? I don't think -- 10 that's going to go very quickly, 'cause -- could we perhaps 11 do that one before -- 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: If we do that one, we can 13 probably just drive on through. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather drive on 15 through. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Drive on through. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll be the guy that 19 starved to death lying over here on the floor. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's then take up 21 Item Number 20, which is consider and discuss sunset 22 workshops regarding County-sponsored or funded programs. 23 This is something that was on the agenda last time and I 24 pulled it back for purposes of time management. The 25 concept, as I've explained to each of you in the memo, is 136 1 based on the state model. Periodically, you stop and you 2 look at programs to determine whether this is an appropriate 3 use of County funds. And, I've provided a -- a list that I 4 created, basically, out of the budget of programs that we 5 currently fund that are not necessarily mandated or core 6 programs. The list can be expanded, the list can be 7 contracted. The Court can decide they want to have such a 8 discussion, Court can decide they don't want to have such a 9 discussion. It's an idea. It's an idea that's based on the 10 notion that you periodically need to pause and see what 11 you're doing in order to effectively continue to manage the 12 public's pocketbook, which the basic charge that we're 13 given. And, I think it's more effective to do that before 14 budget season rather than during budget season, because the 15 pressure in budget is not necessarily to evaluate programs, 16 but to put dollars next to the programs. And, so, that's 17 the reason that I bring it to the Court for your 18 consideration and action, to see whether this is a program 19 that we wish to do this year. So -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I -- I will 21 speak to it. I appreciate you doing this very, very much. 22 I agree that we need to follow the state model on the sunset 23 program. Number 10, EMS, do -- I didn't know that we funded 24 EMS. I know we fund the First Responder program, but -- 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that's -- 137 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- we don't actually 2 send money there, do we? 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, we do. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We do? 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, we do. We fund a 6 portion of EMS. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Forgive me. And I 8 don't see R.C.& D. on there. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the Soil Conservation 10 Service, Number 16. That's the old name. 11 MS. SOVIL: No. R.C.& D. is dues. We belong 12 to their organization. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: But we also provide -- we had 14 a contract with them for $1,500 this year. 15 MS. SOVIL: Not R.C.& D. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't fund 17 R.C.& D. We fund -- 18 MS. SOVIL: They're two different things. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Well, then, I stand 20 corrected. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we're a member of 22 it. Should it be on this list? 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It should be on the 24 list. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I -- 138 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's not mandated, and 2 so, by law, if we're going to look at any of them, we'll 3 look at all of them. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In my -- I voted to 5 join R.C.& D., a great program -- I was one of the original 6 board members -- that goes out and seeks grants. The reason 7 I voted for us to be a member is to give these departments, 8 these agencies, these groups, the people on your list, a 9 vehicle to go to for grants and get off of the government 10 teat. Was that a bad thing to say? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Spelled t-e-a-t. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: T-e-a-t. And, to me, 13 that is what R.C.& D. is about. That's what I voted for 14 them to -- so that these organizations could then go -- we 15 have a -- the County Commissioners Court has set up a group 16 now for these agencies to go to and get grants and get -- 17 and start weaning themselves off of the tax dollars in Kerr 18 County. So, I am big-time in favor of this. And, as we go 19 along with our meetings, I'm going to ask the question, Soil 20 Conservation Service, have you been to R.C.& D? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are some 22 positive answers there. A couple instances. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. That's what we 24 want to hear. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And it's not to -- 139 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Particularly a grant 2 for a new truck, a new funded truck, and it came through 3 R.C.& D. and doing the work. Soil Conservation, the fire 4 hydrant program -- fire hydrant -- the hydrant program that 5 came out. So, there are some instances where that's 6 happened. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think there would be 8 a good review, without going into any detail. There's even 9 some that are on the list where there may be even a legal 10 question about whether we can make a donation to a 11 501(c)(3), even though it's a good, charitable, community 12 organization. That's -- but it's not providing emergency 13 services to citizens, it's not providing -- but they're good 14 causes. It's just whether or not we are doing it right. 15 And, I don't know whether we might want to discuss funding 16 levels and how, for example, our volunteer fire 17 departments -- how do we determine how much each one gets? 18 I think it was decided arbitrarily some years ago and hasn't 19 been changed. Maybe we need to come up with a formula based 20 on population and square miles. And square miles. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This Court changed 22 that one time, Commissioner. We changed at one time. We 23 improved them all by $1,000. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, we gave a bump 25 to all of them across the board. But -- but those kind of 140 1 things. And -- and we know that a good number of these, 2 we're not looking to cut the program out unless we really 3 shouldn't be doing it. And, I think it would be a good idea 4 to sit down and start, ticky-boo, right down through the 5 list. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've had some members 7 of the Historical Commission -- not my wife, who just 8 recently joined that Commission -- ask me why the Historical 9 Commission was on here, given that someone -- the Commission 10 believes that once a historical commission is set up by a 11 county, it is obligated to fund it to some extent. Someone 12 want to research the law on that? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's probably true. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's something we can look 15 at, but it's a permissive function. It's not a mandatory, 16 so I would interpret that to say that it is not something 17 that you have to do, so at any time you could terminate the 18 program. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By terminating the 20 Commission? 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: By terminating the 22 Commission. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I would hope we'd 24 continue with the library and the airport, being as we own 25 it. 141 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: We don't own the library. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, but we're half -- 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: We are obligated to pay half 4 of the operating costs. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're half-owners. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a vested 7 interest. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the consensus is 10 to go forward with a workshop to go over these. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we want to -- I think my 12 proposal would be the afternoon of the first meeting in May. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good, I think. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: What I will do is I will send 15 letters to the organizations saying we're having these 16 workshops and inviting them to come and attend and ask 17 questions about their programs. I will also ask the 18 assistance of the County Attorney's office in any -- any 19 legal problems there may be with continuing the involvement 20 of the County in any -- any specific program. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, I would suggest -- 23 MS. SOVIL: Is this the full list in one day? 24 Or are you going to take kind of -- 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: What's the -- 142 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we can do it 2 all in one day. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A lot of them can be 4 grouped. I mean, you almost have -- I think we could group 5 them, like City/County, joint ventures, and then a number of 6 them are -- 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Emergency services. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Emergency services. Then 9 you have County departments and then you have the kind of 10 programs on -- and at least the Family Literacy, children -- 11 basically, the programs that the County Judge utilizes for 12 juveniles -- primarily juveniles, as I recall. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Juvenile programs. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, there's -- 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's a lot of 16 grouping that you can -- and probably, if you're clever 17 enough, you might be able to group the -- schedule the 18 groups all in one day, but schedule them in such a way that 19 the easier ones you'll get done with first. Save the tough 20 ones for last. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- May 11th? 22 MS. SOVIL: 14th. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: May 14th. 2 o'clock? Do I 24 have a motion to that effect? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 143 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 2 MS. SOVIL: Are we calling this a workshop, 3 or are we going to make decisions? 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: These are workshops. Sunset 5 workshops. Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by 6 Commissioner Letz, that the Court set up these sunset 7 workshops at 2 o'clock p.m. on Monday, May the 14th, year 8 2001, regarding County-sponsored or funded programs. Any 9 further questions or comments? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only question I have 11 is, Commissioner Griffin referred to some folks in the 12 audience? 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I know there 14 were some people here that I think were waiting to hear what 15 we were going to do, I guess whether we were going to have a 16 workshop. They sat here patiently all morning. I was 17 hoping we wouldn't have to come back after lunch. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions? 19 MR. HINTZE: Sir, if I could make just one 20 comment in relation to Commissioner Baldwin's comment about 21 the R.C.& D. program? 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Would you identify -- excuse 23 me, sir. Would you identify yourself? 24 MR. HINTZE: Yes, sir. I'm Dutch Hintze from 25 Hunt, and I'm with the Hunt Fire Department. The R.C.& D. 144 1 program is a very important vehicle to emergency service 2 organizations, but emergency service organizations -- we 3 have to keep the doors open, so there's a certain base line 4 budget that we're going to have to have each year. But, it 5 does provide a very important vehicle for us to be able to 6 upgrade our services, upgrade our equipment and things of 7 that nature, but we couldn't rely on it solely to keep the 8 doors open. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate that. 11 Dutch. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: And also, if anyone thinks of 13 a program that's not on this list -- and this list is not 14 necessarily intended to be all-inclusive -- please send it 15 to me. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in 16 favor, raise your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay, I 21 think we can dispose of the remainder fairly expeditiously. 22 Item Number 16, consider and discuss rescinding Court Order 23 26871, dated 2/12/01, cancel public hearing associated 24 therewith, and reaffirm the appropriateness of Court Order 25 24184, dated 9/8/98 establishing 30 mile per hour speed 145 1 limit on C.P. River Road. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Inside the former 3 corporate limits. After we did the court order in February, 4 the Road and Bridge people advised me that we already had 5 that done, and they researched and brought out the -- the 6 former court order, which was in 1997. So, I move that we 7 take it out, rescind the one that we just did and establish 8 the one that was -- reestablish the one from 1997. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 11 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 12 rescind Court Order Number 26871, cancel the public hearing 13 associated therewith, and reaffirm the appropriateness of 14 Court Order 24184, which established a 30 mile-an-hour speed 15 limit on C.P. River Road inside the former corporate limits 16 of Center Point. Any questions or comments? If not, all in 17 favor, raise your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Number 17, consider and 22 discuss resolution supporting the inclusion of locally 23 elected officials as a majority of any board existing or 24 proposed by House Bill 7, with oversight of the state 25 Community Development Block Grant program, and forward same 146 1 to Gary L. Walker, Chairman of House Committee on Land and 2 Resource Management. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The backup material, 4 Judge, provided to us by Grantworks, our folks in Austin, 5 who have done some outstanding work on our behalf, calls to 6 our attention the sense of House Bill 7 drafted by Warren 7 Chisum. And, the major concern is that this new agency for 8 the administering of funds in the Community Development 9 Block Grant program, once that board is set up, as the law 10 is currently being proposed, there would be no elected 11 officials. And, given that the -- the largest percentage of 12 these dollars are for small cities and rural counties, it 13 does sort of make sense that -- that any governing or 14 oversight board have some elected officials on it, and what 15 this resolution does is urges them to consider that 16 particular point. I move the resolution. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second it. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 19 Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 20 adopt a resolution supporting inclusion of locally elected 21 officials as a majority of any board existing or proposed by 22 House Bill 7, with oversight of the state Community 23 Development Block Grant program, and forward same to the 24 Honorable Gary L. Walker, Chairman, House Committee on Land 25 and Resource Management. Any further questions or comments? 147 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Comment, that here's 2 an opportunity for us to voice our concern that things need 3 to be run from the bottom up, not the top down. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your 5 right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item number 10 19, consider and discuss adopting a proclamation declaring 11 March 18 to 24 as National Agriculture Week in Texas. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second -- third. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 16 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court adopt 17 a proclamation declaring March 18 to 24 as National 18 Agriculture Week in Kerr County, Texas. Any further 19 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 20 right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Finally, we 25 have Item Number 21, which is consider and discuss 148 1 membership in the Association of Rural Communities in Texas. 2 I received a letter from Judge Herber from Atascosa County, 3 which is included in your packet, regarding the new 4 organization of the Association of Rural Communities in 5 Texas, and inviting us to join it. To me, it looks like 6 something that's -- it probably could have some benefit. 7 What are the desires of the Commissioners? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I just -- my 9 question would be, how does this -- how is this associated 10 with your organization, your rural county -- I can't 11 remember the name of it. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Texas Association of Rural 13 Judges? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Is -- this, 15 basically, is similar? 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: This appears to me to be -- 17 to include municipalities, which ours does not. It's 18 probably a little -- takes in certain larger communities 19 than the Rural Judges does, but I don't think the two really 20 are in competition or overlap. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does your organization 22 have membership? I mean, are we members? 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's not a membership. 24 It's an informal association of rural County Judges. There 25 are no dues. There are no bylaws. There are no 149 1 requirements, which is why it's very effective. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: All we do is try to make 4 things happen for rural Texas. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But these folks want 6 to hire a lobbyist to look after the rural interests? 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: You've got me. I don't know 8 that they could hire much of a lobbyist by charging only 9 $100 a year. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't imagine what 11 they would do, then. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My point -- my view is 13 that we do nothing and look at it at budget time, and 14 probably then do nothing then. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Only other thing we 16 can do -- or the other thing we could do is we could go 17 ahead and join and put it on the list. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of things to cut. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: If you're going to put it on 20 the list to cut, I'd rather not spend the $100 up front. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Don't cut the check 22 until after the workshop. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: I get the sense of the Court 24 that it's not an organization we believe we need to 25 participate in at this time, and that's fine. 150 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless you're just 2 looking for another meeting to go to. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: I was going to delegate 4 somebody to go to these. I don't believe we have anything 5 else. Because of the wording of the Road and Bridge 6 Department bid item, we are not going to recess. The agenda 7 item does not permit us to accept bids, so we'll have to -- 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or award bids. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- so we'll have to take that 10 up at our next regularly scheduled meeting or, if necessary, 11 have a special meeting. But, we'll notify Road and Bridge 12 that, because of the nature of the agenda item, we were not 13 able to recess, so we'll have to reschedule that. Is there 14 anything else? If not, we are adjourned. Thank you. 15 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:30 p.m.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 151 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 16th day of March, 8 2001. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25