1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge 23 H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 24 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 ABSENT: LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X October 15, 2002 2 PAGE 2.1 Quitclaim Deed from Kerr County to Center Point 3 I.S.D. for 0.234 acres of land known as Ave. B 9 2.17 Selection of consulting architect for HCYEC 4 renovation/expansion project 13 2.2 Advertising for bid on lease of new motor grader 44 5 2.5 PUBLIC HEARING - revision of plat of the Y.O. Ranchlands, Lots 17, 18, & 19 47 6 2.6 Approve final revision of plat, Y.O. Ranchlands, Lots 17, 18, & 19 48 7 2.3 Clarification of Letter of Credit form letter 51 2.4 Cancel and vacate Kerrville's Pleasure Cliff 8 Subdivision, set public hearing date 54 2.7 Update on July flood damage, repair schedule, 9 and FEMA assistance 57 2.12 Adopt order amending Annual Determined Contribution 10 Rate Plan for January 2003 through December 2003 66 2.8 Interlocal participation agreement with Texas 11 Local Government Purchasing Cooperative 67 2.9 Approve polling locations per Texas Election Code 69 12 2.10 Approve various contracts and authorize County Judge's signature 71 13 2.24 Approve contract with Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution Center 72 14 2.11 Approve tax collection contract with U.G.R.A. 73 2.13 Reclassification of Jail Administrator position 15 from 21/1 to 21/8 74 2.14 Change Order #1 for Kerrville South Wastewater 16 Collection Project 81 2.15 Proclamation declaring November 18-22 as Flood 17 Awareness Week 82 2.16 Resolution recognizing impact of Zion Lutheran 18 Church during last 100 years 83 2.18 Resolution calling for more equitable distribution 19 of motor fuels tax collected by State of Texas 84 2.19 Ratify application for West Nile Virus funding 85 20 2.20 Authorize County Judge to brief Kerrville City Council on expansion/renovation plans for HCYEC 88 21 2.21 Ratify proclamation declaring October 12, 2002, as Rod Kennedy Day 90 22 2.25 Apply for extension of time for compliance with Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act 91 23 2.26 Authorize Judge to make statement in support of Holdsworth Drive project at TexDOT public hearing 93 24 2.27 Select County representation, Caldwell v. Rylander 94 2.22 Appointment of Kerr County 911 Board member 97 25 2.23 Hiring part-time Kerr County Address Coordinator 98 --- Adjourned 99 3 1 On Tuesday, October 15, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., a regular 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's 8 9 o'clock in the morning on Tuesday, October 15th, Year 9 2002. I will call to order this regular meeting of the Kerr 10 County Commissioners Court. For the record, let's note that 11 Commissioner Griffin is absent today. His wife is having 12 surgery or another procedure on her knee in Houston today, 13 and he has gone down there to take care of her. So, in his 14 absence, I will lead us in our opening this morning. If 15 y'all will stand and join me in a word of prayer, followed 16 by the pledge of allegiance. 17 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, any citizen 19 wishing to address the Court on an item not listed on the 20 regular agenda may come forward and do so. Is there any 21 citizen who would like to address the Court on an item not 22 listed on the regular agenda? Seeing none, we'll go to the 23 Commissioners' comments. I'm anxious to hear about Tivy 24 football. Let's start with Commissioner 1. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How would you know 10-15-02 4 1 that I would talk about football? We won. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Friday night in San 4 Antonio. That's two previous or prior top-10 teams in the 5 state that we've knocked off now. So -- and we still 6 haven't -- haven't -- the writers, the A.P. people, still 7 haven't put us in the top 10 yet, but that's okay. The -- 8 the Harris polls that we watched, we've been number 9 for a 9 couple weeks now. So, anyway, besides all that, this coming 10 Friday -- you know, Texas high school football, there's 11 nothing better. There is nothing better than Texas high 12 school football. And this Friday is -- is a classic. It's 13 Tivy and Fredericksburg -- Kerrville and Fredericksburg, one 14 of the old rivalries in the state. Two undefeated teams, 15 district title on the line. You know, the whole -- the 16 whole nine yards. And if I -- if I were going to tell 17 people what to do, which I won't, but if I was, I would say 18 something like, "Be there early." Because the place is 19 going to be packed. It will be packed. So, that's all I 20 have to say. We're having a good time. Our kids are having 21 fun. We have quality, quality young men, and -- and it's -- 22 character is the difference between Kerrville football and 23 other big city football. It's character. We have some 24 good, good people. That's all. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Commissioner 10-15-02 5 1 Williams? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't top that, so 3 I'll just pass to you. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just to kind of follow up 6 on the last thing Commissioner Baldwin said about character, 7 and that character starts a lot with the coaching staff. 8 And they -- those people that do watch football a lot and 9 understand football, if you watch the Kerrville coaches, 10 they probably work together better than any staff I've ever 11 seen. While we're on the topic of football, let's go to the 12 number one ranked Comfort Bobcats. 13 (Laughter.) 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe they won 78 to 15 8. Not -- I won't make a comment on the score that Comfort 16 had, how they got there, but anyway, they continue to roll, 17 and look forward to them making it well into the state 18 playoffs. And the other -- my last comment was also to 19 follow up something the Judge said about rain. I'm not sure 20 about the entire county, but I know at our property, where 21 we do keep accurate records of rainfall, this is now the 22 wettest year ever that we've had, about 65 inches, which is 23 more than double our average. And while we have had some 24 bad floods, we've also had a lot of very general rain, so 25 it's been a remarkable year. 10-15-02 6 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. It's a good time 2 in the Hill Country for football, that's for sure. Ingram 3 Tom Moore is doing well and Center Point's doing well; enjoy 4 watching. The only announcement I will make is a reminder 5 that our first meeting in November also falls on a holiday, 6 November 11th, so our first meeting in November will 7 actually be on November the 12th, which is a Tuesday. The 8 -- our second meeting in November, while I'm on that topic, 9 is our last evening meeting for this year, so it will be on 10 the 25th of November beginning at 6:30 in the evening. So, 11 without any further ado, let's get on with the business at 12 hand. We have a substantial amount of it this morning, and 13 let's pay some bills. Does anyone have any questions or 14 comments regarding the bills as presented and recommended by 15 the Auditor? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move we pay 17 the bills. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 20 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 21 approve payment of the bills as recommended and presented by 22 the Auditor. And I want to take a moment here to thank 23 Tommy and staff for getting the bills down to us. This is a 24 busy time for them. They're closing out last year's books, 25 and at the same time, trying to keep up with this year's 10-15-02 7 1 accounts, and they worked very long and hard in order to get 2 us these bills in time for to us consider them today. 3 Thanks for your good work, Tommy. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Thank you. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your 6 right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 11 amendments. Surely we don't have any budget amendments. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Surely. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: No budget amendments. What 14 about late bills? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: I have one request for a hand 16 check to Kerrville Postmaster for $370 for postage for the 17 Treasurer's office. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 21 second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the 22 late bill and hand check in the amount of $370 payable to 23 the U.S. Postmaster for postage for Treasurer's office. Any 24 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 25 right hand. 10-15-02 8 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The next 5 item for consideration is minutes. At this time, I'd 6 entertain a motion to waive reading and approve the minutes 7 of the Monday, September 9th, and Monday, September 23rd 8 meetings of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 12 Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 13 waive reading and approve the minutes of the Monday, 14 September 9th, and Monday, September 23rd meetings of the 15 Kerr County Commissioners Court. Any questions or comments? 16 If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. I would also 21 entertain a motion at this time to approve and accept the 22 monthly reports as presented. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 10-15-02 9 1 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve 2 and accept the monthly reports as presented. Any questions 3 or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Having 8 disposed with the preliminaries, let's move into the 9 consideration agenda. The first item for discussion is Item 10 2.1, consider and discuss and take appropriate action on the 11 issuance of a quitclaim deed from Kerr County to the Center 12 Point Independent School District for 0.234 acres of land 13 formerly known as Avenue B. Commissioner Williams. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. 15 I'm going to ask attorney Craig Leslie to come forward and 16 give us a little background other than what's in his letter 17 to me with respect to this particular request for a 18 quitclaim deed for the school district. Craig? 19 MR. LESLIE: This -- in 1999, the City of 20 Center Point was functioning and in existence, and they made 21 a deal with the Center Point Independent School District to 22 close out a small stretch of Avenue B there in exchange for 23 another tract, and the -- the deed was signed from the City 24 of Center Point to -- from the City of Center Point to the 25 school for this little tract of land. But, due to the 10-15-02 10 1 inadequacy of the representation of the school district at 2 that time -- that is the person standing before you here 3 today -- the -- as a matter of fact, I was working with Tom 4 Pollard to get this. The title company was saying they 5 needed a quitclaim deed from the County in order to insure 6 this, although the Center Point School -- City of Center 7 Point was really the operator of the streets at that time, 8 but they had asked for a quitclaim deed from the City -- 9 from the County, and somewhere it just fell off the track. 10 You know, it's all in -- it was all in the title company, 11 and it just came to our attention that it was never done. 12 And so I'm here today to ask if we could just ask the County 13 for a quitclaim to that tract, which has already been deeded 14 by the City. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This particular 16 closure of Avenue B, they integrated that piece of roadway 17 into their total property; is that correct? 18 MR. LESLIE: That's correct. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For some redoings of 20 the school property campus? 21 MR. LESLIE: That's correct. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I would move, 23 Judge, the approval of a quitclaim deed from Kerr County to 24 Center Point Independent School District for point zero -- 25 0.234 acres of land, which formerly was known as Avenue B in 10-15-02 11 1 Center Point, to the Center Point Independent School 2 District. 3 (Discussion off the record.) 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And ask the County 5 Judge to sign same. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 8 Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 9 authorize the issuance of a quitclaim deed from Kerr County 10 to the Center Point Independent School District for 0.234 11 acre of land formerly known as Avenue B, and authorize 12 County Judge to sign same. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- at the time when 16 the original documents were prepared, the City of Center 17 Point controlled all that -- controlled that street? 18 MR. LESLIE: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This really wasn't a 20 county road, even though the County -- I can't remember 21 if -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had already turned 23 it over to the City. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We had turned it over to 25 the City? 10-15-02 12 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My concern was, is it 3 proper for us just to -- we really don't own anything, more 4 than likely; we're just tying to clean it up, but we -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When we took it 6 back -- we didn't get it back when we took the streets back; 7 it wasn't part of the package that came back. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have to go 9 through any exercise if we're going to assign, I guess, a 10 county road to another entity? 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't think so, because the 12 deed was executed by the City of Center Point in a period of 13 time that they owned the road, and there was already a 14 representation from the County that we didn't have an 15 interest in it. This is basically, from what I understand 16 from Mr. Leslie, an insurance requirement in order for the 17 school to go and get the title insurance which their 18 auditors say they ought to have to all the property. 19 MR. LESLIE: And I have no idea why they're 20 even requiring that, to be honest with you, but title 21 underwriters are notoriously conservative. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 23 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 10-15-02 13 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this 3 time, gentleman, if we can, I want to skip to Item 17, since 4 Mr. Gondeck is here. Consider and discuss the selection of 5 consulting architect for the Hill Country Youth Exhibition 6 Center renovation/expansion project per Section 271.119B of 7 the Local Government Code. It's my pleasure to introduce 8 Mr. Wayne Gondeck, who is an architect with DRG Architects 9 out of San Antonio. Mr. Gondeck is currently working with 10 the Kerr County Juvenile Board for the expansion of the 11 Juvenile Detention Center, and it's very easy and productive 12 to work with Mr. Gondeck, and I asked him to consider 13 providing services to the Commissioners Court as the 14 consulting architect, which is required by the Local 15 Government Code any time we do a design-build construction 16 project. So, Mr. Gondeck is here before us today to speak 17 on the issue or answer questions or whatever you want to do 18 as to whether or not to engage his firm to act as consulting 19 architects on this project. Morning, Wayne. 20 MR. GONDECK: Judge, Commissioners, good 21 morning. I would just like to go over a few things with the 22 Court this morning. One -- and I know that most of y'all 23 have read over the legislation. I am not an attorney, so 24 I'm not here to give any legal advice, but I do want to go 25 over the aspects of that legislation which was -- came into 10-15-02 14 1 effect last year about this time, or a little bit earlier. 2 It is fairly new. And what it has done is actually 3 formalized a lot of the different alternative types of 4 construction delivery methods that have been utilized, or 5 attempted to be utilized by county government over the 6 years. And there has been, you know, a lot of disparity as 7 to what counties could do or not do. Actually, this began 8 more with school districts a couple years prior, and then 9 was allowed to go into county government and allowing 10 counties to have actually five different methods for 11 construction delivery. 12 We are all very familiar with the sealed bid 13 approach, where you have competitive sealed bids that are 14 presented, read aloud, a lump sum amount. And then, you 15 know, it's up -- and they're selected based on those actual 16 proposals. There is also a sealed proposal, which allows 17 some latitude of a negotiation with qualified contractors, 18 and then there is two methods of construction management, 19 one being construction manager as an advisor, one being 20 construction manager at risk. The last type of construction 21 delivery is a design-build process. If that is the method 22 that the County is choosing to go on, then by the statute, 23 it does require you to hire an independent consulting 24 architect or engineer to act as agent for the County during 25 the duration of that project, to oversee the project and 10-15-02 15 1 make sure that the design-build firm that is selected does 2 provide the scope and -- and quality of the project that you 3 actually contract for. 4 The services that the independent consulting 5 architect would provide begin at the -- the very initiation 6 of the project. The consulting architect assists the owner 7 in developing a Request for Qualifications from design-build 8 firms to include a design criteria package. Now, that 9 design criteria package outlines the total scope of the 10 project, it outlines each of the structures or improvements 11 that are required within the project, it establishes the 12 quality of materials. Just as an example, it would outline 13 the size of the buildings that you're looking for, the type 14 of construction that you're looking for, each of the 15 elements that would go in there, you know, like if you're 16 going to have any restrooms, if you're going to have certain 17 flooring, whether part of it's going to be concrete, part of 18 it would be dirt. It would also establish on your site 19 improvements how much parking you would have, what type of 20 site lighting you would have, how much of it would be 21 lighted, all those specific elements. And when you have 22 multiple aspects of a project, or multiple buildings, that 23 can get fairly detailed as to what that design criteria 24 package would be. The reason being is that you want to have 25 a document that allows all your design-builders to present 10-15-02 16 1 their proposals and qualifications based on a -- a common 2 criteria. 3 The second step that the independent 4 consulting architect would do is assist the County in 5 actually going through the selection of a review and 6 evaluation of the qualifications statements, and make 7 recommendations based on weighted criteria back to the Court 8 to develop a short list or a -- you might say a shorter list 9 of qualified design-build firms that would come in and 10 present in person to be interviewed by the Commissioners 11 Court, in a -- with the assistance of the independent 12 architect. And then, from that point, we would make 13 weighted recommendations again as to selection of a 14 design-build firm. 15 Once you have selected a design-build firm, 16 the independent consulting architect continues to work 17 through the design process, overseeing the actual design 18 from the architect and engineer of the design-build team. 19 We make sure that all the design elements within the design 20 criteria package are complied with. We'll make sure that 21 they do file the documents with all the required agencies 22 that have authority over the project, like filing with the 23 City, and make sure it has been reviewed by the 24 accessibility review -- state accessibility agencies. And 25 then we work with the owner and the design-build team to 10-15-02 17 1 make sure that the guaranteed maximum cost of the project is 2 in line with, one, the County's budget, and two, that the 3 elements are all provided for within that budget. 4 Once that is solidified, once that design is 5 approved by the County, and the guaranteed maximum price, 6 you begin construction. Then the architect -- the 7 independent architect would provide periodic observation of 8 the work. They would also provide for monthly review of the 9 draws, as far as the contractor draws, and we would certify 10 those draws prior to those being paid by the County. 11 Actually, during the construction, it's very much like, you 12 might say, customarily services that an architect would 13 provide, that we would review any changes in the work and 14 make recommendations. We would come to monthly progress 15 meetings, we'd present monthly reports to the Court, and 16 then, at the end of the job, we would assist in the 17 close-out of the actual -- you know, performing the 18 inspections on the project and making sure that all the 19 final documents, such as the record drawings and other items 20 of that nature, all the warranties, are turned over to the 21 owner at the end of the project. That is the basic process. 22 As far as Kerr County goes right now, and 23 specific to this project, it's my understanding that this 24 would be based on a bond election to be called. In that 25 case, you probably would not go beyond the selection process 10-15-02 18 1 prior to the bond election. And that selection process 2 would be contingent, you know, upon the actual passage of 3 the bond. So there would not be any, you might say, 4 continuing obligation if the bond election did not pass. 5 I'd ask if there is any questions as to what our role is 6 and -- or would be. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead, Jonathan. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I guess what 9 I'm -- what's going through my mind right now is to figure 10 out really how much the Court wants to do before the bond 11 election, or how much we need to do. And we had talked 12 about selecting the firm, but the more I hear of these -- of 13 your discussion, the more -- the more doubt I have that we 14 can get all this done before the bond election. So I'm 15 wondering, is there a -- a step -- and the reason we were 16 anxious to get the -- at least as I recall, the team on 17 board is to get something drawn up so we can show the public 18 what we're looking at building. Is there a way for us to 19 hire a -- a consulting architect like -- that works with the 20 -- you know, the state law requirements as you understand 21 them, and develop a basic footprint-type plan, and not go 22 through the full design selection criteria until after the 23 bond election? 24 MR. GONDECK: That is possible. I would say 25 that that shifts some of the responsibility for the 10-15-02 19 1 design -- in lieu of having the actual design criteria 2 package, it does shift some of that design responsibility 3 back on the consulting or independent consulting architect. 4 I really don't know if that's detrimental to the County, but 5 I would say that -- that, actually, during the selection 6 process, there is a two-phase process. In the initial one, 7 the design-build firms are not required to submit anything 8 within the qualification statements relating to specific 9 designs; however, during the interview process, it's 10 customary that they present their concepts to -- at least in 11 some basic form, to the Commissioners Court, and that is 12 part of the basis of their selection. So, that is one of 13 the reasons for going to that point of actually selecting 14 the design-build firm, because once you have gone through 15 that selection process, then you're just basing it upon 16 their concepts, and you're selecting actually from a set of, 17 you know, three or four different design-build firms as to 18 which concept you want to go forward with. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's a tight schedule, but I 20 think we can get there. And reflecting back on the 21 experience that K.I.S.D. had in bond election, I'm very 22 reluctant to take this Court through a bond election unless 23 we have the team in place, because that's going to be an 24 element of what people are going to be reflecting on. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I don't know 10-15-02 20 1 that I agree with that. I mean, I think that they need to 2 know the process. I mean, I don't think the fact that they 3 -- the school district hired Drymala had any input at all 4 into their -- I think the way they were going to do it had 5 an impact; I mean, using the construction manager at risk. 6 But the -- 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I'm actually looking 8 back at the one that failed, when they didn't have a site, 9 didn't have a plan. They didn't -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: All they wanted was money. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I agree, we 13 definitely -- I mean, we have to have some sort of a 14 drawing, schematic at a minimum, as to what we're trying to 15 accomplish. And we have one that, you know, primarily I've 16 been working on, but I'm certainly no architect, and I 17 wouldn't want to take mine any further than where mine is 18 now, what I've done already. We need to get a professional 19 on board to get something that we can show the public if we 20 have any chance of success. But the other side of it is, I 21 don't want to spend money -- any more money than we 22 absolutely have to before we have the bond election, 'cause 23 I don't want to, you know, waste money. And the other -- 24 and that's one issue. 25 The other issue that -- you know, that I 10-15-02 21 1 have, and this affects the timing a little bit. I'm 2 uncomfortable -- and I told Mr. Gondeck that probably I 3 would not vote for this today, because I think we need to 4 put it out for the public to have other people submit -- you 5 know, that may be interested in doing this type of a job for 6 us. I know we don't have to do that; we can certainly hire 7 him if we want, but I just feel more comfortable that we 8 should do this more -- as open as possible. And if other 9 people would like to, you know, solicit basically our -- our 10 business, I would rather do -- make this decision as to who 11 -- what architect the Court hires at our next meeting. That 12 way it's clearly -- today we're putting it out to the public 13 that we're going to hire this other architect; the law 14 requires us to do it. Anyone who's interested should 15 contact us. I don't know that we need to go through a long 16 process of, you know, sending out, you know, ads to San 17 Antonio saying we're going to do it, but I do think that 18 we're -- at least I think we have an obligation to the 19 public to let others that may be interested submit whatever 20 they want to, as Mr. Gondeck has done. So, those are my two 21 thoughts, where I am today. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What you're looking 23 for, though, are some architectural renderings of elevations 24 and what the buildings might look -- might look like? As 25 opposed to retaining a firm such as Mr. Gondeck or anybody 10-15-02 22 1 else's that would take us -- architectural engineer that 2 would take us through the entire process? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should hire 4 the firm that we're going to use. I think we would hire the 5 person, whoever that consulting architect is going to be. 6 I'm not -- I'm in favor of hiring that person at our next 7 meeting, but I just think that, rather than go through the 8 process necessarily of hiring the design-to-build team, that 9 we could ask the consulting architect to develop a basic -- 10 you know, do some work for us to get us to the bond issue. 11 I don't -- I'm not really opposed to hiring the team before; 12 I'm indifferent on it. I'm just more concerned on time, to 13 make sure that we don't rush through it and put together a 14 team with some specifications that aren't right. And, you 15 know, I know we have time, but I also know that it takes 16 time for this Court and any court to act. And I see -- you 17 know, to me, it's going to take at least a month to get a 18 design that everyone is happy with. Based on the other 19 agenda item, we're going to go to the City hopefully and ask 20 for their formal participation, and I think they should have 21 input into the process as well if they choose to 22 participate. 23 So, I just think -- I just see everything 24 just kind of pushing off in the future, getting into a real 25 bind, and I don't want us to rush, you know, through to hire 10-15-02 23 1 a team just because we want to hire a team before the bond 2 election. I don't know that that's a critical point. I 3 think it's critical that we have the process we're going to 4 use, which we've decided it's going to be a design-to-build 5 process. I think it's important that we have a consulting 6 architect on board, and preliminary drawings, and someone 7 who's a professional to look at our cost estimates and make 8 sure that we're basically on board. And I understand that's 9 going to take some expenditure of funds we really don't have 10 budgeted right now. We'll have to find those funds, but 11 there's a minimum amount that we have to spend to get the -- 12 you know, to get the information to the public so they can 13 make an informed decision. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you suggesting 15 that we advertise up front now for some others to -- to come 16 make that presentation like DRG has done? Or just word of 17 mouth to the press, or what? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think word of mouth to 19 the press. I mean, because I don't want to delay it 20 further. I mean, I think anyone who -- this project has 21 received a lot of press and interest statewide. Based on 22 some of the other -- Quorum Group is one of the groups, just 23 different people we've been in contact with. So, I mean, I 24 think there's some responsibility for them to be watching 25 what we're doing. I mean, it's pretty much an item on our 10-15-02 24 1 agenda every meeting right now. So -- and I don't think -- 2 I think it would delay -- if we were to go out formally and 3 request, we're talking about another month then. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's why I 5 asked. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that word of 7 mouth, and hopefully the press locally will put some items 8 in the paper, and that should be sufficient to get anyone 9 who's interested -- you know, certainly, they have the 10 ability to find that out and come to us at our next meeting. 11 I would put the onus on them. I don't think we should go 12 out really and try to solicit. I just think we ought to 13 make it known publicly that we are going to hire a 14 consulting architect as required by law. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, your concept of going 16 forward to the bond issue, which is really the issue, is 17 that we won't have a design-build team actually have been 18 selected by then; that that will happen after the bond 19 election actually passes, or actually after it's held? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think that we 21 need to hire the consulting architect and meet with them and 22 see how long it's going to take us to get the criteria. I 23 mean, I don't have any problem at all with going and hiring 24 that team. I just have a question in my own mind whether we 25 can do it in a timely manner and a proper manner. So, I 10-15-02 25 1 mean, my timeline would be, hire -- at our next meeting, 2 hire the consulting architect; we meet with that architect 3 in a workshop or one-on-one, however we want to do it, 4 format, figure out a -- based on the data that we have 5 developed ourselves and, you know, through Quorum 6 Architects -- you know, put that on the table and say, How 7 long is it going to take for you to come up with a -- you 8 know, a package that we can then put out? And it's going to 9 have to be put out, I assume, for 30 days, something like 10 that. And if that can be done before the bond issue, I have 11 no problem with continuing on the process. But if it 12 doesn't, I think we would know that at that next meeting, 13 after our -- or at our meeting subsequent to our decision to 14 hire that consulting architect. Then we could go over 15 the -- he could just give us basic drawings. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that last 17 sentence again? Give us a basic drawing? Who's going to 18 give us -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The consulting architect. 20 If -- see, to me, if we want -- and I don't think we can get 21 this whole thing done before the bond -- before February -- 22 before, really, January 18th. And we have to have the 23 drawings, really, for early voting, so that's our push date. 24 If we cannot have a design-build team on board in enough 25 time prior to the beginning of early voting to be able to 10-15-02 26 1 get some drawings, then I would rather hire -- ask the 2 consulting architect that we hire, ask them to do some basic 3 drawings that we can show the public, square footage-wise, 4 restrooms, and knowing that these drawings may not be the 5 exact -- it's going to be a footprint, the amount of square 6 footage, but the building may have gray block instead of red 7 block. I mean -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's take what 9 you're saying and ask Mr. Gondeck if that -- if that 10 timetable is possible. If we defer making a decision on 11 the -- on the architect or engineer to be our representative 12 in this entire process, if we delay that for two weeks -- 13 essentially two weeks, can we then still put together the 14 package criteria necessary to go out for RFP's and get back 15 in time renderings of what the project might look like? 16 MR. GONDECK: Commissioners, if you're 17 looking to go with the -- and I'm going to stay with the 18 design-build firm providing the conceptual drawings. If we 19 go that route, then the least that it would take to put 20 together the design criteria package is, you know, two to 21 three weeks, and that's really pushing everything, getting 22 everybody together and making sure that that is reviewed. 23 So, we're probably looking at somewhere around the middle -- 24 I guess the middle of November before that could be 25 released. Minimally, you need to have it out on the street 10-15-02 27 1 for two to three weeks. That puts us in -- or past the 2 first week of December to actually receive the Request for 3 Qualifications. Once you have received those 4 qualifications, it's going to take probably two weeks at 5 least to narrow that down and review those and notify people 6 to -- that you're going to want them to come back in for 7 interviews. You need to allow them at least a couple weeks 8 for that, and you're already into the Christmas holidays and 9 New Year's. So, your actual proposals that you would be 10 receiving would come in sometime around, you know, the first 11 week of January -- first or second week of January at the -- 12 the earliest date. Now, if you're -- you're pushing that 13 back, so the timetable is very, very tight to actually have 14 the design-build team, you know, being selected and 15 providing those conceptual drawings. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, based on that, the 17 way I look at that is, that gives us -- we'll have a -- you 18 know, a design-build team on board, best case, the first 19 week of January. We've got to have something by the first 20 week of January to show the public. We really -- I mean, 21 you can't go out to hopefully, I mean, expect the public to 22 make a decision based on drawings that we give them when 23 early voting starts; I don't think that's reasonable. I 24 think our goal should be to have conceptual drawings by 25 Christmas. 10-15-02 28 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree. I 2 think that's why that two-week period is critical up front. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you know, I -- I 4 think we're being optimistic, even as such. I mean, the 5 two- to three-week period, I assume that everyone can agree 6 on the criteria right away, too. I don't want to rush it. 7 I don't want to make a mistake. I think we have one shot 8 with the public. Whereas, to me, the other approach would 9 be to go ahead, hire the consulting architect, and then ask 10 them -- give them basically two -- you know, come up with 11 some kind of a way to look at our work, make sure we're -- 12 dollar-wise, we're close, and come up with a footprint 13 professional drawing. Doesn't have to be any more, you 14 know, I mean, than what we've looked at before, but have 15 it drawn by a professional so it's to scale and, you know, 16 the public can see what's actually there. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: The problem you have, though, 18 if you have your consulting architect prepare a drawing, 19 you've influenced the design-build process. The whole 20 purpose of design-build is that the design-build team comes 21 in as part of their asking for our business with a concept. 22 Drawings, pictures. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you not wear two 24 hats, one temporarily? 25 MR. GONDECK: I've worn a lot of hats, 10-15-02 29 1 Commissioner, but it -- it does sort of -- goes against the 2 grain of the intent of the legislation. I mean, just from 3 reading the whole legislation and actually having an 4 independent consulting architect that is independent of the 5 design team. And I don't -- there's no basis, I'm sure, as 6 far as this even being ever tested; it's too new of 7 legislation to say is it a good idea or is it a bad idea. 8 Definitely, if you want us to do a conceptual drawing for 9 the County, whether it's as the independent consulting 10 architect or just being hired as a -- a preplanning services 11 and master planning, we can do it either way you want to. 12 I'm very open to that. But, again, I'm -- I am wearing two 13 hats here today, 'cause I'm talking out of both sides of my 14 mouth. Yes, we can do it either way, but I don't know 15 exactly what it is that the Court wants to achieve. 16 If you're wanting to achieve -- or stay with 17 the design-build process, then if we do the conceptual 18 drawings, then we -- you know, beginning that role as 19 architect, and then at that point I'd have to ask you 20 whether you want us to be your architect and whether to go 21 design-build instead of one of the other types of 22 construction methods. So, you're sort of -- you're breaking 23 out of the one delivery method and really going into 24 something else, so I'd have to ask the Court. If it is your 25 intent to stay with design-build, then I think that's the 10-15-02 30 1 direction you need to go. If not, then you need to change 2 and go back to a more conventional way, and you need to go 3 to a construction manager at risk or to go, you know, sealed 4 proposals or some other method. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin, 6 what do you think? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question as 8 -- that's a little bit different. And the question, I 9 think, is of our County Auditor here, and it's -- you know, 10 we've talked about putting together teams and we've talked 11 about concept drawings, and all these things cost money. 12 And this -- and we're talking about work prior to the bond 13 election. Have we -- did we budget money? Is there 14 Professional Services money budgeted to pay for these 15 things? I mean, we're talking about a lot of things here 16 this morning. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't recall what's in 18 that -- how much money is there, but I -- I remember that 19 conversation. We do have a sizable amount of contingency in 20 the budget. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With this issue? We 22 built the budget with this issue in mind? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I think we did. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, there's plenty of 25 money to pay everybody even before the bond election? 10-15-02 31 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Plenty of money in the 2 budget, but there's very tight purse strings on my side 3 until it gets approved, in my mind. I personally want to 4 spend, I mean, as little as possible until the bond 5 election. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to deal with 7 that with Mr. Gondeck. Tell us about how the fee structure 8 is broken down in terms of the levels of service and so 9 forth. One more time. 10 MR. GONDECK: Commissioner, just so we're on 11 the record that we would want to be selected based on 12 qualifications, and that actual fees cannot be discussed 13 according to the Professional Service Procurement Act. But 14 we can talk about how does that work in relation to your 15 budget, and the process. Typically, the consulting 16 architect, just like with any other type of architectural or 17 engineering services, is that it's all based on certain 18 phases of the work, and you only get paid for the phases of 19 the work that you go through. As far as the preselection 20 services that was outlined in the letter that I sent to 21 Judge Henneke -- I believe y'all do have a copy of that -- 22 that the preselection services are approximately 20 percent 23 of the total, you know, fees that would be charged by the 24 consulting architect. Or I guess, if you look at it, it's 25 somewhere a little bit more than what, under the standard 10-15-02 32 1 architectural contract, would be a schematic design, because 2 it goes a little bit farther that than. I mean, it's a 3 little bit more percentage than actually a schematic design, 4 but it gets us to the same point. 5 Typically, the contracts are structured to 6 where, if it's on a contingent basis -- in other words, 7 contingent upon the funding of the project -- then it is 8 negotiated with the Court to establish some fixed amount or 9 maximum amount to be paid prior to the bond election, and if 10 the bond election passes, you go on from there. If it 11 fails, we all say we had a lot of fun; we go our different 12 ways, or we go back and try again. And, unfortunately, I 13 just can't go -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. 15 MR. GONDECK: -- right in the middle of it, 16 because then we'd be in violation of our statute, and I 17 don't want to do that. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You answered my 19 question. The question is, what do we do? Do we wait two 20 weeks or move forward? That's really what it's all about. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've got to 22 understand, though -- everybody's got to understand that 23 we're talking about spending a considerable amount of money, 24 and the -- with the possibility of the bond election going 25 down. I mean, I know we don't want to hear that, but there 10-15-02 33 1 is that possibility. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Recognizing that, 3 Commissioner Baldwin, is there -- I mean, do you see a way 4 to, you know, provide information without spending some 5 money? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm a no vote, anyway, 7 so this is really, really easy for me. This is very simple. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, my question 9 wasn't your vote. I mean, is there another alternative of 10 how we get drawings that you know of? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see it. I 12 don't see that there is another way, unless you want to just 13 get someone out of the community to open up their checkbook 14 and do it for you. Which is what should be happening 15 anyway. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Golly. And if we make 19 the decision today, I mean, there's -- so, basically, we can 20 move the whole timetable up, but even then, best case 21 scenario is, if we're lucky, we have the design team picked 22 at our second meeting in December. Which is when -- or we 23 could call a special meeting to do it. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we could have the 25 design -- yeah, by mid-December we'd have the design-build 10-15-02 34 1 team picked. I mean, if we select the consulting architect 2 today, I think we can be in a position to send out the 3 Requests for Qualifications by the 1st of November, give 4 them the whole month of November to respond, and then have 5 the first two weeks or so of December in order for us to 6 make our initial choices, interview firms, and select a 7 firm. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're more optimistic 9 than I am. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's an ambitious 11 schedule. But, again, two weeks -- two weeks could make the 12 difference, if I'm hearing things correctly. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, two weeks 14 definitely makes a difference. But I look at it as -- I 15 mean, my preference is what I said, is to go ahead and delay 16 two weeks in making the decision. But, you know, I'm 17 probably willing to take a different route if -- because of 18 the timing. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: If we want to put the 20 decision off, we can put the decision off. But we cannot, 21 in my opinion, engage the consulting architect to do any 22 sort of drawings to be used in connection with the bond 23 election, so we'd end up using somebody else to do those 24 drawings. But we can get that on a donated basis or 25 whatever else. That's speculation. 10-15-02 35 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, I 2 don't -- it would be nice if someone donated them, but I'm 3 not anticipating someone donating them. So, I think I'm 4 willing to spend Professional Services to get that done; I 5 think we're obligated to the public to do that. I don't 6 see -- you can't ask the public to vote on something without 7 having some drawings and some background work. And we're 8 not qualified to do it and shouldn't be doing it ourselves. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question in my mind 11 is, if we -- you know, do we have the time, really, to hire 12 the design-to-build team before the bond election? And I'm 13 coming down on no, I just don't see that happening. I mean, 14 I don't -- not in time to be of use. I mean, I think we can 15 have them before the -- you know, the bond -- the early 16 voting will be the third week of January, it starts. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Starts the 17th, I think it 18 is, of January. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that, to do 20 that, you -- you know, pretty much, you need to have 21 drawings, certainly by the 1st of January, or -- of what 22 this is going to look like, what we're going to be asking 23 them to be voting on. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: But, again, remember that 25 part of their -- their submission of their qualifications 10-15-02 36 1 are their concept, and we -- we vote on their concept. We 2 vote on them and we vote on their concept. 3 MR. GONDECK: Those that are qualified in the 4 first round would be asked to come in and make formal 5 presentations and interviews with the Court with conceptual 6 drawings, and that's part of the basis for selection of the 7 design-build team. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That helps. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That helps. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: So that's, you know, by 11 mid-December. If we choose a firm by mid-December, we've 12 chosen the concept that they're presenting. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Concept drawings at 14 that point. I don't think, if we're going to make the 15 timetable, we have the luxury of losing two weeks up front. 16 And I think we need to have some guidance to get us through 17 this process, or we may be taken to task for not doing it 18 correctly. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, y'all beat me down. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's see if we 21 can move the process along here this morning. I would -- I 22 would move that the Court retain this architectural firm, 23 DRG, Mr. Gondeck's firm, for the purpose of guiding us 24 through -- as a consulting architect, guiding us through the 25 first phase of design-build, which is getting ready the 10-15-02 37 1 qualifications for Request for Proposals, which would 2 include conceptual drawings. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we change the motion 4 to authorize the Court to begin negotiations with DRG to see 5 if we can come to an agreement? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that doesn't do -- 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: That puts us off another two 9 weeks, then. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but if we can -- 11 and hire them if we can. 12 (Laughter.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: That will be a well-worded 14 motion. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw mine 16 and you state it. Let's see if we can work it out that way. 17 Let's try it again. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm thinking how you word 19 it. I don't know how you can hire someone if you have no 20 idea what they're -- what they're going to ask. I think -- 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the next topic for 22 consideration. And I think we can do that if -- but 23 Mr. Gondeck says he can't talk to us about money until he's 24 hired. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10-15-02 38 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Once he's hired, then he can 2 stand here -- and we can always cancel it if we don't come 3 to an agreement. 4 MR. GONDECK: And that's how the actual 5 statute reads. If we -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 MR. GONDECK: If I can't satisfy you on fees 8 at that point, after I've been selected, then you terminate 9 the negotiations and find somebody else. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Make your motion 11 again, Bill. 12 (Laughter.) 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move that the Court 14 approve the retention of the DRG firm for the purpose of 15 developing the specifications and the criteria for Request 16 for Proposals for the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, 17 first phase, Phase I. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would include 20 conceptual drawings in the RFP. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. You got that, 23 Kathy? 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 25 Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court engage 10-15-02 39 1 the firm of DRG, Mr. Wayne Gondeck, to act as the consulting 2 architect to the Commissioners Court for the initial phase 3 of the design-build expansion/renovation of the Hill Country 4 Youth Exhibit Center. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said that better 6 than I did, Judge. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm just paraphrasing. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One thing is clear. I 9 mean, it should be clear to the public that we didn't talk 10 about this ahead of time. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's for sure. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Really. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments? 14 If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 15 (Commissioners Williams and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) 16 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 18 (Commissioner Baldwin voted against the motion.) 19 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to explain my 22 no vote, if I could, please. Once again, when this process 23 was started, I agreed to vote -- I agreed with the 24 Commissioners that we would allow the people to have a voice 25 in the process and the election; the people would be able to 10-15-02 40 1 go vote, and I agreed to that and voted with that. But, in 2 my opinion, my vote today or this day forward would be -- be 3 contrary to -- to that. So, I just feel like that we're 4 moving too far into the program now. It's just my opinion. 5 And so my vote is -- that's all. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right, thank you. Now, 7 Mr. Gondeck -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much? 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Understanding that we prefer 10 that the majority of your fees be rolled into the bond 11 issue, can you give us some notion of what it would cost for 12 you to assist the Court in preparing a Request for 13 Qualifications and evaluating the responses? 14 MR. GONDECK: Judge, I'd say yes, I do that. 15 Yes, I do have the dollar amount that I have in mind. I do 16 always feel a little strange talking about my fees in open 17 court, but -- especially when there's a stenographer, so 18 I'll try not to misstate this. We would -- for the Phase 1, 19 which would be the Request for Qualifications and Request 20 for Proposals phase, and what we have actually defined as 21 that preselection phase, or up-to-selection point, we would 22 be looking at a fee of around $20,000. Now, what we would 23 offer to the County is to defer 50 percent of that, 24 contingent upon whether or not the bond election passes. If 25 the bond election passes, then we would ask for that to be 10-15-02 41 1 paid in full. If it doesn't, then we have just deferred 2 that and let it go, so we'd be looking at $10,000 between 3 now and February 1, or whenever the bond election is. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, that seems 5 reasonable. But, I mean, how do we -- I mean, we're no -- 6 we can't negotiate this thing right now. Nice idea to know 7 that, but, I mean, I think -- I mean, I guess the Court 8 needs to decide how we're going to -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How we're going to do 10 that. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How we're going to 12 negotiate the contract, or who's going to negotiate the 13 contract and what needs to be in there and things of that 14 nature. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Again, if we're going to try 16 to get the design-build team in place, he needs to start 17 work on Request for Qualifications this afternoon. 18 MR. GONDECK: Can I just ask a question? Is 19 there a way that the Court could authorize us, on a 20 contingent basis, while we negotiate the contract -- of 21 course, that's -- 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure. 23 MR. GONDECK: My neck's out on the line 24 pretty good, but with the understanding, you know, that 25 we've expressed at least some general terms, and from there, 10-15-02 42 1 we can go through the contract with the County's attorney or 2 whoever you want us to work that with, to work initially 3 with the Judge in presenting an agreement. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: In other words, what you're 5 proposing is two phases here where you all will go ahead and 6 start work on the Request for Qualifications at the same 7 time that we negotiate the pre -- the Phase I contract? 8 MR. GONDECK: Yes, sir. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Can we get a motion to that 10 effect? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 14 second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court authorize 15 negotiation with DRG for the amount of their services prior 16 to bond election at the same time that DRG works on the 17 Request for Qualifications for design-build team. Any other 18 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 19 right hand. 20 (Commissioners Williams and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) 21 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 23 (Commissioner Baldwin voted against the motion.) 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 10-15-02 43 1 (Discussion off the record.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you want to be the one to 3 work with him on the contract? Or -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, be glad to. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm serious. I -- 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: You need to get with the 8 engineer and -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You and the County 10 Attorney? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I won't be there alone, I 12 can assure you. Yes. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. Anything 14 else we need to talk with Mr. Gondeck about? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good start. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How long are you going to 17 be here today? 18 MR. GONDECK: As long as you need me to be 19 here today, Commissioner. I can go to San Antonio and come 20 back later, but -- 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll take a break probably 22 in about 30 minutes; you two meet then and decide what your 23 schedule will be. Okay. Thank you, Wayne. 24 MR. GONDECK: Judge, Commissioners, I 25 appreciate it. Thank you. 10-15-02 44 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. We can take care of 3 one or two before our public hearing at 10 o'clock. Let's 4 do Item Number 2, consider and approve advertising for bid 5 on the lease of new motor grader with scarifier. Leonard, 6 are you going to talk about that one briefly? 7 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The operative word 9 was "briefly." 10 MR. ODOM: Sir? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The operative word 12 was "briefly." 13 MR. ODOM: Very gracious. I believe that you 14 have the packet there. For the past six or seven years, 15 we've had a very successful lease program for our motor 16 graders, as well as loaders. The lease on one of our motor 17 graders will expire the end of December. At this time, we 18 ask that you allow us to go out for bid for the lease of a 19 new 12-H motor grader. When the process is complete, we'll 20 bring the bids back to the Court for acceptance and ask for 21 authorization for the Judge to sign the same. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 10-15-02 45 1 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve 2 advertising for bid on the lease of the new motor grader 3 with scarifier, with the bids to be received at the Kerr 4 County Clerk's Office not later than 5 o'clock p.m. on 5 Friday, November 8, Year 2002, and the bids to be opened on 6 Tuesday, November 12, Year 2002 at 10 o'clock a.m. Any 7 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 8 right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 13 MR. ODOM: Judge, may I take just a second to 14 address the Court? Something came up Thursday with a 15 maintainer -- and this is not something that you have to 16 make a decision on, but for information for me and for the 17 Court. Thursday, one of the crews -- I have two crews in 18 the west end; one of them in the 1340/39 area, the 19 maintainer went out. I say -- not maintainer; I mean 20 loader. The old Dresser is 15 years old; will not go in 21 reverse. It will go forward, but it won't go in reverse. 22 And so we've -- we're trying -- between Thursday and today, 23 we've got a quote of $12,500. We're bringing it in this 24 afternoon -- or this morning to take a look at the shop. 25 That's a lot of money just for a transmission. And we 10-15-02 46 1 haven't broke it down. The old Dressers, you have to take 2 the entire engine out, you have to take the transmission 3 out, and it has to go to Washaw-Pierce. At this point, I 4 don't have a decision. I want to look at it, investigate a 5 little bit. But would the Court be receptive at this point, 6 instead of spending that kind of money and not guaranteeing 7 the engine wouldn't go out, to look at the possibility of a 8 lease program like we did for the last 924, I think, 9 recently? We just had one to go back out for that. Instead 10 of spending that money. That's a year's rental for one 11 maintainer, and I could get five years. I mean, it's just 12 something I could work into next year's budget. But I don't 13 know if it's worth $12,500, and no guarantee a 15-year-old 14 loader's going to stay together. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's something we can 16 look at. Obviously, we can't make a commitment today on 17 this; it's not on the agenda, but you need to bring us the 18 numbers and the pros and cons on both sides. 19 MR. ODOM: Right. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: As you always do. So, take a 21 look at it. 22 MR. ODOM: The Court would be receptive; 23 that's what I wanted to know. Thank you. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. It is 10 o'clock 25 in the morning on Tuesday, October 15th. At this time, we 10-15-02 47 1 will recess this regular session of the Kerr County 2 Commissioners Court and hold a public hearing for the 3 revision of plat of Y.O. Ranchlands, Lots 17, 18, and 19. 4 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:00 a.m., and a public hearing 5 was held in open court, as follows:) 6 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there any member of the 8 public who would like to address the Court on the issue of 9 the revision of plat of the Y.O. Ranchlands, Lots 17, 18, 10 and 19? Once again, this is a public hearing on the issue 11 of revision of plat for Lots 17, 18, and 19 of Y.O. 12 Ranchlands. Is there any member of the public that would 13 like to address the Court during this public hearing on that 14 topic? 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: One more time, the Court is 17 now in a public hearing on the issue of revision of plat of 18 Lots 17, 18, and 19 of Y.O. Ranchlands Subdivision in Kerr 19 County, Texas. Is there any member of the public would who 20 would like to address the Court on the issue of this 21 revision of plat? Seeing none, hearing none, we will 22 adjourn the public hearing and return to the regular session 23 of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. 24 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:01 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 25 meeting was reopened.) - - - - - - - - - - 10-15-02 48 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's take up Item Number 6, 2 which is to consider approving the final revision of plat of 3 Y.O. Ranchlands, Lots 17, 18, 19. Franklin Johnston. Good 4 morning, Franklin. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Good morning. The -- you have 6 the preliminary plat, I believe. The one item that they 7 were building is Goodnight Trail, an access road to these 8 lots. That road has been completed. I went up last week, 9 made an inspection. They had it tested. It meets all the 10 requirements, so that road is complete. There's one item, 11 just kind of a loose end I thought I'd bring it up while 12 we're here on this. On the preliminary plat, there wasn't 13 any floodplain shown. Then on the final plat, there is a 14 floodplain. Stuart approved the preliminary, and I guess 15 he's approved the final also. He signed it. I guess you 16 had enough information to -- 17 MR. BARRON: The final is correct. The first 18 preliminary was incorrect; it did not show the 100-year 19 floodplain. I returned it to Mr. Domingues, and he then 20 delineated the 100-year floodplain on the second preliminary 21 that was sent to me. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. But that wasn't the one 23 we had in court. That was apparently -- that wasn't the 24 same one we had -- it was? It wasn't the one we had filed. 25 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir. 10-15-02 49 1 MR. JOHNSTON: There's another one floating 2 around, okay. It wasn't the one we had on file. Okay. 3 Based on that, I'd recommend approval of the plat. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd move for approval 5 of the preliminary revision of plat for Tracts 17, 18, 19 -- 6 MR. JOHNSTON: This is actually the final. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is final? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plat approval -- move 10 plat approval for Lots 17, 18, 19 of the Y.O. Ranchlands, as 11 proposed and recommended by the County Engineer. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to second. I 13 have a question before I do. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: We need the second before the 15 question. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not going to do 17 it, then. I want to ask my question. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have a second? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has anyone heard from 20 Mr. Griffin? Did he relate to anyone his feelings or his 21 thoughts? 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't -- Larry -- I talked 23 to him, and he did not tell me he had any reservations about 24 this. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 10-15-02 50 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 2 Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 3 approve the final revision of plat of Y.O. Ranchlands, Lots 4 17, 18, and 19, as presented. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Question? Go ahead. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin, this is not the 8 one that we had all the confusion about right-of-way? This 9 is a different -- I mean, we -- 10 MR. JOHNSTON: That is correct. That -- what 11 we had before was the one that's north of this one. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question on that 13 one -- that one's not in the subdivision, as I recall. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: That's not in the subdivision. 15 I think that was called Dominion Ranch, or -- that's a 16 separate item. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 18 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We'll go 23 back to -- 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Apparently the mylar is not in 25 court. I think they delivered it to our office. I didn't 10-15-02 51 1 pick it up, so I'll bring it back later today. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's go back to Item Number 3 3, gentlemen, consider clarification to Letter of Credit 4 form letter, Appendix D of Kerr County Subdivision Rules. 5 Number 3. 6 MR. JOHNSTON: In our form letter in the 7 appendix of the Subdivision Rules, it refers to -- after 8 Letter of Credit number, maintenance of roads, streets, and 9 alleyways. And frequently the -- you know, there's two 10 kinds of letters of credit. One's for road maintenance for 11 County-maintained road. One's for construction that's not 12 complete at the time of the final plat. That's the majority 13 of the ones we've been getting. When we get the letter of 14 credit, invariably they go by our form that it has 15 maintenance on there; we have to send it back and get it 16 corrected every time. So, I think there probably should be 17 some kind of a selection up there that they can select one 18 or the other and do it right the first time. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't ask one till 23 you get a second, though. 24 (Laughter.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's only if a motion has 10-15-02 52 1 been made. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, okay. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see a -- I see a 4 couple potential typographical errors. One I'm certain is a 5 typographical, one I'm not so certain about. Third 6 paragraph, "This is not a n-o-t-i-a-t-i-o-n..." Is that 7 supposed to just be notation, or is that some special credit 8 term that I don't know about? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: What page are you looking at? 10 Just the Letter of Credit form? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Appendix D, Letter of 12 Credit. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Third paragraph and 15 fourth paragraph. I know that's a typographical error. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: That should be "notation." 17 MR. JOHNSTON: That's probably spelling. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Notation" is the 19 word. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: "Notation." 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then "modified" is 22 also -- in the next paragraph. Okay. That's all I want to 23 know. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan, could we amend that 25 form without having to -- 10-15-02 53 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. This is 2 really not changing anything, just clarifying the language. 3 I don't think we need a public hearing or anything; I think 4 we can just do it. And it needs to be, you know -- 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Needs to be done. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It needs to be done. So, 7 I make a motion -- 8 MR. JOHNSTON: There may be a better format 9 than that. I just put both of them in there. They can 10 select one or have a blank there and type it in or whatever. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a situation 12 where you have a construction and maintenance letter of 13 credit? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think so. I think if 15 the road's not complete at the time of the final plat, they 16 would have to have a letter for construction. Then I think, 17 at that time, whenever the road was complete, accepted, I 18 think the letter -- the maintenance will actually start at 19 time of road completion, so it probably needs to come back 20 and get a separate one for that for a year. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I move we approve 22 the revised Appendix D as presented. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 25 second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the 10-15-02 54 1 revised Appendix D, as presented, to the Kerr County 2 Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Any questions or 3 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin, would you make 9 sure that Truby gets copies of that to everyone on the Court 10 and everyone else that needs to be distributed, County Clerk 11 and others who have copies of it? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I think we have a list of all 13 the people. We'll see that they get that. 14 (Discussion off the record.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's go to Item Number 4, 16 consider canceling and vacating Kerrville's Pleasure Cliff 17 Subdivision, recorded in Volume 1, Page 11, consider public 18 notice, and set public hearing date for the same. Again, 19 Franklin. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: We have a sample, I think, of 21 the notice that we had published in the paper. This 22 subdivision, I think, is owned by three people, all the 23 lots, and they've all signed a notarized statement that they 24 wanted to vacate. Copies are in your packet. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you like to 10-15-02 55 1 satisfy my ignorance as to where this is located, this 2 subdivision? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, let me see. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you know? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: You're putting me on the spot 6 here, Commissioner. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Precinct 4. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's Pleasure Hill. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: This really doesn't have -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sleepy Hollow Avenue, 11 that's the road that goes into the subdivision. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Doesn't have a location map. 13 I'd have to look it up. The roads don't sound familiar. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anybody here 15 representing the owners that can tell us where it's located? 16 (No response.) 17 MR. JOHNSTON: I guess not. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you sure it's in 19 Kerr County? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: That I'm pretty sure of, yes, 21 sir. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Would you like me to bring it 24 back with more information? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I tried. 10-15-02 56 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need a public hearing, 2 though. I move we set the public hearing -- correct? I 3 move we set the public hearing for the -- to consider 4 canceling and vacating Kerrville's Pleasure Cliff 5 Subdivision for -- 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: 25th. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: 25th of November? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- November 25, 2002. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a second? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 12 second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court set a public 13 hearing on canceling and vacating Kerrville's Pleasure Cliff 14 Subdivision, as recorded in Volume 1, Page 11, and set the 15 public hearing date for November 25th, Year 2002, at 16 10 o'clock a.m. in the Kerr County Commissioners Court. 17 MS. SOVIL: It has to be -- that's our night 18 meeting. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right. So it would be 20 at -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 6:30? 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, set it at 7:30. Any 23 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 24 right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10-15-02 57 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you, 4 Franklin. Item -- want to take a break? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we get the next one 6 done? That way Road and Bridge can get done. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: We can do Item Number 7, 8 update on the damage from the July floods, repair schedule, 9 and FEMA assistance. Commissioner Letz? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just put this on the 11 agenda just to receive an update as to where we were on 12 receiving any financial assistance from FEMA related to the 13 July floods, and also an idea as to where Road and Bridge 14 was on repairs related from that flood. That's it. 15 Leonard? 16 MR. ODOM: As you see before you, there's 37 17 sites. Part of those are Category A and B. So, we 18 originally had put in about 70 sites that was damaged. Part 19 of that was delineated down to less than $1,000, they did 20 not pay us for. So, these are the 30 -- 35 or 37 sites all 21 together that were approved by FEMA. The total amount of 22 Road and Bridge was $315,092.28. Federal share was 23 $236,349.21, and then the 25 percent is $78,773.07. So, 24 what we have is about a quarter of a million dollars worth 25 of damage that we've received funds for. The Judge signed 10-15-02 58 1 off on that paperwork, and we've submitted that in. At this 2 time, I believe, off the top of my head, I would say of 3 these 35, we have about 70 -- 73 percent of those items 4 complete. But in that, of course, those are the -- we have 5 some bigger items that are not. You'll see they're 6 color-coded. Those that are yellow are completed since we 7 talked to FEMA. The blue are -- still needs to be 8 completed, and there's a percentage thereof. 9 And then, of course, what we did not have on 10 there was -- this is FEMA. NRCS had seven sites. I didn't 11 give you that, because it's somewhat ambiguous because of -- 12 they put down the sites and they did not put all the dollar 13 figures down. Hermann Sons, I had no data on the bridge. 14 Part of the sites along River Road were not completed. Some 15 of them had to do with drainage, gaging baskets, things like 16 that. They did not give me any numbers, so I'm sort of in 17 limbo, but that total that they had a figure was $47,825. I 18 sort of figure that that might increase 50 to -- 50 percent 19 more, maybe $75,000 total with the gagings, and all that's 20 going to be expensive, so I'm not quite sure. Hermann Sons, 21 there will be some money on Hermann Sons Bridge, but that 22 project's not to replace the -- the bridge, Commissioner. 23 Neither did FEMA. I think FEMA gave me about $2,200 for the 24 approaches. Tim Bushka is working on that, out of Temple. 25 At the time that I went with the 10-15-02 59 1 representatives from NRCS, Tim wasn't there and they 2 couldn't give any data on it, but they were talking about 3 demolition of the old structure and trying to pull those 4 structures out, the rail cars. And we had -- we thought we 5 could pull them out. We can't. I had two winch trucks down 6 there; we couldn't budge them. I called Joe Franklin back. 7 I just told him that we could not participate in that; that 8 the hammer that we thought we could break up that concrete, 9 the -- Holt says do not put it in water. It will blow the 10 seals and possibly -- could make the head explode. So, we 11 just said we do not have the equipment to do that. So, I 12 don't know where that would be. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, do you have any idea 14 when -- what Tim is going to do, when he's going to -- how 15 much -- 16 MR. ODOM: I'm not quite sure. I asked Joe 17 to get back with me, and Joe was on vacation last week. We 18 did put in a call back to Tim, but, you know, he's so -- 19 he's never in Temple. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 MR. ODOM: And I'm not quite sure -- at the 22 time, the question I had was what about it, and they said 23 Tim is handling it. So, that's all I know at this point 24 till I get a reply. It does not look like we will 25 participate -- I mean get much participation like we did 10-15-02 60 1 last year. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, do you think 3 they'll probably at least get the cars out of the river? 4 Railroad cars? 5 MR. ODOM: Well, the railroad cars, I think 6 that's possible. But, see, there's no -- I need to get with 7 Tim; I have to rebuild that pad out there to even put a 8 crane out there. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, I'm 10 thinking more first step before anything gets done. I mean, 11 no matter what happens with the bridge, the railroad cars 12 need to come out of the river, in my opinion, if possible. 13 MR. ODOM: Oh, I don't disagree. I thought 14 we could winch them out, but we discovered too much debris, 15 and one's laying on top of another one, and I just couldn't 16 move it. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was on the phone 18 last week with the mayor of Karnes City, Texas, and his 19 first question was about those railroad cars in your 20 precinct. I wasn't about to try to answer. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're famous. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well-known, here and 23 far. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, good. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, have we actually 10-15-02 61 1 received any money from FEMA? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not sure. I don't think 3 we have. 4 MR. ODOM: I don't believe we have. They 5 told me by the time you -- when you receive that paperwork, 6 it was about two to three weeks, they said, and then after 7 we sent that in and that paperwork was processed, it would 8 be another two or three weeks, we should get our money. 9 Because it's not a large -- we're not over $52,000 on each 10 incident, so we feel that that 236 would be coming pretty 11 soon, within another week or so, I would -- maybe toward the 12 end of the week or next week, we may receive something. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, have we 14 satisfied or will we have satisfied our 25 percent share 15 with in-kind services, or do we have money to pay out? 16 MR. ODOM: At this point, I think I've -- out 17 of the 236, to answer your question, I don't have a firm 18 answer for you. I believe that the 25 percent would cover 19 my expenses. Again, remember, NRCS is there, and I don't 20 have a firm number on that yet. It's a lot of concrete, and 21 that 25 percent gets hit pretty -- when I can't do a lot of 22 this. So, I feel that I'm going to be close to a quarter of 23 a million. I remember originally I asked for 125 up to a 24 quarter of a million, so we might be close to that 25 75 percent. But, we're going to try to do it for that. I 10-15-02 62 1 still have some major projects to complete. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you think -- are you, 3 I guess, content with FEMA's amount they approved for each 4 item? I mean, basically, they're going -- 5 MR. ODOM: They were basically fair. You 6 know, it's a judgment call. The individual I had is -- was 7 somewhat harder than -- than the gentleman 10 years ago; his 8 pencil didn't move as much. And, so, you know, 9 across-the-board, I think it was -- he was fair to us. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My final question, do we 11 recoup anything, like on Hermann Sons Road, where -- back by 12 Mr. Daughtry's property? 13 MR. ODOM: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where the road washed out 15 three times during the flood? 16 MR. ODOM: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we get any -- do we 18 recoup any of that money of our work during that period? Is 19 that included in here? 20 MR. ODOM: That was all part of it. You'll 21 see Hermann Sons twice. It says Hermann Sons Road, and then 22 it says Hermann Sons Bridge. So, Hermann Sons Bridge is a 23 separate incident. The Hermann Sons is part of that roadway 24 going up to the old structure, and then the back end of 25 that. So, we did get money there for that structure, and 10-15-02 63 1 that will probably be the last one that we try to pull -- 2 pull down. It's still functional. I just went over it 3 Friday, and that's going to take two 76-inchers and concrete 4 rip raps, so that's an expensive incident. We'll look at 5 that at the last -- we'll try and knock out the dirt work 6 and finish everything else up six months from the time the 7 Judge signed that paper, which was what, September the 23rd? 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: 25th, I think it was. 9 MR. ODOM: Something like that. It's the 10 latter part of September; we have six months. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, I do have 12 one question on Elm Pass Road. I noticed on your list here 13 that you're at the 90 percentile in terms of work, and it 14 notes sealcoating, but some of the folks who live on that 15 road have indicated to me that there's still some major 16 drainage problems just past Starlite -- entrance to 17 Starlite, in between that and Pecan Valley, where there was 18 at one time a -- a culvert that -- that we removed, but in 19 removing it, we've created some other problems in this most 20 recent rains, 3, 4 inches of rain. They indicated there's 21 still some problems in that area. Are you familiar with 22 that? 23 MR. ODOM: No, sir, I'm not. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe you and I 25 should take a run out there. 10-15-02 64 1 MR. ODOM: I'm not quite sure -- I thought 2 most of that was taken care of. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, so did I, but 4 this was brought to my attention about a week ago. 5 MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Waiting for this 7 opportunity to talk to you about it. So, we'll get together 8 and take a run out there? 9 MR. ODOM: We'll get together and -- see, I 10 still have dirt work to do there, and I have some drainage 11 there. Douglas and I were talking about it, but we're on 12 Turner right now. So, that will be through this week and a 13 little bit of next week, and then we want to run -- either 14 go -- make a decision. Elm Pass will take about a week for 15 different little things we need to do, then go into Elm 16 Pass II. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe tomorrow we can 18 take a run out there, take a look. 19 MR. ODOM: That will be fine. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just see what they're 21 talking about. 22 MR. ODOM: I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what 23 you're talking about. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else for Leonard? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Leonard. 10-15-02 65 1 MR. ODOM: Does that answer your questions? 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: I want to again thank Leonard 3 and his crew for not only the work they did during the 4 flood, but for the work they've done with FEMA. The people 5 I met with at FEMA on September 25th were very complimentary 6 of the documentation and the evaluations and the assistance 7 they'd gotten from Truby, as well as Leonard and everyone 8 else, and we're well-served. Thank you very much. 9 MR. ODOM: Thank you. I did not address 10 Glenn Holekamp's, so Glenn might give you an update on that 11 a little bit. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Glenn, do you have anything 13 to add real quickly? 14 MR. HOLEKAMP: Just briefly, on the three 15 items that were FEMA-covered on ours, the walk bridge at 16 Flat Rock Park, we've been -- we will receive approximately 17 $7,000 for that to rebuild it. The County Extension Office 18 -- and on that one, I need to probably contact a contractor 19 to look at the procedure -- to proceed on repair bid or the 20 replacement. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the bridge? 22 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir, the walk bridge. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might look at 24 changing the design slightly, too, when you're doing that. 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. And I will get with 10-15-02 66 1 you on that. The other one, which we started this morning, 2 was the damages that FEMA is covering at the County 3 Extension Office on the replacement of the floor tile in 4 that particular building. They started on that this 5 morning, so with any kind of luck, we'll finish up the 6 repairs on it possibly the end of this week. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions for Glenn? 8 Okay. Thanks, Glenn. We're going to take a break now. 9 Let's return promptly at 20 minutes to 11:00; we'll take up 10 the County Treasurer's items since she has a conflict later 11 this morning. 12 (Recess from 10:25 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) 13 - - - - - - - - - - 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Let's reconvene 15 this regular session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. 16 The next item we will take up is Item Number 12, consider 17 and discuss adopting order amending the annual determined 18 contribution rate plan for January 2003 through 19 December 2003. County Treasurer, Barbara Nemec. 20 MS. NEMEC: Thank you, Judge, for moving me 21 up on the agenda. This was discussed during our budget 22 workshop, and the rate was funded during that time, the new 23 rate, which is 7.92. So, this is just the formal paperwork 24 that needs to be signed to go with that. Actually, the -- 25 it was 7.92, but the Court did decide during the budget 10-15-02 67 1 workshop to go ahead and adopt the buy-back program, which 2 brings it up to 7.95. And that is in the budget. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 6 second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court adopt an 7 order amending the annual determined contribution rate plan 8 for the term January 2003 through December 2003. Any 9 questions or comments? If not, all in favor raise your 10 right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 15 MS. NEMEC: Thank you. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Barbara. Let's go 17 back to Item Number 8, consider and discuss interlocal 18 participation agreement with Texas Local Government 19 Purchasing Cooperative. Tommy? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: This purchasing arrangement 21 is similar to the Houston/Galveston Area Council of 22 Governments. In the past, Road and Bridge and the Sheriff's 23 Office have purchased vehicles and heavy equipment through 24 H.G.A.C. through state purchasing. This -- this is the same 25 arrangement. However, when we purchase heavy equipment 10-15-02 68 1 through H.G.A.C., there's a -- a fee associated with the 2 purchase. It will range from $1,000 to $2,000 or $3,000, 3 depending on the amount of the purchase. We can pay an 4 annual fee of $200 per year to join this -- this purchasing 5 cooperative, and -- and which enables us to purchase some, 6 you know, lighter vehicles and equipment through this agency 7 without paying the fee. We currently, in the budget, have 8 a -- Road and Bridge has a tractor that's -- that we have 9 budgeted that we can purchase through this cooperative, and 10 only pay the $200 annual fee. So, just in one purchase, we 11 can save a minimum of $800. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can purchase -- 13 we can purchase through this cooperative anything that we 14 could have gotten through Houston/Galveston? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: They don't offer all the 16 equipment that you can purchase through H.G.A.C. There -- 17 there's some limitations as to what they have to offer for 18 sale, but it -- this allows us to -- to pick and choose 19 between agencies that -- that offer different pieces of 20 equipment. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve the 23 interlocal agreement between Kerr County and the Texas Local 24 Government Purchasing Cooperative. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 10-15-02 69 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 2 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 3 approve the Interlocal Participation Agreement with Texas 4 Local Government Purchasing Cooperative, and authorize 5 County Judge to sign same. Any questions or comments? If 6 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thanks, 11 Tommy. Item Number 9, consider and discuss approval of the 12 polling locations for the February 1 bond election in 13 accordance with Chapter 43 of the Texas Election Code. 14 Jannett? 15 MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, this is for the bond 16 election in February. If you'll remember, I had e-mailed 17 each one of you and asked to you pick a location in your 18 precinct, since the census was to consolidate into four 19 different locations, and attached is the list that each one 20 has selected. And -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. I know 22 what it's for, but the agenda request doesn't stipulate 23 which election and when. Should it? 24 MS. PIEPER: I know it just says in 25 accordance with Chapter 43, but this will be for the bond 10-15-02 70 1 election, 'cause that's the only election we have coming up 2 that we have not taken care of polling locations yet. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge? 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Hmm? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we okay with 6 that? 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we're okay with that. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 12 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 13 approve the polling locations for the February 1st bond 14 election as presented by the County Clerk. Any questions or 15 comments? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have is, 17 does -- I guess for the Commissioner -- or for Precinct 3, 18 we need to be on that side, because this building, I 19 believe, is Precinct 1. The annex is Precinct 3. 20 MS. PIEPER: Okay. If we hold it in the 21 lower level, that will meet the specification. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But it's -- I 23 mean, I'd hate to have it two feet off the -- out of the 24 precinct. The annex is -- if you're in the new structure 25 across the way or down below that open area, it should work. 10-15-02 71 1 MS. PIEPER: Okay. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Any other questions or 3 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 8 10, consider and discuss approval of a list of various 9 contracts and ratify the authorization of the County Judge's 10 signature. Again, Jannett. 11 MR. MOTLEY: Judge, may I comment just 12 briefly on that? 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Jannett? 14 MR. MOTLEY: I was wondering if we could move 15 2.24 up to that; it's the same thing, since different people 16 are here for that. It's the same type of contract, just add 17 it toward the end. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we can take that up 19 separately. This is ratification of a signature. 20 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. 21 MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, I've attached a list 22 of the contracts that have came in that we need to approve 23 and ratify the signatures on. The forms have already been 24 approved, from what I understand. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 10-15-02 72 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 3 second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve and 4 ratify the -- the approval of the various listed contracts, 5 and ratify the signature of the County Judge on same. Any 6 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 7 right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 12 MS. PIEPER: Thank you. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's go ahead and take up 14 Item 24, as long as we're doing contracts, which is the -- 15 consider and discuss approval of contract between Kerr 16 County and Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution 17 Center, and authorize County Judge to sign same. 18 Ms. Bailey, do you have anything to say on this? 19 MS. BAILEY: No, Your Honor. I've spoken to 20 -- I've spoken to Mr. Motley about it. He presented this as 21 a formal contract, and I believe that we changed all the 22 details that relate specifically to the mediation center. 23 I'm available for any questions, as I'm sure Mr. Motley is, 24 if have you any questions about the contract. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any 10-15-02 73 1 questions of Ms. Bailey or Mr. Motley about this contract? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do not. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the 4 contract. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And authorize County 7 Judge to sign same. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 9 Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 10 approve the contract between Kerr County and the Kerr 11 County -- Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution 12 Center, and authorize County Judge to sign same. All in 13 favor, raise your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 18 MS. BAILEY: Thank you. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Ilse. Item Number 20 11, consider and approve the tax collection contract between 21 Upper Guadalupe River Authority and Kerr County. Paula? 22 MS. RECTOR: Okay. This all came about from 23 a phone call from U.G.R.A.; they could not locate their copy 24 of the contract. These contracts are automatically renewed 25 unless one party or the other chooses not to. There was 10-15-02 74 1 just two changes made in the contract, to include the 2 section of the code that referred to the County Tax 3 Assessor/Collector being able to collect their taxes, and 4 also changing the amount of daily deposits. Those were the 5 only two changes. So, I did rewrite the contract for them. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions of Ms. Rector? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the 8 contract, authorize County Judge to sign same. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 11 Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 12 approve the tax collection contract between Kerr County and 13 the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, and authorize the 14 County Judge to sign the same. Any questions or comments? 15 If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 20 13, consider and discuss reclassification of the Jail 21 Administrator position from 21/1 to a 21/8. Sheriff? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, before he 23 starts, I noticed on here, estimated length of presentation 24 is two minutes. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Start the clock. 10-15-02 75 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we regulate this? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do you want my watch? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got one that 4 works here. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I had mentioned last 6 time about since I had a loss -- unfortunate loss of the 7 Jail Administrator, in trying to replace that person with a 8 qualified person for Jail Administrator, I didn't really 9 have anybody that has been with the department to where I 10 felt was really qualified to step into those shoes. There's 11 just a lot of responsibility and liability in there. So, in 12 checking around, I have hired one that will start tomorrow, 13 the 16th. But in -- and this is what I had brought up; it 14 was hard to hire somebody without knowing what kind of 15 salary that I could offer. This person came from Gillespie 16 County; he was their Jail Administrator. His salary at the 17 current time under their new deal would have been about 18 $31,000 -- between 31 and 32, and that was Gillespie County 19 Jail who only houses about seven inmates. 20 In checking with Kendall County, their Jail 21 Administrator -- and they house about 48 inmates or 22 something like that; we're now housing some of their inmates 23 even for them -- is making close to $35,000. In the Nash 24 study, it just stated that the Jail Administrator should be 25 in the 21 range, and I think I attached a copy of that Nash 10-15-02 76 1 study to that current stuff. And with the duties that that 2 Jail Administrator is doing, especially with more and more 3 liability issues, more and more inspection issues, the fact 4 that our jail nurse makes more than the Jail Administrator, 5 I am asking to where an exception to that and move this 6 person to a 21/8 as a starting salary for him due to his 7 experience as a jail administrator and everything else, 8 putting him at $34,115. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, really, what you're not 10 asking for is reclassification; what you're asking for is an 11 exception to the policy in order to be able to hire this 12 person as a 21/8 instead of a 21/1? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions or comments? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the experience of 16 this individual? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This individual was with 18 Kerr County for a number of years under one of our former 19 Jail Administrators as the assistant administrator, so he 20 understands Kerr County, understands our new jail and our 21 computer system. When he left and went to Gillespie County 22 as their Jail Administrator, they also have the same 23 county-wide computer system in Gillespie County as we have 24 here, so he understands that. He has been through a number 25 of state jail inspections, and -- and also, in this area, he 10-15-02 77 1 knows the inmates that we deal with most of the time. He 2 already knows a lot of them on a first-name basis and that, 3 which does help deal with these people in a serious light, 4 than somebody coming in that doesn't. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're saying that 6 the bottom line -- it has no effect on the bottom line of 7 your budget? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I really don't think 9 there is, because of the number of openings throughout the 10 year that we always have in jails. You know, it's always 11 hard to keep totally staffed for the entire year. Such as 12 right now, the new budget took effect October 1. I've got 13 one of the new positions -- new five positions starting 14 tomorrow also, so that still has left us four open ones 15 since October 1st. And just throughout the year, you're 16 always going to have enough openings to make up that -- that 17 difference in salary. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Until next year. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you'll still 20 have it then, too, because of the openings you have every 21 year in trying to run a jail. Those people move up -- you 22 know, I've promoted several jailers out of the jail onto the 23 streets as officers, and I've had several go to larger 24 counties. You'll always have some openings in the jail. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments? 10-15-02 78 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to say, 2 I just think it's bad -- it's a bad way to run government, 3 to say that I'm going -- there are going to be some people 4 that leave my employment, therefore I have money to pay 5 somebody. I just -- 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I would agree with 7 you, Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not the way we 9 do things. However, I think that this Commissioners Court 10 has to show some kind of faith and trust in -- in you, that 11 you know what you're doing. I -- I do like the fact that 12 the -- I'm going to say that you're right on comparing them 13 with these other counties and what they have done. However, 14 I don't -- I don't like the idea of comparing a jail 15 administrator with a nurse. I think that's a goofy way to 16 think. Just my opinion. But I think that we agreed to 17 doing this in the budget process at some point. I don't 18 remember where the money was going to come from, but I do 19 remember having a conversation and agreeing to -- that we'd 20 come back at a later time when you found somebody or 21 something like that, and so I feel like that we did kind of 22 make a commitment to this thing. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I do agree with 24 you in your comment that it's not good business to have to 25 consider not having a full staff to -- to be able to do 10-15-02 79 1 this, where the money is. But, unfortunately, in jail 2 operation, and ever since I've been with the County over 20 3 years, I don't believe there's ever -- ever been a year that 4 you've had an entire jail staff for the entire year without 5 any openings. You know, if I had somebody that gives notice 6 that they're leaving or anything, then you still have to 7 advertise, you still have to interview, so you're always 8 going to have some time periods in there. It's just a fact 9 that you're going to have some time periods with openings. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what Commissioner 11 Baldwin is probably saying, and I agree with his comment, is 12 that -- I mean, there is a budget impact next year. You 13 can't budget for the assumption you're going to have 14 openings because of turnover. I mean, we just can't do 15 that. That would be a horrible way for us to start trying 16 to do our budget. So, I mean, I -- I can see -- agree that 17 there is probably no budget impact with your request for 18 this year, but in future years there certainly would be a 19 budget impact, because you have to budget for every position 20 being filled all year. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think there very well 22 could be -- could be a budget impact as far as what's on 23 paper, is what you're saying, but then you have the fact of 24 the real dollar -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all that matters. 10-15-02 80 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's a $6,000 2 impact next year automatically, if you keep at the same 3 staffing levels. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's also -- remember that 5 right now we're without an administrator at the jail, and we 6 need to hire a qualified individual. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. 8 I'm not opposed to it. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the single biggest 10 source of liability in this county. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think, based on 12 what your approach is -- I mean, you're using the Nash 13 study. You made a management decision that his experience 14 level puts him to a Level 8 or Grade 8, so, you know -- and 15 this gets the pay where you need it. I understand that. 16 That's -- you know, you picked that Grade 8 for a reason, 17 because that was the salary you needed to get to. But, at 18 the same time, I think that you are justified that he has 19 more experience than a novice would have, and we have 20 done -- maybe not to the extent, but we have done this for 21 many other departments when they bring in a new employee, to 22 set their grade higher than Grade 1. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have a motion to 24 approve the request? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move it. 10-15-02 81 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 3 Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Judge has the 5 authority to second motions. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not this Judge. That the 7 Court approve the hiring of a Jail Administrator at a 21/8 8 as opposed to a 21/1. Any questions or comments? If not, 9 all in favor, raise your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 14, consider and 16 discuss, take affirmative action on Change Order Number 1 in 17 the amount of $65,975 for the Kerrville South Wastewater 18 Collection Project, as recommended by the project engineer. 19 Commissioner Williams. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As the backup says, 21 there were some changes which the Engineering Department, 22 City of Kerrville believed were necessary, on the basis of 23 adding some -- a couple additional manholes and so forth in 24 the project. Changes the bottom line of this specific 25 contract from 301 to 367. It's not going to change the 10-15-02 82 1 entire contract, because we've got "X" number of dollars, 2 and the project's going to go as far as the dollars will 3 take us. So, I would recommend that -- I move approval of 4 the change order as recommended by the engineers. 5 Construction will start as soon as this gets underway, in 6 effect. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that 8 motion. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 10 Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 11 approve Change Order Number 1 in the amount of $65,975 for 12 the Kerrville South Wastewater Collection Project. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And authorize County 14 Judge to sign same. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: And authorize County Judge to 16 sign same. Any questions or comments? If not, all in 17 favor, raise your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 22 15, consider and discuss approving a proclamation 23 proclaiming November 18th through 22nd, Year 2002, as Flood 24 Awareness Week. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 10-15-02 83 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. Attaboy, Jon. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 3 second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve a 4 proclamation proclaiming November 18 through 22, Year 2002, 5 as Flood Awareness Week. Any questions or comments? If 6 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 11 16 is consider and discuss approving a resolution 12 recognizing impact of Zion Lutheran Church congregation 13 during the last hundred years on the social/religious 14 heritage of Kerr County. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The congregation to 16 which I belong has celebrated its 100th anniversary. Did so 17 in 2001, and has been awarded a subject plaque by the Texas 18 Historical Commission, which will be dedicated in the 19 ceremony coming up in about two Sundays from now. And, as a 20 part of this ceremony, they have requested us to resolve in 21 their favor recognizing the contribution of the church to 22 Kerr County as a whole, and so we have prepared this 23 resolution for your consideration. And I would move the 24 resolution. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 10-15-02 84 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 2 Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 3 approve a resolution recognizing the impact of the Zion 4 Lutheran Church congregation during the last 100 years to 5 the social and religious heritage of Kerr County. Any 6 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 7 right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 18, consider and 14 discuss a resolution calling for a more equitable 15 distribution of motor fuels faxes collected by State of 16 Texas. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Haven't we had this 18 one other time? 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: We had a different version of 20 this. We had a version before that called for an increase 21 in the motor fuels tax, which the Court did not approve. 22 This resolution simply calls for a more equitable 23 distribution of the motor fuels tax. I think the most 24 striking thing that comes from the information which is 25 presented is the fact that, in 1972, a total of $7,300,000 10-15-02 85 1 was allocated to the 254 counties in the state of Texas for 2 local, county-maintained road maintenance. In the year 3 2002, the total sum of $7,300,000 was allocated to 254 4 counties in the state of Texas for the same purpose. Not 5 only has that percentage not gone up, the amount of money 6 has stayed the same for almost 30 years now. And there is a 7 major push underway to recognize county roads are the basis 8 of the statewide and even national road system, and that 9 there needs to be more equitable funding of the road -- 10 roads in the state of Texas. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 14 second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve a 15 resolution calling for more equitable distribution of motor 16 fuels taxes collected by the State of Texas. Any questions 17 or 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. Okay. Item 22 19, consider and discuss ratification of application for 23 West Nile virus Surveillance and Public Education funding, 24 and adoption of a joint program with the City of Kerrville. 25 This is one of those deals that came in after our last 10-15-02 86 1 meeting and had to be submitted by September 25th. It's a 2 -- it's funding through the Texas Department of Health for 3 West Nile surveillance and education. When I received this, 4 I knew that the County, per se, did not have personnel and 5 equipment to be involved in this, but I knew the City did 6 and was involved in that. I discussed it with Ron 7 Patterson, and we made the executive decision we would go 8 ahead and approve for the funding subject to, I would say, 9 approval by the Court. Subsequent to that, Mr. Patterson 10 has prepared a -- a proposal for use of those funds, which I 11 distributed to everyone late last week. Basically, the 12 program calls for the City to be the clearinghouse where any 13 citizen in the county could call in and report a mosquito 14 problem; City personnel would be dispensed to examine the 15 area in question and locate it on a map with GIS, and also 16 provide information, training, and assistance in treating 17 the problem area. The funding which would be received would 18 be used to train staff and volunteers, purchase the GPS 19 unit, and proceed with the program. The program cannot, 20 itself, be used for mitigation. It's only a surveillance 21 and education funding program. I understand that I jumped 22 out a little bit ahead of the Court in taking this action, 23 but it was either move or lose out on it. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm glad you did. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, what I'd like to have you 10-15-02 87 1 to do today is to ratify the application, and if the outline 2 of the program is acceptable, then move forward to actually 3 prepare an agreement with the City for this joint program. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the City's willing to 5 take this on county-wide? 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. I think it's a 8 good program. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we not -- we're 10 not going to participate staff-wise in any way? Or -- 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: The -- since the City already 12 has people on staff who do this, this is a mechanism whereby 13 their services will be provided county-wide. We really 14 don't have anybody in any of our various programs that is 15 knowledgeable or trained in this area, so unless we want to 16 step up and create a position and a program, I think this is 17 a better use of the funds. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Well, I 19 certainly am in favor of it, and I appreciate you taking the 20 step. I see what -- I know exactly what you're saying, and 21 I appreciate you doing that. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a motion to ratify 23 the application -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course not. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- and the program proposal, 10-15-02 88 1 and to move forward to agreement with the City? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 5 second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court ratify the 6 application for West Nile Virus Surveillance and Public 7 Education funding, approve the joint program proposal, and 8 authorize the County Judge to move forward with preparing an 9 agreement for Commissioners Court approval with the City on 10 the surveillance program. Any questions or comments? If 11 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is 16 Item Number 20, consider and discuss authorizing County 17 Judge to brief the Kerrville City Council on plans to 18 renovate/expand the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center and 19 request participation by the City of Kerrville. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 23 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 24 authorize the County Judge to brief the Kerrville City 25 Council on plans to renovate and expand the Hill Country 10-15-02 89 1 Youth Exhibit Center and to request participation by the 2 City of Kerrville. Questions or comments? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Do we want to 4 leave that open-ended, to participation anywhere? Or narrow 5 it down to what we've -- I guess, you know, I've talked 6 about -- I've talked about this with some of them one-on-one 7 about participation in the exhibit hall portion. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My sense, it would be 9 limited to exhibit hall. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, to me, that's 11 cleaner that way. But -- 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sounds good to me. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if they want -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they want to give us 15 money for anything, that's fine. But, I mean, specifically, 16 you know, that's where -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Targeting. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we're targeting their 19 participation. That's just a direction -- a directional 20 comment. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: So taken. Any other 22 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 23 right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 10-15-02 90 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know when that's 4 going to be, Judge? 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll have to write to them 6 and ask them to get on the agenda. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you'll just let us 8 know when, copy everyone so we can -- 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Probably, I would guess it 10 would be the first meeting in November. But that's my 11 guess. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Item 21, consider and discuss 14 ratification of a proclamation declaring October 12th, Year 15 2002, as Rod Kennedy Day. This was done at the request of a 16 number of individuals. And, again, it was one of those 17 things where there was not time to bring it to the Court in 18 advance, so I ask your indulgence in ratifying my signature. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 22 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 23 ratify a proclamation declaring October 12, Year 2001, as 24 Rod Kennedy Day. Any other questions or comments? If not, 25 all in favor, raise your right hand. 10-15-02 91 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We're going 5 to do all of the remaining items that don't require 6 Executive Session; we'll come back to 22 and 23. The next 7 item is Item 25, which is on the first addendum. Consider 8 and discuss applying for an extension of time for compliance 9 with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 10 Act. Commissioner Letz prompted me to place this on the 11 agenda. I requested the County Attorney to advise us as to 12 whether we were covered by this or not. I have -- haven't 13 got any response. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I recall, this came -- 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: From TAC. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- from TAC. And it just 17 seems that it may have some consequences, so that the best 18 thing to do is to request an extension, which gives us 19 another two years, it seems like, to make a decision if we 20 can find out if we have to do anything or not with this. 21 So, I'll make a motion that we apply for an extension of 22 time for compliance with the Health Care Portability and 23 Accountability Act. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that 25 motion, but I have a question. 10-15-02 92 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 2 second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court apply for an 3 extension to time for compliance with the Health Insurance 4 Portability and Accountability Act. Question by 5 Commissioner Baldwin. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You were saying 7 something, and I couldn't -- I didn't hear all of it, 8 something about you haven't received an answer back from 9 your question. From who? 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: The County Attorney. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you ask the County 12 Attorney about it? 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: The memo is in the -- in the 14 backup. I sent this to him, asked him to advise the 15 Commissioners Court as to any action the Court should 16 consider, and have not received any response from him. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kind of serious 18 business here, it appears to me. Seems like we would get 19 better participation in this. But I'm ready to vote. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All in favor, raise 21 your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We'll go on 10-15-02 93 1 to the second addendum, Item Number 26. Consider and 2 discuss authorizing County Judge to make a statement in 3 support of the Holdsworth Drive construction project at the 4 TexDOT public hearing to be held Wednesday, October 16, Year 5 2002, at 6:30 p.m. This is pursuant to a request from Bill 6 Tucker, the TexDOT engineer, who has requested that someone 7 appear on behalf of the County to make a statement in 8 support of the Holdsworth Drive construction project. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Before you do, please, 11 Bill, I'm going to be there also. I'm going to be there at 12 this, too. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to move 14 it? I forgot it was in your precinct, I'm sorry. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Would you like to make the 16 statement in support? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Along with you. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was his request. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in my precinct, too. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, sort of. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you two can -- can 23 represent my interest, I'm sure. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a motion? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 10-15-02 94 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to move for 2 approval. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner 4 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 5 authorize the County Judge to make a statement in support of 6 the Holdsworth Drive construction project at the TexDOT 7 public hearing to be held Wednesday, October 16, Year 2002, 8 at 6:30 p.m. Any questions or comments? If not, all in 9 favor, raise your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 14 27, consider and discuss the selection of representation for 15 Kerr County in the lawsuit of Caldwell vs. Rylander. I 16 think that I distributed to each of you a copy of the 17 petition in this matter. This is a suit brought by -- I 18 won't say that, 'cause it's going to be on the record -- an 19 attorney in Austin as a class action suit, claiming that the 20 additional fee collected by 86 counties in the state of 21 Texas to provide a supplement to the County Court at Law 22 Judges is unconstitutional. A number of the counties are 23 entering into a joint defense agreement with the firm of -- 24 Jim Allison's law firm, including partial funding by Texas 25 Association of Counties. The question is, does Kerr County 10-15-02 95 1 want to be part of that joint defense effort? Which would 2 obligate us to pay any expenses incurred above the $25,000 3 contributed by TAC on a proportionate basis, determined by 4 population. I don't know what anybody thinks. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably the most 6 economical representation we could get. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, no. Actually, the most 8 economical representation would be to have the County 9 Attorney's office do it. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's true. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: That is actually what I would 12 suggest. But what's the pleasure of the Court? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm agreeing with you. 14 Third -- the third paragraph here -- 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: We did submit this to our 16 insurance carrier. Coverage was denied. I think I passed 17 out to everyone this morning that fax I received today. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any feel for what our 19 exposure might be? Costs? 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's basically open-ended. I 21 mean, that's -- you don't know. I mean, if the -- if the 22 plaintiff's attorney decides to depose the County Clerk in 23 each of the 86 counties, you're going to run up some 24 substantial bills on that. And since the plaintiff's 25 attorney is going to get paid a percentage of the 10-15-02 96 1 recoveries, we won't necessarily know what the cost's going 2 to be. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the idea -- I 4 mean, it is good to go with the County Attorney; I agree 5 with that. I make a motion that we -- what's the agenda 6 item? I make a motion that we request the County Attorney 7 to represent us in the lawsuit Caldwell vs. Rylander. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 10 second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court request that 11 the County Attorney's office represent Kerr County in the 12 litigation entitled Caldwell vs. Rylander. Any questions or 13 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. The 18 two items remaining have been requested for Executive 19 Session, so at this time, the Kerr County Commissioners 20 court will go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 21 551.0745 of the Texas Government Code and Section 551.074 of 22 the Texas Government Code. 23 (The open session was closed at 10:17 a.m., and an Executive Session was held, the 24 transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) 25 - - - - - - - - - - 10-15-02 97 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Having completed the 2 Executive Session, the Commissioners Court will now return 3 to open session and take up first Item 2.22, consider and 4 discuss the appointment of a Kerr County 911 Board member. 5 Commissioner Baldwin, do you have a motion to make? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I do, Judge. 7 Thank you. I move that we appoint Mr. Walter B. Harris, 8 Jr., to the Kerr County Emergency 911 Network Board to 9 represent Kerr County Commissioners Court. That's all. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a second? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 13 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court appoint 14 Mr. Walter B. Harris, Jr., to serve as the -- as one of the 15 County's representatives to the Kerr County Emergency 911 16 Board of Directors. Any questions or comments? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd just like 18 to say that Commissioner Griffin and myself interviewed this 19 gentleman, and what -- we were surprised that there were so 20 many great qualified folks that are coming forward and 21 willing to serve the citizens of Kerr County. That's all. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Any other questions or 23 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 10-15-02 98 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 3 23, consider and discuss hiring a part-time Kerr County 4 Address Coordinator. Commissioner Baldwin again. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Again, Judge, thank 6 you. Commissioner Griffin and I met and interviewed around 7 20 applicants for this position, and we have selected and 8 present to you here today Mr. Jim Bullock of Kerrville as 9 the Kerr County Address Coordinator. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 12 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court appoint 13 Mr. Jim Bullock as the part-time Kerr County Address 14 Coordinator. Any questions or comments? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Again, we had so many 16 great -- I mean, this was difficult, because there were some 17 really, really fine candidates for this position. But it 18 boiled down to -- we felt like that Mr. Bullock was going to 19 be the guy that releases this logjam of information to go 20 through the post office and telephone companies and 21 addressing and all those kind of things. He's the guy that 22 can get those things done. And it took -- it took -- I was 23 really thankful for Commissioner Griffin to get off into the 24 computer programs and those kind of things. But, anyway, we 25 feel like that this is our guy. 10-15-02 99 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 2 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Unless 7 there's something else to come before this Court, we stand 8 adjourned. 9 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:32 a.m.) 10 - - - - - - - - - - 11 12 STATE OF TEXAS | 13 COUNTY OF KERR | 14 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 15 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 16 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 17 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 18 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 21st day of October, 19 2002. 20 21 22 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 23 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 10-15-02