1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, January 27, 2003 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X January 27, 2003 2 PAGE --- Visitors' Input 3 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 5 --- Approval agenda 6 4 2.1 Resolution by Kerr County Commissioners Court 5 in support of two Bills to be presented to Texas State Legislature regarding Headwaters & U.G.R.A. 20 6 2.2 Request by Friends of the Union Church to approve 7 grant request to be submitted to L.C.R.A. 22 8 2.3 Reduce county registration fees to $1 during annual rabies drive, February 1-15, 2003 31 9 2.4 Approve contract reviewed by County Attorney for 10 reconstruction of Sheppard Rees Road 33 11 2.5 Alternate plat approval for revision of plat for Lots 43 & 44A, Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I 36 12 2.6 Alternate plat approval for revision of plat for 13 Tracts 13A, 13B, 14A & 14B of Y.O. Ranchlands 38 14 2.7 Ratification of signatures by county officials on conformed copy of Riverhill Country Club easement 41 15 2.8 Discuss having February 24th Commissioners Court 16 meeting at Union Church 45 17 2.9 Consider, discuss, & take appropriate action on Change Order #2, requested & approved by engineer 18 for Kerrville South Wastewater Project 53, 131 19 2.10 Consider, discuss, & take appropriate action on revisions to Interlocal Agreement between Kerr 20 County & U.G.R.A. for Kerrville South Wastewater Project covering current/pending/future projects 59, 76 21 2.11 Status of temporary bridge for Hermann Sons Road 69 22 2.12 Consider, discuss, take appropriate action to 23 suspend Section 10 of O.S.S.F. Rules through July 31, 2003 101 24 5.3 First Responder program report by Kyle Young 137 Kerr County RC&D status report by Bertha Venegas 143 25 Collections Department report by Brad Alford 146 --- Adjourned 153 3 1 On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a special 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 TINLEY: Okay. I'll call the meeting 8 to order, special Commissioners Court meeting for Monday, 9 January the 27th at 9 a.m. local time. It is that time, and 10 I will first ask for any visitor who's present here this 11 morning who has anything to speak about that is not on the 12 agenda. Items which are on the agenda -- if you have items 13 that are on the agenda that you want to be heard on, why, I 14 would ask that -- we'll get to those in just a moment, but 15 first I'd like to call on Commissioners Bill Williams, 16 Commissioner Precinct 2, to lead us in our opening prayer. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought you were 18 going to let me off the hook, Judge. Please rise and join 19 me in a moment of prayer and the pledge of allegiance to the 20 flag. 21 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Those of you that 23 do have items that are on the agenda that you want to be 24 heard on, I would ask that you fill out a -- a speaking 25 participation form; they're at the back. I'd urge you to do 1-27-03 4 1 so, so that we can be sure and recognize you when we get to 2 that item. Now, with respect to items which are not on the 3 agenda, if there's anybody here present that has anything 4 they want to say, I'd ask for you to please come forward. 5 Mr. Walter Harris? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The honorable Colonel 7 Walter Harris. 8 MR. HARRIS: Morning, Judge. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir. 10 MR. HARRIS: Right now, today, you people 11 gave me the honor of being put on this 911 Board. I'm not 12 sure what kind of an honor that is, but we have just hired a 13 new director of the 911 District. I brought him over here 14 today, Mr. Bill Armrine -- Amerine. I got it right. 15 MR. AMERINE: There you go. 16 MR. HARRIS: And he's on duty. Today is his 17 first day. Don't ask him any questions; we're not going to 18 answer any questions. We're going to get out of here and go 19 to work. Thank you very much, sir. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Luckily for you, Colonel 21 Harris, we can't engage in any discourse, so we're precluded 22 from doing that anyway. Welcome aboard, Bill. 23 MR. AMERINE: Thank you. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you coming by. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill assured me that 1-27-03 5 1 he will get a haircut before he gets too much longer. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he certainly needs it. 3 Is there anybody else that has anything that they'd like to 4 offer? Any ideas or comments on matters that are not on the 5 agenda? There being no one else to speak on matters not on 6 the agenda, we'll move forward with Commissioners' Comments. 7 We'll start with Commissioner Williams. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go Tampa Bay. That's 9 it, Judge. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That's it? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any comments 12 this morning. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have any 14 comments. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Football game between 16 the west coast and Florida, who cares -- who really cares 17 about that thing? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Florida. I 20 wanted to remind Commissioners Court and all the public that 21 we have a public hearing tomorrow morning at 11 a.m. in this 22 courtroom with the old T.N.R.C.C. T.C.E.Q. will be here to 23 talk about the O.S.S.F. -- state O.S.S.F. rules and 24 regulations. That's 11 o'clock, and we want to invite -- I 25 have invited U.G.R.A. to come, and I think the format is 1-27-03 6 1 going to be to where they will address the Commissioners 2 Court and we'll just have a nice little country-boy visit 3 with them about some of the rules and regulations, and then 4 if it's -- if it's necessary, then I think that we will 5 probably, later on, sit down and visit with other agencies 6 in the county if -- if necessary, if we see that we need to. 7 That's all. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: As Commissioner Baldwin said, 9 this is -- I believe it's actually termed a workshop, isn't 10 it? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, it is a 12 workshop. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Any of you folks that have an 14 interest in the O.S.S.F. issues, we'd invite you to be here. 15 If you know anybody else that -- that has an interest in 16 that, why, urge them to come and -- and be with us then, and 17 we welcome that. I don't have anything specific other than 18 that, so let's get on down to regular business. First item 19 up for consideration is payment of the bills. Mr. Auditor. 20 Mr. Tomlinson. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Good morning. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: We do have bills. I think 24 you have a list of those. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As a matter of fact, 1-27-03 7 1 for a two-week period, it's $397,000. Which is every two 2 weeks. That's the way life is, and I move we pay that. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made by 5 Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, 6 that we pay the bills as presented by the Auditor. Is there 7 any discussion? Being no discussion, all those in favor of 8 the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item on 13 the agenda are budget amendments. We have Budget Amendment 14 Number 1 from the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Tomlinson. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. This -- this amendment 16 is a request from the Sheriff to transfer $209.17 from his 17 Operating Equipment line item to Capital Outlay. It's to 18 pay a $10,722.56 payment for Ford Motor Credit, and this is 19 the first -- first payment on a 2003 Ford Expedition. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: For the purchase of -- of 22 vehicles in the budget. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The payment on -- 24 payment on all cars, or just one? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Just that one, the one 1-27-03 8 1 vehicle. We've already made the payments on the others. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made by 4 Commissioner Letz that we approve Budget Amendment Number 1. 5 Do I hear a second? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Seconded by Commissioner 8 Nicholson. Any discussion? Being no discussion, all in 9 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 14 Amendment Number 2. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: This request is from Judge 16 Brown in the County Court at Law to transfer $200 from 17 Court-Appointed Attorney line item for special court 18 reporter in his -- in his budget. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made by Commissioner 22 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that Budget 23 Amendment Request Number 2 be approved. Any discussion? 24 Being none, all in favor, raise your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 1-27-03 9 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 4 Amendment Request Number 3 from the County Treasurer. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: This request is from the 6 Treasurer's office to transfer $219.98 from Nondepartmental 7 Contingency to Operating Equipment for the replacement of a 8 monitor for a computer. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made by Commissioner 12 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, to approve Budget 13 Amendment Request Number 3. Is there any questions or 14 discussion? I have a question. We're moving out of general 15 non -- our general contingency fund over into the County 16 Treasurer's office? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's correct. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The County Treasurer 19 did not indicate there were any other line items within the 20 Treasurer's office that could be utilized to absorb that? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: In the budgetary process in 22 the past, we -- the Court has -- has put enough funds -- or 23 part of the contingency is for the purpose of replacing 24 computer equipment that we don't -- that we don't budget in 25 the normal course of the budget for individual offices, so 1-27-03 10 1 that's -- that's a standard move. I mean, as far as the 2 replacement or emergency replacement of computer parts. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you saying this is more in 4 the nature of a capital outlay? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: It's not a capital outlay. 6 It's -- it's -- because its under $1,000, but it's for -- 7 it's for that purpose, is to -- to replace equipment for our 8 computer system. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion's been made and 10 seconded. Any further discussion? Being no discussion -- 11 no further discussion, all in favor, signify by raising your 12 right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. We'll go to 17 Budget Amendment Request Number 4. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: With this, I also have late 19 bills that I need hand checks for. This amendment is for -- 20 for the payment of renewal for our auto property coverage, 21 our auto liability coverage, and our general property 22 coverage for county-wide. This covers the following 23 departments: Nondepartmental, Courthouse and Related 24 Buildings, County Jail, Sheriff's Department, Juvenile 25 Probation, Rabies and Animal Control, the Youth Exhibition 1-27-03 11 1 Center, and Road and Bridge. My -- the first part of this 2 is to transfer $1,908 from Autopsy and Inquest line item to 3 Property Insurance in Nondepartmental. Transferring $311 4 from Major Repairs in the Courthouse Maintenance budget, 5 into the Insurance line item. The next part is to transfer 6 $535 from Jailer Salaries to Insurance for the building and 7 the jail. The next -- next we have -- we're asking for a 8 $6,352 transfer from Deputy Salaries to Vehicle Insurance 9 for the Sheriff's Office. For Juvenile Probation, we're 10 asking for a transfer of $37 from Miscellaneous to Vehicle 11 Insurance. Next we have a transfer of $188 from Vehicle 12 Gas, Oil, and Maintenance from -- from Animal Control, or -- 13 to Insurance in that department. Next we're transferring 14 $390 from Major Repairs to Insurance at the Ag Barn. And 15 last, we have a transfer of $2,573 from Workers Comp -- 16 excuse me -- to Vehicle Insurance for the Road and Bridge. 17 The total of -- of these payments is $43,037 for property 18 coverage and $26,956 for physical damage coverage for our -- 19 our vehicles, and the last one is $16,077 for our liability 20 coverage for our vehicles. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This all relates to the 22 -- the new insurance we got? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: This is renewal, effective 24 January 1st. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: What are those first two 1-27-03 12 1 numbers again? 43 what? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: $43,037. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that was for what? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: It's for property coverage. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Property damage? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Casualty, okay. And what was 8 the second number? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: It's $26,956. It's for 10 automotive physical damage. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Physical damage? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. And the last is for 13 $16,077. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: $16,077? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's liability? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: That's for liability. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: We had enough budgeted in the 20 line items for our general liability renewal and our public 21 officials renewal, so there's no need -- was no need for a 22 budget amendment for that, but they are being paid at this 23 time. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The total budget of 25 the insurance items that we're transferring to appear to be 1-27-03 13 1 about $70,000, the total amount that we're transferring to 2 it. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: It's $12,000 -- yeah, 4 $12,294. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just a few months 6 into the fiscal year. That seems like a large change. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, at budget time, it's 8 difficult to know four months or three months before the 9 renewal date what -- you know, what our cost is going to be. 10 So, we're estimating, you know, at budget time what the 11 increases would be, and so the way -- the way we budget it 12 is to just anticipate a percentage increase and apply that 13 to our historical numbers, come up with a budget. 14 Various -- part of the increase in department coverage is 15 due to -- to the increases in value. I mean, we have -- we 16 have a million dollars in equipment, new; that's for the 17 Sheriff's radio system. So -- so, that all -- that million 18 dollars is subject to -- to coverage, and so that -- that is 19 part of the increase for property coverage. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, as a matter of 21 course at budget time, do you take the -- just for being 22 able to predict the future, do you take the increase, like 23 this one, the percentage of this one that we know we're 24 adjusting for, will that be the basis of what you'll predict 25 for the next budget year? 1-27-03 14 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. We -- we do a 2 percentage based on what we've actually paid, and we try to 3 get our underwriter to give us some -- some indication of -- 4 you know, of what their increases will be, you know, 5 overall. But that's somewhat difficult to do. And a lot of 6 times, they don't know either. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just one comment. Can 9 we blame this on the lawyers? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Try. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I think it's 12 the lawyers' fault that this is going up; it's not ours. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the -- 14 of Budget Amendment 4. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize hand 17 checks. That's it, authorize hand checks. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you asking for hand 19 checks? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And to whom? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: To Texas Association of 23 Counties. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And in each of the 25 three amounts indicated? 1-27-03 15 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: And any amounts not covered in 3 this budget amendment are included within bills previously 4 authorized to be paid? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: I did -- I did visit with -- 8 this is a -- a positive note. The representative from Texas 9 Association of Counties was here last week, and we are -- we 10 are receiving a 20 percent discount on our worker's comp for 11 this next renewal, and it's because of our -- our 12 experience. We've had a good experience. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would seem, 14 however, what TAC giveth, TAC taketh away. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's correct. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 18 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, 19 that we approve Budget Amendment Request Number 4, and 20 authorize hand checks to Texas Association of Counties in 21 the amounts of $43,037 for property coverage, $26,956 for 22 automobile physical damage coverage, and $16,077 for 23 liability coverage on vehicles. Any further discussion or 24 comments or questions? Being none, all in favor of the 25 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 1-27-03 16 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 5 Amendment Request Number 5. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: This is for the County 7 Attorney. And it also involves insurance, but it's 8 liability insurance for -- for the County Attorney. He's 9 asking to transfer $502 from Attorney's Fees, $468 to go to 10 insurance -- Liability Insurance line item, and $34 for 11 Software Maintenance. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 15 second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve 16 Budget Amendment Request Number 5. Any discussion or 17 questions? Being none, all in favor, raise your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Do we have a 22 Budget Amendment Request Number 6? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. This is a request to -- 24 actually, to transfer cash from the General Fund to the Lake 25 Ingram Estates Road District fund for $3,800. There's a -- 1-27-03 17 1 a bond -- not a bond -- I guess it's a bond payment due, and 2 we have not collected a sufficient amount of tax dollars 3 through the road district to make that payment. So, I'm -- 4 my request is to transfer the $3,800 to -- from -- in cash 5 from the General Fund to the Lake Ingram Estates Road 6 District, and also, at the same time, I'm asking for -- for 7 transfer back to the General Fund when those taxes are 8 collected. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, it's taxes that 10 just are not collected now, but will be collected? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We hope. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We hope. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, does this 15 require -- you know, are we talking about declaring an 16 emergency? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: No, no, no. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not going into 19 the -- 20 MR. TOMLINSON: No, we're not. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where does it actually 22 -- what line -- oh, I see the line items. Forgive me, I see 23 it. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: This is a -- this fund, this 25 is an interest and sinking fund, and I just don't want to 1-27-03 18 1 see that be overdrawn. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we 3 approve Budget Amendment Number 6. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I second that 5 motion. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 7 seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Baldwin, 8 respectively, that Budget Amendment Request Number 6 be 9 approved. Is there any further discussion or questions? 10 Being none, all in favor, signify by raising your right 11 hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 Motion carries. I believe that gets us down to late bills, 15 doesn't it? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have any. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: No late bills? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, okay. There is one. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: We do have a late bill. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: I overlooked it. Actually, 21 it was for the first budget amendment, for payment to Ford 22 Motor Credit. I didn't include that, so I'm -- I overlooked 23 that one, but I do need a hand check for that. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 1-27-03 19 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the amount? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: It's for $10,722.56. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: $10,722.56? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you make that motion? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill did. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion's been made and 9 seconded by Commissioners Williams and Letz, respectively, 10 that the Court approve a -- a late bill or a late payment 11 and hand check to Ford Motor Credit for the sum of 12 $10,722.56. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify 13 by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Okay. Do we 18 have any monthly reports that need attention? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept and 20 approve the reports. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As presented. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As presented. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that 24 motion. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 1-27-03 20 1 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, 2 that we approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. 3 Is there any discussion or questions? Being none, all in 4 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. It appears 9 that we are now to the consideration agenda. Ae we all on 10 the same page here? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. At least I'm on the 13 right page. First item on the consideration agenda is 14 consider and discuss a resolution by Kerr County 15 Commissioners Court in support of two bills to be presented 16 at Texas State Legislature regarding Headwaters and U.G.R.A. 17 And I think Commissioner Baldwin has a report. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I have a 19 couple of comments, and possibly you might have some comment 20 or two after I get through. But all I wanted to say was 21 that the -- this was planned to happen, but the way the 22 machine up in Austin works, a Representative -- in this 23 case, Representative Hilderbran -- takes a thought and an 24 idea to a body of -- I think attorneys, probably, that are 25 known as the Legislative Council, and they turn that 1-27-03 21 1 paperwork in and they simply go through and make sure it's 2 not a duplicate bill and the verbiage is -- you know, put it 3 in a bill-type form and just kind of clean it up and get it 4 back to him. That has not happened. They have had it for 5 ample time, plenty of time to get it back over here, but it 6 has not come out of Legislative Council back to him in order 7 for him to get it to us. I went ahead and put it on the 8 agenda last week, just in case some miracle happened and it 9 got down here, but it didn't show. And I -- I've asked -- 10 I've told Representative Hilderbran last week that we would 11 really need a copy of that bill for us to read. I mean, 12 that they shouldn't expect us to vote on something that -- 13 that we haven't read and that we don't understand, and our 14 attorneys haven't looked over and blessed, et cetera. And 15 he understands that clearly. So, it was just -- I may have 16 jumped the gun here a little bit of putting it on the 17 agenda, but I don't think I did. But, anyway, it's the 18 lawyer's fault. You knew I'd get to that eventually. 19 That's all I wanted to say. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I knew you'd come down to that 21 last conclusion, of course, Commissioners Baldwin. I talked 22 with Representative Hilderbran this morning -- earlier this 23 morning, and he indicated that as soon as the matter came 24 out of Legislative Council, that he would forward it over 25 here for us for consideration. So, we're awaiting that, and 1-27-03 22 1 at this point, there's nothing to present for the Court's 2 consideration. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody else have any 5 other comments, thoughts, ideas with regard to that 6 particular item? If not, we'll move -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't know -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I suppose we don't 10 know enough about that process to be able to reschedule that 11 item? We can't determine -- we can't know that we're going 12 to have it here for the next meeting? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. We 14 will await his phone call. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: By the same token, I'm not 16 sure that we don't know that this will be available, and 17 certainly, any member of this Court has the right to place 18 this same or similar item on the agenda for next time. We 19 may be in the same situation that we are now, or we may have 20 something. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll probably go that 22 route. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that 24 particular item? Let's go to Item 2.2, consideration and 25 discuss a request by Friends of the Union Church for 1-27-03 23 1 approval of a grant request to be submitted to the L.C.R.A, 2 Lower Colorado River Authority, and authorize the County 3 Judge to sign the same. I'm not sure who caused that to be 4 placed on the agenda. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it was -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dr. Rector. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Dr. Rector. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And General 9 Schellhase. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. Ms. Dyke, 11 you're here on Dr. Rector's behalf? 12 MS. DYKE: Yes, Dr. Rector called this 13 morning and said that he's not going to be able to be here, 14 and he requested that I represent him this morning. Okay. 15 You're probably all familiar with the fact that the Kerr 16 County Historical Commission has been in the process of 17 restoring the old Union Church building, which is located on 18 the Schreiner campus. In fact, we've even had a dedication 19 service that was held on Christmas Eve, and we've turned the 20 keys over to the County, and you are -- the County is the 21 actual owner of the building. This request this morning is 22 for -- it's from the Friends, which has been the fundraising 23 arm for Kerr County Historical Commission to raise the 24 moneys for this restoration, and we are at this time 25 submitting a proposal to the Lower Colorado River Authority 1-27-03 24 1 for our final funds to complete the project. We have a list 2 of projects that total $21,173, and this -- I've been in 3 contact with Lori Vitek at the Lower Colorado River 4 Authority, and she says that the -- that Kerr County, as the 5 legal owner of the property, needs to submit the grant 6 application. So, that's what we're here for this morning, 7 is to request that you approve application of this grant 8 proposal for these funds. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sue, this will be the 10 amount necessary, in the opinion of the Friends of the Union 11 Church, to finish the project? 12 MS. DYKE: I've just -- I've been in contact 13 with Ann Bethel, and she and I spent quite a bit of time 14 last night on the telephone finishing up the final numbers 15 on this, and then she called Julius, and we're -- this -- I 16 have a list here of things that are on there. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the grant request 18 is going to be for -- do you know the exact amount yet? 19 MS. DYKE: Well, it's going to be for a 20 range -- we don't have the actual number right now, but it's 21 going to be between $15,900 and $17,000. So, that's what 22 we're requesting that their approval be for, in that range. 23 And what we come up with is $21,173. But the Friends have 24 on-hand cash that will -- for the required 20 percent match 25 of that, so the actual grant will be less $4,235, this 1-27-03 25 1 amount. So, the Friends will supply that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know which 3 L.C.R.A. grant program this is coming out of? 4 MS. DYKE: The Community Partnership grant. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Community Partnership. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Seems to be a shame to hear 7 this project's been ongoing for a number of years, and here 8 you're about to the end, and now, belatedly, grant funds 9 become available. It would have been great if those had 10 been available earlier. 11 MS. DYKE: Well, we've tried -- in fact, this 12 is probably the third round that we've -- where we've 13 submitted funds to L.C.R.A. before, but they have somewhat 14 of an unwritten policy that they will fund projects at the 15 end, and that's why this is -- this particular proposal's 16 going in at this time, because we consider this to be the 17 final amount needed to finish the project. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Then, you have made 19 application previously for -- 20 MS. DYKE: Yes, we have, and they've been 21 declined. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But your other grant 23 funds were approved? 24 MS. DYKE: We've had other grant -- well, the 25 total project has been over $200,000, so -- and all -- and, 1-27-03 26 1 really, Kerr County citizens should be very pleased with 2 what's happened on this, because that's all local funds. 3 And -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're -- 5 MS. DYKE: Except for just the -- some recent 6 grant funds that we got out of Dallas, and -- but that's 7 been done by fundraising projects and mailouts. And you've 8 probably seen that also; an insert in your -- your telephone 9 bill, and then all kinds of plates -- historical plates, 10 calendar -- historical calendar. So, it's been a three-year 11 effort, and they're really -- the Friends should be 12 commended for persevering on this and seeing that happens. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: You're more confident of the 14 approval of this particular request because of the policy 15 of -- of -- 16 MS. DYKE: Yes. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the funding at the tail end 18 of a project? 19 MS. DYKE: I do feel more confident about 20 this one, I certainly do. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well I certainly hope -- 22 MS. DYKE: I do too. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that confidence is 24 justified. 25 MS. DYKE: Well, I hope so. And you just 1-27-03 27 1 never know about grant proposals. That's just the way it 2 goes. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move 4 that Kerr County approve the application to Friends of the 5 Union Church for a grant from the Lower Colorado River 6 Authority for the purpose of finishing the Union Church 7 building. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: And authorize the signature of 9 the County Judge? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And authorize County 11 Judge to sign same, yes, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 13 MS. DYKE: Right. I do need to add one other 14 thing; that we had hoped to get this approved earlier, but 15 now we're really close to the deadline. The deadline is -- 16 the proposal needs to be in Austin by 5 o'clock on Friday -- 17 this Friday afternoon, so we're going to need to have this 18 done -- are you going to be available this week to sign? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Far as I know, I'm going to be 20 here all week, ma'am. 21 MS. DYKE: Okay. We'll bring the proposal 22 by, then, and have you sign the final draft on that. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need to specify in the 24 motion the amount of $21,000 or some lesser amount, 25 possibly? I -- I'm not certain that -- 1-27-03 28 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to 2 specify an amount? You are? 3 MS. DYKE: Oh, yes. The proposal will have a 4 definite amount. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the number? 6 MS. DYKE: And I gave you a range here of 7 $15,900 to $17,000, just so that we have a little leeway 8 here when we're doing our actual draft here. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What number should I 10 include in the motion? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the highest amount that 12 you -- 13 MS. DYKE: $17,000 is the highest amount. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Seventeen? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Up to $17,000. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, wait, I have a 18 question. Sue, the grant amount will be for $21,173, and 19 then 20 percent grant is included in that? Or 20 percent 20 match, so the total -- 21 MS. DYKE: The grant amount will be for the 22 21, and then the -- yeah -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's try it again. 24 MS. DYKE: $21,173, and then we have a 25 20 percent match. 1-27-03 29 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the amount of 2 $21,173. 3 MS. DYKE: But we're not requesting that 4 amount. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 MS. DYKE: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And your motion -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Includes that number. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- includes that number? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And a range of other 12 numbers. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Not to exceed. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the motion -- one 15 thing I want to make clear is that the motion -- or that the 16 Friends of the Historical Commission are putting up the 17 20 percent match required under the grant. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. Let 19 the record reflect that. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion's been made and 22 seconded by Commissioners Williams and Letz, respectively, 23 that the Court approve Kerr County applying for a -- a grant 24 to the Lower Colorado River Authority for completion of the 25 Union Church project in an amount not to exceed $21,173, 1-27-03 30 1 with the stipulation that any matching grant portion, 2 believed to be 20 percent, be provided by the Friends of 3 Union Church, and the County Judge be authorized to sign 4 said application. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Any discussion or questions? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just discussion. 8 I'm glad -- this is a worthwhile community project, and I'm 9 glad that we're going to be able to get this money, perhaps. 10 I am surprised, however, that a river authority and a public 11 utility has these kinds of funds to distribute for this 12 grant money. Doesn't seem like it's in the best interest of 13 the ratepayers to be in the business of making grants for 14 public projects, but I'll vote for it. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're required by law 16 to make the grants. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not surprised. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Being no further discussion, 22 all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 1-27-03 31 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Okay. Next 2 item of business, consider and discuss reducing county 3 registration fees to $1 during the annual rabies drive from 4 February 1st through February 15th of this year. We've got 5 Mr. Allen with us from the Animal Control. 6 MR. ALLEN: This is our annual drive. It 7 will start this Saturday. Saturday, we'll have four 8 different veterinarians in different parts of the county: 9 Ingram Fire Department, Center Point Fire Department, Turtle 10 Creek Fire -- that's Community Center, Cypress Creek, and 11 then the Turtle Creek Fire Department. And that will be for 12 the people in the outlying areas to get the reduced rate. 13 But the rest of the time, it will be in the veterinarian's 14 office for two weeks, from the 1st, the Saturday, for two 15 weeks, to Saturday. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second, but I have a 18 comment after. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 20 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, 21 that the Court approve reducing the county registration fee 22 to $1 during the annual rabies drive February 1st to 23 February 15th of this year. Any questions, comments, or 24 discussion? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I have a comment. 1-27-03 32 1 This is a great program. I'd like to commend Marc and his 2 staff, and also the local veterinarians that participate in 3 the really, you know, usual which we get a great participate 4 out of this. Marc, I know -- I have another question. I 5 know the Texas Department of Health, I guess, or Department 6 of Agriculture drops those rabies vaccines. If a -- if an 7 animal -- a local animal picks one of those up and gets it, 8 is there any harm in doing that? 9 MR. ALLEN: No. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know they're dropping 11 them over the city of Kerrville. 12 MR. ALLEN: It's just like getting another 13 rabies vaccination; there's no harm done to the animal. You 14 can get two to three a year for an animal. In fact, if an 15 animal is exposed to a rabies suspect, we require them to 16 get two booster shots -- rabies shots. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- part of that is 18 because my dog happened to retrieve one for me on the Little 19 League field the other day; brought it up to me, so I 20 just -- 21 MR. ALLEN: Even -- well, if he ate it, he'd 22 be vaccinated. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause they have been 24 doing it very close to the city this year. 25 MR. ALLEN: And it's working. Appears to be 1-27-03 33 1 working. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or 4 comments? Being none, all in favor of the motion, signify 5 by raising your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 10 MR. ALLEN: Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Marc. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Marc. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Marc. Next item of 14 business is the consideration and discussion approving the 15 contract, which contract had been reviewed by the County 16 Attorney for the reconstruction of Sheppard Rees Road, and 17 authorize County Judge to sign that contract. Is that 18 yours, Commissioner Baldwin? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure, that will be 20 fine. Mr. Johnston? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: We submitted this to the 22 County Attorney to review for form and content, and I'm not 23 aware whether he's notified us that he had reviewed it. I 24 don't think so. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: He has not reviewed the 1-27-03 34 1 contract? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: We haven't been notified that 3 he has. We're waiting to -- for that, and then we'll have 4 the contractor sign it and then bring it in. But we thought 5 we'd go ahead and get it approved so the Judge can sign it 6 when it is complete. 7 MR. ODOM: We put this on hoping that we'd 8 get it last week, Judge, and we've sent this several weeks 9 ago to review this, and we have not heard. So I don't know 10 whether you should sign this now or not. But the question 11 -- what we really need is authorization, when it is approved 12 by the County Attorney for you to sign it. And -- and I 13 don't know where it's at, sir. It's out of our hands. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: From the standpoint of the 15 factual consideration and the content of the contract, it 16 meets with the approval of your office? 17 MR. ODOM: That's right. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you asking the Court, 19 then, to -- subject to the County Attorney's approval, that 20 this Court authorize approval of that contract and authorize 21 the County Judge to sign same? 22 MR. ODOM: That's correct, sir. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And I agree, 25 and that's fine. I'll be happy to make that motion after I 1-27-03 35 1 make -- ask this question. We are -- we agreed to hire 2 Mr. Keller's company to do the project. They are out there 3 with all their machinery working, and we're not under any 4 kind -- we don't have a contract. And am I the only one 5 here that that makes a little bit uncomfortable? Or -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It makes me 7 uncomfortable. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shouldn't we get the 9 contract signed and get going here pretty quick? Isn't that 10 -- wouldn't that be kind of an important thing to do? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds to me like an 12 appropriate thing to proceed forthwith about. If that's 13 what you're indicating, and I think that's it. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. Do I hear a 16 motion to that effect? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that, upon the 18 blessing of the County Attorney's office, that then the 19 County Judge has the authority to sign the contract between 20 Kerr County and Keller Construction -- Keller Construction. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Allen Keller Construction. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Allen Keller 23 Construction. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it. 1-27-03 36 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 2 seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Williams, 3 respectively, that upon the -- that the -- that the Court 4 approve the contract for the reconstruction of -- of 5 Sheppard Rees Road project and authorize the County Judge to 6 sign the same upon the approval of the County Attorney's 7 office of that contract. Any further discussion? Being no 8 further discussion, all in favor, signify by raising your 9 right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Thank you, 14 gentlemen. Appreciate it. Okay. Next item is to consider 15 an alternate plat approval for a revision of a plat of Lots 16 43 and 44A of Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I. What 17 precinct is that in? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Voelkel and 20 Mr. Johnston. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: You defer to the County 22 Engineer? All right, sir. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: This is an existing 24 subdivision, and it's what's known as combining existing 25 lots, making one larger lot, and that is a significant 1-27-03 37 1 factor in our Subdivision Rules, whereas it doesn't require 2 notification by mail, but it requires a public hearing. So, 3 we're here today to set a public hearing and to approve the 4 plat under that alternate process. And everything else 5 looks fine. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is simply 7 turning two small lots into a bigger lot, and that's a good 8 thing to be doing, so I -- I move that we set the public 9 hearing. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the -- what's the 11 particular notice requirement? Is that 30 days? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thirty days. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: So probably the first meeting 14 in March. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the date, Ms. Sovil? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second February is the 17 24th, so -- 18 MS. SOVIL: First meeting in March is the 19 11th. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, okay. 21 (Discussion off the record.) 22 MS. SOVIL: The last meeting in February is 23 the 25th, so you wouldn't have the 30 days. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure wouldn't, would we? So 25 we're going for March the -- what was that date again? 1-27-03 38 1 MS. SOVIL: 11. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: March 11. 3 MS. SOVIL: No, 10th, I'm sorry. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: 10th? At 10 a.m.? 5 Mr. Nicholson, is your motion that we set a public hearing 6 on this plat approval for March 10th of this year at 7 10 a.m.? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. Do I hear a 10 second? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 13 seconded, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that with respect 14 to the alternate plat approval for a revision of plat for 15 Lots 43 and 44A of Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I, that 16 the Court set a public hearing on same for March the 10th 17 this year at 10 a.m. Any further discussion? All in favor, 18 indicate by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item, 23 consideration of the alternate plat approval for revision of 24 plat for Tracts 13A, 13B, 14A, and 14B of the Y.O. 25 Ranchlands. 1-27-03 39 1 MR. JOHNSTON: You notice, this is a very 2 similar situation where they're combining two lots into -- 3 well, actually four lots into two lots, but in each case, 4 two into one. And these are significant acreage, so the 5 lots as combined would be 90 to 124 acres. Large lots. 6 This is a similar process; no mail notification, but there 7 be a public hearing, set a date. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Same notice requirement, 30 9 days? 10 (Mr. Johnston nodded.) 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move that we set a 12 public hearing on this for March 10th at 10 a.m. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:15. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: 10:15? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do I hear a second? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 19 seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Letz, respectively, 20 that the Court set a public hearing for March 10th of this 21 year at 10:15 a.m. to consider alternate plat approval for a 22 revision of plat for Tracts 13A, 13B, 14A, and 14B of the 23 Y.O. Ranchlands. Any further discussion? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question for the 25 -- Lee, you probably may be better. Is there any plan to 1-27-03 40 1 modify that road easement that comes down through the 2 middle? Is it going to remain there or is it going to be -- 3 MR. VOELKEL: There is a plan with the owner 4 of the property. Bobby Etchison is the owner of the 5 property. He would approach the Y.O. Ranchland homeowners' 6 association; they actually own the road. When those -- 7 those are private roads, and they were given to the property 8 owners' association for maintenance and whatnot. I think 9 his approach is that he will go to them to see about deeding 10 back the road to him. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just seems to me that if 12 he's planning to do that, it would make sense to modify the 13 plat at the same time. 14 MR. VOELKEL: Prior to coming back to the 15 public hearing? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that way it would 17 actually be part of the public hearing. Modify the plat 18 when you change that road as well, and that way, the -- you 19 only have to go through one public hearing -- one process. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 21 MR. VOELKEL: Still have frontage on both 22 sides. I think it would be advisable to do that; it's just 23 a matter of whether or not they were willing to do that. I 24 think the homeowners' association -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if the -- if the 1-27-03 41 1 timing works out, if he's not in a rush, there'd probably be 2 only one trip to the court, one public hearing, as opposed 3 to two. 4 MR. VOELKEL: I appreciate that suggestion. 5 I'll see how they stand on that. If we can get it done, 6 we'll go ahead and do that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 9 comments? There being none, all in favor of the motion, 10 please signify by raising your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item 15 before the Court is consider and discuss ratification of 16 signatures by county officials on a conformed copy of the 17 Riverhill Country Club easement. Mr. Bonner. This matter 18 was placed on the agenda at the request of the County 19 Attorney. Mr. Bonner? 20 MR. BONNER: Your Honor, this is in regards 21 to an easement agreement that was executed or agreed to last 22 year, and apparently between -- it was between Riverhill 23 Country Club and the City of Kerrville and the County. And 24 there were three copies -- and I don't know the details, 25 'cause I wasn't involved in the drafting of the agreement, 1-27-03 42 1 but there were three copies -- three originals that were 2 supposed to be executed, two of which didn't make it to 3 Riverhill Country Club. So, we got a letter from David 4 Jackson requesting that the County approve -- sign off on 5 the contract again. Well, Mr. Motley -- they were 6 requesting that the previous County Judge, Judge Henneke, 7 who signed the original, was here when the agreement was 8 made, sign off on it, and Mr. Motley didn't feel like that 9 was -- would be appropriate since he didn't -- wasn't the 10 County Judge any more. But he did feel like that if he 11 wanted to sign it, then -- as well as you could sign it, and 12 then the Commissioners Court can just ratify your -- your 13 signature on it, then that would be appropriate. And I 14 guess he's -- I guess that would satisfy their request to 15 have a couple more originals executed. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Am I to understand -- this is 17 an agreement that's already been approved by the Court; it 18 was approved last year? 19 MR. BONNER: Already been approved. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: And for some unexplained 21 reason, we can't find where the original executed documents 22 ended up, so we need new original documents. And, out of -- 23 out of an abundance of caution, you're asking the Court to 24 reapprove that agreement, confirm it, and -- in addition to 25 the existing signature, because there's been a change 1-27-03 43 1 required, and actually approve the signature of the new 2 County Judge? 3 MR. BONNER: That's correct. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that, 6 Your Honor, but I would also -- if we're so scrupulous in 7 cleaning this up, let's change the dates in two other places 8 on the signature sheet as well. Where it says '02, make it 9 say '03. With that caveat, I would move for approval. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion's been made 12 and seconded by Commissioners Williams and Nicholson, 13 respectively, that the Court reapprove the -- the easement 14 agreement by and between Riverhill Country Club, Inc., the 15 City of Kerrville, and Kerr County, as evidenced by the 16 agreement attached with the item, and that in connection 17 therewith, that the dates be properly specified therein and 18 reflect the current year, and authorize, in addition to the 19 prior signatories, the signatory of the current County Judge 20 to sign. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no original -- 24 none of the originals are around? Or -- 25 MR. BONNER: Apparently there was three 1-27-03 44 1 originals. I don't know why they would have three 2 originals; I wasn't involved when it -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One remained here, 4 two were sent to them. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One was lost. I guess 6 my -- but, really, my question is, who is going to resign if 7 the new one -- the unexecuted original? Well, I guess it -- 8 I don't understand why anybody would want the former Judge 9 to sign the -- 10 MR. BONNER: I don't know. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That doesn't make sense. 12 I think it's a bad precedent. I think -- you know, to me 13 you're going back then and saying, well, if we had a 14 document done in the early '80's, we need to get Judge Stacy 15 to sign it. It doesn't make sense to me. 16 MR. BONNER: I don't think it -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He'd be happy to. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just using him as an 19 example 'cause I see him in the courtroom. But, I mean, I 20 have no problem with approving the agreement, but Judge 21 Tinley should sign it, and that's it for the County. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No question of that. 23 We are really missing an opportunity to throw rocks at the 24 attorneys here, but I'm not going to do it. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead. 1-27-03 45 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm way too nice. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll give you a set 3 of rocks. 4 MR. BONNER: I don't know why Mr. Jackson 5 requested that. I don't think it hurts anything, but I 6 think the key would be Judge Tinley sign off on it, with 7 your approval. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it should be only 10 Judge Tinley for the County. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, this particular 12 agreement, I can tell you, Commissioner Letz, has been 13 signed off by the previous judge, and the only remaining 14 space for signature is for myself. So, for whatever that's 15 worth, that's where we are. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? There 18 being none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by 19 raising your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Okay. Next 24 item of business, consider and discuss having the 25 February 24, 2003, Commissioners Court meeting at the Union 1-27-03 46 1 Church. This matter was placed on the agenda at the request 2 of the Precinct 1 Commissioner. I believe it was under 3 consideration at the last meeting, but it was deferred to 4 the County Attorney's office for what the legal aspects 5 were. Is that not correct? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct. And, 7 as you know, the -- were you through? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As you know, the 10 County Attorney responded back to us very, very fast, and I 11 appreciate that very much. You want to comment? 12 MR. BONNER: I would like to comment on it, 13 because I reviewed it again this morning, and I think -- 14 unfortunately, I think that the -- my conclusions regarding 15 the special meeting -- well, let me just back up and say 16 that the request was you wanted to meet -- have a meeting at 17 the Union Church. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 19 MR. BONNER: And I understand that to be 20 inside the municipal city limits of Kerrville. Is that 21 right? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 23 MR. BONNER: And -- well, the question was, 24 can we have a meeting over there? And I think, after 25 reading the statute, I think that -- I think my conclusion 1-27-03 47 1 was that you cannot have a regular meeting over there. And, 2 after reviewing it again, I thought that -- after I read the 3 statute, I thought that you could -- if it was outside the 4 county -- or the municipal city limits, that you could have 5 that -- have a special meeting over there, and that's what I 6 concluded in my memo to you. But, after reviewing it again 7 this morning, I think that -- I think, unfortunately, that 8 the only way you could have even a special meeting at a 9 location other than the courthouse is if it's outside the 10 municipal city limits, you know, unfortunately. So, 11 therefore, if the -- if the Union Church is inside the city 12 of Kerrville, I don't think you can have even a special 13 meeting out there. There's some statutory exceptions, but I 14 won't go into that, because I don't think they apply here. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm not going to 16 fight with you or fuss with you. I disagree with you, but 17 it's not worth a tussle. But I would ask you, as long as 18 you're here with us, to keep an eye on us, 'cause we do that 19 occasionally. 20 MR. BONNER: Right. Right. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, that's fine. 22 MR. BONNER: Well, the only thing I can say 23 is that's just my -- that's my -- that's the way I read it. 24 Because it specifically says a special term may be held at a 25 meeting place located in the county and outside the county 1-27-03 48 1 seat if -- and it has some certain things that you have to 2 do. And -- but -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that -- 4 MR. BONNER: But that doesn't -- I don't 5 interpret that to mean inside the city limits. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You argue with him. 8 I'm not going to. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That means, then, 10 that it is illegal, by your interpretation, for us to 11 convene this court in conjunction with the City Council in a 12 meeting in City Council chambers; is that correct? 13 MR. BONNER: Meeting with another political 14 subdivision is -- is a different matter. That would -- you 15 could do that, subject to some other requirements. But 16 that's with an additional -- that's a meeting with a 17 political subdivision, okay, which is not what I understood 18 you were trying to do. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right. 20 MR. BONNER: Okay. And I could -- I'm going 21 to talk to Mr. Motley about it and see if he interprets it 22 that way. And, in addition, if you still want to do it, I 23 can request an Attorney General opinion on it. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin? 1-27-03 49 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we have our short 3 meeting at -- short U.G.R.A. meeting, how about having it at 4 Union Church? What do we do with another entity? 5 MR. BONNER: Another entity -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say we do a joint meeting 7 with U.G.R.A. or City of Kerrville or Headwaters or anybody 8 else. Where does that meeting -- can it be anywhere in the 9 county? 10 MR. BONNER: Well, if it's another political 11 subdivision, and -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does it have to be at 13 their -- I mean, is there a requirement as to where they 14 have to do it? 15 MR. BONNER: Well, it's -- it states that it 16 must be a regular meeting -- it has to be a regular meeting 17 place of that political subdivision in the county. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does this cover 19 workshops, in your opinion? 20 MR. BONNER: I hadn't considered that, but I 21 don't -- I think we're just talking about regular terms and 22 special meetings. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but we have special 25 meetings, and then we have other special meetings. We have 1-27-03 50 1 a regular special meeting; then we have other special 2 meetings. I'm just really trying to clarify it. Because, 3 for example, when we meet with U.G.R.A., we don't meet in 4 their normal meeting room. We meet in either the classroom 5 or the auditorium, from the size standpoint. And, I mean -- 6 so I think it's something that we -- you know, I don't want 7 to beat this to death, but if the law is this specific, I 8 think we need to get guidance as to exactly how we meet with 9 other organizations and where we can meet. 10 MR. BONNER: Well, without knowing -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean, 12 otherwise, if you took action, it could be deemed to be, you 13 know, voidable, I guess, if you don't do it in the right 14 place. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was under the 16 impression that the law was amended at the last session of 17 the Legislature to enable Commissioners Court to do what 18 we're asking to do. Is that your -- is that your 19 understanding? I guess it's not your understanding. 20 MR. BONNER: No. This is the current statute 21 that I was reading from, and that's just -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So I was misadvised? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Look, all I was trying 24 to do was have a little fun. I thought it would be -- it 25 would be fun, turn a little attention to the church and 1-27-03 51 1 maybe get that thing finished, now that we own it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Workshop. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to have a 4 workshop down there, and y'all are not invited. Nanny nanny 5 boo boo. So, that's all. That's fine. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Letz' 7 point is well made. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, absolutely. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: We certainly don't want to be 10 conducting our meetings at a place where -- where our 11 actions might be questioned or even deemed to be voidable. 12 The general rule, I think, is, under the law, that the 13 public has a right to expect that when its governing body 14 meets, it's going to be here in the courthouse, whether it 15 be here or upstairs. I don't think the particular location 16 within the building is -- is that -- that big of an issue. 17 Just like the mention that was made by Commissioner Letz, if 18 we meet with another political subdivision, maybe we don't 19 meet in the board room at U.G.R.A., but we meet in the 20 classroom. I think that's their meeting place, in that 21 building, just like our meeting place is this building, not 22 necessarily here. We've gone upstairs before, and probably 23 will have to in the future. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to 25 clarify that point, though, because, I mean, I don't know if 1-27-03 52 1 this is the meeting place or if it's the courthouse square. 2 I mean, or if it's -- I mean, I think we need to -- if the 3 law is as specific as it appears, I think we need to know 4 exactly where we can meet. And I -- I mean, this is the 5 Commissioners Court courtroom. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the general rule states 7 the county seat at the courthouse. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At the courthouse. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: It doesn't further define it. 10 Then, when it talks about meeting with other political 11 subdivisions, the regular meeting place of another political 12 subdivision. If the Court is meeting with the governing 13 body of that political subdivision, and the regular meeting 14 place of that political subdivision is within the county, 15 there's probably more of a question about whether or not you 16 can use the classroom at U.G.R.A. rather than the board 17 room, possibly, but I think the law's pretty clear about 18 anywhere in the courthouse is our regular meeting place. 19 But, any further discussion on this item? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: You don't want to get any more 22 lawyers involved? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not yet. 1-27-03 53 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Okay. No action 2 on that item. Apparently, we'll move on to next item, which 3 is discuss -- consider and discuss and take any appropriate 4 action on Change Order Number 2, requested and approved by 5 the County Engineer for the Kerrville South Wastewater 6 Project. Commissioner Williams. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. This 8 should be really simple. It's a change order recommended 9 and approved by the engineer overseeing the construction of 10 the Kerrville South Wastewater Project. It is for an 11 adjustment to the riser, or riser section over the manhole, 12 and it's for a whopping $105. And I move for approval, and 13 authorize County Judge to sign same. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- where's the 15 money come from? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Comes out of the 17 grant funds for that project. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second -- I'll second 19 that motion. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 21 seconded by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin, 22 respectively, that the Court approve the Change Order Number 23 2, requested and approved by the County Engineer for the 24 Kerrville South Wastewater Project. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correction. Not the 1-27-03 54 1 County Engineer, the consulting engineer. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Consulting engineer, excuse 3 me. Strike that. The consulting engineer. The change 4 order being in the sum of $105, and authorize the County 5 Judge to sign approving the same. Is there any further 6 discussion on that item? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not going to 8 vote on this item. I want you to know why. 'Cause I'm not 9 sure we have a valid contract with Tetra Tech, so I'm going 10 to decline to vote on it. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. Any 12 elaboration on those comments? 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've asked for -- to 14 see a contract with Tetra Tech, and I'm told that we don't 15 have one, and Tetra Tech is the -- is the successor company 16 to Groves Engineering, and the contract with Groves 17 Engineering has expired, so I think it's questionable about 18 whether or not we have a -- a valid contract with Tetra 19 Tech. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Or Groves Engineering. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or Groves 22 Engineering. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further discussion? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. If that's 25 the case, we need to back up and take care of business. 1-27-03 55 1 Who -- yeah, I agree with you 100 percent. I mean, I don't 2 know who's responsible or what. You know, get us a contract 3 and let's approve it or disapprove it. I don't know how 4 those -- I don't think I've been appointed to watch over 5 contracts over sewer systems this week. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I haven't either, 7 Commissioner Baldwin, but I did ask for the contract -- any 8 contracts we had with Groves Engineering or Tetra Tech, and 9 I found one contract, an undated contracted that expired 10 December 31, 2002. And it also does not provide for a 11 successor to the contract. It provides that any successor 12 company or assignments of the contract would have to require 13 the written approval of the County. So, as far as I can 14 tell, we do not have currently a contract with Groves 15 Engineering or Tetra Tech. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The contract which is 17 in the file, is that for the project or for a specified 18 period of time? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It was a contract to 20 expire for services. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For services to the 22 project? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To expire on 24 December 31. There may well be another contract, but I 25 can't find it if there is. 1-27-03 56 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, everything 2 that's in contract form is in the file, and the file is now 3 in the possession of the Administrative Assistant to the 4 Court, all of which -- all the files were brought up to date 5 by Tetra Tech -- or by Grantworks. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I was 7 going to ask you. Hasn't he been the one that sees that 8 these kinds of things are done? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Groves 10 Associates was the original engineering firm, and Groves 11 Associates has been acquired by Tetra Tech, Inc. And part 12 of what we're -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fixing to do. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, has to do with 15 amending the interlocal agreement to change such things as 16 Groves to Tetra Tech, et cetera. I don't know anything 17 about that. I know what contract we approved to begin with 18 was for the project. That's what we have. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, part -- in 20 that contract, Part 4, Item 5, Assignability, says that the 21 contract may not be assigned or transfer any interest in it 22 without the prior written consent of the County. So -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney, 24 where are we? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know, but we 1-27-03 57 1 have a Commissioner on the other end of the table that is a 2 working commissioner. Good. Good job, Commissioner. 3 Appreciate that. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney, 5 where are we? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Have y'all been consulted 7 about -- has the County Attorney's office, to your 8 knowledge, Mr. Bonner, been consulted about the consulting 9 engineering contract with regard to any of these projects 10 over on Kerrville South? 11 MR. BONNER: Your Honor, I'm going to have 12 to -- I think David's got some information on that, but I 13 really don't have any details on it. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection was I believe 15 last meeting -- I stand to be corrected if I'm in error -- 16 was that Mr. Motley, at least in connection with some of the 17 existing matters with that sewer project over there, 18 indicated that he didn't have adequate information, and that 19 he was trying to find the base agreements, or some of them 20 at least. Am I in error about that, Commissioner? Do you 21 recall? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't know what 23 David Motley said, but it appears to me that this is related 24 to the next agenda item, which is doing -- which is 25 upgrading the contract with Tetra Tech. I mean, and -- 1-27-03 58 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's the heart of 2 the next issue. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it very well could 4 be, 'cause the next issue has been under discussion for six 5 weeks now, and it's likely that, you know, when Jim Brown 6 was here, the reason -- I mean, he was trying to get this 7 done before the end of the year, so the contract -- I mean, 8 because of delays, it just hasn't happened. That just seems 9 like a logical sequence to me, not knowing much more than 10 what Mr. Nicholson said, but I think that we clearly need to 11 get Item 10 taken care of before we can act on the contract. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine, take care of 13 10. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: If I'm not mistaken, we have a 15 motion on the floor. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw it. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to withdraw my 18 second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, motion and second have 20 been withdrawn on Item 2.10. And is there any further 21 action or -- or comments or suggestions to be made with 22 regard to that particular item, 2.10? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not at this time. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no indication of such, 25 we'll go to Item 2.11 -- or, excuse me 2. -- 1-27-03 59 1 MS. HAMILTON: I believe that was 2.9. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Correct. I stand corrected. 3 No further action at this time on Item 2.9, on the change 4 order, but we'll now move forward to Item 2.10, to consider 5 and discuss and take any appropriate action on revisions to 6 the interlocal agreement between Kerr County and the Upper 7 Guadalupe River Authority for the Kerrville South Wastewater 8 Project, to cover current, pending, and future projects. 9 Commissioner Williams. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Since the County 11 Attorney is the one who seemed to have the problems with the 12 interlocal agreement, which is the agreement -- changes to 13 the interlocal agreement which is in effect for this 14 particular problem, I'll defer to the County Attorney for an 15 explanation of why he has a problem with it. 16 MR. BONNER: Again, I don't know -- I don't 17 have any details on that. That's something that David -- I 18 know he was working on it this weekend, and I don't know 19 what his -- where he stands on it. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley's in court this 21 morning, I believe. 22 MR. BONNER: He's at the State Hospital, some 23 hearings out there. And I think he had the intention of 24 being back here, and I just -- I can't comment on it, 'cause 25 I don't know where he stands on it. 1-27-03 60 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your Honor, this is 2 the third time this item's been on this agenda. It was a 3 simple interlocal agreement that was drafted up between Kerr 4 County and Upper Guadalupe River Authority for the Kerrville 5 South Wastewater Project. We've asked for revisions to 6 bring it up to date, to probably accommodate some of the 7 problems that Commissioner 4 has identified. Last time we 8 listened to the County Attorney, he had no particular 9 reason, but some concerns, first of all, expressing that he 10 didn't think the County had the authority to do what it did. 11 Which is news to this Court, because that was never 12 expressed before, but that we didn't have that authority, 13 and we acted under the guise that we did have the authority. 14 His office did, in fact, review that interlocal agreement, 15 and here's a whole passel of correspondence back and forth 16 that indicates that Travis Lucas, on behalf of the County 17 Attorney, reviewed it and approved it. Now we're here today 18 and we're listening to nothing. This is the third time 19 we've had the item on the agenda. If there's some sort of 20 reason why this project is supposed to have an "X" put on it 21 and not go forward, somebody better stick his hand up and 22 tell us why. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would like to hear 24 from the County Attorney also. The issue I have with it, 25 however, is it appears to be not just an update, correcting 1-27-03 61 1 names like Tetra Tech for Groves, and -- and other names 2 like the -- the O.R.C.A. instead of T.D.H.C.A. It appears 3 to be an extension of a contract to cover unnamed future 4 activities. It appears to me that it delegates the County's 5 responsibility for, quote, treated water, wastewater, or 6 other infrastructures to U.G.R.A., and that's open-ended. 7 It also appears to -- that the contract grants either Tetra 8 Tech or the -- the Groves Engineering certain authorities 9 and responsibilities that we haven't contracted for. For 10 example, one part of it says that if U.G.R.A. and the County 11 and the consulting engineer can't agree on a bid, I believe 12 it is, then the majority rules, and I don't think we 13 should -- I don't think it's wise to be giving the County's 14 authority away in such an open-ended manner. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe the Court 16 was advised last time that that particular amendment would 17 be excluded and would be corrected or taken out. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know -- are 19 you finished? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my problem is, 22 you know, the -- the lack of action by the County Attorney 23 has wasted this Court's time, bottom line. I mean, it has 24 been down -- you know, and the -- I know this started before 25 you and the Judge were on the court, but you're very much 1-27-03 62 1 aware that it was on our first agenda, supposed to be 2 cleared up, and now it's on our second agenda and still 3 lingering. And, you know, I share Commissioner Nicholson's 4 concerns with the -- with the revisions, but we can't even 5 get to the point of talking about the revisions, 'cause the 6 County Attorney can't give us an opinion. And I think -- 7 and this is going on while we have a contractor out there 8 who's trying to fulfill what he thinks is under the 9 contract. I think he is trying to fulfill the contract, and 10 we're getting to a point of not being able to act on a 11 change order because our legal -- we can't get a legal 12 opinion. And it just -- it is a frustration to me when we 13 can't -- when our, I guess, work efforts are delayed for 14 that reason. I feel like it's wasting our time. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of this 16 interlocal agreement that -- that we're looking at now, and 17 these changes from Groves to Tetra Tech and Texas Community 18 Development to O.R.C.A., that -- that what we're talking 19 about is a -- I believe the term "template" or "format" was 20 utilized, and that there is no intention to apply this -- 21 this particular agreement to any existing project, since 22 we've already got, presumably at least, contracts in place 23 as to existing projects, specifically as to those projects. 24 Is that correct? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. The 1-27-03 63 1 other -- the intergovernmental agreement that we're seeking 2 to make some amendments to is in place to cover this project 3 right now, as well as a construction contract and a 4 contractor on the ground doing the work. In place, signed 5 off, approved by this Court. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: But the proposal -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: An engineering firm 8 that was contracted to oversee the project is doing his job. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: But the proposed agreement 10 before the Court for consideration and approval today is not 11 with regard to any specific project, but to be considered as 12 a template or a format for possible future projects, if they 13 should arise. Is that my understanding? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct, 15 Judge. And -- and for applications that are pending for 16 funding right now for continuation of the project, and other 17 projects that might come before this Court, which this Court 18 would have to approve before they could go any further. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I disagree 20 with what was said just now and what you agreed to. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. Let's 22 find out -- maybe I didn't hear it right. Let's find out. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, and the only reason 24 is because there was a -- at the last meeting in December, 25 this was brought to the Court to try to -- because of the 1-27-03 64 1 current contract and making the changes in it. So I think, 2 while -- and it was felt that while the agreement that we're 3 asking the County Attorney to look at is a template, the 4 reason it was pushed forward right now is because we have to 5 make the change in the current agreement, because things -- 6 two things have changed. Well, three things, I guess, 7 'cause the date needs to be extended, and then two of the 8 entities in the contract have changed names. So, I mean, I 9 think -- and that was -- and I'm going back to -- I believe 10 Jim Brown was in the court in December, and the reason for 11 him bringing it in before he left in -- you know, 'cause his 12 -- before he left U.G.R.A. was to clean up the -- you know, 13 that old -- the existing contract, to get those names 14 corrected for -- one was a purchase and one was just a name 15 change. So, I mean, I think they're very much related. I 16 think the idea was to try to get a template. Maybe it was 17 -- maybe we should separate the two. Let's just get the old 18 contract corrected and then worry about any other contracts 19 in the future. But they're both -- I mean, I think there is 20 clearly a -- and has been, an urgency with this, because I 21 remember a conversation I had with you before our first 22 meeting that we were going to get this back from the County 23 Attorney by our first meeting. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: It would seem to me that if 25 there are some amendments or modifications or -- or 1-27-03 65 1 extensions that need to be made to existing contracts for 2 existing projects, that we ought to be talking about those 3 specific contracts with reference to those specific 4 projects, and the specific changes, modifications, 5 extensions or whatever that might be appropriate. My 6 understanding of this particular item is that we are trying 7 to format a template or a master form or a go-by for future, 8 unnamed as yet, unidentified, or unknown projects, but that 9 the -- the presentation was that we approve this format so 10 that we, quote, don't have to reinvent the wheel each time 11 there is a new project. Is that understanding that I have 12 incorrect? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's part of it, but I 14 think we also have a current one that we're trying to get 15 through, which is the one that Commissioner Nicholson 16 brought up. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if we're unable 18 to accommodate the potential for future projects that 19 continue this going forward, or other grants that we may see 20 fit to apply for, then let's deal with this one and keep it 21 moving. Where's the County Attorney? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if -- my suggestion is 23 that -- let's look at the agenda. The agenda item is pretty 24 specific, take appropriate action on revisions to interlocal 25 agreement. That implies we have a current agreement. 1-27-03 66 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do have. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's what we're 3 trying to get through on this. And I think -- you know, I 4 mean, it's -- we need to get this done. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, the changes 6 that are in this draft contract are -- is more than just 7 changing the names of two entities. It's changing the basic 8 provisions of the contract. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. And I don't 10 like most of those changes. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's go back 12 and just deal with this contract with this -- for this 13 particular grant, or these grants, 'cause there's more than 14 one. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We haven't even been able 16 to get into that, because we haven't been able to get an 17 approval from the County Attorney on form. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Excuse me, Judge. 19 If we got a contract in place -- we got a valid contract in 20 place, and the only issues are updating to change the name 21 of a governmental agency and to change the name of a 22 contractor, then that contract's still valid, isn't it? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it is. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Assuming it's still within its 25 term. 1-27-03 67 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, if they're 2 legitimate successors and still in its term. If they're not 3 legitimate successors or if we don't have a contract with 4 either Groves Engineering or Tetra Tech, then that's another 5 issue. We have to -- we have to go through whatever steps 6 are needed to make a contract. But I -- again, I'm being -- 7 if the only issue is changing names, I'm not sure I've got a 8 problem with that. If it's changing the provisions of the 9 contract, then I've got some questions about it. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It sounds like that 11 approach. Let's get one taken care of, and the other I 12 really don't care about at this point, 'cause we can't get 13 an answer anyway. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- let me make this 15 suggestion, if I might. It's now the time that we normally 16 take a -- take a recess. Why don't we recess till about 25 17 till -- say 20 till 11:00, and hopefully the County Attorney 18 will get through with whatever business he's got and he'll 19 be able to be with us. And, at that time, we can pick it up 20 where we are right now and go forward. Anybody -- anybody 21 have any problem with that? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there -- in 24 the -- present in the court, is there a representative of 25 Groves Engineering or Tetra Tech? 1-27-03 68 1 (No response.) 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess, then, 4 until 20 minutes until 11:00, and we'll pick it up here 5 where we left off at this point. 6 (Recess taken from 10:23 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) 7 - - - - - - - - - - 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's reconvene this 9 meeting of the Commissioners Court, special meeting on 10 Monday, January 27th. Before we get back to where we were, 11 this relates to the Sheppard Rees Road project that we had 12 considered earlier, and it was subject to -- the motion 13 was -- was passed subject to the County Attorney's approval. 14 At the break, I was presented with a copy of a memo by 15 Mr. Johnston, the County Engineer, from Mr. Motley 16 indicating that he had reviewed the Allen Keller/Kerr County 17 agreement, and that it was fine with him, so we'll go 18 forward on that. I just wanted to let the record reflect 19 that we've got that item resolved. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I've further been advised that 22 Mr. Motley has finished his business where he was committed 23 previously in court, that he is en route and should be here 24 shortly. We can do one or two things. We can proceed where 25 we were, or we can go back and pick up any subsequent items 1-27-03 69 1 and then come back to 2.10, depending upon the Court's 2 pleasure. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if Mr. Motley's 4 going to be here in the near future, I would suggest we move 5 on to another topic and come back to 2.10 and discuss it 6 when he arrives. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It appears that there's 8 no objection to that. We'll defer and come back to Item 9 2.10, and take up 2.11, which is consider and discuss the 10 status of a temporary bridge for Hermann Sons Road and 11 authorize the Kerr County Road and Bridge Department to 12 proceed with the project. Commissioner Letz. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda 14 for two reasons. One, to update the new members of the 15 Court kind of as to what we're doing out there, and 16 secondly, to -- I'll make a motion in a few minutes 17 authorizing Road and Bridge to do what I'm about to explain. 18 And the reason for that is that it's really -- we've talked 19 about it, but I'm not sure that a specific motion 20 authorizing Road and Bridge to do this -- it was not a 21 budgeted item, because it happened after the budget or 22 during the budget process, and at the time we knew there was 23 going to be expenditure out there, but we didn't know how 24 much. But, kind of where we are right now, we received -- 25 this is just for the bridge, a temporary bridge -- $40,000 1-27-03 70 1 from NRCS and $2,000 from FEMA for that. And most of that 2 basically is clean-up money. There's no funds from anybody 3 to reconstruct the temporary bridge. The $40,000, there may 4 be enough there -- well, that money's to clean up. It 5 includes retrieving the two railroad cars that washed down 6 the stream, and demolition of the -- the structure that held 7 them up. We really don't have a -- I don't think a real 8 good idea as to how much it's going to cost above this 9 $42,000 to put the temporary bridge back. The ballpark 10 figure probably is around $50,000, and that money will need 11 to come from reserves. We don't -- it will either come from 12 flood -- what's the -- Thea, what's the flood -- 13 MS. SOVIL: Flood Control. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: From Flood Control or 15 from the general reserves, one or the other. Road and 16 Bridge is currently out there -- I'm not going -- I'll try 17 to explain. Then Leonard can correct me if my description 18 is not adequate. We're currently building a pad out into 19 the river that we will send -- put some large equipment on, 20 loaders and -- you know, basically loaders, I guess, and the 21 idea is to attach by chain, cable, or some other means to 22 the railroad cars and then pull them out or back upstream 23 and somewhat into location, and then somehow, with Aggie 24 engineering, using a crane that's going to flip over or get 25 up on the ground and then later on we'll put it -- flip it 1-27-03 71 1 back over, and -- 2 MR. ODOM: I can't defend that statement. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And somehow we have to -- 4 those two cars that are now -- it used to be two single 5 cars. Now they're two cars that are bolted together, so I'm 6 not real sure how it's all going to get flipped over, and 7 then new piers will be put in place and railroad cars, if 8 they're usable, could be put back over the bridge again to 9 make a temporary bridge. The first time, Leonard's Aggie 10 engineering worked and got the cars in place, to TexDOT's 11 amazement. It was quite a sight to see. I have no doubts 12 that he's going to be able to -- with his Aggie engineering, 13 to do it again. I will say there's nothing in the textbooks 14 that explains how you do this project. And I just have 15 confidence that Leonard will get it done. And they're 16 currently proceeding. Leonard, do you have any other 17 comments, other than that? 18 MR. ODOM: No, sir, I think you described it 19 pretty well. I mean, we will -- we'll be doing it with an 20 excavator, and we believe that the cars are unhooked now 21 that we've got out there, and I've walked the beams and all. 22 So, we hope that we can -- this week, hopefully. If not, it 23 will be next week, as soon as I get that excavator up here, 24 we're going to try very hard to get that out. We hope 25 there's savings in this $40,000 from N.R.C.S. that would 1-27-03 72 1 apply to that. And we would have a better idea after we get 2 those cars out, because if we can reuse those, that saves 3 $20,000. If it doesn't -- if they're damaged, then we have 4 -- we'll have to do something, and I just don't have an 5 answer for you at this point. Hopefully, by the end of the 6 week, we may have them out of the water, or we'll know if we 7 can get them out. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me know, if you 9 would, when you get them out of the water. I'd like to 10 watch you try to do this. And the other comment, just for 11 the public, 'cause we have a petty large group here today, 12 and for the Court, the reason -- you know, I get calls on an 13 hourly basis about why this hasn't been done already, and 14 there's a couple of reasons. One, the river flow was so 15 strong through most of the fall that we couldn't get out to 16 really look at the situation with the railroad cars. The 17 flow was -- you know, I don't -- most people probably didn't 18 realize, but it was probably 1 or 2 feet above normal up 19 through November. Then we got some -- had additional rains 20 in November and early December, and then we got the holiday 21 period. And, needless to say, the equipment required for 22 this is far larger than anything the County has. There's 23 not a whole lot of these really large pieces of equipment 24 available in the San Antonio area, so we have to schedule it 25 when we can find the equipment available to use. And those 1-27-03 73 1 things -- and then the other part of it was, we really were 2 trying to figure out what help we were going to get from 3 NRCS and FEMA, because while the public may not be real 4 concerned where the money comes from, I am quite concerned 5 how we pay for these type of construction projects. So, 6 anyway, that's where we are. And I just would like to make 7 a motion to authorize Road and Bridge to proceed with the 8 reinstalling the temporary bridge at Hermann Sons Road, and 9 request that they, you know, expend up to the $42,000 that 10 we currently have in the budget for that purpose, and that 11 they will come back to us when they get a good idea of the 12 final price tag for this project. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second the motion. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 15 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Williams, respectively, 16 that we authorize Road -- Kerr County Road and Bridge 17 Department to proceed with the fix on the temporary bridge 18 at Hermann Sons Road, expending up to $42,000, with a 19 request that they report back to us when they get a better 20 handle on this situation. I believe that's an accurate 21 statement of what the motion was. Is there any further 22 discussion or comments? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 42 comes out of 1-27-03 74 1 the budget, or the 42 comes out of one of these funds? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 42 -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Flood Control or -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 42 -- I don't know 5 where that money went, Leonard, that 42 that we received 6 from NRCS and FEMA. 7 MR. ODOM: Right. The 40 -- we received 8 $40,000 in revenue that -- for the grant from NRCS, and 9 $2,000-something from FEMA. I had two different federal 10 agencies. And that is something that, once we finish it, 11 then we will bill them, is the way it works with NRCS. 12 FEMA, we've already received the money, but we have to 13 complete that project, and that's -- that's a matter of 14 taking out the metal structure of that old bridge and taking 15 those rail cars out, and then we're completed on that 16 project. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It think what 18 Commissioner Baldwin's question -- it's probably misstated a 19 little bit in the motion, that they're not budgeted funds, 20 but they're funds -- revenues. We'll have to come do a 21 budget amendment to get those funds out of our General Fund 22 or the Flood Control fund, and then reimburse that fund when 23 we get the money -- 24 MR. ODOM: When we get the money. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- from FEMA. 1-27-03 75 1 MR. ODOM: It zeros out. And, you know, the 2 42, I would ask the Court not to limit me to that, because 3 if I have the funds in Contract Fees or -- or Flood Damages, 4 which I do have a little bit, I want to be able to have that 5 leeway to do it, instead of stopping in the middle of the 6 project. But I will probably expend at least $15,000, 7 $20,000, maybe by the rental of this big equipment and the 8 building that dam out. So, whatever I have in savings, I 9 wish to apply to build those columns and caps. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your motion says up to 11 42. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then, let me amend 13 the motion and go up to $100,000. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second that. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and 16 second by Commissioners Letz and Williams, respectively, 17 that the Court authorize Kerr County Road and Bridge 18 Department to proceed with the temporary bridge fix on the 19 Hermann Sons Road project, and authorizing the expenditure 20 of up to $100,000. Do we have any further discussion? 21 MR. ODOM: May I tell the Court, then -- you 22 know, I'll be as frugal as I possibly can. And, believe me, 23 I am, so I will make it work somehow. But that gives me 24 leeway. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see how you need that. 1-27-03 76 1 Once we get that equipment out there, we don't want to send 2 it back. 3 MR. ODOM: I don't want to send it back. I 4 want to do what I got to do one time and be through with it. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? Being 7 none, all in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 8 right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 13 MR. ODOM: Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get back to item 2. -- 16 do we want to go back to 2.9 and talk about that contract? 17 Or do we want to come back to 2.10? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's find out where 19 the County Attorney is on 2.10 and the interlocal -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that acceptable to 21 everybody? All right. We will resume our discussion under 22 2.10, the consideration and discussion and taking any 23 appropriate action on revisions to the interlocal agreement 24 between Kerr County and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority 25 for the Kerrville South Wastewater Project to cover current, 1-27-03 77 1 pending, and future projects. We had discussed this item 2 prior to the recess a bit, and the recess was taken in hopes 3 that Mr. Motley, who was committed in court elsewhere, could 4 get those commitments taken care of and get back here, and 5 it appears that he's now here. So, I assume at this point, 6 we'll defer to the County Attorney. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will be fine, 8 Judge. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Mr. Motley? 10 MR. MOTLEY: What is it exactly that you 11 want? You want just an overall kind of review of this 12 agreement? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- 14 MR. MOTLEY: Is that what y'all are saying? 15 Turn it over to me? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think for this time 17 and two prior times, we have been trying to get approval of 18 amendments to an interlocal agreement between Kerr County 19 and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, which was 20 originally submitted to your department for approval and 21 ratified by this Court in October of 2001, and containing 22 the changes that were suggested by the then County Judge, 23 the U.G.R.A., and your department, and we have an agreement 24 in effect right here and right now. Proposed has been some 25 changes to that, which the changes, by definition of the 1-27-03 78 1 author, would have changed the interlocal into a specific 2 contract, the specific sewer project into one that would 3 enable a continuing relationship between the Court, County, 4 and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority for any future 5 grants, those in the conduit and any that we might apply 6 for, some of which we have applied for and are pending, for 7 the continuation of this particular project. My memory 8 tells me that you raised an objection to the contract and 9 suggested that you didn't think the County had the initial 10 authority to enter into such an agreement to begin with. 11 And I recall asking you, if that were the case, why you 12 didn't tell us that back in 2001 before we executed the 13 agreement. And that's about where we're hung up. 14 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I didn't look at it in 15 2001; that's one reason. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, a member of 17 your staff did. 18 MR. MOTLEY: I understand that, and I didn't 19 look at it and Travis did. Part of reason we're staffed the 20 way we are is so different people can do different things. 21 So Travis looked at it, and if Travis has made an error or 22 something regarding some opinion of the legality of the 23 overall agreement, I don't think that I would be bound to 24 just march on down the hallway and, you know, perpetuate the 25 same error. I'm not saying that he necessarily did, but I'm 1-27-03 79 1 saying that I have a question overall about the County's 2 ability to enter into such an agreement, and it's based on 3 statutory law. And I've spoken with personnel at the 4 Attorney General's office, and so I have a question about 5 it. Now, there's nothing clear-cut one way or the other on 6 the law but I can -- I'll be happy to read it to you if 7 you'd like me to. There's nothing really clear-cut about 8 it, but it -- basically, the reason I say there's a problem 9 is because it says in the statutes that the municipality has 10 the authority to enter into these sort of agreements. And, 11 under the authority of law, State vs. Canales, and the way 12 the county government is set up, counties don't have the 13 authority to do things unless there's specific authority 14 provided for them by constitution or statute. I found no 15 such statute and I found no such constitutional provision. 16 So, I'm telling you I have not found that. I'm not saying 17 it's not there. I've been looking, and I've not found it. 18 I suggest that maybe the way to take care of that would be 19 to ask for an Attorney General's opinion on that limited 20 issue. 21 Assuming that the overall arrangement is 22 legal, we've had some problems, I think, in the retaining of 23 specific consultants. It sounds like -- I don't know if 24 this is what the intent is, but certainly the contract reads 25 that we have specific named consultants in the contract, in 1-27-03 80 1 the interlocal agreement, who are already selected. The 2 bidding rules would require, I believe -- not for an 3 engineer, but for -- I'm not exactly sure what Grantworks -- 4 what type of consultant they are. I don't know if it's 5 overall management or actually the obtaining of grant 6 moneys; I'm not sure what they are. They're referred to in 7 the agreement as established program and staff to administer 8 the contract, so they're contract administrators? So 9 they're administration consultants? Is that -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They are a firm which 11 the Court has retained, by resolution, to apply for grants, 12 and upon the County being awarded the grants, then they 13 administer the funds, oversee the administrative end of the 14 funds, make certain that the project moves forward, and take 15 care of all the paperwork for the County. 16 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. And, so, is it fair to 17 consider them as administrative consultants? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so. 19 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. Again, under the bidding 20 rules -- and I'm not sure that administrative consultant is 21 one of those that's excepted from the RFP process. I'm not 22 sure that they are, you know. There are exceptions for 23 architects, for engineers, for attorneys, for different 24 professions that do not have to go through Request For 25 Proposals. I'm not sure that the administrative consultant 1-27-03 81 1 fits that criteria. In any event, the Office of Rural 2 Community Affairs has a publication that talks about 3 management administration of these grants. It says 4 absolutely, black and white, that such consultants -- they 5 must go through the procurement process to determine who the 6 consultants are. So, I'm saying the contract probably -- or 7 the agreement probably ought to have the names of specific 8 consultants removed, and probably some sort of a generic 9 term put in to refer to an engineering consultant or 10 administrative consultant put in the deal. But to place the 11 names of two specific -- or however many specific 12 consultants in the contract and the agreement at this time, 13 I think, would run afoul of the bidding administration rules 14 set out by O.R.C.A., if it specifically requires that they 15 go out for something akin to an RFP. It says may not be 16 done any other way. 17 If I can get you a proper quote, professional 18 service contractors must be selected in open competition, 19 while a competitive process must be used. Contractor 20 localities must not select professional service contractors 21 based solely on low bid. It would violate the State of 22 Texas Professional Services Procurement Act. Contractors 23 shall -- contractor localities shall select and award such 24 contracts and engage such services based on demonstrated 25 competence and qualifications for the type of professional 1-27-03 82 1 services to be performed at a fair and reasonable price. 2 Then it goes through the deal about writing up the RFP and 3 doing all that. 4 So, I'm saying I think that the agreement 5 here -- and, again, I may differ with Travis on this, okay? 6 And if I do, you know, I'm going to give you my opinion 7 today and tell you what it is today, and say that maybe 8 Travis and I disagree, but I don't believe -- and it may be 9 factually that those entities were selected at about the 10 same time that that previous interlocal agreement was 11 entered into. See, I don't know that factually or 12 historically; I can't tell you that. But I think if we 13 refer to these people as an engineering firm or an 14 administrative services firm, something like that, that that 15 part of the contract will be right. But, again, I'm 16 saying -- this all assumes that the actual entry into that 17 type of agreement with the County and water authority is 18 legal to begin with, because everything I'm reading says 19 that the legality involved is with the municipality. And 20 when they leave the County out like that and specifically 21 say the municipality can do it, that gives me, you know, a 22 pause to want to go further in it. And everywhere I've 23 looked, I have not found anything in particular that said 24 that counties could do this, so I just -- I want you to know 25 that. And I looked and have not -- it's a little bit hard 1-27-03 83 1 to kind of prove a negative, but I have not found anything 2 that said that counties could not, or that they could. So 3 that was why I was suggesting it might be a better idea to 4 go ahead with the -- with the A.G. opinion request. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David? 6 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, there's two 8 things. One, you're addressing the general form -- 9 MR. MOTLEY: Mm-hmm. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- agreement, which I 11 appreciate what you're saying, and I agree with everything 12 I've heard you say so far. Hopefully, we have the authority 13 to enter into this. That creates another whole set of 14 problems if we don't have the authority, even though we did 15 rely on -- there's clearly no intent, because we relied on 16 the County Attorney's office for our opinion to enter into 17 it originally. But the other part of the question is, there 18 is an existing agreement out there and work going on, and 19 that needs to be addressed as to -- you know, I guess, how 20 do we -- I'm just asking you the question. How do we amend 21 the current contract in terms of names of entities, one 22 being O.R.C.A. and the other one being the consulting 23 engineering firm, which has changed their name due to a 24 purchase; it's gone from Groves and Associates to Tetra 25 Tech. To me, that's more of a pressing issue because -- 1-27-03 84 1 MR. MOTLEY: On the existing contract, you're 2 talking about? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The existing contract. 4 We do need to get that contract in shape. 5 MR. MOTLEY: I think it's kind of understood 6 that in any given contract, if an entity has entered into a 7 contract, it covers, you know, their assigns or their 8 successors in business. And I think it may even be stated 9 in certain contracts I've been reviewing for this. But 10 if -- if Groves Engineering has been renamed Tetra Tech, 11 then they -- they would, I think, succeed to the rights and 12 the duties Tetra Tech holds under the contract without 13 having to go back and actually change the body of that 14 contract. Same as far as any other consultant. I mean, 15 that contract was valid at the time it was written; it was 16 accurate at the time it was written. I don't think we are 17 beholden to go back and correct the day-to-day changes that 18 may occur in such an agreement. As far as doing the 19 corrections on the document that Commissioner Williams is 20 talking about, sort of a template document, frankly -- I 21 mean, I -- this is not a legal consideration, but I don't 22 see the benefit, because we're going to have something 23 that's going to be fairly generic. It seems to me it's just 24 going to say the -- you know, the engineering company and 25 the consulting company, and we'll do these acts, et cetera. 1-27-03 85 1 I'm not sure what the benefit is, but it may speed things up 2 a little bit down the line, and I guess if that's, you know, 3 what -- you know, that's the goal, I suppose that's fine. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- and I tend to 5 somewhat agree with you, possibly, that -- you know, I don't 6 see -- I'm more concerned about the legality of even 7 entering into the contract and the current contract than I 8 am future contracts. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me make a 10 comment. I don't disagree with what David just said with 11 respect to continuing and moving forward on the things that 12 apply to this particular project. I'll refer to Page 2 of 13 the existing intergovernmental agreement, talking about, 14 "Therefore, the parties agree as follows." The term of the 15 agreement commences on the date it was signed, indicated 16 below, and to remain in full force and effect for a term 17 commensurate with the term of the T.C.D.P. contract between 18 the County and T.D.H.C.A., including any contract end-date 19 extensions. Further, it talks about Groves Engineering 20 shall be the consulting engineer for the County. They will 21 work in conjunction and cooperation with the river authority 22 in the oversight of the construction aspects of the project. 23 We're in the project. 24 MR. MOTLEY: That was last year's version? 25 Is that what you're reading from? 1-27-03 86 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm reading from one 2 of the signed and in effect -- 3 MR. MOTLEY: I just wanted to be sure which 4 one you're reading from. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And also, in terms of 6 awarding bids and so forth, so as to make certain that 7 nobody misunderstands that the County caused the reinsertion 8 of its bid-awarding authority, that particular paragraph was 9 stricken from the agreement -- struck from the agreement. 10 So -- 11 MR. MOTLEY: That should be, and I think 12 everybody was in agreement with that. As a matter of fact, 13 I kind of think that was probably kind of a leftover error 14 that was inserted, and I don't think anybody was trying to 15 change the bidding packets by doing that. I think that's 16 been corrected. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but, I mean -- 19 MR. MOTLEY: I'm sorry. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To keep you from doing 21 unnecessary work, I mean, what's the Court feel about 22 working on this template? Do we need to waste much time on 23 this template contract right now? I mean, my opinion is we 24 need to do a new contract every time we do a deal. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. 1-27-03 87 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And bring it back to the 2 Court for that time. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine, so long 4 as we clearly understand the agreement under consideration 5 is for the project that's under construction. Anything 6 attendant to that should be taken care of by the Court. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 MR. MOTLEY: Something else I was also going 9 to share with you. I kind of lost track of it. I think 10 that the goal of -- you know, that is being advanced through 11 the contract or interlocal agreement, I think it's a good 12 idea for local entities to work together in this way to 13 obtain funding from the State or from the U.S. through the 14 states to work on a problem. And I think that's -- the idea 15 of it seems to me to be fine. The only thing about this, as 16 it's currently written, that makes me a bit nervous is to 17 select specific entities beforehand. But I think that -- I 18 think that can be cleaned up fairly easily. But, again, I 19 do apologize for not having any specific information, 20 because, as I said, everything I'm seeing so far, it just 21 leaves the County out of the can-do-it category, as far as 22 what I'm saying, and it seems to me that it's something 23 where, obviously, they have to be able to do this. But I've 24 not come across it. I've been going through the pages and 25 pages of grant materials, as far as administration, 1-27-03 88 1 obtaining the grants, and trying to find out if there's an 2 exception there that would supersede the general statutes' 3 neglect to include the County as one of the entities who 4 could enter into this sort of an agreement. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't put my finger 6 on the specific Government Code reference, but I do recall 7 reading in a publication prepared by TAC of what the 8 counties can and cannot do and where the statutory authority 9 lies. 10 MR. MOTLEY: Sure. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That the Legislature 12 has given counties the authority to enter into agreements or 13 pursue wastewater and wastewater projects. 14 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That we have that 16 express authority to do that. 17 MR. MOTLEY: I feel like that this is -- is 18 essential, given the way that governments have to operate. 19 I'm just saying the places that I went initially to look for 20 it, I've not found it there. And I agree with what you're 21 saying, and I'm sure -- and I have that book. I know the 22 book you're talking about; it's from the Community Affairs 23 Department, I believe, and that might be a good place for me 24 to go next. But, as I said, I've been looking at 25 administrative codes, the Texas Register, and reading all 1-27-03 89 1 the rules and regulations, everything I could find on this. 2 And, really, toward the end of looking at the idea of -- of 3 naming consultants, I was looking at the end of the query 4 more than I was the general, "can you do it," but can you 5 have consultants named preliminarily. And -- and, without 6 going through RFP, that's where most of my research has been 7 going. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me address that. 9 When the Court -- when the Court heard the presentation from 10 Grantworks -- and that seems to be a problematic piece for 11 you right now. We heard their presentation of what they 12 would do, their services. Their services included 13 identifying grants, pursuing grants with the authority of 14 the Court given them to do that, and administrating the 15 grants, and the contract is signed by the County. Right -- 16 that took place right in this room, in a resolution to that 17 effect. 18 MR. MOTLEY: One thing that would help me -- 19 and I will tell that you that Ms. Sovil got a lot of 20 agreements for me to review. I'm at a bit of a loss to 21 understand why I can't find certain completed documents that 22 they're -- contracts. All you have is a proposed contract 23 for professional management, engineering, and architectural 24 services. I got a copy from Mr. Mosty of last year's 25 interlocal agreement. It seems to me that any important 1-27-03 90 1 documents involving the County as a party should be on file 2 in the Clerk's office, in a place where I could use it, any 3 of us could use it, get a copy of it. Anybody in the public 4 who wanted to look at it could look at it. I've had a hard 5 time finding documents and reference materials that I think 6 are critical to this -- to this exercise of trying to parse 7 it all out. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with 9 you, Mr. Motley, but there's two files -- I believe those 10 files right there -- for the entire project. You're welcome 11 to take them down there and look through them, see exactly 12 what's in it. It's right here in front of the Judge. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: If I might address that point, 14 there's, oh, I don't know, probably 30 files there totally 15 that are up here on the -- on the desk. You know, 16 Mr. Williams -- Commissioner Williams delivered those to 17 Ms. Sovil, as he referenced, I believe this past Wednesday, 18 if I'm not mistaken. 19 MR. MOTLEY: He's been favoring me with some 20 documents from there, and I -- I mean, he's been giving what 21 he could all along. So, I mean, I -- I'm not saying anybody 22 is hiding anything or anything like that. I'm just saying I 23 would like it to be very readily available. And 24 Commissioner Williams has sent me, I think, documents on two 25 or three occasions during the past week that have helped me 1-27-03 91 1 in -- in this -- in this research. But, I'll tell you, it's 2 hard to prove a negative. And it's -- and, so, how do I 3 prove the County can't do something or the -- you know, if 4 I -- it'd be easy if I could find something that said the 5 County could. So far, I haven't found it, but I'm going to 6 take your hint on that; I know the book you're talking 7 about. I'll go look at that and see. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I appreciate that. 9 MR. MOTLEY: I would like to do that, see if 10 we can find something specifically that overrides, and then 11 I think we're okay. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the meantime, does 13 the County have the authority to approve a change order on 14 this project? That is -- that has been submitted by the 15 consulting engineer and approved by the consulting engineer. 16 MR. MOTLEY: This one? The one we're talking 17 about, 2001? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Yeah. Under 19 the current interlocal agreement that's in effect, do we 20 have the authority to approve a change order? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Here's the change order, if 22 you need to see it. 23 MR. MOTLEY: I actually haven't read the 24 previous agreement with that -- with that change in mind. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The submitting party, as I see 1-27-03 92 1 it, is Tetra Tech. 2 MR. MOTLEY: And it spells out in here for 3 something -- somewhere about what this additional $66,000 is 4 for? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's $105. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $105. 7 MR. MOTLEY: Is that what this is? Net 8 change by previous -- oh, those are previous change orders, 9 excuse me. 105 bucks? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $105, yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll pay it. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a biggie. 13 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'll tell you what. I 14 really, honestly, in doing the project I've been working on, 15 I haven't been looking at either of these agreements with an 16 eye toward change orders. So, if you want me to, I'll be 17 happy to sit down and look at this agreement. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not looking to 19 put more road blocks in the way. They -- we got enough. 20 MR. MOTLEY: If it's something y'all need to 21 do, I'll be happy to look at this real quick, see if I can 22 find something that addresses change orders. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please do. 24 MR. MOTLEY: If you'd like me to while I'm 25 here in court. 1-27-03 93 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please do. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Have you got any further 4 comments on this 2.10, this interlocal -- the revisions to 5 the interlocal agreement between Kerr County and U.G.R.A. 6 concerning Kerrville South Wastewater Project, as it 7 concerns covering current, pending, and future projects? 8 MR. MOTLEY: The current project, as I 9 understand, and I believe -- correct me if I'm wrong, 10 Commissioner. Are there not two projects that are currently 11 underway, under the auspices of this -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, two phases of 13 the same project. Two different funds funding these two 14 phases. 15 MR. MOTLEY: Exactly. Those are both 16 underway and sort of being handled by the contract I'm 17 holding in my hands that Mr. Mosty gave me, correct? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I would add that 19 a third grant is in the pipeline awaiting funding, a funding 20 date we believe will be funded for a third phase. Same 21 project, third phase. 22 MR. MOTLEY: I understand there's probably 23 yet a third grant or another grant to fund that; is that 24 correct? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And one more we've 1-27-03 94 1 applied for, even a fourth grant. Same project, phase four. 2 MR. MOTLEY: And I think that that's fine. 3 I'll have to -- let me just say that this is not as basic a 4 research project as I anticipated it was. It's really been 5 quite involved. And, plus, I've had numerous other duties 6 this last week. I had to finish up some things that have 7 been on the front burner for a long time, so it's really 8 hard to kind of -- even though you did write me a letter 9 previous to the meeting on the 13th and say that it was 10 something that needed to be done, and we reset it for today, 11 so we've had two shots at this, but it's just going to take 12 me a little more time, is all I can say. I have been in 13 contact with Mr. Mosty, and I'll be more than happy to work 14 with him on this, as I would on any kind of agreement. He's 15 easy to work with. And so I'll be happy to -- I don't think 16 the changes that I'm talking about -- again, assuming the 17 whole process is fine, which I'm going to assume the City 18 wants to find that. But the changes contemplated are 19 nothing that are extensive, anyway, and I think they would 20 give you the result that you're seeking, which would be a 21 template type of an agreement, and it would help things 22 speed along. I don't feel like I answered all of 23 Commissioner Letz' questions. I feel like I left you kind 24 of hanging there. I don't want to do that. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, you've done -- 1-27-03 95 1 you've, you know, been very clear on your answers, and I 2 appreciate them. I'm just -- my -- I'm going back to the 3 agenda item, and I would -- my preference would be -- and 4 this is one Commissioner -- is to forget the funding in the 5 future; let's just get the current one amended. And, in the 6 process of doing that, if it helps you to research the 7 template one -- I mean, 'cause we're going to have to 8 address that down the road. But I'm trying to keep from 9 having to -- 10 MR. MOTLEY: Can I ask a question? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 12 MR. MOTLEY: Is there anything necessary to 13 amend, except possibly reflecting the name changes of the 14 organizations and state agencies and then these work 15 order -- change orders? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's all. 17 MR. MOTLEY: I think it should survive that. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there's a date 19 issue regarding the Tetra Tech contract, I guess. 20 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know 22 that there is. In the interlocal agreement, it provides for 23 the consulting engineer to work on the project. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but the agreement 25 the engineering company has -- and I haven't looked at that 1-27-03 96 1 agreement, you know. 2 MR. MOTLEY: I think I have it. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But in that agreement, 4 someone, for some reason, had an expiration date in it. 5 That needs to be worked, and that may be -- you know, we 6 want to have a current contract with everybody involved. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The question is, is 8 Tetra Tech a successor to the contract, to the Groves 9 Engineering contract? 10 MR. MOTLEY: Now, I -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If they're not, then 12 do we want to contract with Tetra Tech? I -- I can't find 13 that -- I'm sure it's true, but I can't find that Tetra Tech 14 has purchased Groves Engineering. I've looked at two year's 15 worth of their press releases that include purchase of five 16 or six, probably, different companies, and they don't 17 include that one in there. I also found that Tetra Tech, in 18 December, lost a lawsuit over breach of contract and was 19 the -- the plaintiff was awarded, I think, $4.1 million in 20 damages. So, I don't know who Tetra Tech is; I don't know 21 if they're successor to this contract. And if they're not, 22 I don't know if the County wants to do business with them. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know 24 who they are either, except they purchased Groves 25 Engineering, and I didn't think it was this Court's business 1-27-03 97 1 to look into -- to whether or not they -- the purchase 2 agreement. They are the firm that acquired Groves, we're 3 advised. There is a contract between this county and 4 Groves, that we have a project underway, so somebody tell me 5 how we keep it moving. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that contract 7 provide for successor to -- 8 MR. MOTLEY: Let me say that the form that 9 I've looked at, that was presented as the form that -- 10 between Groves Engineering and Kerr County, addresses that. 11 It says the firm shall not assign any interest in the 12 contract -- you know, shall not transfer any interest 13 without the prior written consent of the City or County. 14 So, it may be if it doesn't out-and-out say that they 15 succeed to the rights of Groves Engineering, that Tetra Tech 16 and the County could simply agree to that change and go on 17 with that. Without having to actually amend the contract, 18 in other words. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. So, how 20 do we pursue that? 21 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'm going to sit down here 22 and look at this, and then I'm going to give you an opinion 23 on that and the change order. So, I'll be sitting here. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think there's been an 25 additional issue raised with regard to the Groves 1-27-03 98 1 Engineering contract, not just necessarily the successor in 2 interest to Groves Engineering, but also as to the term of 3 the contract between Kerr County and Groves Engineering. My 4 understanding from Commissioner Nicholson is that his 5 research has indicated that specific contract for those 6 services to be provided by Groves, the term of that contract 7 expired on December 31st of last year. Is that correct, 8 Commissioner Nicholson? 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This contract did, 10 between Kerr County and Groves Engineering. I don't know if 11 this contract is the one we -- under question. 12 MR. MOTLEY: That's what I have right here. 13 And it looks fairly similar, but I have -- mine is not an 14 executed copy, and I assumed -- it looks like the same 15 agreement. I'll be happy to make a copy of this, too. We 16 need to -- what I'm working off of is what I presume to be a 17 draft. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: File copy? 19 MR. MOTLEY: It's not signed or anything, so 20 I didn't know. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This one's signed. 22 MR. MOTLEY: It looks pretty similar, just 23 looking at it. But I didn't know there was any specific 24 date here. It does say time of performance. In any event, 25 all services completed -- shall be completed no later than 1-27-03 99 1 December 31st, 2002. There may be provisions in here for 2 extensions. I've just not -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: But at least, presumptively, 4 December 31, 2002, this contract expires then, if that's the 5 -- the correct format. 6 MR. MOTLEY: That's when the time of 7 performance was complete -- supposed to be completed. There 8 may be remedies for going over that date, like a liquidated 9 damages provision or something like that, that we might can 10 look at. I'll take a look at this. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you square 12 that with Section 1 on Page 2 of the -- of the existing 13 interlocal agreement and Section 5.3 of the existing 14 interlocal agreement? Tell us where the deficiencies lie 15 and how to correct them. 16 MR. MOTLEY: Section 1 on Page 2. What was 17 the second reference you gave me? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5.3 on Page 3. 19 MR. MOTLEY: That may -- may be -- we may 20 need to deal with -- I just made reference to some sort of a 21 contract end-date extension or something like that. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 23 MR. MOTLEY: How long -- how far along are 24 they on these two phases? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're working on one of 1-27-03 100 1 them right now. That's what the change order is related to. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Is one finished? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're half finished 4 with one phase, and have moved to the other phase because of 5 the -- the provisions of the easement agreement between 6 Riverhill, the County, and the City to get that work done 7 now. So, they're on that phase right now. When they 8 complete that, they'll go back and complete the other piece 9 that they're working on. 10 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'll sure -- I'll take a 11 look at that, and if I can give you a report back, I'll do 12 that. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Have you got anything you want 15 to add to this, Commissioner Baldwin? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I don't. I'd 17 like to know what we're going to do here, though. What 18 Commissioner Williams intends on doing. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I intend to 20 wait and get a report from the County Attorney as to what, 21 if any, deficiencies there are in the interlocal agreement 22 that have to be corrected, if any, and I'd like to have an 23 answer, and I'm given to believe I will get an answer as to 24 whether or not we can pay a $105 change order before we 25 leave today. 1-27-03 101 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And my other question 2 would be if Number 4 had his questions answered. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it sounds like, to 5 me, we're not ready to act. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Not ready to move forward on 7 this 2.10. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It looks like. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Nor are we ready to move 10 forward on 2.09, it doesn't seem. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appears that way to 12 me. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the County 15 Attorney said he's taking a look at the change order and 16 will report to us before we -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can talk about Hermann 18 Sons some more, if you want. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- we appreciate your 20 update on 2.11, and if nobody's got anything further to 21 offer on 2.10 and we're going to await further developments 22 on that, we'll proceed to Item 2.12, which is the last item 23 on the consideration agenda, it appears. Consider and 24 discuss and take appropriate action to suspend, effectively 25 immediately, Section 10 of the On-Site Sewer Facility rules, 1-27-03 102 1 commonly known as real estate transfer inspection, through 2 July 31, 2003. Commissioner Nicholson. You brought this 3 item forward. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As you know, this is 5 a carry-over item from last Commissioners Court meeting, and 6 I'll reiterate what we discussed there; that the real estate 7 transfer rule was apparently enacted for the purposes of 8 providing a mechanism for inspecting some sort of a sample 9 of the septic systems in the county, and then, of course, 10 requiring the repair of those that didn't meet standards. 11 We can see now that the rules have very little impact on 12 identifying and correcting failing systems, and it appears 13 that the concept of -- of sampling systems in this manner is 14 flawed. A reasonable guess is that, over 20 years, the rule 15 might result in fewer than 10 percent of Kerr County septic 16 systems being inspected. It, in my view, is an unnecessary 17 intrusion on property rights, hinders the real estate 18 transaction, drives up transfer costs, and it damages the 19 properties under contract. I want to abolish the rule 20 and -- and find more effective ways to identify failing 21 septic systems than this. And the suggestion was made at 22 the last Commissioners Court meeting that, rather than 23 abolish the rule, because of the uncertainty about water and 24 government and other reasons, that we would simply suspend 25 the rule for six months, and I support the concept of the 1-27-03 103 1 suspension as -- you know, as opposed to abolishing the 2 rule. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Is a -- is a public hearing 4 required as a condition to consider the suspension? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My view is that a 6 public hearing would be required to abolish the rule, but 7 not to suspend it. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any 9 different opinion about that? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a different 11 opinion. I'm not sure; I think we may be able to -- and we 12 may have to really table this until tomorrow, 'cause we'll 13 answer the question. I think that it may require T.C.E.Q. 14 approval to suspend it, because we're enforcing -- they 15 approved Section 10, and I suspect they're going to require 16 their approval to suspend it. If that's true, then we're 17 also going to have to do a public hearing on the suspension. 18 So, my -- my shortcut of suspending turns out to be 19 longer -- as long, if not longer, than the other route. And 20 since then, I've also had a discussion with the president of 21 the U.G.R.A. Board, and the -- for something that I had not 22 thought about, but we need to address. And it doesn't 23 necessarily mean that I'm opposed to suspending it, but we 24 have an agreement -- contract with U.G.R.A. for enforcing 25 the rules, and they make budgetary -- it's done on an annual 1-27-03 104 1 basis, and they have budgetary considerations based on the 2 rules that were in place when they entered into that earlier 3 in the year. 4 A high portion of their revenue, which helps 5 pay for this -- their enforcement of our rules, comes from 6 the real estate transfer, and if we suspend the real estate 7 transfer, we need to have some sort of an agreement with 8 U.G.R.A. as to how we handle that -- I guess the loss -- I 9 won't say "loss" -- loss of revenue that they would have for 10 the remainder of this contract period. And I think the 11 numbers that I've been told are -- you know, could be, you 12 know, in the neighborhood of $20,000, $30,000, $40,000. 13 It's hard to say, 'cause it's -- you know, it's hard to go 14 back and see exactly how much revenue they get off of that 15 one item. But I don't think that it is proper for the 16 County to just, all of a sudden, just say -- you know, to 17 anybody, whether U.G.R.A. or a private individual or another 18 government entity, to say we're going to change the rules 19 all of a sudden; you're going to lose a large portion of 20 your funding. So I think that this needs to be addressed. 21 I really don't have a good solution to the 22 last. I mean, I still agree with Commissioner Nicholson; I 23 don't like Section 10 the way it's currently in place, and I 24 have no problem with pursuing that direction of suspending 25 it, but I think U.G.R.A. and the loss of revenue that they 1-27-03 105 1 would have for administration of the contract needs to be 2 addressed. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with 4 Commissioner Letz on those two issues, that how we -- if we 5 -- if we pull out of any of our agreements with them, it 6 kind of throws their budget in a tailspin, and it definitely 7 impacts their budget, and I don't think that that's the 8 proper way to do business. I'm certainly willing to sit 9 down in a workshop session with U.G.R.A. and work out these 10 things before we actually do them, but to just up and pull 11 the rug out, I don't -- I don't think is a proper way to do 12 business. As well as -- in order to install Section 10 into 13 the county rules, the State went through their little 14 process of their board meetings up in Austin and with 15 approval. And, yes, they have to -- in order to remove 16 those the way -- according to them, they have to also go 17 through those steps again to remove. So, I -- in order to 18 do that, I think the agenda item's written just -- is not -- 19 is not properly written here, but we're also talking about 20 what would we do if -- if we did this? Would we replace it 21 with another plan? And I never -- I never have -- I mean, 22 I've been dealing with this for a long time, and I just 23 never have heard a good plan in place of the real estate 24 inspection, except for one. And just -- I'm not promoting 25 this, but it's a thought that I just want to kind of throw 1-27-03 106 1 out, and somebody -- for you to chew on and all of us to 2 chew on a little bit later on. You know, when we -- today, 3 when we had some plats in here -- or when we approve a plat, 4 the -- there's an engineer's seal on here that the lines and 5 distances and measurements and all of those things are 6 correct. And we -- because of that engineer's seal on 7 there, we know that -- that we can trust him, and his 8 license is on the -- or seal's on the line because of that. 9 And, to me, why can't we take that kind of thinking -- or 10 let's talk about taking the -- take that kind of thinking 11 and bring it over here to Section 10, and that as an 12 installer comes along and installs a system, and he puts 13 his -- his stamp -- his professional license on the line, 14 that -- that that is a good system, and us rely on him. Let 15 him be accountable to the public. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That -- I mean, I have 17 thought of something, I think, similar to that, which is 18 basically getting the governmental entities out of the 19 inspection of real estate transfer; turn it over to the 20 private sector. I think that's what you're saying. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let the people that 22 are installing these systems, let them be accountable. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Instead of the 25 government entity. It's just a thought. I don't -- you 1-27-03 107 1 know, y'all chew on it, do what you want to with it. But as 2 of today in this -- this particular item, I'm not going to 3 be in favor of it. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think it -- I 5 said it last time this came up. If we have a better way of 6 detecting failing or out-of-compliance septic systems, then 7 let's put it on the table and discuss it, and put it in 8 place. I think the suspension or the abolishing of Section 9 10 is a vote to proliferate failing and out-of-compliance 10 systems, and you might as well just take the gate down 11 and -- and let -- put the sign up outside saying, "Kerr 12 County Commissioners Court doesn't care." Do what you want 13 to do, when you want to do it. Just do it. If you're not 14 going to try to find them and correct them, you have just 15 put water quality in this county in a coffin; you're nailing 16 the lid on top of it, in my opinion. So, I wouldn't vote 17 for the abolishing of Section 10 under any circumstances 18 until and unless there's a better system in place. And if 19 there's a better system in place, design it, bring it here, 20 let's discuss it, find out what the flaws are, and replace 21 the existing Section 10 with a section that makes sense. 22 So, I won't vote for it either. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You understand I 24 didn't say that, what he just got through saying. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll take credit for 1-27-03 108 1 what I said. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: This might be an appropriate 3 time. We've had at least two parties who have indicated 4 they would like to offer some comments or thoughts or ideas 5 about this particular subject, and I suppose this is as good 6 a time as any to listen to these folks. And the first one, 7 I believe, that I was given the -- here's one from Gary 8 McVey. 9 MR. McVEY: McVey. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: McVey, who lives at 507 11 Westway. That's out in Kerrville South, I believe, isn't 12 it, sir? 13 MR. McVEY: Right, it is. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Yes, sir? 15 MR. McVEY: We, as Kerrville South -- I'm the 16 Secretary of Kerrville South Community Action Group. And, 17 first of all, I moved here about three years ago, purchased 18 a home, and paid for a lot of -- paid for inspections, 19 transfer, found out the system wasn't working. I have an 20 aerobic system. I'm concerned about the water quality, of 21 course, but my concern today is about the inspection 22 transfer of these expensive aerobic systems, because we pay 23 -- those owners of aerobics pay a fee each year to have a 24 quarter or three-times-a-year inspection. It can run $160 25 to $300, I guess. So, there's a report filed of -- made 1-27-03 109 1 out. That report should go to U.G.R.A. or whoever our 2 enforcement officials are. That, I've found out, did not 3 happen. I ended up spending about $1,000 for repair of a 4 system that you couldn't just walk up there and look at it 5 and see that it was -- wasn't working. Someone had 6 disconnected the alarm, so -- and my -- I wasn't familiar 7 with them, so I didn't catch it 'till I saw water running 8 out of it, and then I got it fixed. 9 So, what I'm saying is that we can't just -- 10 I would suggest we can't just do away with this inspection 11 system, especially for these expensive systems. And the 12 real estate business -- and I think I've moved 15 times and 13 purchased about 10 different properties, so I speak from 14 that -- is that, from that side, we don't need to be known 15 over on these hills as a -- watch out when you buy, because 16 you may spend $8,000 or $10,000 to get that system replaced, 17 because it's not inspected. No one -- the person that put 18 mine in is long gone, so -- but that's my point, is it needs 19 to be an enforcer. I don't care who it is. That it needs 20 to be -- when the real estate is transferred, aerobic 21 system, everything's up and running and it's correct, okay? 22 Thank you. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate 24 your comments. The next individual we have on this 25 particular agenda item is Mr. Vernon Harrison. 1-27-03 110 1 Mr. Harrison, how are you this morning? 2 MR. HARRISON: I'm fine, Judge, thank you. 3 This is a subject that I have addressed on more than one 4 occasion, and it's one I have concerns about. And I got 5 concerned about it 'cause I got trapped in it when I came 6 here. And I've had nothing but unhappy experiences with the 7 operation of Section 10, and it doesn't have to do with the 8 fact that Section 10 helped find a failing system. In my 9 case, it did not find a failing system. Because the 10 situation I was faced with is, when I bought a relatively 11 large piece of commercial property, I provided in my 12 contract that the property itself be in compliance with all 13 governmental regulations. I threw them all in, and I asked 14 that it be inspected to find out that everything was 15 working. And a fee was paid to U.G.R.A. to supposedly 16 inspect the system. At least that's what I assume. 17 And I'm one of those lawyers who causes all 18 this trouble, but I thought that the rule that said you paid 19 an inspection fee meant you got an inspection, only that's 20 not how that works, I found out later. You pay an 21 inspection fee, but you don't get an inspection unless you 22 go down there and tell them to go out and inspect. All you 23 get when you pay the fee is you pay a fee, because they need 24 that to help them with their budget. So, in my case, seven 25 or eight months later, I found out that this septic system 1-27-03 111 1 that I had relied on what I thought was a governmental 2 agency in charge of this to check this out, I, in fact, had 3 a failing septic system. I won't even go into the 4 nightmares I had with trying to get that failing system 5 fixed and all the trouble I had with the governmental 6 agencies and trying to get that done. But the point is, 7 Section 10 didn't help one bit. What it did do is cover up 8 and left me, as a buyer, in a bad situation. Number one, I 9 couldn't sue anybody. That broke my heart, as a lawyer. 10 (Laughter.) 11 MR. HARRISON: And the reason I couldn't sue 12 anybody is I paid a fee for -- for U.G.R.A. to inspect my -- 13 my place. That -- and the realtor says, "It wasn't my 14 fault. I relied on U.G.R.A." The seller said, "What do I 15 know? I relied on the person who installed it and U.G.R.A," 16 and I relied on U.G.R.A. If none of that had been in place, 17 I would have done what every buyer should do; I would have 18 got a septic installer to come out and check it, which is 19 what I think we should do here in Kerr County. We should 20 trust that buyers and sellers will look out for their own 21 best interests. 22 AUDIENCE: You betcha. 23 MR. HARRISON: And that they will require an 24 inspection by an expert of their own choice. And had I been 25 in that situation, I would have gotten a septic tank 1-27-03 112 1 installer to inspect it for me, and he would have told me, 2 "You have a failing system." Or if he didn't tell me I had 3 a failing system, all his assets would be mine and his 4 license would be gone. I'd have recourse. As it is now, I 5 got trapped in a situation that cost me a whole bunch of 6 money with nobody to look to, because the rules said -- said 7 everything was okay. 8 So I say, first off, Section 10 doesn't find 9 failing septic systems. It didn't find mine when it would 10 have been the seller's problem, not mine. Next, even -- it 11 failed in that transfer situation. In the situations where 12 most of the property in Kerr County doesn't change hands -- 13 the great majority of property in Kerr County changes hands 14 very infrequently. Therefore, if the only system we have 15 for finding failing septic systems is for when property 16 changes hands, all you have to do to protect your failing 17 septic system is don't sell your property. And then you can 18 sit there and run the sewer in the street, because no one's 19 coming around to check it. If I own property right on the 20 river -- and that river is extremely important to me. I own 21 property to the middle of the river, and I operate a -- a 22 business that is tied to that river being clean and being a 23 good place for people to enjoy. I want the river clean. 24 But I think that using Section 10, number 25 one, it hasn't worked. At least in my situation, it didn't 1-27-03 113 1 work. And, number two, all my neighbors -- most of them 2 aren't transferring their property. There can be horrible 3 situations next door, and we don't even have a system for 4 working through that. So, I think what we need to do is 5 find something that will help us find the failing septic 6 systems. Do something about it, the failing septic systems, 7 and quit spending a whole lot of time, money, and effort 8 bothering people who are just trying to sell their property. 9 If they have a failing septic system, fix it. But just to 10 make something more difficult to transfer real estate is not 11 good. It's not good for the economy, it's not good for the 12 county. And I appreciate your attention. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Harrison. The 14 next individual that I have noted -- I presume this is on 15 the Section 10 -- is Bill Stacy. Is that on the right 16 subject, Judge Stacy? 17 MR. STACY: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward, sir. 19 MR. STACY: I'm glad to be back with you 20 gentlemen again. This is what you have adopted, a previous 21 court. These -- and it's my understanding these people are 22 going to be up here tomorrow, and I can't wait to get these 23 Austin experts up here to Kerr County to these rules that 24 they have dropped on us. I want to make one remark. I'm 25 tired of hearing about trying to protect the river from the 1-27-03 114 1 septic system. That's a bunch of malarky. We're -- the 2 septic systems are not polluting the river. I can tell you 3 this. I was in the children's camp business for 40-some-odd 4 years, and those horses are what was polluting the river. 5 It wasn't the septic system, believe me. I've seen it. So, 6 Mr. Williams, you're off base on that remark about the 7 Section 10. I -- Commissioners, I wish that you would go 8 back and spend the time that -- when I was on the court, 9 when we worked on these rules, when we had hearing after 10 hearing after hearing and we heard the people. These rules 11 got adopted somehow in the middle of the night, and they are 12 a laughingstock. And you have -- you have put the people -- 13 just like the gentleman just spoke, and it's unreal. 14 What they want you to do is to follow the 15 state rules, and the State keeps changing the rules. They 16 keep moving the goalpost on you. And these guys -- and I 17 was -- I used to put in septic systems before all these guys 18 who made any rules were born. And, believe you me, we've 19 put in three tanks and a leach line that worked. And if we 20 didn't have enough leach line, we saw something coming up, 21 we made it longer. And I can tell you this, the way that 22 U.G.R.A. has interpreted these rules, they don't even know 23 what a leach line is. 'Cause I've been there. They've cost 24 me thousands of dollars unnecessarily, 'cause they wanted me 25 to conform to their rules. I had a septic system that was 1-27-03 115 1 working, and worked for 20-some-odd years, but under the 2 state rules, they said no, and it cost me thousands of 3 dollars. 4 So, I'm urging the Commissioners Court to go 5 back to square one that we did in my court, and -- and have 6 reviews, ask the public input, and listen to what the public 7 is saying and listen to what the realtors are saying. And 8 this gentleman, he's a lawyer here, and lawyers do sometimes 9 know what they're talking about when -- when they're talking 10 about not being able to sue somebody. I couldn't do 11 anything. Cost me thousands of dollars to sell my own 12 property, and you're right. So, gentlemen, go back and 13 revise these rules. And let's ask these guys that come over 14 here from Austin tomorrow, are they on city sewer or are 15 they on septic lines, to make these rules? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Judge Stacy. The 17 next individual who has filed a participation form on this 18 issue is Mr. Bernard Syfan. Come forward, please, 19 Mr. Syfan. 20 MR. SYFAN: Gentlemen, there's several 21 things. When you were adopting these rules, T.N.R.C.C. did 22 come over in these hearings, and they were asked 23 specifically, straight out, flat out, was Section 10 24 required, or would the County be able to protect the river 25 water with the state rules, just as they're written? And he 1-27-03 116 1 was quite emphatic; he said it can be done without a Section 2 10. Section 10 is covering just a teeny little piece, and 3 it's a great big harassment. If there are places along the 4 river that show there is pollution, that area ought to be 5 under scrutiny, and it ought to be under scrutiny 6 specifically. And the areas that are not being polluted, 7 that's not where you spend your time. 8 As far as the U.G.R.A. losing $20,000 to 9 $40,000 out of their operating budget, if they don't have 10 this harassment rule, I -- I don't quite understand that. 11 If they don't have to spend the money and they don't get the 12 money, it's a washout, unless they're charging fees to 13 support other things. I'm not quite sure just where that 14 $20,000 to $40,000 of loss would come. I'd be very 15 interested to see that. In fact, are they charging enough 16 fee to support their other operations, and that's the loss? 17 Or does the fee just cover what they're going to do, and if 18 we do remove the fee and what they're going to do, it's a 19 wash? As far as inspections on aerobic systems, we've got a 20 system of inspecting the aerobic systems, which are an 21 abomination to everything. Those aerobic systems should be 22 a very, very, very last resort. And if there is a -- a 23 property transfer, I think it's up to the real estate broker 24 involved to be darned sure that the person knows that 25 they're being saddled with a -- a big expense. And when 1-27-03 117 1 somebody is told that they ought to be getting an aerobic 2 system, anybody that's buying an aerobic system ought to, 3 for darn sure, be told by whoever's administering the 4 situation to -- that they're going to have a big expense. 5 And that expense is not just up-front, it is forever. It is 6 forever. It ought to be a very last resort. A last resort. 7 You don't need Section 10. You're getting 8 three inspections a year. If those three inspections don't 9 mean anything, don't have them. If they do mean anything, 10 whoever is inspecting, just like they said earlier, ought to 11 be made responsible for guaranteeing that that system works. 12 So, if you're worried about Section 10 for aerobic systems, 13 it's not necessary. You already got a law that says they've 14 got to be inspected, and it's important that they be 15 inspected, because they fail. An aerobic system is a very, 16 very delicate operation. It works great for a municipality, 17 where they have a man there all the time testing it. For a 18 little old lady in the back streets, it's -- you're saddling 19 her with something that's awful. I -- I believe that's far 20 enough to go. And I think that we need to -- just like 21 Mr. Williams said, we ought to find something better. That 22 doesn't do the job. It's not doing the job. Look where 23 you've got pollution, and look hard. Thank you. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Syfan. The 25 next individual that I have is Janet Robinson, representing 1-27-03 118 1 the U.G.R.A. Please come forward, Ms. Robinson. 2 MS. ROBINSON: Good morning, Judge, 3 Commissioners. I just have two comments I'd like to make. 4 One is, I would like for the Court and U.G.R.A. to examine 5 these very controversial rules together in some sort of 6 studied manner. I do not support you voting on Section 10 7 today. As a couple of the Commissioners have pointed out, 8 it will have a very negative impact on our budget. We've 9 already budgeted a loss in this program for this year out of 10 our revenues. And the last time these rules were changed, 11 which was in January 2001, and the change lasted until 12 June -- July 1, 2001, it had a negative impact on our budget 13 of $30,000. Now, you changed two rules at that time; one of 14 them was you changed the real estate exemption from 25 acres 15 down to 10 acres, and you changed the real estate transfer. 16 When you reinstated the real estate transfer in July of 17 2001, you did not change back the real estate exemption 18 acreage requirement, so it's a little hard to sort out 19 exactly what the impact was on our budget, but it came to 20 about $30,000. 21 The contract that we are now administrating 22 your rules under lasts until the end of our fiscal year. I 23 would like to see us undertaking more prudent and long-term 24 studies on this, and not make any changes in the rules until 25 the new fiscal year. Then we can examine whether or not we 1-27-03 119 1 want to administer the new rules, and you can give plenty of 2 time to examining the impact of your rules on real estate 3 transfers, on water quality and other issues. So, that's my 4 first point. I do think that there's some people in our 5 organization that are unhappy with Section 10 and the 6 inspection process, and we have some input we'd like to make 7 into a study. And I know you all have some concerns as 8 well, so I'd hope that, starting tomorrow, when they come 9 from Austin, we can begin to examine what we want to do here 10 together, and not make a hasty decision. This would be the 11 second time we've changed this rule in two years, so it's 12 kind of like we don't have a course set that we all agree 13 on, and I hope we can do that. 14 The other thing I do want to comment on, and 15 that is the water quality issues. There are some definite 16 problems with this type of examination. But of the -- of 17 the systems that we have established -- or we have examined 18 on real estate transfer, over 40 percent were either failing 19 or failed to meet current standards. Now, I know Judge 20 Tinley raised the issue -- this issue in an earlier meeting, 21 and we didn't sort out which ones were actually failing and 22 which ones did not meet current standards, but once they 23 have not met current standards, then you can't ignore the 24 fact that they don't meet current standards. If they've 25 been uncovered, then they do have to be brought up to 1-27-03 120 1 compliance. To me, that means that there were a lot of 2 systems out there that were not up to standards. Now, of 3 course, these were the ones that were just being 4 transferred, the real estate. That makes us wonder about 5 all the other ones out there that might not be meeting 6 standards or might be polluting. 7 I think, for me, why I volunteered to do this 8 kind of work -- some days you have to ask yourself why -- 9 it's because I believe in the quality of our river. We 10 already have in the county one stream that flows into our 11 river that is on the EPA's 305-D list. That's Camp Meeting 12 Creek. That essentially means it's biologically dead. 13 There is too much pollution in there for it to support 14 aquatic life. I call that a dead stream. You know, there 15 was a recent article in the Kerrville Daily Times saying 16 that, according to the EPA, a third of our streams and 17 rivers in the United States are no longer suitable for 18 recreation. To me, that is a terrible thing. I grew up 19 along a creek, and I spent hours there as a child playing in 20 it, and I want to leave that heritage to my granddaughter, 21 who lives in this community. 22 I know those people where a third of their 23 streams and rivers did not meet standards for recreation, no 24 group like the Commissioners Court or the City Council set 25 out to pollute those streams. They didn't sit down and make 1-27-03 121 1 policies to pollute those streams. What they did was make 2 policies without always asking themselves, how is this going 3 to impact water quality? And it was an unintended 4 consequence. I'm absolutely sure that these were good 5 people who just didn't think about the river in every 6 decision that they make. This river is the heart and soul 7 of this community, and I don't want to look at my 8 granddaughter, who's now nine, 25 or 30 years from now and 9 say that I didn't fight hard enough to keep this creek so we 10 can continue to canoe in it as we do today. That's one of 11 the things that she and I enjoy doing together. So, I hope 12 as you undertake changes in this program -- and I do think, 13 on both sides, everyone agrees there is room for some 14 changes -- that we will make the water quality the number 15 one issue to look at what decision -- the decisions we're 16 making today, how that will impact the quality of the river, 17 so we don't end up with more of the situations like we have 18 in the Camp Meeting Creek. And that's all the comment I 19 have this morning. Thank you for your time. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Robinson. We 21 appreciate you being here. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I can make one 23 comment? I'd kind of -- a little bit in response to Mr. 24 Syfan's question about the U.G.R.A. funding and the $30,000 25 loss. Any governmental entity or private entity or anything 1-27-03 122 1 else, you can't just one day, all of a sudden, say we're 2 going to -- when they have staffing and, you know, their 3 internal infrastructure in place to do something, and all of 4 a sudden you say, "You're not going to do this portion of 5 that job any more." You know, I don't think it is right for 6 the Court to say that, and the reason is, U.G.R.A.'s only 7 recourse, really, is either to absorb more of a loss or 8 temporarily lay people off and cut back part of their office 9 staff. I mean, it's not just a matter of fees coming in to 10 administer this; there's people involved, and there's legal 11 issues from -- in my mind, and ethical issues that we made 12 an agreement with an entity to do something for us. From 13 what I said earlier, I strongly believe we need to change 14 what that direction is, but I don't think it's right to -- 15 you know, for us unilaterally to say, well, we're just going 16 to change it, and we're sorry if you have to reduce your 17 staff. We're sorry if you have to change your 18 infrastructure. I don't think that that's right, and that's 19 why I'm opposed to doing something real quickly. 20 And it kind of goes back to what I stated at 21 the last meeting, that why I didn't want to have a whole 22 series of public hearings on this topic is that, you know, 23 it's -- we need to try to get through -- figure out where 24 we're going and have one series of public hearings. Or if 25 it -- and if it takes multiple hearings, that's fine, to get 1-27-03 123 1 the public input. Because if we have these multiple public 2 hearings, I don't think it's right for us to basically ask 3 the community to come back here every court meeting for the 4 next six months as we talk about septic, 'cause they want to 5 be involved. And we want people to be involved, but we need 6 to have, you know, something for them to look at and the 7 direction the Court's going to go on that. And that's why I 8 think we really need to, you know, first step tomorrow, meet 9 with T.C.E.Q., their staff. Then do what Commissioner 10 Baldwin says; you visit with U.G.R.A. and get a direction, 11 before we start setting public hearings on changing things 12 through the process. I think if you get premature, I think 13 it really hurts the process. That's my only comment. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's become clear to 15 me that -- that Section 10 -- the primary purpose of Section 16 10 is to raise revenue. The -- the so-called protection of 17 the river is secondary to that. The reason Section 10 was 18 reinstated was to deal with the revenue shortfall that 19 U.G.R.A. was experiencing because it had been abolished. 20 That's not an effective way to protect the river. It's not 21 an effective way of sampling septic systems. A better thing 22 we could do, and we could do it right now, is to require the 23 -- require those systems that we now know are not working to 24 be -- to be repaired. I keep hearing that my neighborhood 25 and my street, that we've got failing systems here and there 1-27-03 124 1 in the county. We ought not be wasting our time and our 2 resources dealing with this Section 10. We ought to be out 3 there compelling those failing systems to be corrected. 4 Section 10 is not part of the solution to clean water issues 5 in Kerr County. That's all. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: It appears to me that the 7 consensus is that before there can be any movement forward 8 on this Section 10, that, at a minimum, a public hearing is 9 going to be required, and possibly other action, maybe 10 subject to some approval or other consent from the T.C.E.Q. 11 And if there's any desire at this point to move the matter 12 forward, to take appropriate action to suspend Section 10 of 13 the O.S.S.F. -- O.S.S.F. rules, that what I'm hearing is, 14 possibly, if it's the desire of the Court, there be a motion 15 that we set a public hearing for some date not less than 30 16 days in the future, and subject to whatever requirements 17 T.C.E.Q. may impose or require, which, of course, can be 18 picked up tomorrow, hopefully, and -- if there's a desire to 19 move this thing forward. Am I in error on that? Is that 20 essentially where we are? If we want to move it? Either 21 that or do nothing at this point. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know 23 where you picked up that we want to move forward with it. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That's an inquiry. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't hear that. 1-27-03 125 1 I'm not hearing that exactly. But, you know, once we -- I 2 think there's the steps of visiting with T.C.E.Q. and 3 setting up talks with U.G.R.A. And, you know, once those 4 thoughts are clear and that looks like a plan, I may second 5 the motion. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To do what? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To do -- I'm not going 8 to do it today. I'm saying -- I'm saying that if -- you 9 know, once we do those things that we should be doing in a 10 business-type fashion, then, you know, I may -- I may 11 support kicking out Section 10. But I'm not going to 12 until -- why have a public hearing? We need to wait till 13 we've talked to those folks tomorrow so they can outline to 14 us exactly what they do and what they expect us to do in 15 order to get rid of Section 10. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I don't think 17 my -- my question was a suggestion that somebody wants to 18 move forward. I said if they want to move it forward. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: The appropriate thing to do, 21 because of the consensus that a public hearing would be 22 required in any event, that that would be the action to be 23 taken. And I guess, at this point, if there's anyone that 24 desires to make such a motion, let's hear it and move on. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I make a motion that 1-27-03 126 1 we set a public hearing for 10:30 a.m. on March 10th, a 2 hearing to -- to hear from the public on the abolishment of 3 Section 10 of the rules. This will give us some time 4 tomorrow, if the experts -- that was my motion. Now this is 5 a comment. If the experts tomorrow tell us that -- that 6 real estate transfers are important to protect the quality 7 of water, we can cancel that meeting, if we hear that and 8 believe it. They've told us in the past that -- that 9 everything we need to do to protect the water is covered by 10 the state rules, so we probably won't hear that tomorrow. 11 Anyhow, I've made a motion to schedule a public hearing for 12 March 10th at 10:30 a.m. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Your motion, Commissioner, 14 said "abolish"; the agenda item mentions "suspension" of -- 15 of Section 10. I'm not sure we can make that jump. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz, 17 is the "suspension" versus "abolishment" still important to 18 you? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- I mean, 20 in my mind, my preference would be to take no action today 21 and table this item until tomorrow, because I've gotten 22 burned several times since I've been on this court about 23 voting to do things before I had a full set of facts, and 24 I'm not going to vote to do anything unless I know the 25 facts; you know, exactly what the ramifications are. 1-27-03 127 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, help 2 me with protocol. We'll be in session tomorrow, so if we 3 desire to set a public hearing, we would be able to do it at 4 that -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could be in session 6 tomorrow. We can recess today and we can go 24 hours, I 7 understand, and recess, and we can pick up this meeting 8 tomorrow at -- you know, the end of the workshop. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question, 10 though, in regards to that. Is -- is this agenda item here 11 that would be recessed and picked up tomorrow, is it worded 12 properly to -- to set up a public hearing later on? It 13 doesn't say that anywhere in my -- I mean, it may -- you 14 know, the language may be broad enough to do that. I don't 15 know. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's clear that up. 17 I'm withdrawing that -- that item from the agenda. Now I'm 18 considering a public hearing to suspend or abolish Section 19 10. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin is 21 saying that -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: It's not covered by the agenda 23 item. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can't get it on the 25 agenda? 1-27-03 128 1 JUDGE TINLEY: "Take appropriate action," I 2 think, if you broadly construe that, the first step might be 3 holding a public hearing. I think -- I think my question 4 goes more to "suspend" versus "abolish." The agenda item is 5 "take appropriate action to suspend." 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Two things, then, 7 Judge. We're setting -- we're saying that we can't set a 8 public hearing date 'cause that's not on the agenda? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not necessarily saying 10 that. I'm not agreeing with that. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can to suspend 12 it. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe so. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: If we're taking a poll, yeah, 15 I'll sign onto that. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Second -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I know you don't agree with 18 polls, Buster. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to have to 20 hire some lawyers to really get down to the bottom of this 21 thing. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The second question, 23 then, is if we chose to, could we make the decision tomorrow 24 instead of today? Is that -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. I think yes 1-27-03 129 1 is the answer, but I'm only one person. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: If we recess this item today, 3 subject to being taken up again tomorrow at the conclusion 4 of our workshop, which is a posted public meeting. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that what I'm hearing? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we could. Now, 8 I'll make another comment, if it's -- this enters into 9 anyone's thought process. I'm still not going to vote for 10 the public hearing till we have U.G.R.A -- my concerns with 11 them addressed. Just so everyone knows where I stand. 12 'Cause I think that that's not right. I think that -- I 13 mean, I -- I just -- we need to either figure out some 14 solution, because I don't think it's right for us just to, 15 all of a sudden, say, "You're not doing this any more." But 16 if we can come to a resolution with that, then I would 17 agree. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would support that 19 -- that theory. I'm not going to support a motion to 20 suspend or abolish until such time as we've heard from 21 T.C.E.Q. and asked all the questions that we possibly can 22 ask and get all the answers available to us, and secondly, 23 have an opportunity to talk to U.G.R.A., who has been 24 enforcing our rules lo these many years. And, thirdly, 25 design and bring to this Court for discussion a system that 1-27-03 130 1 is equal to or better than what we have in place today. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a pretty good 3 comment. Can we recess for 24 hours or 72 hours? 4 MS. SOVIL: Twenty-four. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Twenty-four. 6 MS. SOVIL: One day. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Used to be 72. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I can see where 9 we are, Commissioner Baldwin. Is your motion still on the 10 table, or did you withdraw that motion? 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, it's been so 12 long ago, I can't remember what it was. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think he withdrew it. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't -- I 15 don't -- I see that we are not going to vote on the item 16 that's on the agenda, so I think I see that there may be a 17 consensus that we can deal with -- we can adjourn and deal 18 with that after we ask the T.C.E.Q. all the questions we 19 want to ask them. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not by my comments, 21 you can't, because we won't have gotten input from U.G.R.A. 22 in a sit-down session, and we will not have had time to 23 digest that input and construct a better mousetrap, if you 24 will, before we do that. So -- 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Procedurally, we 1-27-03 131 1 could wait till tomorrow. And we can do it if we have three 2 votes. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Procedurally. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to recess 5 and deal with this again tomorrow. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think, as a procedural 7 matter, we can do that, then. And in -- in lieu -- in lieu 8 of the motion, you'd withdraw that in lieu of that request? 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I think, procedurally, we can 11 do that, and I would, therefore, recess further 12 consideration of 2.12, subject to the matter being revisited 13 tomorrow after the workshop, publicly posted meeting with 14 T.C.E.Q. Okay? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we go back to 09, 16 Judge, get the County Attorney's opinion? 17 MR. MOTLEY: Is that the -- the change order? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Change order. 19 MR. MOTLEY: I think we can do that real 20 quick. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm asking the Judge. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's fine. We'll -- I 23 appreciate you bringing that to my attention, Commissioner 24 Williams. We'll go back to Item 2.9 concerning the change 25 order with respect to the Kerrville South Wastewater 1-27-03 132 1 Project. County Attorney's had an opportunity to review the 2 specific change order, which is the subject of that agenda 3 item. Do you have a matter to report to us, Mr. Motley? 4 MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir, I do. On Part 2, Item 5 18 on Page 4, it does say that -- that the scope of services 6 to be provided by engineering firm include consulting with 7 and advising Kerr County during construction, issue to 8 contractors all instructions requested by the Kerr County -- 9 by Kerr County, and prepare routine change orders, if 10 required, at no charge for engineering services to -- they 11 keep calling it to "the Kerr County." When the change 12 order's required and to correct -- it's required to correct 13 errors or omissions by the engineer, provide price analysis 14 for change orders, process and submit change orders to 15 T.D.H.C.A. for approval prior to execution by Kerr County. 16 So, there is -- excuse me. There is a provision in the 17 contract for dealing with change orders. And then -- hold 18 on just a minute. Do we know what the cost of this $105 19 deal was? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They had to put a 21 riser on a manhole. 22 MR. MOTLEY: So, an oversight? I mean, do we 23 know? Submit change orders to T.D.H.C.A. prior to execution 24 by Kerr County -- The other says this agreement shall be 25 binding upon -- oh, excuse me, not that one. There's also a 1-27-03 133 1 broad provision on Page 2 of Item E. 6.E says this 2 agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties 3 hereto in a writing to be attached to as incorporated -- 4 attached to and incorporated into this agreement -- there's 5 a lot of typos in here; I don't think engineers type very 6 well. Y'all can talk all you want to about lawyers. But, 7 in any event, broad amendments are allowed under the 8 contract. And I think that might address in part the change 9 order, and in part some of the issues that Jonathan raised 10 about the name changes and such as that, and the date 11 changes. That's not actually a completion -- I mean, an 12 end-of-contract termination date. It's just when it's 13 supposed to be completed by. There is also routine change 14 orders -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. We've only got 16 under consideration right now this one change order, as to 17 whether or not we can approve or disapprove that. 18 MR. MOTLEY: I hear you. And it says right 19 here that it is -- well, there was another question to ask 20 too, but it does say that it can be routine change orders; 21 they can be prepared, if required, at no charge for 22 engineering services to the County. When the change order 23 is required to correct errors or omissions by the engineer, 24 provide price analysis for change order process and submit 25 change orders to T.D.H.C.A. for approval prior to execution 1-27-03 134 1 by the County. So, it says routine change orders can be 2 made by the County after they're approved by T.D.H.C.A., 3 which is going to be Office of Rural Communities Affairs. 4 So, I would assume that's a fairly routine approval, and you 5 might even be able to take care of that with a phone call or 6 something. But we have a $105 deal that we need to put on 7 there, and I would suspect that there's -- if we haven't 8 been doing change orders that way before, maybe that's a 9 good time to start and find out what it's going to take. 10 There was another issue that was raised. On 11 Page 1, Paragraph B, it says this agreement shall be binding 12 upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto. And 13 heirs -- respective heirs, executors, administrators, legal 14 representatives, successors, and assigns were permitted by 15 an agreement. So, I think the fact that names are changed 16 is probably not going to be fatal to anything under the 17 agreement. This says you can do the change order, but it 18 does impose an intermediate step of going through the Office 19 of Rural Community Affairs, as successor agency to 20 T.D.H.C.A. So -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Am I hearing you say that, 22 subject to the approval of O.R.C.A. -- 23 MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: -- this Court has the 25 authority to approve this change order? 1-27-03 135 1 MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's what -- that's -- 2 let me put it to you this way. That's what the contract 3 says, and that's what I believe it means. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move the 6 approval of the Change Order Number 2, reflected and 7 approved by the engineer for Kerrville South Wastewater 8 Project, and it will be submitted to O.R.C.A., as the other 9 one was also. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that the same as saying 12 subject to their approval? O.R.C.A.'s approval? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: And at that point, I'd be 15 authorized to sign it? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm -- Judge, I 17 got -- we've done this in the past. We took care of the 18 change order; the Judge signed the change order, Grantworks 19 gets it, the engineer gets it, it goes to O.R.C.A., and the 20 budget is amended accordingly. I don't know. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Your motion, then, includes 22 subject to O.R.C.A.'s approval and passage by this Court, 23 I'm authorized to sign it, the change order? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think his point is as 25 to when you sign it. You sign it before O.R.C.A., 1-27-03 136 1 previously. You sign it before O.R.C.A. Then O.R.C.A. 2 approves it. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right, 'cause 4 a budget amendment goes up to O.R.C.A. to support the change 5 order. 6 MR. MOTLEY: Seems like on routine or very, 7 very -- relatively small amounts of money, $105 -- when 8 you're talking about a $300,000-plus project, the contract 9 might provide for sort of incidental change orders without 10 going through that process, but it doesn't. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It very well 12 couldn't. 13 MR. MOTLEY: But we -- I can give them a 14 call. I have a copy of the change order; I'll call them and 15 say, Hey, can we do this? What do we need? If we fax it to 16 you, how quick can we get some action on it? Maybe this is 17 one you could table till tomorrow and -- you know, I -- it's 18 kind of crazy to be held up, you know, for two weeks over a 19 $105 deal. So -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm just wanting the Court's 21 direction as to when I'm authorized to sign this, whether 22 it's before or after O.R.C.A.'s approval, which apparently 23 there's -- there's a requirement that they -- at least 24 perfunctory. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's my 1-27-03 137 1 understanding, Judge, you can't even move the paperwork 2 forward unless the Judge signs that. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So your motion, then, 4 presumes that I will sign it and then submit it to -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move it through for 6 subsequent approval. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: And your second anticipates 8 that? Okay. Any further discussion? Being none, all in 9 favor, raise your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we had a short 15 meeting today. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not aware of any Executive 18 Session matters that -- that we need to go into. Therefore, 19 there being no action on any of those, let's move to the 20 information agenda. Let me skip down to 5.3, reports from 21 boards, commissions, and committees, if I might, if there's 22 no objection to that. We've got Mr. Kyle Young here to give 23 us a report on the First Responder program. Good afternoon 24 now, Mr. Young. 25 MR. YOUNG: Good afternoon. How y'all doing? 1-27-03 138 1 I'm glad to be here. I've got some real good news, and 2 we've had a lot of exciting things happen in the past month. 3 First one that you may be aware of is that KPUB donated nine 4 automated external defibrillators to our First Responder 5 program. That makes 12 in the county now. Before, we only 6 had three. Now we've got 12, so that's a great big step. 7 That's a very large donation to our program from KPUB. That 8 was pushed through -- the American Public Power Association 9 gave them the idea to do this. I was not even aware of it 10 until it had already been done; they'd already bought them. 11 They called me and asked me if I could put them out with 12 First Responders, and -- and I agreed real quickly to. 13 The other thing that -- that we've been the 14 recipient of is a local project grant through the Texas 15 Department of Health that we applied for with the City, 16 which we added onto, and requested 10 paging radios for the 17 First Responder program, and that budget has been -- that 18 grant has been approved. So, that's a grant that's going to 19 be for $2,550. That is a reimbursable grant. So, I guess 20 what we would need to ask is if we could go ahead and 21 purchase those radios with the budget that we have for the 22 First Responders, and then reimburse that fund back before 23 we purchase anything that we had budgeted for the First 24 Responder program. 25 We had training Thursday night. We had a 1-27-03 139 1 meeting and all of the First Responders that received the 2 new AED's were trained on their use. There is a possibility 3 that we will receive another grant for AED's that we had 4 applied for later in last year, in which we requested 72 5 AED's. I don't think there was a lot of participation from 6 other agencies on this grant. It seemed like there was not 7 a lot of interest in it, and I believe this was -- this 8 grant was funded for $300,000. So, there is a possibility 9 that we may be receiving more AED's that we can put in 10 patrol cars and have public access. So, things are looking 11 up on the First Responders side. Great group of people. 12 It's amazing what these people do for us in Kerr County, and 13 I'm really proud of them. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kyle, what -- I want 15 you to go back, just for a second. How many AED's did KPUB 16 donate to your group? 17 MR. YOUNG: They donated nine. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nine of those. And 19 how much do they cost? 20 MR. YOUNG: Rough -- I think they got a 21 little bit of a break; normally they cost about $3,000 22 apiece. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A donation that went 24 out for the First Responders to give people to help save 25 lives. And I think that's absolutely fantastic. 1-27-03 140 1 MR. YOUNG: It's amazing. When they called 2 me and asked me if I could use them, my jaw hit my desk, and 3 I was really just shocked, because I've constantly been 4 trying to find ways to put these devices in their 5 possession. And we -- I felt very lucky to have three in 6 the county, and now I've got 12. So -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Great. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kyle? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 11 MR. YOUNG: Yes? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead, Commissioner 13 Williams. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I was just 15 thanking him. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your second item was on 17 the grant that I guess we are going to get. You had a -- a 18 question as to if you could use the funds we have right now. 19 MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We probably -- I think we 21 could do it under this item, is to approve doing that, 22 because that's an additional purchase that's not in the 23 budget. And -- I mean, 'cause you're -- I guess it's going 24 to be -- you're getting something; then you're going to give 25 the money back. Anyway, it seems that we should either 1-27-03 141 1 approve it through a budget amendment at our next meeting, 2 or we could do it now, probably, 'cause it says consider and 3 discuss. We could probably act on it now. I don't know. 4 I'm just really -- I'm bringing it up so if we need to act 5 on it, we can get it on our next agenda. I think your idea 6 of using that fund is fine, but we ought to have a budget 7 amendment to reflect that. Probably better -- I see some 8 nods down there -- at our next meeting. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think we'd go 10 through the Auditor, put it on our next -- just do a real 11 clean -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Seems to me the appropriate 13 thing, so you've got specific authorization for it. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, do a budget 15 amendment. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate your report, Kyle. 17 MR. YOUNG: Great. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: And glad to know things are 19 moving along. What about -- what about your manpower under 20 the First Responders program? Has that expanded? 21 MR. YOUNG: Somewhat. A lot of our 22 firefighters are jumping in and helping out a lot in the 23 county, and that's been helping. We're still in need of 24 more First Responders. I'm in the process of getting 25 certified to teach an E.M.T. class, which I'm hoping to 1-27-03 142 1 be -- be able to start the E.M.T. class in probably April. 2 And, of course, when we get that going, then we'll 3 definitely be -- be putting out the call for any and all to 4 come and help that are certified. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think that's great. 6 And hopefully the media will give you some play on that, so 7 that once you do get in a position to hold those classes, 8 the word can get out that -- on that, that training is 9 available, so that you can obtain those extra needed 10 personnel. 11 MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir. It's -- the program 12 has saved many lives already, and without it there's no way 13 that the Kerrville Fire Department could have the success 14 rate that we have without the First Responders. There's 15 just too much area to cover in the county. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody got anything else? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thanks, Kyle. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. We 19 appreciate you coming. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, with the 21 Court's indulgence, we have two reports remaining, one from 22 some gentlemen who work for the Court and are available in 23 the courthouse, who don't have to go anywhere else. We have 24 also a young lady who is Executive Director of R.C.& D., 25 who's traveled here from San Antonio, and I'm certain would 1-27-03 143 1 like to get back to her business. Would the Court object to 2 moving her in front of Brad and them for a quick, short 3 report? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I've got no problem with that, 5 if no one else here on the Court does. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With that -- thank 7 you; I appreciate that. And, with that, I'd like to 8 introduce Bertha Venegas, and I think -- I believe you're 9 Executive Director of the Alamo R.C.& D., and travel to Kerr 10 County frequently in support of the efforts of the Kerr 11 County R.C.& D. And good opportunity for Bertha to take a 12 moment or two to tell the Court what the R.C.& D. is doing 13 and so forth. Thank you. 14 MS. VENEGAS: Thank you, Commissioner 15 Williams. My name is Bertha Venegas, like the Commissioner 16 mentioned, and actually I represent the NRCS, which is the 17 Natural Resources Conservation Service. And I was appointed 18 to assist the R.C.& D. program, which is Resource 19 Conservation and Development, and we cover a 10-county area, 20 and Kerr County is one of our counties that we assist and 21 serve. Commissioner Williams has been assisting the Kerr 22 County R.C.& D. with some of the endeavors at the local 23 level, and I assist all 10 counties in doing community 24 development as well as economic development and natural 25 resource management. And, basically, our focus is whatever 1-27-03 144 1 the county is in need of at the time. We do have some goals 2 set, but we also adjust them based on what the counties have 3 asked us to assist with. We have provided some grant 4 writing and leadership development. We also provide any 5 kind of planning assistance to the counties, depending on 6 what their needs are. We also receive grants from state, 7 federal, and private foundations to assist with projects, 8 and Kerr County R.C.& D. has been very successful in doing 9 some of those things, especially assisting the volunteer 10 fire departments and -- and providing the fire protection 11 program as well. I just wanted to say hello to everyone and 12 let you know that we are here and we are available to assist 13 you in any way we can. Commissioner Williams is the 14 representative to Kerr County, and we usually see him at the 15 meetings here in Kerr County. And, like I said, we have 10 16 counties we assist, so I try to get around to everyone, but 17 if y'all have any need for me to be here, I will definitely 18 be here and assist in whatever I can. So, that's it. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one footnote to 20 Bertha's comments, Judge. The local group has added to its 21 staff -- or has made its staff -- they had a staff of one; 22 changed staff. A gentleman named Bill Drake is now working 23 for R.C.& D. in the capacity of assisting people and 24 agencies in Kerr County and finding grants and money and so 25 forth and so on. He attended -- accompanied me to a meeting 1-27-03 145 1 at Elm Pass Volunteer Fire Department, and will do the same 2 in about a week or so when we go to Center Point Volunteer 3 Fire Department, the purpose being to try to identify 4 dollars that would help these two fire companies acquire 5 some larger tankers so that perhaps we can avoid major fire 6 disasters like we recently had in Center Point, or at least 7 work more efficiently and better to bring them under 8 control. So, this chapter is gaining some ground; kind of 9 had some floundering, perhaps, for a while, but it's 10 beginning to gain ground, and we thank Bertha for her 11 support and involvement. 12 MS. VENEGAS: Thank you. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you coming here, 14 Ms. Venegas. We apologize for the delay. 15 MS. VENEGAS: No problem. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was wondering if we 18 could get a grant -- this is kind of a fundraising theme 19 I've had in my mind for a number of years; if we could get a 20 grant to get James Avery to make some little gold septic 21 tanks that we could wear as charms. You know, wear them as 22 charm bracelets or around your neck, earrings. And I think 23 that we could make money. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would the 25 laterals go? 1-27-03 146 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you'd look kind 2 of funny at times, but -- you'll have to talk to Bill Stacy 3 about that. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item, report from 5 the Collections Department. Commissioner Baldwin, I believe 6 you asked -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I did. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Mr. Alford to be here? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I can tell you, 10 the things that we need to talk about, we don't have enough 11 time today to do it. But I guess Mr. Alford can just kind 12 of give us a -- a quick thumbnail sketch of what he's doing 13 and what he's going to do, if you want to come back and 14 visit -- revisit this later on. 15 MR. ALFORD: My septic system works fine, 16 thank y'all. And I'm very glad of that after today. Just 17 real briefly, I guess, to get everybody's attention to the 18 Collections Department, which works in government by y'all, 19 we assisted in bringing in approximately $400,000 last year 20 off of fines, court costs, and attorney's fees. As 21 Commissioner Baldwin said, there's a very large avenue of 22 jobs that we do, that I don't really know whether the 23 Commissioners Court has time or needs to know right now. 24 Commissioner? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You brought in 1-27-03 147 1 $400,000 this last year? 2 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- 4 MR. ALFORD: Approximately. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And there's -- let's 6 see. I got an e-mail from somebody this morning talking 7 about -- Mrs. Uecker talking about possibly expanding -- 8 some new legislation and expanding -- possibly expanding 9 your duties, and -- and there's all kinds of things we're 10 going to talk about. I don't -- we're just out of time 11 today. We really are out of time. So -- but the Sheriff 12 has some things on his mind that we need to all sit down and 13 talk about that's -- that's available, things that we should 14 be doing and we're not doing. And -- and one of the 15 questions is, how do we go out and collect these things that 16 the Sheriff has found? And -- and that's what we need to 17 do. We have a Collections Department set up; we don't have 18 to hire a battery of attorneys from Austin to do things when 19 we already have things set up. So, it's a matter of sitting 20 down and talking about all those things. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we need a workshop? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not going to 23 stretch it that far quite yet. We'll work it out. 24 MR. ALFORD: And that's fine. And I think 25 everybody knows we're here to do whatever we can for any 1-27-03 148 1 department. Thank y'all. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me -- one other 3 question. When your office first started, we had gone back 4 and we were collecting court costs from many years ago. 5 MR. ALFORD: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I was kind of 7 wondering where that is, how far back are we now, and have 8 we cleaned up everything prior to 1990 or what? Where are 9 we? 10 MR. ALFORD: Yes and no. We have pretty much 11 cleaned up the misdemeanor old money, simply because there's 12 legislative sanctions that allow us to do that. On our 13 felony money, we still go back to the beginning of time, 14 simply because -- that's where the new law comes in at. The 15 way it stands, just to let Commissioners know, if you commit 16 a DWI in Kerr County and you're given a fine, a court cost 17 in County Court at Law, you come to the Collections 18 Department. You have to pay us your money, or, through the 19 proper avenues, you can be put back in jail and given time 20 served. Under felony -- for a felony conviction, there -- 21 we have no recourse. You go out and commit robbery, you get 22 put on probation, you do not pay your fines and court costs, 23 there's not a whole lot we can do to you. So, that's what 24 this new law is going to help clean up. And hopefully, when 25 we clean that up, our income will really go up. 1-27-03 149 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else got any other 3 questions or comments? Mr. Alford, we appreciate you being 4 here, and we thank you for your report. 5 MR. ALFORD: You bet. Thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Will Brown. 7 Sorry, I forgot he's also with the Collections Department. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Brown. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any -- any other 11 reports that need to be given to the Court at this time? 12 We've got various headings here, and if there's any of them 13 we need to specifically receive, why, someone just let me 14 know and I'll do so. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have a question, 16 Judge. I don't know about that, but I do have a question. 17 We've moved this particular section from the front of the -- 18 the consideration agenda to the back. Is it going to be 19 permanently located there, so that in the future, if we 20 invite people to come, we can tell them about when to be 21 here? As opposed to having people sit through an entire 22 agenda that they probably don't have a lot of interest in? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: You know, I'm not sure that 24 the exact location of the order is that important. On the 25 other hand, you've got some folks that have an interest in a 1-27-03 150 1 particular item that's on the agenda, that come here because 2 of that particular item, as we had today; it appeared to me 3 to be on the interlocal agreement and O.S.S.F. That was my 4 perception, at least. But if -- if we've got -- if we've 5 got them at the back end and they need to individually be 6 moved up to the front or vice versa, you know, certainly -- 7 certainly, if y'all will just let me know that we need to 8 make some adjustments, you know, if -- if they're 9 legitimate, we can make those adjustments. I don't have a 10 problem with that. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just noticed they'd 12 been moved to the back. I thought if that's going to be the 13 permanent location, which I'm not arguing for or against, we 14 just -- we could tell people who we invite to come when they 15 might anticipate speaking. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't recall that very 17 specifically, where the information agenda was previously. 18 I'm sure you do. So, it wasn't necessarily an intentional 19 item that I put it where it is. That's just kind of where 20 it ended up. I did add the items of elected officials and 21 department heads and boards, commissions, and committees and 22 so forth, so that so far as they may have something that's 23 of interest to us, or possibly to the public, we can get 24 that information out and disseminate it. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- along the same 1-27-03 151 1 line, I think that the -- you know, and it's very hard to 2 do, because our -- we never really know how much time we're 3 going to spend on a given item, but we do have guests come 4 in, whether they're, you know, someone like Kyle, Bertha, or 5 whoever. You know, I would really be in favor of trying to 6 put a time spot for them, because I think it's just -- I 7 know for both of those individuals, one came a long distance 8 and one really -- I would be a lot happier if we don't have 9 our EMS Director listening to us talk about septic when he 10 needs to be out doing EMS stuff. I think if we can just 11 time those as much as possible, I would be in favor of that. 12 You can't always do that, and our agenda certainly is fluid, 13 but -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I did that with 15 him and told him around 11 o'clock, see. And we were -- we 16 were way past 12:00 by the time we got to him. But I guess 17 if we actually put a time on there, then we can stop septic 18 tanks and talk about EMS. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I just -- you 20 know, it's pluses and minuses. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're right 22 about putting them on at the end, though. To me, it's kind 23 of rare to have someone from out of town, and it's normal to 24 have a -- a local professional that we wouldn't want to sit 25 here all day long. It's rare to have someone out of town. 1-27-03 152 1 In the end, most things that I can think of are folks that 2 -- that can come in at 11 o'clock, and very short 3 presentations, and easy to get to, and don't mind sitting 4 here for a minute. But not all. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could also put reports 6 and information items at 11:00 and go to that, you know, as 7 close as we can to 11:00. Then, if we have nothing after 8 lunch, we -- you know, then they're not -- the risk of doing 9 it at 11:00 is, if we start getting behind, then we're doing 10 what we did today, being in here right through the lunch 11 hour. My stomach's hungry and I get irritable. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: You don't get grumpy, do you? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do get grumpy when I 14 get hungry. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a signal to me that -- 16 that maybe we need to consider adjournment. Has anybody 17 else got -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Recess. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. Excuse me. I 20 appreciate that, Commissioner Letz. We will stand in recess 21 for further consideration of -- of item 2.10 tomorrow at the 22 conclusion of our posted workshop with T.C.E.Q. 23 (Discussion off the record.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize, it is 2.12. 25 There was so much time spent on 2.10, I had that plugged in, 1-27-03 153 1 had 2.10 on the brain. It is 2.12 that we'll stand in 2 recess on. Being no objection, we'll stand in recess. 3 (Commissioners Court recessed at 12:41 p.m.) 4 - - - - - - - - - - 5 6 7 STATE OF TEXAS | 8 COUNTY OF KERR | 9 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 10 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 11 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 12 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 13 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 3rd day of February, 14 2003. 15 16 17 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 18 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 19 Certified Shorthand Reporter 20 21 22 23 24 25 1-27-03