1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, February 10, 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 February 10, 2003 2 PAGE --- Commissioners Comments 4 3 1.1 Pay Bills 9 1.2 Budget Amendments 17 4 1.3 Late Bills 20 1.4 Read and Approve Minutes 21 5 1.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 22 6 2.12 Discuss Mutual Aid Agreement with AACOG for furnishing mutual aid in coping with disasters 24, 94 7 2.1 Presentation by GrantWorks Representatives on status of Kerrville South Wastewater Project 34 8 2.2 Discuss amendment to Professional Management, Engineering and/or Architectural Services 9 contract with Tetra Tech (formerly Groves) 61 2.3 Discuss amendments to Intergovernmental 10 Agreement with UGRA 85 2.4 Preliminary plat of Stablewood Springs Ranch 96 11 2.5 Discuss using Grand Jury List for Grievance Committee as per Section 152.014(a) of Local 12 Government Code 134 2.6 Review of the annual accounts deposited into 13 the Court Registry 139 2.9 Approval of new hire position at a 12/5 140 14 2.7 Discuss rehiring former employee as full-time employee and determine position, step & grade 142 15 2.8 Request for Court approval of amendments to contract with Attorney General of Texas, 16 authorize County Judge to sign 158 2.10 Authorize Sheriff to make application for grant 17 funds to assist with continuation of SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) Program 161 18 2.11 Consider and discuss approving contract between Kerr County and Daikon, Inc. --- 19 2.13 Approve contract with AACOG regarding Regional Juvenile Alternative Incentive Block Grant in 20 the amount of $4,966.50, with a match of $607.40 167 2.14 Discuss a one-time tax credit for cedar 21 eradication 169 2.15 Discuss future renovation and construction 22 plans for Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center 173 2.16 Discuss allowing public information rack to be 23 installed in the main hall of the courthouse 196 2.17 Discuss appointment of two representatives to 24 the Alamo Senior Advisory Committee 198 --- Adjourned 205 25 --- Reporter's Certificate 206 3 1 On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a regular 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's 9 o'clock; 8 therefore, I will call this regular Commissioners Court 9 meeting to order scheduled for Monday, February 10, 2003, 10 local time, 9 a.m. I believe Commissioner Letz, Precinct 3, 11 you have the honors this morning, do you not? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I do. I'd like to 13 introduce a very good friend of mine who's moved back to 14 Kerr County recently. He's -- his great-grandfather and my 15 grandfather were best of friends for many, many years. In 16 fact, they were such good friends, Jack's great-grandfather 17 bought a ranch very close to ours, and he and I, after that, 18 spent pretty much every summer since we were about 7 years 19 old together. And recently, he's been a missionary -- or 20 been a missionary for some time in Africa and Cypress, most 21 recently Russia; moved back to Kerr County and lives on 22 Hermann Sons Road. He was at a meeting I had last week. 23 I'd like to introduce Jack Spears, a very good friend of 24 mine. Jack, give us the morning prayer, if you would, 25 please. 2-10-03 4 1 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Judge. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, Commissioner's 6 comments. Commissioner Letz? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, while we're -- I 8 just mentioned Hermann Sons, and last week I had a meeting 9 out there with, I'm guessing, approaching 100 concerned 10 citizens about the lack of having the access that they would 11 like to have. Most of them understood our situation and 12 were, you know, happy with the progress we're making and the 13 commitments the County has made. Some of them weren't too 14 happy; thought we should be doing more, but we can't please 15 them all, all the time. That was last Tuesday night for 16 about two hours. Late last week, on Friday -- or Thursday 17 and Friday, we were able to successfully retrieve both 18 railroad cars out of the river. It was quite a feat. It 19 took -- we had to bring in another piece of equipment in 20 addition to the big crane we had, or big grade-all from San 21 Antonio, but we were able to get them out. One of them was 22 damaged beyond use. One of them, we think we will be able 23 to reuse, and I think Leonard's planning on ordering a 24 second one, per our Court's order last week -- or last 25 meeting. And I know he has met with some engineers about 2-10-03 5 1 putting some piers in the river for the temporary bridge. 2 That's kind of where we are on Hermann Sons, and that's 3 really all the comments I have this morning. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 5 Nicholson? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I met with the 7 Kerrville Area Rural Firefighters Association last week, got 8 a really good feel about what good volunteer fire 9 departments we have and how much they do to serve the 10 county. They -- they have some issues that they want to 11 deal with with the Court on contracts and -- and other 12 support that we can give them, probably things that won't 13 cost any money or a little bit of money. So, I'm going to 14 be working with them, and in a month or so, they'll come to 15 the Court with some proposals that they'll have about how we 16 can better support them. That's all. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 18 Baldwin? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I've been 20 noticing in the newspaper recently that the Dietert Claim is 21 having a new lunch program over there, and I just thought it 22 would be kind of a neat thing for this Commissioners Court 23 to go over and join them in their lunch. Besides that, I 24 understand it's $3.50 or $4.00 per person. So, personally, 25 I kind of like that. But, if -- if anyone -- if any one of 2-10-03 6 1 you are interested in going, having lunch over there today, 2 let me know now so we can give them a call and tell them 3 that we're -- give them an opportunity to beef up security 4 and all. (Laughter.) So, you know, if you want to go over 5 there and have lunch, I think it would be a good thing for 6 our Dietert Claim, that we support financially, by the way. 7 And this would be another way for us to support them. 8 Sheppard Rees Road begins its closure today 9 for 10 days -- or two weeks, I'm sorry, 14 days. I drove 10 out there this morning. They weren't -- they weren't closed 11 yet, but they were packing holes with dynamite right on the 12 edge of the road, so I highly recommend not to try to go 13 through that area. There's been some confusion, once it 14 closed, what is the route for the citizens in that area to 15 take to come into Kerrville? And many of them were planning 16 on going through Saddlewood Estates, and I spent Sunday 17 afternoon on the phone yesterday with all those citizens -- 18 I mean, every one of them -- about that, and Saddlewood 19 Estates is a private community with private roads, and they 20 can close the gate if they want to. And folks are little 21 upset about that, but that's just the way life is. And they 22 have to go around to Bear Creek; little bit -- little bit 23 out of the way, but not much. And I know all law 24 enforcement and ambulance services, et cetera, are geared 25 to -- to the Bear Creek area. So, I just wanted to remind 2-10-03 7 1 everyone of that. 2 The 911 system -- this is kind of a 3 Commissioner report here -- is taking a whole brand-new 4 big-time turn in the way we function and do business at 911. 5 We have a new director, and just the whole concept of how we 6 go about addressing the county totally and completely 7 changing, they will be in here in our next meeting to 8 present the -- a real, live plan to the Commissioners Court 9 for our adoption with timetables, entry and exit dates, et 10 cetera. And that's an exciting -- exciting thing. In all 11 the years I've dealt with 911, this is the first time that I 12 have actually been excited about what's going on over there. 13 It -- I really see a direction. I really see something 14 going on for the -- for the best of all the citizens of Kerr 15 County, and I'm just excited about it, and I know you will 16 be too when you -- I think some of you got part of the plan 17 in your boxes last Friday. So, start looking at that. If 18 you have any questions about those things, holler at me and 19 I'll be happy to sit down with you. That's all. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure whether 22 it's Commissioner Baldwin or who was responsible for that 23 good-looking snowman on the courthouse lawn, but if you did 24 that, you did a good job. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was not me, but I 2-10-03 8 1 saw it. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I understand a 3 lot of -- a lot of Kerr County citizens availed themselves 4 of the opportunity to have their picture made with the 5 snowman. Following up on what Commissioner Nicholson said 6 with respect to the rural firefighters, I've had the 7 opportunity to meet with a couple of our volunteer fire 8 departments with regard to grant moneys that are available 9 through FEMA, and I think the window of opportunity is the 10 month of March, those applications have to be filed. I 11 worked with Bill Drake, who's now heading up the R.C.& D. 12 program, and he and I together visited a couple of our -- my 13 fire departments, and intend to see that applications are 14 filed in that window, because there is a good opportunity 15 for some grant funds to come down from -- through FEMA into 16 the volunteer fire departments. So, I just bring that to 17 the attention of the Court. If any firemen -- fire 18 departments have a need, now is the time to file an 19 application. The applications are requested to be filed 20 online, through the internet, and we'll see what happens in 21 that regard. I think your -- Hunt got a major grant last 22 year, did it not? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Through the same 25 opportunity. Also, for the information of the Court, the 2-10-03 9 1 City Manager of Kerrville tells me he has 49 applications on 2 file for the airport manager's position. They're in the 3 process of going through those, and when they get down to 4 what he believes to be a select number for interviews, he 5 has invited me to participate with them, represent Kerr 6 County to go through those applications so we can come up 7 with an airport manager. I also reminded the City Manager 8 that our files do not reveal, and he tells me neither do his 9 reveal, that there is an interlocal agreement in place 10 between Kerr County and the City of Kerrville for the 11 operation of the airport, so it's probably high time we got 12 that done, and he's working on a draft which we'll bring 13 back to the Court to take a look at it at some date in the 14 future. That's it, Judge. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I want to welcome 16 all of you here today. Encourage your friends and your 17 neighbors, and hopefully they'll be our friends when they 18 come here, but we're glad you're attending, and encourage 19 you to do more, and we'd like to see more of you. Let's get 20 on down to business, if we can, on the approval agenda. 21 First item up is payment of bills. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the 23 bills. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 2-10-03 10 1 seconded by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin, 2 respectively, that we pay the bills. Is there any -- any 3 questions or discussion? I have one question. On the 4 second page, under Nondepartmental, we have some technology 5 matters, roughly $8,000 worth. And I think the Sheriff 6 probably has more information about this than anybody. Is 7 that correct, Sheriff? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I hope Tommy does, too. 9 Don't run off, Tommy. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not going anywhere. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This $8,000 bill does 12 have a lot to do with our fingerprint system that we got a 13 grant for last year. But it was hooking up, and they had to 14 either do some upgrades or add new firewall or something 15 here at the courthouse. This bill kind of hit me 16 flat-footed, because, number one, it's something Shaun had 17 been working on to get done, and I had no idea that it was 18 coming until Mindy sent it over with a note, where do I want 19 to pay it from. And I didn't know we were going to get it, 20 but it's something from Southwestern Bell for some of the 21 technology and upgrades that had to be put into that system 22 to allow those automatic dumps from here to Austin. And 23 this is a system that all departments in the courthouse -- 24 at least in the court departments, your District Clerk, 25 County Clerk, County Attorney's office, and 198th and 216th 2-10-03 11 1 D.A.'s offices all use it. It does away with the paper 2 trail of having to report criminal histories or -- or 3 criminal offenses to somebody's criminal history. It 4 automatically dumps it into Austin as part of that system. 5 It also helps all the law enforcement agencies around, 6 because, you know, Kerrville P.D. does not have to do their 7 hand-printed-out stuff. Our system will automatically dump 8 it whenever somebody's put into our jail on that kind of 9 stuff. So, it's very needed. It's just a bill that I was 10 not expecting at all. And that's about the extent of what I 11 can say. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Did -- you didn't have any 13 line item in your budget to allow for this expenditure? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: What about -- what about 16 prospective reimbursement? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have talked to the 18 D.A.'s office, 216th, about trying to assist some in this 19 out of their seizure fund, 'cause it is for criminal use and 20 that, and Bruce Curry has advised me he will be able to 21 assist us with about half of it. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Approximately $4,000? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other prospects? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, we're still -- 2-10-03 12 1 Tommy had talked to Howard Hollimon on the probation end of 2 it, because it does assist them also. It assists every 3 criminal part. And so far, we haven't got too far with 4 Howard, I don't think. I've got to visit with him a little 5 bit more on it. That's where we're trying to come up with 6 it from, 'cause it was a totally unexpected bill. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my concern is the fact 8 that it's getting charged to Contingency and there wasn't a 9 line item for it. I appreciate that explanation. Anybody 10 else got any questions? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Can you 12 explain it a little bit more? I mean, you say, you know, it 13 dumps -- you keep on using the words, it "dumps data." 14 Explain what we're dumping. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What you're dumping, 16 anytime anybody's arrested -- a criminal offense above a 17 Class C misdemeanor, okay, that has to get sent to Austin so 18 that that arrest goes on their criminal history. So that -- 19 and, you know, every law enforcement agency in the country 20 can run a criminal history check on someone and see exactly 21 what all they've been arrested for in the past. It's a very 22 important part of law enforcement, because, one, if you've 23 had a guy that's been arrested for murder before or 24 something, and an officer stops him out on the road, it's a 25 good idea to allow the officer to know what's he's been 2-10-03 13 1 arrested for, okay, before, so that you can kind of take a 2 little bit more precautions. Also, it does affect 3 enhancement on offenses. If it's his second D.W.I., you 4 need to already know he's got, you know, a prior one. Or if 5 it's the third or fourth or fifth one or whatever, you -- 6 you have to have that. It's a requirement of the D.P.S. for 7 us to send in all arrests on criminal -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, you mentioned it 9 helps the City of Kerrville as well. So, if the -- if a -- 10 say, a murder suspect is arrested by the K.P.D. They handle 11 all the paperwork through the -- or does it come back 12 through you, 'cause it's in your jail? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They are -- the way it's 14 always been done, there is what's called a C.H.R. 43, which 15 is a form that's got several parts to it. The arresting 16 agency fills in the very top page of it and does the 17 fingerprint card -- or the arresting agency and the jail. 18 Then they tear that off. They'll -- the old-fashioned way 19 of doing it was you tear off that top page, and you send the 20 fingerprint card and that top page -- mail to it Austin. 21 Now, when it goes to the prosecutor, the prosecutor has a 22 second part of that same sheet of paper, okay, 'cause it is 23 in triplicate. And he fills out his part, tears it off, 24 mails it to Austin. And then the Court, when they actually 25 get into court and get convicted or whatever, the Court, 2-10-03 14 1 being the Clerk's office and that, has to fill out their 2 part, and they mail it in to Austin. That's the way it's 3 always been. What will happen now is, all they do is go 4 into the computer system that they have in their office and 5 they type in that information, and then we dump it -- or 6 what we call "dump," however often we need to, daily or 7 whatever, and it just dumps all of those parts all at the 8 same time to Austin, so that you don't have all that 9 mailing. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the reason -- I 11 had some method to my madness in asking the question. Is 12 it -- going back to the Judge's question, who's to pay for 13 it? Why doesn't -- why don't we go to the City of Kerrville 14 and get them to help participate in some of these upgrades 15 that are saving them time and money and they're benefiting 16 as much as the County? I mean, you know, I just thought -- 17 it's not a budgeted item for them either, but I mean, it 18 seems to me, as we're upgrading this portion of, you know, 19 your department, it's -- that they should be able to help 20 pay for some of these things that are benefitting the City 21 of Kerrville and the K.P.D. as well. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Somebody told me at one 23 time that, you know, people that pay city taxes also pay 24 county taxes. And I'm trying to upgrade the law enforcement 25 part of it. But one thing Chuck is doing, Chuck wants a -- 2-10-03 15 1 one of our computer terminals over at the police department 2 in their conference room, so their investigators have access 3 to it to be able to look up everything, and Chuck saved some 4 grant money to pay for the installation of that. And we 5 just found out Friday it's going to cost him about $3,000 to 6 do that, so that this -- he can also view photographs out of 7 the jail. So, he's going to -- Chuck and I work real well 8 together. He tries -- you know, I think they ought to pay 9 more for us housing their inmates than they do. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't going to bring 11 that up. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When I brought that up 13 one time before, I got told the answer is, you know, 14 Kerrville citizens pay city and county taxes. So -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seems like I've heard 16 that before. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, I've heard it 18 several times. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any 21 questions? Thank you. I appreciate that. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're welcome. If I 23 can, I want to make one update, since the visitors' input 24 didn't get on, just kind of a knowledge report for you on 25 our radio system, okay? We start training our dispatchers 2-10-03 16 1 tomorrow and Wednesday on the new console, and we will 2 officially go over to the new radio system Thursday morning 3 at 8 o'clock. And that will be for a 30-day deal to make 4 sure all the bugs are out, that window. We have to make 5 sure everything's working right. Thought y'all ought to 6 know that. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: A little more background on 8 the CJIS automated data transfer on criminal histories, it 9 was mandated by the Legislature, like, six or eight years 10 ago, so this is not a new program. And the fire -- the -- 11 actually, the firewall problem was not on our end. Our data 12 flow was not able to penetrate the firewall on the D.P.S. 13 end. Consequently, we had to purchase a specific modem 14 technology that has to go through Southwestern Bell, and 15 through what's called the long distance service, which is 16 the state of Texas long distance service, Tex-AN. So, we're 17 -- we're actually flowing data through two different 18 telephone companies to get to D.P.S. That -- that was the 19 need for the technology. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? 21 Comments? If not, all in favor of the motion, signify by 22 raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 2-10-03 17 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Let's get to 2 the budget amendments, if we could, please. Budget 3 Amendment Number 1, Treasurer's office. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: This amendment is a request 5 by the Treasurer to transfer $150 from her Telephone line 6 item to Books, Publications, and Dues. It's as far as -- 7 it's a bill from Texas Association of Counties for her dues 8 for the Certified Investment Officer's training. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Then maybe 11 I'll make -- I mean, why was this -- why's that so far off 12 the budget, the budgeted amount? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I can't answer 14 that one. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move that we 16 approve court order -- I mean Budget Amendment Number 1. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 19 seconded by Commissioner Baldwin and Williams that we 20 approve Budget Amendment Number 1. Any discussion? If not, 21 all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 2-10-03 18 1 Amendment Request Number 2. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: This is for the District 3 Clerk. This request is to transfer $346 from Microfilm 4 Records line item to Bonds and Insurance. It's for -- 5 payable to First Insurance Agency for a crime policy. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just didn't -- we 7 estimated the wrong amount? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: I feel like -- I know that 9 her liability coverage for errors and omissions was high. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 13 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, 14 that Budget Amendment Request Number 2 be approved. Any 15 further discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by 16 raising your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 21 request -- Amendment Request Number 3, 198th District Court. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: This amendment is to transfer 23 $3,342.46 from Court-Appointed Attorney line item in the 24 198th court to Court Transcripts in that budget. We have a 25 bill for $4,923.78 to Greenwalt Reporting -- Court 2-10-03 19 1 Reporting. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 5 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson that we approve 6 Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any discussion? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I wanted to 8 say that it's obvious that Court Transcripts is out of money 9 already. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Court-Appointed 12 Attorney -- if you remember, at the end of last year, we 13 couldn't dump money in it fast enough, so we've got problems 14 down the road here. That's all. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion or 16 comments? If not, all in favor of Budget Amendment Request 17 Number 3, signify by raising 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. Budget 22 Amendment Request Number 4, Sheriff's Department. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: This request is to transfer 24 $591 from Deputy Salaries to Vehicle Insurance. It's for 25 the vehicle coverage for the latest purchase of the 2003 2-10-03 20 1 Ford Expedition. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 5 seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Letz, respectively, 6 that Budget Amendment Request Number 4 be approved. Any 7 discussion? If not, all in favor, 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. That brings 13 us to the minutes for approval. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: I have -- I do have a late 15 bill. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. Excuse me. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: I have one to Judge O'Dell 18 for $230. It's reimbursement for -- to her for lodging at 19 the Texas Justice Court Training Center. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made by 23 Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that 24 we approve an expenditure and authorize a hand check for the 25 benefit of Judge O'Dell in the amount of $230 to reimburse 2-10-03 21 1 her for lodging at the Texas Justice Training Center. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: We need a hand check for it. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- the motion included the 4 hand check, I believe, did it not? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it did. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Is there any 7 discussion? If not, all in favor, 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. We'll now get 13 to the minutes. I have here before me minutes of the 14 regular session of Monday, January 13, 2003, and special 15 session Monday, January 27th of 2003. Do I hear a motion to 16 approve these minutes, which are a verbatim transcript, 17 without the necessity of reading same? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 21 seconded by Commissioners Williams and Letz, respectively, 22 that the Court approve without reading the transcript of 23 minutes of the Commissioners Court regular session, Monday, 24 January 13th, and Commissioners Court special session 25 Monday, January 27th, 2003. Is there any discussion? If 2-10-03 22 1 not, all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. I also have 6 before me the monthly reports from various departments, 7 which have been available for Commissioners' review and 8 consideration. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move acceptance. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 12 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, respectively, 13 that the monthly reports be approved and accepted. Any 14 discussion? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I always like 16 the verbiage, as -- "as reported," because there's some 17 times they're not all there. Why are you looking at me like 18 that? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As presented. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As presented. What 21 did I say? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: "As reported." As 23 presented. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Cause sometimes 25 there's some missing, some don't show up, and so we're not 2-10-03 23 1 saying that we're blanket accepting all reports from county 2 offices. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Only the ones that are in 4 front of us. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only the ones that are 6 in front of us. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Your point's well-made. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll amend my motion as 10 such. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And the second accordingly. 12 Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by 13 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. Let me 18 apologize for not taking an item in order, the visitors' 19 input. I will now ask if there are any citizens who are 20 present here who wish to speak on items which are not on the 21 agenda, that -- that desire to be heard by the Court at this 22 time. Again, any citizen who wishes to speak on any item 23 which is not listed on the agenda before the Court today who 24 wishes to be heard? There being none, we'll then move on to 25 the consideration agenda. We may have a little delay on 2-10-03 24 1 Item Number 1. I've been asked -- we've got a time-specific 2 item at 10:30 that involves Ms. Sanchez from San Antonio, 3 and I understand she has to be back there rather quickly. 4 And what I propose to do is, in order to accommodate her, is 5 to hear that item now, leave it open until the 10:30 6 time-specific point at which it's on the agenda, come back 7 so as to allow any citizen who desires to be heard on that 8 matter -- give them the opportunity to be heard at that 9 time, and only after that opportunity, place the matter in 10 consideration for the Court to take action. So, at this 11 point in time, if it's permissible with you, Commissioner 12 Williams, we'll call on Ms. Sanchez. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely, Judge. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Come forward, 15 please. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a word of 17 apology for the two gentlemen from Grantworks. We'll get 18 with them in just a moment. They, too, have to travel. 19 Thank you. 20 MS. SANCHEZ: Thank you for taking me out of 21 order. I apologize for the inconvenience, but there was a 22 matter that requires me to be there by about 11:30 today. 23 The documents that you have in front of you kind of go 24 beyond the mutual -- mutual aid agreement item that we're 25 bringing to you, and I thought it was -- it was probably a 2-10-03 25 1 propitious moment for me to kind of roll a lot of 2 initiatives that have been pushed down from the state level 3 to the local level through the regional -- excuse me, 4 through the regional councils down to you all, because 5 they're all related. 6 Beginning in June, the governor and the 7 President decided that all responses to any kind of natural 8 or, unfortunately, man-made disasters would best be handled 9 at the local level by having all jurisdictions work together 10 to identify their equipment, training, and exercise needs. 11 And, to that end, they tasked us with the responsibility of 12 putting together what we call the First Responders Strategic 13 Plan. Commissioner Williams alluded to the fact that there 14 is an assessment online through the Domestic Preparedness 15 web page being operated right now by the Department of 16 Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management, wherein all 17 local jurisdictions are being asked to go online, their 18 police and their fire prevention staff to go online and 19 identify their equipment, exercise, and training needs, what 20 they have now and what they need to have, in order that 21 decisions might be made about allocating money and 22 allocating resources towards those jurisdictions that fill 23 out the assessment, so those assessments are critical. 24 Some people -- and I understand -- I know 25 that the assessments are tedious. The one that we're being 2-10-03 26 1 asked to shepherd with you all right now is 187 pages. It's 2 pretty daunting. When you stop to think about what the 3 reality would be if -- if you did not -- or your 4 jurisdiction didn't fill out those assessments and something 5 critical were to happen, and then you wouldn't have the 6 equipment or the -- the training necessary, it kind of 7 brings it all back into perspective, considering that right 8 now we're at stage orange alert. So, this mutual aid 9 agreement plays a part in that assessment; plays a part in 10 how the money that's going to come down from the federal 11 level to the state level through the COG's to you all, 12 depends upon that level of cooperation, that level of 13 identification. 14 And one of the criteria for who gets what 15 depends upon whether or not you all have a mutual aid 16 agreement with all the jurisdictions, all the smaller cities 17 in your jurisdiction, whether you have mutual aid agreements 18 with other counties, and whether or not you have a mutual 19 aid agreement with the COG, because all of these resources 20 somehow or another have to be coordinated. And that's the 21 point behind that mutual aid agreement. It's a template. 22 If you already have a mutual aid agreement that you're 23 comfortable in using with your -- with your other 24 jurisdictions or with neighboring counties, then by all 25 means, go ahead and use that mutual aid agreement. The 2-10-03 27 1 critical part is that you have to have them, because in 2 order to have -- if you don't have them, your request for 3 funding is going to go way down on that list of -- of who's 4 going to be considered. It is going to be a criteria. 5 Right now we're looking at -- or we've been 6 told that there are at least two levels at which cut points 7 will be made for equipment and training and funding, and one 8 of them is if your jurisdiction is a major mutual aid 9 responder, or whether you are merely a local mutual aid 10 responder. So, what we've provided to you in this package 11 is the template that the Attorney General drafted for us, 12 for us -- when I say "us," I mean the COG's -- for us to 13 disseminate to other jurisdictions. So, it's a template. 14 There's one for your relationship to the COG and there's one 15 for your relationship to other jurisdictions, and that's the 16 -- that's my presentation. There are other initiatives in 17 here that, you know, I think I needed to bring to you. One 18 of them is the assessment; the other is the -- the Regional 19 Mitigation Action Plan that you all have designated Mr. Mark 20 Beavers to be your contact point for mutual -- for the 21 Regional Mitigation Action Plan. That, of course, is 22 critical in the event that you have any kind of a man-made 23 disaster. 24 If you don't have this hazard analysis team 25 working on the Regional Mitigation Action Plan, and if it's 2-10-03 28 1 not adopted -- if you don't have one and it's not adopted by 2 November 2004, any disaster that you might have where you 3 would -- where this jurisdiction might want to access money 4 from FEMA, you would not be eligible to access that money. 5 There would still be some public assistance moneys available 6 to individuals, but the jurisdiction as a whole would not be 7 able to access that money. So, your -- your convening of 8 the hazard analysis teams and your participation in the 9 Regional Mitigation Action Plan, for which AACOG is 10 currently under negotiations, is also critical. It's a lot 11 of work, but it's necessary in order to protect yourselves 12 and in order to make sure that, should you need to access 13 money from FEMA, that you would, in fact, be able to do 14 that. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mrs. Sanchez -- go 16 ahead. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the packet, there's an 18 agreement for the counties to serve with the COG. The other 19 template provided was one from the counties and the 20 municipalities within the county. 21 MS. SANCHEZ: That's correct. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about between two 23 counties? Is the one between -- like, say Kendall County, 24 for example. Do we -- does Kerr County need to have one 25 with Kendall County, or does the fact that Kerr County and 2-10-03 29 1 Kendall County have one with the COG -- does it flow through 2 the COG? How far do you have to go with the agreements? 3 MS. SANCHEZ: I always like to hedge all my 4 bets, all right? I never want to -- I never want to leave 5 any money anywhere. If I -- if I needed it, I would try to 6 get it. So, if -- if you were to engage in a mutual aid 7 agreement with Kendall County, depending on what resources 8 you all identify each of you could lend to one another, that 9 might put you in a position of being a regional First 10 Responder, as opposed to just a local First Responder. I'm 11 sorry I can't answer all that -- you know, your question 12 entirely. I will get back to you. Next week we're going to 13 be in Austin for some major training, and I'll come back and 14 give you a better answer. But my perspective is, the more 15 agreements you can have with people that -- that you have 16 control over, you know, so that -- no one's being asked to 17 send all their resources to another jurisdiction and leave 18 themselves uncovered, but the more agreements that you can 19 have that make sense, taking into effect what you've got, 20 you know, equipment, manpower, training, that you have 21 within the -- your people, the better off you are. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess the next 23 question which that kind of led to was, with volunteer fire 24 departments, is the fact that they -- that we support the 25 volunteer fire departments in the county financially, is 2-10-03 30 1 that enough? Or do we need to basically have another -- we 2 have a contract with them. 3 MS. SANCHEZ: I think your contract is 4 sufficient, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly the 7 question I was going to ask. Is the -- if we're having -- 8 we're approving agreements between us and AACOG, does that 9 automatically have an agreement between Kerr County and the 10 cachement area of AACOG? 11 MS. SANCHEZ: It doesn't necessarily, but it 12 does when we put together all the agreements. And that's 13 going to be our next big push, is to make sure that every 14 county has a mutual aid agreement with the COG so that, at 15 the very minimum, you'll be in the running for money. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Sanchez, is there 18 a deadline that AACOG would like to have these back? 19 MS. SANCHEZ: The mutual aid agreement? As 20 soon as possible. Because -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A.S.A.P.? 22 MS. SANCHEZ: Yes, sir, because we were told 23 in training -- you know, you went online; I think you've 24 seen that Domestic Preparedness Assessment. We were being 25 told back in June that the money was coming, the money was 2-10-03 31 1 coming, and we all kind of got ready and were waiting for 2 the money to come, and then nothing happened. And -- except 3 January the 28th, I believe, we were told the assessment's 4 online; you better get it done, 'cause the money's here. 5 Now, how much money will actually get to us, that's a whole 6 different story, but we've been told there's about 7 $16.1 million available for the state of Texas, just for -- 8 in equipment and exercise assessment. Some of the people 9 that filled out the assessments the last time around -- it 10 wasn't as tedious as this one. I think it was only, like, a 11 45-pager, but right now they're getting their equipment. 12 It's not going to be a grant of money; it will be an 13 identification of equipment that you need and the exercises 14 and training that you need, and then you'll be funded for 15 those things based on different criteria, like your mutual 16 aid agreements, whether or not you're -- what you've 17 identified in terms of equipment, training, and exercise is 18 included in that First Responder plan that we did. And Kerr 19 County was accepted in that First Responder plan. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more question, 22 Ms. Sanchez. On the -- you mentioned that there's, I guess, 23 regional areas in AACOG, and then there's local and there's 24 kind of regional -- I forgot the term you used. What 25 determines if you're regional? 2-10-03 32 1 MS. SANCHEZ: I believe -- and, as I said, 2 I'm going to be trained next week. As I -- as I understand 3 it, the more agreements that you have with people that are 4 depending upon you and you're depending upon them, that 5 makes you a regional First Responder. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions for 8 Ms. Sanchez? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This thing's come a 10 long ways. I remember last time I was around it, last year, 11 the State was telling AACOG, y'all get this thing put in 12 place, get it put in place, without even sending their plan 13 down with it. You know, we want you to do it, but we're not 14 about to tell you how to do it. And eventually, obviously, 15 the plan finally got there, and we're up to this point. 16 MS. SANCHEZ: It did. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A long way. 18 MS. SANCHEZ: It's going to be a dynamic 19 document. There isn't any way -- we had a short -- very 20 short time frame to put the responder plan together; I think 21 we had from July -- they told us in June, didn't give us any 22 direction until July, and then said it has to be ready by 23 August or September. And we convened about 160 people who 24 worked very, very hard in committees to identify equipment 25 lists, identify problems, identify critical structures that 2-10-03 33 1 might be targets of terrorism. And -- and you're right, 2 Commissioner Baldwin, we -- we kind of were flying blind, 3 but we think we did a good job, and it's going to be a 4 dynamic document. As soon as these assessments are done, 5 we'll go back and refine that as well. We don't think that 6 we've got a final document at all. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions of 9 Ms. Sanchez? Ms. Sanchez, we appreciate -- I'm sorry, did 10 you have something? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you being here 13 today. And, because you were listed as a time-specific 14 item, I think, out of caution, we should wait until 10:30 15 before we take any formal action on the mutual aid 16 agreement, but we will bring the matter up again at that 17 time and take whatever action the Court deems appropriate. 18 MS. SANCHEZ: I appreciate that, Judge, for 19 the opportunity. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you coming up. 21 MS. SANCHEZ: Thank you. May I be excused, 22 sir? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly. Absolutely. 24 MS. SANCHEZ: Thank you. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll next go to Item 2-10-03 34 1 2.1, presentation by Grantworks representatives on the 2 status of the Kerrville South Wastewater Project, review of 3 the Resolutions of Authorization previously adopted by the 4 Court, and T.C.D.P. Performance Statement and Contract 5 Budget Modifications required for additional engineering and 6 attorney's fees for drafting wastewater treatment contract 7 between U.G.R.A. and City of Kerrville, also previously 8 approved by the Court. Commissioner Williams. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, thank you. As 10 you can see from the agenda and the contents, each of the 11 stylings for 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, this is an attempt to get 12 everybody up to speed on the project itself, as it is 13 currently underway. Last time we had -- we took a look at 14 the interlocal agreement between the Court and U.G.R.A. for 15 modifications, and weren't prepared to take action. Also, 16 last time, Commissioner Nicholson rightly questioned the 17 contract between the County and Tetra Tech in terms of its 18 expiration and whether or not we could act appropriately 19 under that. With all those things in mind, in all three, 20 Judge, I thought it might be appropriate for us to have a 21 review, take care of these items, and hopefully clear the 22 slate so that everybody understands where the project is, 23 and -- and move forward from there. So, with that in mind, 24 I asked our -- our representatives from Grantworks to come 25 down. You've seen the styling on all of those, so you know 2-10-03 35 1 what we're going to be talking about, and take it away. 2 Thanks for waiting through the other presentation. 3 MR. TUCKER: Thank you, Commissioner. Good 4 morning, Judge, Commissioners. How are you today? As you 5 know, there are four grant projects to provide wastewater 6 service to Kerrville South. Two of them have been funded by 7 the Texas Community Development Program and two of them are 8 awaiting word on whether or not they will be funded. The 9 applications have been submitted, and we'll find out about 10 that pretty soon. Of the two projects that have been 11 funded, one is under construction. We received bids several 12 months ago, and we have a contractor out there who has -- 13 who is laying pipe to provide sewer service to Kerrville 14 South. The second grant, that has also been funded. We 15 have preliminary engineering plans for what that project's 16 going to look like, and we should be going out for bids for 17 that this spring. So, that is the status of the projects 18 right now. When it's all said and done, we should provide 19 wastewater to pretty much the entire Kerrville South area, 20 if all the projects get funded and all goes well. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We have two 22 grants funded. 23 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir, we have. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two contracts for 25 funding, both -- excuse me, both of them in the same area of 2-10-03 36 1 Kerrville South. 2 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir, we have. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which takes us down 4 to Loyal Valley. That's the next funding we'd be awaiting; 5 is that correct? 6 MR. TUCKER: The two that have been funded, 7 the 2001-year contract is to provide sewer service on a -- 8 on Wood Drive. That's the one that was under construction. 9 The second one is the 2002-year contract. That's to provide 10 sewer service to the eastern portion of Loyal Valley Road. 11 That's the one that we'd like to go out for bids this 12 spring. And then the two that are pending are, one, to 13 provide sewer service on Ranchero Road and Contour, and then 14 the last one is to provide sewer service to the remainder of 15 Loyal Valley. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I just want to 17 be sure, however, that the two sources of funding that we 18 have in place right now -- 19 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for which funds 21 are drawn down as work is progressing -- 22 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- takes care of the 24 Wood Drive and associated, and the bypass around the lift 25 station. 2-10-03 37 1 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is the City of 3 Kerrville lift station -- 4 MR. TUCKER: Uh-huh. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- off of Route 173; 6 is that correct? 7 MR. TUCKER: Right. Yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So everybody 9 understood that. 10 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, we have before 12 the Court authorization to -- Resolution of Authorizations 13 which grant to the Court the authority, as corrected, that 14 were put into place in May of 2000 and October of 2001. 15 MR. TUCKER: Yes. Those -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2002 and 2001. 17 MR. TUCKER: Those resolutions were passed 18 early in the life of those two grants, yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And those provide to 20 Judge Tinley and this Commissioner, who was designated to be 21 a part of this project -- 22 MR. TUCKER: Mm-hmm. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- the authority to 24 sign on behalf of Kerr County as you perform your 25 administrative work and send down those draws and so forth 2-10-03 38 1 in accordance with the work being in progress and completed; 2 is that correct? 3 MR. TUCKER: Yes, that's correct. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, so, those 5 authorizations are in place. Are any other authorizations 6 required? 7 MR. TUCKER: No. These authorizations allow 8 y'all basically to sign the request for payment and purchase 9 voucher, which allows us to draw down grant money to pay 10 toward whatever contractor has done work that has been 11 approved, so that it appoints signers. It also appoints the 12 County Judge -- the office of the County Judge to act as the 13 chief executive officer when dealing with -- dealing with 14 this grant, so it authorizes him to do things, such as sign 15 budget modifications and -- and perform modifications and 16 things like that, kind of smaller paperwork issues that may 17 be on the periphery of this grant as it goes along. Now, I 18 should point out that it's a program rule that if you make 19 modifications that are very large, substantially change the 20 project -- for example, if we transfer more than 5 percent 21 of the grant fund from one line item to another, that will 22 be considered more of an amendment than a modification. It 23 would require a public hearing -- advertised public hearing 24 and greater steps. And, so, the appointment of the County 25 Judge as being able to act as executive officer in this 2-10-03 39 1 grant is already kind of artificially handicapped, the limit 2 of what that can do, meaning less than 5 percent of budget 3 changes or not substantially changing the scope of the 4 project. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's called 6 modification? 7 MR. TUCKER: Those would be called 8 amendments. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those are amendments, 10 okay. 11 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. And we -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We are within 13 5 percent? 14 MR. TUCKER: Both of the modifications that 15 we've submitted have been less than 5 percent. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Which do not 17 require public hearing? 18 MR. TUCKER: Correct. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But, as presented, it 20 will -- the authority is in place for those to be executed? 21 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anything greater than 23 5 percent, you would bring it in here? 24 MR. TUCKER: Mm-hmm. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Public hearing would 2-10-03 40 1 have to take place? 2 MR. TUCKER: That's correct. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the Court would 4 have to approve that again; is that correct? 5 MR. TUCKER: That's right. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before the County 7 Judge could sign? 8 MR. TUCKER: Well, the Court wouldn't have to 9 approve it, but we would have to have the public hearing. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. Would you 11 speak to -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mean to be 15 difficult on this. We've talked about this a long, long 16 time. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- and when I go back 19 and remember -- try to remember what we did close to a year 20 ago, the main reason for this resolution -- both the 21 resolutions was so this Court didn't have -- the whole Court 22 didn't have to do payment vouchers, and that makes sense. 23 But when I read Section 3, I -- and I'm reading this 24 probably closer than I did the first time -- I have a 25 problem with the -- basically, it's authorizing the County 2-10-03 41 1 Judge to act in all matters in connection with this 2 contract. And that -- I'm not sure, you know, that we can 3 delegate that. That's something that seems -- maybe we can. 4 It seems like it's granting -- the Court is delegating an 5 awful lot by that language. Now, I hear what you just said, 6 that, you know, over 5 percent, by the terms of the 7 contract, it's got to come back to the full Court, but it's 8 that word "all" that I have -- you know, I'm concerned with. 9 I want to make sure that we're acting properly as a Court 10 and that we can do that. And I think that we need to pretty 11 much understand -- or decide what "all" means. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Want to tell us? 13 MR. TUCKER: Well, I understood that "all" 14 would mean anything that would not require, by the program 15 guidelines, various court action. Now, this shouldn't trump 16 any type of county rules that you may have or traditions or 17 resolutions that you already have. T.C.D.P. guidelines are 18 still in place. This document is mainly to satisfy the 19 development program more so than to provide rules for y'all, 20 you see. So, when I would submit this budget modification 21 that perhaps y'all -- the Judge will sign today, what 22 they're going to look for at the program site is his 23 signature on the form in relation to this resolution. Yes, 24 this resolution allows the Judge to sign this budget 25 modification. Now, for -- to be more than 5 percent of an 2-10-03 42 1 amendment or a larger thing, we would show further evidence; 2 that would be public hearing and things like that, that I 3 discussed earlier. So, not wanting -- really, the nature of 4 this document is not to change county rules, but more to 5 change -- or to describe T.C.D.P. rules more than anything 6 else. But, I -- I understand your concern. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just the term "all" 8 seems -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I think, at this point, 10 Mr. Tucker, there have been one or possibly two construction 11 draws which have been authorized, and that's the only thing 12 that I've done in connection with this. 13 MR. TUCKER: That's right. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly, if -- I have no 15 problem whatsoever with the Court further defining my 16 authority, if -- if Commissioner Letz would feel more 17 comfortable. 18 MR. TUCKER: Okay. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: With -- if this resolution is 20 to confine my authority only to that which is required under 21 the -- under the Community Development Program guidelines, 22 and not outside of that, I've got no problem with that. 23 MR. TUCKER: I don't believe would it fall 24 outside the guidelines, so whatever y'all would pass to make 25 you feel comfortable with that, that would be fine. 2-10-03 43 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I might ask the 2 County Attorney if he has any thoughts on it, 'cause I've 3 listed you as a speaker on this also, David. 4 MR. MOTLEY: Are you talking about just 5 the -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Resolution. 7 MR. MOTLEY: -- the form? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Resolutions of 9 Authorization, which are in place. They were enacted in 10 2001 and 2002. 11 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. Well, I'm not actually -- 12 let me step up here, David, and see what we've got here. I 13 want to doublecheck. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's Section 3 that my 15 question's on, David. 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I -- this is an 18 accomplished fact, apparently, both of these, and I don't 19 know really what we could do a whole lot. Are you talking 20 about amending these now? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just wondering. I 22 mean, the reason we did this was to make payment, you know, 23 work more smoothly. And the grant was approved, and this 24 contract. And the question comes -- you know, that I have 25 is that it says, you know -- and we're under Section 3 on 2-10-03 44 1 both of them. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That the Commissioners 4 Court directs -- delegates and directs County Judge, all 5 matters in connection with the Texas Community Development 6 Program contract. And, I mean, "all" -- 7 MR. MOTLEY: Well, as Kerr County's 8 representative, I suppose. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And what I'm hearing -- 10 MR. MOTLEY: Well, are we proposing to do a 11 similar resolution for the two new contracts? Is that the 12 idea? 13 MR. TUCKER: Yes. 14 MR. MOTLEY: Or one or both of them? 15 MR. TUCKER: Yeah. These contracts are -- or 16 these resolutions are submitted to the County early in the 17 life of these contracts, when we're setting up a bank 18 account, setting up designated signers and things like that. 19 The main reason for that is to kind of expedite matters when 20 it's under construction, especially when you have a 21 contractor out there putting forward capital for materials 22 and supplies and stuff. If we needed court action on a -- 23 on every step -- and, essentially, you voiced yourself we 24 have a court action on every step -- it could delay it weeks 25 and weeks and weeks, and the contractor is high and dry. 2-10-03 45 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The alternative is to 2 convene the Commissioners Court every time to pay a bill. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I mean, I don't have 4 any problem with paying. I mean, the payment of vouchers 5 and all that, that's clearly -- I mean, he basically -- the 6 Judge is verifying the work was done and authorizing 7 payment. I think that makes sense. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: They're certifying, as our 9 representative and through the consulting engineer, that the 10 work was performed. They -- they, as the management 11 consultant on the administrative arm, furnish that to me and 12 say, "This is in line for payment," and I sign off on it. 13 That's a construction progress draw. 14 MR. TUCKER: Also, just, for example, other 15 things, such as the budget modification that I've submitted 16 to you prior to this meeting, if we had a construction 17 draw -- we do it right now, but if we had a construction 18 draw on the 2002 grant that was dependent upon that budget 19 modification, that draw would not be paid for by T.C.D.P. 20 until the modification was approved, so it could act at 21 times as a bottleneck on these. I'd like -- to classify 22 them as these kind of minor modifications that we make to 23 the contract as we go along could act as a stopgap as things 24 progress. Major modifications, like I said, have more 25 public input and are -- are not signed as a matter of 2-10-03 46 1 course. That's just a possible -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my recommendation 3 would be at this point to not modify these two, but we might 4 want to look at them a little bit closer. 5 MR. TUCKER: We can change -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The future ones. 7 MR. TUCKER: If the Phase III and IV -- as I 8 was saying, the Ranchero Road from the highway to Contour, 9 and the remainder of western Loyal Valley -- grants are to 10 be awarded, we could have more precise verbiage on that 11 section when I submit those resolutions to the County for 12 approval, yes. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 MR. MOTLEY: I think David just said -- I 15 mean, as far as these two, they're done, looks to me, and 16 Judge Tinley has offered to have the Court reexamine his 17 authority with regard to the next -- or with any of these 18 contracts, so it seems to me that if the Court wants to be 19 more specific rather than the term "all," or if it wants to 20 have somebody else act as a designated representative, 21 whatever, I mean, I think he said he's amenable to that, so 22 I don't really know what we'd want to do regarding these. I 23 think these are both fine. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 MR. TUCKER: That would be fairly soon, too. 2-10-03 47 1 If these contracts get funded, we should find out in the 2 springtime, and so these resolutions would be presented 3 before the Court in late spring, early summer. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 MR. TUCKER: So that would be a good 6 opportunity then. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dave, if you would, 8 then, would you speak briefly to the budget modifications 9 that are under the 5 percent cap, so that we can approve 10 this this morning and move on to -- 11 MR. TUCKER: Sure. Well, the -- the one I 12 believe that is on for today is for the 2002 grant, Number 13 722411, I believe. And that is to increase engineering and 14 administration fees. The engineering fees are to -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 721075, is it not? 16 MR. TUCKER: 721075. Is that the one that 17 was already signed by Judge Henneke, or do I have those two 18 reversed? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the one 20 that's awaiting signature. That's been here, and it has an 21 accompanying letter to Wendy Langebeer, the Regional 22 Coordinator, and it talks about the Performance Statement 23 Modification Contract Number 721075, and I believe that's 24 the one. 25 MR. TUCKER: What's the date on that letter? 2-10-03 48 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, when you sent 2 it to me, it was January 17th. 3 MR. TUCKER: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's been revised to 5 the 22nd, and I guess we can revise it again. 6 MR. TUCKER: No, no, we don't need to do 7 that. We're increasing engineering fees because of the -- 8 it's the realities of construction. As you mentioned 9 earlier, we have the Riverhill Bypass. Originally, the 10 sewage that we were going to collect from this project was 11 going to be pumped by a lift station -- and, as y'all know, 12 lift stations are pretty expensive -- up over a ridge, and 13 then connect into the main line later at some point. That 14 had been scrapped in favor of eliminating the lift station, 15 doing the so-called Riverhill Bypass, where we connected to 16 the Nimitz line by doing a line across the Riverhill Country 17 Club. It was a matter of reducing our capital costs, and 18 it's just a more practical way to do it. The reason that's 19 creating additional engineering fees, that required more 20 plans, more designing, more surveying and things like that. 21 And, also, dealing with several agencies on this project, 22 with the Guadalupe River Authority and the County and 23 working with the City, and, to be honest, working with us. 24 The engineer has been kind of pushed and pulled throughout 25 the past year and a half on this project, and the costs have 2-10-03 49 1 started to come up. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the second phase, 3 much of that had to do with the payment of the -- or of the 4 budget modification to accommodate the attorney's fees? 5 MR. TUCKER: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the drafting of 7 the contract between Upper Guadalupe River Authority and the 8 City of Kerrville for treatment of sewage; is that correct? 9 And the Court had already approved that? 10 MR. TUCKER: Well, the Court did approve that 11 particular one. I wasn't sure about those attorney's fees 12 going toward drafting that contract. I had thought that it 13 was going towards drafting the interlocal agreement and then 14 working on the easement that we needed to lay the line 15 across the Riverhill golf course. I didn't have any 16 specific information, or don't have it with me now, that it 17 was for the contract between U.G.R.A. and the City that -- 18 that is outside the scope of -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correspondence dated 20 December 16, 2002, addressed to the Honorable Judge Fred 21 Henneke, dealt with that issue, and it was for retaining of 22 the M.L.K. firm. 23 MR. TUCKER: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Out of Austin for the 25 specific purpose of drafting that agreement. 2-10-03 50 1 MR. TUCKER: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe. Am I 3 correct, Mr. Mosty? 4 MR. MOSTY: I wasn't involved in it. I think 5 it is M.L.K. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm pretty sure. 7 MR. TUCKER: Okay. I don't have the 8 materials with me right now, but that is a grant-eligible 9 expense the administration -- the additional administration 10 fees are going toward. Attorney's fees. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And all we're doing 12 today is -- is approval of the budget modification, which 13 gets sent to the people who gave us the money? 14 MR. TUCKER: Basically, yes. Right now the 15 grant is not structured to pay for those -- the attorney's 16 fees, and if we don't do the modification to allow for those 17 attorney fees to be paid for with the grant, then it's 18 coming from the County instead. But since it is a grant -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's get 2.1 out of 20 the way, and I would do so by offering a motion to approve 21 the Contract Budget Modifications required for additional 22 engineering and attorney's fees for the Kerrville South 23 Wastewater Project. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 2-10-03 51 1 seconded -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And authorize County 3 Judge to sign same. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: -- by Commissioners Williams 5 and Baldwin, respectively, that the Court approve the 6 T.C.D.P. Performance Statement, Contract Budget 7 Modifications, and authorize the County Judge to sign same. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correct. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any further 10 discussion on that item? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question. On 12 the tail end of your comment there, I think I heard you say 13 that these attorney fees are not in the grant as of today? 14 MR. TUCKER: Correct. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you're just going 16 to fire a shot at it? Is that what I'm understanding? Let 17 me finish. 18 MR. TUCKER: Sure. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if it doesn't fly, 20 then the County's responsible for the attorney fees? 21 MR. TUCKER: That's correct. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody understand 23 that? 24 MR. TUCKER: I discussed this with the 25 regional coordinator, my counterpart at the State. I told 2-10-03 52 1 her that this modification is coming to pay for these 2 attorney fees, faxed the invoices to her for approval, and I 3 have received verbal approval on this. So, it's not a 4 guaranteed approval, but this -- this is not a shot in the 5 dark, as it were. This is a -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what we were 7 advised early on. 8 MR. TUCKER: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That this would be a 10 legitimate budget modification. 11 MR. TUCKER: That's correct. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: As a follow-up on that, 13 Commissioner Baldwin, to your inquiry, in reviewing these 14 billings, I note that most of the -- most of what I see in 15 those billings deals with a transaction between the City of 16 Kerrville and U.G.R.A. on wastewater agreement -- I assume 17 it's wastewater. It could also mean fresh water; I don't 18 know. It's not -- there's an entry here on -- okay. 19 "Continuing work." That would confine to it sewer, I guess. 20 I have, number one, a question, if we have an obligation -- 21 this County has an obligation to be responsible for 22 attorney's fees relative to a transaction between the City 23 of Kerrville and U.G.R.A., or whether or not that falls 24 under the scope of our grant that we'd received from 25 T.C.D.P.; and, secondarily, then, the question is, if we 2-10-03 53 1 transfer those funds from the grant moneys for the payment 2 of those fees, will it not reduce the amount that we'll have 3 available for the project itself, and then obligate the 4 County for any -- any additional sums that might be due? 5 MR. TUCKER: Sure. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Concerning the construction 7 phase? 8 MR. TUCKER: Sure. Well, there's -- I have 9 two general responses to that. First of all, this County 10 applied for the grant with -- kind of knowing that the 11 services would be provided ultimately, that the -- the flow 12 would go to the City of Kerrville wastewater plant, and that 13 the U.G.R.A. was going to operate the system. So, 14 basically, their responsibility for having to draft an 15 agreement with how to handle the waste would not have 16 existed without this grant to begin with. So, in that 17 sense, it makes sense that it's folded into the -- within 18 the budget of the grant itself, because it is a legal 19 requirement that is emerging from the project itself. 20 Secondly, we obviously can come up with some type of 21 agreement to see if there are future attorney's fees 22 coming -- emerging from this project, to see if we can 23 curtail it or predict what's going to happen in the future. 24 We're already up against the 5 percent budget modification 25 limit, so any other transfer of moneys to pay for additional 2-10-03 54 1 engineering or fees -- or, excuse me, administrative fees, 2 meaning lawyer fees, would have to come through a public 3 hearing and a public forum and need approval from yourself. 4 And, so, that -- there is that. 5 Lastly, we happen to have a favorable bid 6 opening. When we awarded this construction contract to 7 Compton, we in fact had a balance of about $98,000 in 8 construction fees left, even after fulfilling the 9 obligations of this 2001 grant. So I think, in that 10 respect, it gives us a little bit more freedom in using 11 these -- these grant funds to pay for this agreement. 12 Because we had such a favorable bid opening, we have extra 13 funds. Those extra funds, that $98,000, is basically being 14 eaten up as we go along by the possibility of an impact fee 15 from the City and other charges as well. So, we are already 16 in a position of having extra grant money that we were 17 either going to do -- to prolong and extend services to this 18 project, or to pay for costs as they emerge throughout the 19 life of the grant. This is an example of the latter. So, 20 if we were in a situation to where we had a bid opening that 21 spent all of our construction money, and we were going to be 22 asking U.G.R.A. for additional funds anyway to increase 23 their match commitment to this project, then I think we'd be 24 in trouble, and possibly would have more of a basis to 25 question the responsibility of these fees. But since we did 2-10-03 55 1 have such a favorable bid opening, we do have, on this first 2 grant, the wiggle room basically to take care of these 3 attorney fees and pay for these agreements. We don't know 4 how favorable our openings are going to be on the remaining 5 three projects that we're working on. This is just our 6 opportunity to take care of that, and take care of that now. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Commissioner 8 Williams mentioned that there was previous authorization by 9 the prior Court in the sum of, if my recollection serves me 10 correct, approximately $6,000, $6,200, for the payment of 11 attorney's fees. Do you recall that? 12 MR. TUCKER: Well, we have submitted two 13 budget modifications for our two existing projects. One of 14 them was entirely engineering fees, and the other was 15 administration fees, lawyer's fees and engineering fees. I 16 think there may be a mixup on the two here. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess my question is, I have 18 some recollection that there was such an approval, and I'm 19 sure other members of the Court may recall that. I guess my 20 question is, are we talking about expending those funds, as 21 previously approved, as part of this? Or have those funds 22 already been expended? 23 MR. TUCKER: They -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And we're talking about the 25 new expenditure of approximately $6,000. 2-10-03 56 1 MR. TUCKER: No, it's six thousand -- I think 2 963, right? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $6,963. 4 MR. TUCKER: Yeah. That is the only request 5 for increased engineering or administration fees for -- to 6 pay for attorney's activities that we have presented so far. 7 There's just been that one for $6,963. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're -- they're 9 noted in Modification Number 1, Judge. 10 MR. TUCKER: See, there are two Budget 11 Modification Number 1's, because they are both the first 12 respective modifications for the two separate grants. That 13 may be contributing to the confusion. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure that answered my 15 question about the $6,000 that was previously -- 16 MR. TUCKER: Right. It -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: -- approved by this Court. 18 MR. TUCKER: It hasn't been drawn down. The 19 money has not been requested from the -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hasn't been paid from 22 the -- there's approval for payment, but it's not paid. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that the same moneys that 24 we're talking about here, or are we talking about for 25 separate -- for different services? 2-10-03 57 1 MR. TUCKER: No, it's -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: For which there will be 3 additional billing, and those funds expended? 4 MR. TUCKER: Right. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: From -- from that $6,000 6 whatever? 7 MR. TUCKER: Sure. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: And, now, the modification 9 that you're talking about now will be totally separate and 10 apart coming from the grant funds? 11 MR. TUCKER: Now, the -- the one modification 12 that we created to request additional administration fees 13 was prompted by that particular group of lawyer's fees that 14 I received from -- from the Commissioner. So -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That was last year. 16 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. Well -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I think I understand. 18 MR. TUCKER: Yeah. Sorry about that. Yeah, 19 we only are requesting it at one point. It's the additional 20 engineering fees that are only requested on the 2001 21 Community Development Grant. Just the request for whatever 22 that amount is; I don't have it. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: But the Performance Statement 24 and the budget modification -- Contract Budget Modification, 25 just incorporates that $6,000-whatever? 2-10-03 58 1 MR. TUCKER: Right. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That was previously approved? 3 MR. TUCKER: Right. I -- that's correct. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 MR. TUCKER: I have no additional attorney's 6 fees that have come up, and have not drafted any additional 7 modifications for any more attorney's fees. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, in essence, we're 9 already on the hook for this $6,000-plus? 10 MR. TUCKER: That's correct. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. Any more 12 questions? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. It's not a 14 question, really more of a clarification. Could the Judge 15 please reread the motion? And this is more for 16 clarification, because it's confusing; there's two contracts 17 and two Modification 1's, and explicitly say Modification 1 18 under this contract, so that the motion's real clear as 19 to -- you know, for future times as we look -- to know 20 exactly what we're voting on here. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of the motion 22 that was made -- and the reporter may have to remind me if 23 members of the Court don't have the ability to remember, 24 'cause I sure don't. Who made that motion? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was Commissioner 2-10-03 59 1 Williams, I believe. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: And you seconded it? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm afraid so. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Can you remember 5 what you seconded? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I'm not going to 9 share it with you. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to see if I can 11 get it right? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to see how 13 tough you are. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The bottom of this 15 page. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion, as I understand 17 it, is that the -- that's been made and seconded by 18 Commissioners Williams and Baldwin, respectively, is that 19 the Court approve the T.C.D.P. Performance Statement and 20 Contract Budget Modifications as presented by the Court, and 21 authorize the County Judge to sign the same. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The total of those, 23 Judge, for clarification purposes, totals $12,500, which 24 represents 5 percent. That takes care of both attorney's 25 fees and engineering modifications. Is that correct? 2-10-03 60 1 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz has asked me 3 to point out, and I think rightly so, that -- that the -- 4 that the Performance Statement modification deals with 5 T.C.D.P. Contract Number 721075. 6 MR. TUCKER: That's correct. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: And the budget modification 8 deals with T.C.D.P. Contract Number 722441. 9 MR. TUCKER: Right. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Does that clarification 11 satisfy you? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: With that clarification, is 14 that satisfactory with you gentlemen on your motion? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it is. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Is there any 18 further discussion or questions? Being none, all those in 19 favor of the motion, signify by 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. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Hopefully we've got you over 2-10-03 61 1 the hard one. Now we'll go to the next one. 2 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir, thank you. Sorry 3 about the confusion there. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next one has to do 5 with the -- I'm sorry, Judge. You need to call it. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item is 2.2, consider 7 and discuss and take appropriate action on amendment to 8 Professional Management, Engineering, and Architectural 9 Services Contract between Kerr County and Tetra Tech, 10 formerly Groves and Associates, Inc. Commissioner Williams, 11 again. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe the folks 13 at Grantworks sent down a suggested amendment for the 14 Professional Management agreement. I sent that down to the 15 County Attorney for his perusal and comment. And, David, if 16 you will, would you come address the Court and tell us about 17 the one-page amendment that you have sent back with 18 suggested changes in it, so we can maybe get this one moving 19 too? 20 MR. MOTLEY: Well, the requested items to be 21 amended were the completion date and the amount of budget. 22 I was looking at this. I thought that it was a part of the 23 old contract that said that the -- the contract is drafted 24 in four parts. It said -- in Part 1, it said it adopted and 25 incorporated Part 4, and I thought, well, I ought to go 2-10-03 62 1 ahead and adopt and incorporate 2 and 3 while they were 2 incorporating and adopting, so I added that. And then, 3 also, went ahead -- this was not meant to be an 4 all-inclusive amendment; this was trying to be kind of a 5 brief amendment for the purposes that it was sent down. I 6 went ahead and said that any reference in the agreement -- 7 previous agreement to Groves and Associates, Inc., should be 8 construed to read as Tetra Tech, Inc. And, really, that's 9 the only changes I made in it. I did not know the date of 10 the architectural services -- the -- well, I guess I called 11 it the original Professional Management Engineering and/or 12 Architectural Services Agreement. That's the date. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the date? 14 MR. MOTLEY: Is there another one besides 15 that one? 'Cause the other one I had didn't have a date on 16 it. 17 MR. TUCKER: They're -- both the two 18 contracts are included on one engineering contract. 19 MR. MOTLEY: Is that right? Okay. 20 MR. TUCKER: By the way, for the Court, this 21 amendment applies to the engineering contract for both the 22 2001 and the 2002 projects that have been funded. They have 23 one engineering contract to manage the engineering services 24 on both of the existing contracts. This contract and this 25 amendment are for that. We're not going to be coming to you 2-10-03 63 1 again for another amendment for their other engineering 2 contract for the 2002 project as well. This is for both. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The engineering is in 4 place for both? 5 MR. TUCKER: For both. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The grant funded this 7 part of the project? 8 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. That's what we're 9 asking for an amendment to today. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have the date 11 so we can fill that in? 12 MR. MOTLEY: It says May 8. 13 MR. TUCKER: May 8, 2001. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May 8, 2001, okay. 15 MR. TUCKER: That's what I have. 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I guess I'm 18 asking the question, counsel, are we -- are we going to be 19 taking action on the smaller version, which was provided by 20 Grantworks, or the larger version, which was provided by 21 you? 22 MR. TUCKER: Just to clarify, the smaller 23 version actually was created by Tetra Tech, based on an 24 e-mail Grantworks put together saying, "Here's the major 25 issues the County has." But this document was created by 2-10-03 64 1 Tetra Tech. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That appreciably 3 extends the date of the contract to May -- March 18, '04, 4 and includes the budget modifications totaling, thus far, 5 $104,663. 6 MR. TUCKER: Well, the modifications are less 7 than that. The total new contract amount. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Total new contract 9 amount for engineering, I'm sorry. 10 MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir, and changing from -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I missed that. 12 MR. TUCKER: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, where are we, 14 counselor? 15 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'm putting in the dates 16 on the contract amendment, if that's what y'all want to do. 17 I mean, there's nothing wrong with amending the contract, or 18 the -- the engineering contract that I can see. I mean, we 19 went through it, and everything's fine, as far as from the 20 legal end of it. But, I mean, I'm not talking about the 21 executive decision of whether or not you want to do it. I'm 22 just saying it's fine as -- as we've modified it. I just 23 got off the phone with Mr. Kaviani, and he was asking about 24 it, and I told him somebody would give him a call here in a 25 minute when we got finished and let him know what happened. 2-10-03 65 1 So, he's well aware of this. He has a copy of the amended 2 agreement. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The amended version 4 that you provided to the Court? Or the -- 5 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, the one you're holding in 6 your hand there. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8 MR. MOTLEY: I e-mailed him -- I mean faxed 9 him a copy or something last week, so -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the engineering 11 firm is comfortable with this? 12 MR. MOTLEY: He -- I just talked to him; he 13 didn't raise any sort of disagreement. I talked to him 14 before we did it. I told him exactly the changes I've 15 proposed to make, the two additional changes, additional to 16 the ones that were sent down, which was change of the 17 completion date, the amount of the contract, the fact that 18 we're changing Groves Engineering references to Tetra Tech, 19 and then the other -- it's to include Parts 2 and 3, and the 20 -- you know, the contract -- I think it was a little bit 21 ambiguous. It says -- on Part 1, it said we are 22 incorporating Part 4 herein, you know, by reference. And I 23 looked at it and I said, well, I wonder why they left out 24 Part 2 and 3. We probably ought to go ahead and bring 25 all -- the whole contract in one agreement. That's the only 2-10-03 66 1 thing I changed about any of this, and so it's kind of a 2 minor change, in my estimation. So -- so, whatever the 3 Court wants to do. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's find out 5 real quick what the Court wants to do. I move the approval 6 of the budget modifications to the Tetra Tech agreement, as 7 approved by the County Attorney, essentially embodying the 8 date -- the date of 5/8/2001, extending the agreement to 9 March 18, 2004, and modifying the total fee for services to 10 $104,663. That's a motion. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you not want to -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And authorize County 13 Judge to sign same. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- change the name to 15 Tetra Tech? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, changing the 17 name from Groves to Tetra Tech. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that motion. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The motion's been made 20 and seconded by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin, 21 respectively, that the Court approve the amendment as 22 presented by the County Attorney, his drafted format, to 23 Professional Management Engineering and Architectural 24 Services Agreement, which changes Groves Engineering to 25 Tetra Tech, performance date extended to March 18, 2004, 2-10-03 67 1 acknowledging that the total fee for services is increased 2 by budget modifications to $104,663, and incorporates the 3 Parts, 2, 3, and 4 of the previous Professional Engineering 4 Architectural Agreement with Groves Engineering, now Tetra 5 Tech, and authorize the County Judge to sign such amendment 6 on behalf of the County. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 9 discussion? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I do. I have 11 some discussion -- questions. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Commissioner 13 Nicholson? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can't find that we 15 have a contract with Tetra Tech. What I find is that we 16 have an expired contract with Groves, and that we're told, 17 but haven't been officially notified, is that Groves has 18 sold that firm to Tetra Tech. And I find in this expired 19 contract that Groves does not have the ability to assign or 20 transfer its interest without the prior written consent of 21 the Court. So, what I see is that we're being asked to 22 amend the contract -- make an amendment to a contract that 23 doesn't exist. 24 MR. MOTLEY: Well, read the part that you 25 said that they had to get prior approval. From who? On 2-10-03 68 1 that -- what you were saying? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Part 4, Paragraph 5, 3 Assignability. 4 MR. MOTLEY: Now, I didn't know -- I can't 5 sit here and tell you that I know the exact change that was 6 made -- and Dave may know more than I do. I thought it was 7 just a change of name. I didn't know it was actually -- 8 MR. TUCKER: They -- Groves and Associates 9 was purchased by Tetra Tech, and all assets were purchased 10 by Tetra Tech. 11 MR. MOTLEY: Are they not the same principals 12 that are running -- I mean, isn't Mr. Groves still an 13 officer in the -- 14 MR. TUCKER: I don't know. 15 MR. MOTLEY: They told me he was vice 16 president. 17 MR. TUCKER: He is vice president. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my 19 understanding. 20 MR. MOTLEY: I don't know how to answer the 21 question that Commissioner Nicholson's proposing. The fact 22 that the date has expired, I believe, is something of that 23 -- and I believe there was even notice from Groves 24 Engineering that the date was coming up and that they needed 25 an extension, and it probably wasn't acted on timely. But 2-10-03 69 1 the fact that the -- the original contract has expired, I 2 don't think, in and of itself, means that we can not amend 3 it at this point in time if the parties agree to it. And I 4 believe everybody, it's my understanding, you know, agreed 5 to go ahead and -- and modify the contract. Without that, 6 we've got kind of an unusual situation, in that we have 7 contractors out there -- a contractor out there building, 8 putting in -- laying sewer pipe, as such, and the 9 engineering consultant on the thing is all of a sudden not 10 going to be on the job. And it probably can be taken care 11 of by preparing a new contract with Tetra Tech, if the Court 12 would rather do that than amend the existing contract. But 13 the -- I don't think that there's anything about the fact 14 that contracts expire that makes it illegal, if everybody 15 chooses to agree to it, to go ahead and modify the contract 16 after the date. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I don't think 18 the contract being expired is critical. I think it's 19 whether or not we have a contract with Tetra Tech, is what's 20 critical. We went through a -- a process, RFP or something 21 similar, to select Groves. Shouldn't we -- if we're going 22 to make a contract with Tetra Tech -- 23 MR. MOTLEY: A new one, you mean? Or get 24 permission to extend? 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Extend. 2-10-03 70 1 MR. MOTLEY: Modify or whatever, amend. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: See, we don't know 3 that Tetra Tech has bought Groves. We haven't been notified 4 of that. And we have not given our permission in writing 5 for Groves to transfer that contract to -- to Tetra Tech. 6 MR. MOTLEY: I don't have the contract in 7 front of me, and I don't remember -- I think it's in Section 8 4, but there is a provision in there that does say that, you 9 know, the rights of the contract do survive to the -- 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Heirs. 11 MR. MOTLEY: -- successors -- heirs, 12 successors, et cetera. And if somebody bought -- if any 13 business buys another business, they typically buy their 14 accounts and accounts receivable and all that, such that 15 goes with it. I guess, in order to really know that, you'd 16 almost have to look at the -- you know, the paperwork 17 between Groves Associates and Tetra Tech. And I'm just not 18 privy to the nature of their -- their agreement is between 19 themselves. I just understood that it's basically the same 20 organization. So -- 21 (Courthouse fire alarm sounded.) 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: In view of the confusion 24 that's taking place, we'll stand in recess for about 15 25 minutes, reconvene at about 20 till 11:00. 2-10-03 71 1 (Recess taken from 10:26 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) 2 - - - - - - - - - - 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's reconvene the meeting -- 4 regular Commissioners Court meeting, which commenced on or 5 about 9 a.m. local time, February 10th, 2003. We were in 6 the midst of discussion of Item 2.2, and Mr. Tucker with 7 Grantworks was here, and my recollection is that 8 Mr. Nicholson had raised a question about whether we even 9 had a contract with -- with Tetra Tech at this point, or 10 some shade of that. I believe that's where we were. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I might make a 12 comment, it seems to me that if Tetra Tech bought Groves, 13 that's pretty clear cut; we have a contract, and 14 everything's okay. We just need to fix up some clerical 15 errors, you know, and you say they did. Well, then, I mean, 16 all we need is -- I don't see why we can't approve this 17 subject to them providing the documentation that they bought 18 them. 19 MR. TUCKER: Right. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Letz' 21 point is well-taken, that the contract provides that it is 22 binding upon and inures to the benefit, among other things, 23 the successors, which is a -- generally occurs in -- in a 24 corporate capacity of a successor in interest. But our 25 problem is -- is that we don't have anything to evidence 2-10-03 72 1 that, be it certification from the Secretary of State of the 2 State of Texas, of a certificate of merger or consolidation, 3 or -- or other appropriate evidence to indicate, in fact, 4 that what used to be Groves and Associates is now in its 5 entirety Tetra Tech, by virtue of purchase all of the stock 6 or whatever the arrangement may have been, and we don't have 7 that evidence. So, lacking that, we're just -- we've just 8 got a big question mark. 9 MR. TUCKER: Okay. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: As I see it. 11 MR. TUCKER: Well, we have -- for what it's 12 worth, have paid four invoices to Tetra Tech. In fact, no 13 engineering invoices payable by the grant were ever paid to 14 Groves. Kamron Kaviani, who's been working closely with 15 myself and Commissioners and many other people on the 16 project, is definitely an employee of Tetra Tech. So, 17 basically, whether or not it's demonstrable right now, it's 18 a matter of fact that Tetra Tech purchased Groves 19 Associates. So, if I could get some evidence to y'all to 20 that effect very shortly, perhaps an amendment to the 21 engineering contract could be passed with the understanding 22 that, within 7 days or 14 days or whatever, I can get you 23 some type of proof that this has -- this exchange has taken 24 place. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a couple -- a 2-10-03 73 1 note, following up on Commissioner Letz' -- I went through 2 my file, which is about that thick, on all the various 3 correspondence and so forth, and the last document that I 4 can find in my file with the various plans and so forth for 5 Kerrville South is a document dated September 26, 2001, on 6 the letterhead of Groves and Associates. It sends the plans 7 and so forth and so on. And, thereafter, everything in the 8 file is Tetra Tech. And I would note, just for information 9 purposes, that this amendment that's being proposed calls to 10 attention that the engineer, acting by and through its duly 11 authorized vice president, Brad Groves, P.E., is hereby 12 authorized to perform..., so forth and so on. Brad Groves 13 was the principal in Groves and Associates, and is now vice 14 president in Tetra Tech, and he's continuing with the 15 activities of the engineering firm. I don't know what else 16 we need. If we need some other document, I guess we could 17 -- I'm suggesting to the Court we can approve this and move 18 forward. If we need to have a presentation of some formal 19 documents of transfer indicating that that did take place, 20 I'm sure we can make that happen. 21 MR. TUCKER: Also, as -- the contract had 22 expired December 31st 2002. Tetra Tech has been proceeding 23 with engineering since then, I guess as a demonstration of 24 good faith. They have no intention of abandoning this 25 contract, as it's been evidenced by their continuing work 2-10-03 74 1 and effort toward this project. Perhaps a matter of good 2 faith comes into play. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney, are 4 you satisfied that we can move forward? 5 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I -- you know, again, the 6 information I was given is that they were just successors in 7 interest to Groves Engineering, and, you know, I would 8 assume anybody purchasing any sort of a firm would -- part 9 of what they're purchasing is the accounts and the business 10 that they have ongoing, unless some other arrangement is 11 made. And I'm -- again, Dave has mentioned that Tetra Tech 12 remains on the job and continues the consulting engineering, 13 the subject of the -- of the contract. So, apparently, they 14 think, and have thought since -- I guess it was 15 December 31st, that they're still obligated by the 16 agreement. And, you know, one thing -- I guess it's up to 17 the Court to decide, but I don't think anybody's 18 specifically raised any issues about the engineering work 19 that's been done. I think it's perfectly allowable that we 20 could go ahead after the fact -- I mean, after the 21 expiration of the other contract, and amend this. I don't 22 know of any reason why it wouldn't, if the parties agree to 23 it. So, I mean, if they're going to go ahead, if -- if the 24 plan is to go ahead and get documents evidencing the 25 transfer of ownership from Groves to Tetra Tech, and you 2-10-03 75 1 want somebody to look at that, I'll be happy to do that, if 2 that's what the plan is. I think we're fine where we are on 3 this right now. It's a very slight increase in the funding. 4 I don't know what it was, probably about -- maybe $13,000, 5 something along that -- 6 MR. TUCKER: $11,000. 7 MR. MOTLEY: So, it's not a lot of funding 8 increase. And I think that they need the additional time. 9 As I understand it -- now, I may be wrong about this, but 10 this additional time up on the -- that's added to the 11 contract is going to contemplate finishing the other two 12 phases; is that correct? 13 MR. TUCKER: No. 14 MR. MOTLEY: Or is that just these two? 15 MR. TUCKER: Just these two. 16 MR. MOTLEY: I know one's underway and one's 17 going out to contract fairly soon. So -- 18 MR. TUCKER: We have already gone out for 19 bid -- or proposals for the Phase III and IV. The two 20 outstanding grants have not been awarded yet. At that time, 21 if and when that contract gets awarded, then you'll have 22 another engineering contract brought before the Court, which 23 will have a later expiration. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Court will have 25 to choose who the engineer is. 2-10-03 76 1 MR. TUCKER: At the point -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a motion on the 3 table? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, there is. There's a 5 motion on the table that -- want me to repeat it all to you? 6 (Commissioner Letz nodded.) 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We took a break. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: What a guy. There's a motion 9 on the table that -- that the Court approve the Professional 10 Management Engineering or Architectural Services Contract 11 amendment as presented by the County Attorney and authorize 12 the County Judge to sign the same, motion having been made 13 by Commissioner Williams and seconded by Commissioner 14 Baldwin. Is that correct? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think you 18 can sign a contract with -- with Tetra Tech. Even if we get 19 the documentation that Groves Engineering has been purchased 20 by Tetra Tech, it still requires written approval by the 21 County for them to assign the interest. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The agreement shall 24 be binding upon successors and assigns permitted by this 25 agreement, and this agreement requires prior written 2-10-03 77 1 approval by the County, point one. Point two is, we went 2 through some sort of process to select Groves Engineering, 3 and it had something to do with their ability and capability 4 to perform the contract. We haven't gone through that 5 process with -- with Tetra Tech. We would need an RFP or 6 something similar to that to make a contract with Tetra 7 Tech. And then point three is that an extension from -- 8 from the end of last year for 14 and a half months doesn't 9 sound like an extension to me; it sounds like another 10 contract. We had a contract for them to do work that had to 11 be completed by December 31, and I can imagine that -- that 12 there's good reason that might have run over, but running 13 over by 14 and a half months? I don't think so. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, a large part of 15 the reason had to do with the excessive rains and floods 16 that took place in Kerr County in the months of June and 17 July which rendered it impossible for them to do the work 18 that they're now doing, which was to cross Camp Meeting 19 Creek underneath -- bore underneath Camp Meeting Creek with 20 a line. So, they were totally delayed in that regard. And, 21 you know, even if the contract is extended to March 22 whatever -- we're talking about March 18, '04. If the work 23 is completed sooner than that, it's completed sooner, and 24 the contract ends. 25 MR. TUCKER: That's right. The March 18, '04 2-10-03 78 1 date is the contract end date of the state grant, the 2002 2 Community Development grant. That's when that grant 3 expires. That's where that date comes from, is when the 4 contract is over between the County and the State, so we 5 just matched it up with that. They have to finish it up in 6 time for the grant itself to expire. That's where that date 7 came from. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's another 9 reason. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, may I make a 11 suggestion? Could -- could we give the County Attorney 12 these three or four issues that Mr. Nicholson has? And I 13 respect those. At the rate we're going, we're going to be 14 here through April, maybe May, and he's got plenty of time 15 to take a look at these things and get this particular item 16 back to us. Or we can sit here all day long on this one 17 issue. This is -- this is Item Number 2. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got a big one yet 19 to come. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just suggesting 21 that Motley take whatever -- whatever it is Mr. Nicholson -- 22 I think he had four issues, and answer those. Give us legal 23 advice, whether we can do it or not. If we can't do it, 24 trash it. Let's go on to something else. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other thing, I mean, 2-10-03 79 1 that I see -- and I agree with Commissioner Baldwin. I 2 mean, I defer to the County Attorney. The other thing it 3 seems to me we can do -- I don't know if we can do it under 4 the way it's styled -- is to, you know, approve them one by 5 one. I mean, you know, Commissioner Nicholson's concerned 6 about the -- I mean, to me, the concern out of the, I guess, 7 three or four interests that he's mentioned that are 8 important to me are the -- whether Tetra Tech bought Groves. 9 And if they do -- you know, the way I read this, and I'm not 10 an attorney, I don't see that that requires our approval. 11 You know, it's just kind of one of the interests -- we're 12 dealing with the same group. I mean, but anyway, you know, 13 that's just the way I look at it, but I'm not -- so we can 14 defer that to the County Attorney for an opinion on that 15 point. But why can't we approve it the way it is? I mean, 16 Tetra Tech's doing the work. Let's get through this 17 contract. I mean, I think it's -- I think the -- the down 18 side to the County is a lot worse by not proceeding, and I 19 think we need to -- you know, Tetra Tech's doing the work. 20 We're going to be open to a lawsuit if we try to -- if we 21 delay this thing, or damages for us causing delays. To me, 22 I'd rather go forward. If we need to make an amendment, we 23 need to make the amendment, and let's be done with this 24 contract. It's underway right now anyway. I really 25 think -- you know, that's just my point of view. 2-10-03 80 1 JUDGE TINLEY: We've got a motion that's been 2 made and seconded, and I heard a suggestion from 3 Commissioner Baldwin -- are you offering an amendment to the 4 motion that -- that the approval be conditioned upon the 5 County Attorney's review of this matter and approval for 6 legal sufficiency of the questions and issues raised by 7 Commissioner Nicholson? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that would be 9 fine. I'm not real clear that Mr. Nicholson will agree to 10 everything. I want him to be satisfied as well. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: You're offering that as an 12 amendment to the motion? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. We have an 15 amendment to -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's got to accept it, 17 too. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that amendment's 19 not acceptable in the form it was stated. I would like for 20 us to approve the extension, and ask the County Attorney at 21 the same time to satisfy the Court at a subsequent meeting 22 that the "successor and assigns" clause and any other 23 associated documentation that he can come up with that 24 verifies the sale and assumptions of Groves and Associates 25 to Tetra Tech and present it to -- and I'd like for to us 2-10-03 81 1 move forward on this, and that's the sense of where I'm 2 coming from. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I withdraw my second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion on the 5 floor. Do we have a second? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's your motion again, 7 Commissioner Williams? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just to proceed as -- 9 along the lines that you had spoken, and at the same time, 10 ask the County Attorney to -- to double-check to be certain 11 that the "successor and assigns" clauses are appropriate, 12 and to bring back whatever letters of documentation he can 13 that -- that confirms the sale of Groves to Tetra Tech. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what's different 15 from that and my amendment? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm really not sure. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what we 18 said. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The difference, as I see it -- 20 and, for goodness sakes, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm 21 incorrect -- is that the motion on the floor is final action 22 to approve the amendment and authorize the County Judge to 23 sign the same, and the amendment -- and determine subsequent 24 to that whether or not the legalities have been satisfied, 25 whereas yours would be a conditional approval, and it would 2-10-03 82 1 be approved and I would be authorized to sign it only after 2 the County Attorney had reviewed it for legal sufficiency in 3 view of the issues raised by Commissioner Nicholson. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: You're not going to correct 6 me? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, 'cause that's 8 correct. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, 11 counselor -- I mean Judge. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion on the floor 13 to approve it as submitted, the amendment under 2.2. Do I 14 -- do I hear a second? 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: There being no second, that 17 action dies for lack of a second. We'll move on to Item 18 2.3 -- I'm sorry. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can have an additional 20 motion on that item. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would make a motion 23 that we approve the amendment, but delete all provisions 24 related to Tetra Tech at this time until that issue is 25 resolved. 2-10-03 83 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 3 seconded that the amendment as presented be approved, with 4 the deletion of all references to "Tetra Tech," motion being 5 made by Commissioner Letz and having been seconded by 6 Commissioner Williams. Is there any discussion on that 7 item? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It sounds like a 9 compromise that might help us move along, but I'd have to 10 ask, who's going to sign for the consultant? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Groves is 12 named in it as the authorized vice president, authorized to 13 perform services and so forth, based on the dates of the old 14 contract. 15 MR. MOTLEY: That's who Mr. Kaviani advised 16 me is the responsible party when I talked to him the other 17 day. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we could assume, 19 then, Mr. Groves would sign on behalf of the that. That's 20 what Kamran said. I asked him who is the person who would 21 have the authority to sign on behalf of Tetra Tech, and he 22 said Mr. Groves. And I said, "Is he the president?" He 23 said, "No, he's the vice president." So, that's what I put 24 in that document. All right. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it seems to me if 2-10-03 84 1 we delete the references to Tetra Tech, then the agreement's 2 with Groves and Associates, and they -- Groves and 3 Associates needs to come back to us and show that they're 4 Tetra Tech. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't believe it. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: If you would modify the -- the 15 amendment, Mr. Motley, to delete all references to Tetra 16 Tech. 17 MR. MOTLEY: Go ahead and go with Groves? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Groves and Associates. 19 That's who our agreement's with right now, until we resolve 20 this. That's the only changes you want to put in there. We 21 can date it, but leave -- it's okay to leave in the money, 22 the date, and the reference to the other two parts of the 23 contract? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what was 25 approved. 2-10-03 85 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Do you want me to try to get a 3 document to that effect to you before the end of the meeting 4 today? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that it's 6 critical, from my standpoint. 7 MR. MOTLEY: I just said if you want it, I 8 can probably get it for you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that it's 10 critical, Mr. Motley, but -- 11 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion that was approved 13 was to delete all references to Tetra Tech. 14 MR. MOTLEY: I'll do it. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Let's move on to 16 2.3, consider and discuss and take appropriate action on 17 amendments to intergovernmental agreement between Kerr 18 County and Upper Guadalupe River Authority to reflect agency 19 name changes, contract numbers, professional engineering 20 company name change, and amount of U.G.R.A. cash matching 21 funds, removal of Paragraph 6 as shown on the amendment 22 attached to the agreement, and the name change -- changes on 23 the signature page. I assume that's T.C.D.P. to O.R.C.A. 24 We don't have Tetra Tech in this one, do we? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we don't. 2-10-03 86 1 MR. TUCKER: No. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure 3 Mr. Tucker or Mr. Hartzell needs to address this one. 4 MR. TUCKER: I just got this about 20 minutes 5 ago. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This has to do with 7 the County Attorney and Mr. Mosty and U.G.R.A. 8 MR. MOTLEY: Really, Richard had asked for 9 something that I did not provide him, which was a red-line 10 version, to kind of show what changes that I had made. 11 Mr. Williams had asked for certain changes, and I think we 12 had accomplished them. I sent a copy to Richard, and he 13 looked it over and had some -- he attempted -- I think he 14 was out of town most of last week, and he attempted to make 15 the changes that we were requesting, and so I redid a copy 16 and sent it over to Richard. And I really think we've not 17 had a long time to sit down and talk specifically about 18 these changes. I was going through the contract just as we 19 were speaking and marking the -- the amendments I made. I 20 could sit down with Richard, maybe, briefly and explain it, 21 if y'all want to move this agenda item just a couple down 22 the road a little bit. I can show him the changes that I 23 made, so it might help move that along a little bit. 24 MR. MOSTY: We -- we started exchanging 25 redrafts Wednesday of last week, I think. And the latest -- 2-10-03 87 1 this one I got over the weekend, and I've looked at it and 2 the Grantworks folks have looked at it, and we've named 3 everybody generically. We've taken out the Tetra Tech/ 4 Groves question; we've just named them as an entity. I 5 looked at -- at David's, and the substantive issues of 6 correcting a -- there was a little conflict in supervision. 7 There was a bidding question of whether the County had 8 authority. We've deleted that entirely. And I think that I 9 am comfortable with this. We still need to look at a couple 10 of things, so my suggestion would be that if the County sees 11 fit to approve it, why don't you approve it subject to any 12 comments that Mr. Motley -- nonsubstantive-type wording, and 13 then we can submit it to U.G.R.A. on the 19th and we can get 14 -- we can put this to bed. And if there's -- and if -- and 15 if U.G.R.A. or I have some substantive issue, then David can 16 bring it back to you. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you comfortable 18 with that, Mr. Motley? 19 MR. MOTLEY: Yes. And Richard's seen exactly 20 what the changes were. I'd say there may be a few more 21 changes, but what we were trying to do was to take out from 22 this document -- we were trying to make it a document where 23 it would be used on an as-needed basis, as opposed to 24 prospectively saying these two subcontractors or 25 professional consultants are the contractor. We took that 2-10-03 88 1 out, made reference -- instead of Tetra Tech, I think 2 we're calling it a project engineering consultant, generic 3 term, and the project administrative consultant, which is a 4 term pretty much just kind of coined, for somebody who is 5 serving currently in the role of Grantworks. And those 6 would be Grantworks currently. And we thought, by doing 7 that -- and I think that the requirements of the grant 8 require that we would go out each and every time we're 9 seeking those grant funds, and by RFP or similar methods, we 10 would seek to get the consultants approved on a case-by-case 11 basis, rather than having one document sort of preapproving 12 them. That's the only real objection that I had had. We 13 had made a couple of changes about, as Richard says, the 14 bidding. The Commissioners Court is the one ultimately to 15 award the bid, and no majority vote and everything. And I 16 really believe that was an oversight that that was ever put 17 in here. I think it was something that was straightened out 18 last time. Anyway, I think I'm boring the Commissioner, 19 Commissioner Baldwin over there. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's just worried 21 about lunch, that's all. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, you're not 23 boring me. 24 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. All right. I don't mind. 25 In any event, that's really the changes I sought to 2-10-03 89 1 accomplish by amending the contract. And I -- I actually -- 2 in reading over it, you know, I'm never really completely 3 happy with anything. I do see a couple of typos in here, 4 but I can get that straightened out if y'all want to act on 5 this now, or if you want to wait a few minutes. You know, 6 whatever your pleasure is on this. I think it's pretty 7 adequate. We added some definitions that weren't in there. 8 Other than that, there's really not a whole lot we did, 9 other than do away with any reference to future projects, if 10 anyone wants to use this as a template for other projects in 11 the grants as they come up. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Mr. Motley, the -- 13 the one which you've provided us, final DM2703, from a legal 14 sufficiency standpoint, is that -- oh, okay. Okay. That 15 format is acceptable to you to move forward on? 16 MR. MOTLEY: There -- there are a few little 17 typos in there, but other than that, the format is fine. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's acceptable with 19 you, Mr. Mosty? 20 MR. MOSTY: It is tentatively acceptable. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand when we -- 22 MR. MOSTY: In my first review of it, I 23 haven't found anything that substantively changed. There's 24 some changes in wording, but I didn't -- I think they're 25 okay, so my recommendation would be that -- that if it meets 2-10-03 90 1 with y'all's approval, that y'all go ahead with it, and 2 hopefully I won't come up with something in my -- when I 3 leave here. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Of course, we all know that on 5 future contracts that are not yet before us, we're going to 6 have to take those on an as-presented basis, and that this 7 one would -- would be in place for Contract Number 722411, 8 that we do not, according to my understanding, have an 9 interlocal agreement on at this time; is that correct? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 11 MR. MOTLEY: I don't know those actually by 12 Number 721075, 722411. I don't know which one of those does 13 or does not have -- I know there was one agreement that I 14 came across. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whichever came first, 17 we have the interlocal for. Whichever came second, we don't 18 have the interlocal for. 19 MR. TUCKER: 721 has an interlocal right now. 20 The 721 number has the interlocal. 21 MR. MOSTY: The lower number has the 22 interlocal. 23 MR. TUCKER: The lower number. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, this would put us 25 in a position of having in place an interlocal for both 2-10-03 91 1 grants which are funded and the work is underway? 2 MR. MOSTY: That's correct. And then -- and 3 then any future ones would have to go through the same thing 4 y'all have been talking about this morning, contracts and 5 all that. 6 MR. MOTLEY: Well, actually, you know, I -- I 7 question whether this is going to take care of the 722411 8 arrangement. I think we may need to do something separate 9 for that. If -- if the idea was to go ahead and incorporate 10 that second grant into this, that was not my intention in 11 working on it, but I can -- we can do that. Or we can have 12 a separate agreement for that second grant. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The first "Whereas" 14 has both contract numbers in it. 15 MR. MOTLEY: I know. It says that they've 16 already been done. At the time I did this, I thought that 17 there was a separate agreement of approval for 722411. I 18 was not aware until after I drafted this that there was not 19 an interlocal agreement pertaining to that. I thought this 20 was -- the first one was either global as to both of them, 21 or that it was a separate agreement as to each one. I 22 didn't realize there was another agreement for 722411 when I 23 drafted this. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- okay. So, we 25 have a -- there's no work started on the 722 one yet; is 2-10-03 92 1 that right? 2 MR. TUCKER: Construction-wise, correct. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When is the work 4 contemplated to begin on that? 5 MR. TUCKER: The engineer expects to 6 advertise for bids in the spring, so we could be proceeding 7 with construction as early as early summer. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on that timetable, 9 I don't see that -- I mean, I don't see why we don't -- and 10 I agree with David, that based on the way I would read it, 11 we were kind of looking at more of a template today. I 12 think we need to get one contract that has all the blanks 13 filled in for the 722 agreement before us and vote on that, 14 and then at -- you know, if, by chance, that agreement, you 15 know, satisfies us for future agreements, that's good. But 16 I don't see that we can approve a template for a specific 17 contract. I think -- I mean, I think it's basically -- I 18 think we need to come back one more time. 19 MR. MOTLEY: I think it would probably -- in 20 order to have an interlocal agreement on 722411, we 21 probably -- we might be able to amend the original 22 interlocal agreement on 721075 and expand it to cover both. 23 We could probably do that, although nobody really likes 24 amendments much today. So -- but we can do whatever y'all 25 pretty much want to do on this. We can have a separate 2-10-03 93 1 agreement for the second grant. We can draft this agreement 2 that I have to incorporate the grant -- I think probably 3 what Commissioner Letz is saying, the intent of this 4 document was to create a document to be used in the future 5 as a template form. I didn't realize that we were going to 6 try to put the second grant into this, so I apologize for 7 that if I had a misunderstanding, but I will -- in an effort 8 to expedite -- 9 MR. MOSTY: Might I say something? This 10 thing's taken on a life of its own. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has. 12 MR. MOSTY: The purpose of this was to try to 13 correct one agreement, rather than having four each time 14 something came out. We've now drafted five or six. My 15 suggestion is that if we do one for -- for 722441 -- 411, 16 let's do that, and then I'll have it on the word processor, 17 and next time you just do a new interlocal under each of 18 them, have four interlocals, four agreements. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In an effort not to 21 use any more of the Court's time, I'm going to withdraw this 22 one, and also acting under the assumption that winning two 23 out of three is not bad, and we'll come back another day. 24 Thank you both, gentlemen. And thank you, Eric and Dave, 25 for taking your time to come down here. Have a safe trip to 2-10-03 94 1 Galveston. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate it, gentlemen. 3 Okay. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is 6 2.4, and we do have some -- some speakers who have signed up 7 for this, that item being consider the preliminary plat of 8 Stablewood Springs -- excuse me? 9 MS. SOVIL: You need to go back to the 10:30 10 one and vote on that. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Sovil. I 12 appreciate that. Mrs. Sovil has reminded me of my earlier 13 statement that we were going to go back to the 10:30 14 time-specific item before we took any action. It's now 15 after 10:30, and that being the case, I will recall Item 16 2.12, consider and discuss and take appropriate action on 17 Mutual Aid Agreement by and between Kerr County and Alamo 18 Area Council of Governments to set up suitable arrangements 19 for furnishing mutual aid in coping with disasters. Do you 20 have anything further on that, Commissioner Williams? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. If no one wants 22 to speak on it, Judge, I'll offer a motion to approve the 23 Mutual Aid Agreement as presented. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anybody present 25 who -- who's filled out a request to participate on this 2-10-03 95 1 item that hasn't made it up here, or who otherwise wants to 2 be heard on that item? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mark, do you have any 4 comments you want to make on this issue? 5 MR. BEAVERS: No. My name's Mark Beavers, 6 Training Chief, Kerrville Fire Department. I was here to 7 listen to Ms. Sanchez; I thought she was going to be here to 8 speak. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She was. She has. 10 She's gone. 11 MR. BEAVERS: Okay. And -- no, I don't have 12 any comments at this time from the fire department, City of 13 Kerrville position. And so -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We have an information 15 package, sir, that she presented to us, and we'll be happy 16 to provide you with a copy of it, if you've not already 17 received one, so that you can review it. 18 MR. BEAVERS: I believe I have that. Thank 19 you very much. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anybody else that 21 desires to be heard on that action? Okay. Commissioner 22 Williams, you were in the process of offering a motion? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did offer a motion, 24 based on the filing of the agenda item, Judge, and authorize 25 County Judge to sign same. 2-10-03 96 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 4 seconded by Commissioners Williams and Nicholson, 5 respectively, that we approve the Mutual Aid Agreement 6 between Kerr County and Alamo Area Council of Governments 7 for suitable arrangements for furnishing mutual aid, coping 8 with disasters, and authorize County Judge to sign the same. 9 Is there any further discussion or comments? There being 10 none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by raising 11 your right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next 16 item, and now I will bring it up, is 2.4, consider 17 preliminary plat, Stablewood Springs Ranch Subdivision in 18 Precinct 4. This shows it being the County Engineer and Mr. 19 Domingues and Mr. Jackson. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, your list 21 of -- I have a letter here to the Commissioners Court from 22 you, and you have listed six concerns. Is number one and 23 number -- 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Just observations, reviewing 25 the plat. 2-10-03 97 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You've listed six 2 observations. Is one and four the same? Is that the same 3 -- what's the difference between one and four? It has to do 4 with ingress/egress. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, let's go through that. 6 I think their main -- the main entrance to the subdivision 7 is off of Cardinal Hill Road, and it shows it on your plat 8 coming down actually through some non -- non-platted area. 9 It turns into Stablewood Springs Drive West and it goes up 10 to the right-hand side of the plat, and that's where 11 actually the subdivision begins. Whereas, on the other 12 road, Maybee Drive West comes through Bumble Bee Subdivision 13 through an existing road, and there's a gate across the road 14 there, and then that also enters the subdivision on the 15 left-hand side. So, there are two different entrances to 16 the -- to the subdivision, or potential entrances. They 17 probably prefer one over the other, but that -- they have 18 access through those two different ways. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your question was 20 should the area between Cardinal Hill Road and the 21 subdivision be a part of the subdivision? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. As it is now, that's 23 not part of the subdivision. The area from -- shows the 24 road is actually traversing across an unplatted area until 25 it gets over to the -- to the subdivision. There's a 2-10-03 98 1 considerable amount of road there that's not in the 2 subdivision, which would traverse that by an easement 3 instead of a right-of-way, and then it enters a subdivision 4 where it has a designated right-of-way. It ties back into 5 that Bumble Bee Hills where it also has a County road there. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is Maybee Drive West 7 in Bumble Bee Hills a county road? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: It is a county road. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But you said it was 10 gated? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: On the other side it's county 12 road. It's not on this -- not on the present side, but on 13 the other side it's county road. It stops at the gate 14 there, before it gets to the gate. Gate's not locked, by 15 the way. I think it's just a -- a pipe that goes across the 16 road. It's a non-lock type gate. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: That's coming from Bumble Bee 18 Drive, you're saying? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- okay. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: I think it's called Maybee 22 Drive on the plat. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Frank, could you -- 24 MR. JOHNSTON: That was the question I had, 25 is whether or not we can access the subdivision by way of an 2-10-03 99 1 easement; that in the past we've always had a subdivision -- 2 a right of way actually tied into a county or state or 3 public road. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I certainly would be 5 uncomfortable with an easement, just right off the top of my 6 head, without discussing it with you or -- I mean, what -- 7 what would become -- 8 MR. JOHNSTON: I'm sure you'll get the answer 9 to these questions from the next speaker, but that was my -- 10 my way of throwing it out to maybe get an answer. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a great 12 question. I have the same question. I think it's a good 13 question. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question, can 15 you tell me a little bit -- this is not the typical 16 subdivision that we've looked at ordinarily. Can you kind 17 of explain the concept, or would you rather have Mr. 18 Domingues or somebody else -- Mr. Jackson or somebody, I 19 mean -- 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Probably David would be a 21 better spokesman on that. I know this is a -- the first 22 condominium/subdivision combination that we've ever had in 23 Kerr County, so -- in the past I think there have been, of 24 course, subdivisions and there have been condominium 25 projects. This one's kind of combined into one. And the 2-10-03 100 1 other items, I guess, are self-explanatory. The -- part -- 2 part of the area inside the -- this ownership is in another 3 subdivision; it's in Bumble Bee subdivision, Lots 49 -- 45 4 through 49. So, if they were to be incorporated into this 5 subdivision, there would have to be an abandonment, replat, 6 and simply excluding -- you know, they're presently 7 excluded, but they're on the left-hand side there as you see 8 the part I'm talking about. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then this issue of 10 the floodplain being shown on the plat on one side of the 11 creek, and -- 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Shown on one side. In 13 previous renditions of this plat, it was shown on both 14 sides. He -- they claim that that's not part of the 15 subdivision now over on the other side, but that probably 16 should be shown on there to see what the extent is. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- yeah. I 19 just -- probably Mr. Jackson's best. I think it's an 20 interesting concept. I think it's a good concept. I mean, 21 it's just that it's different, and I do share the concerns 22 you have about the easement. And I guess the -- maybe I 23 ought to ask the question, you know, as to why the road runs 24 along the edge of the subdivision rather than inside the 25 subdivision. I mean, I could possibly see the beginning 2-10-03 101 1 portion, but it runs all the way along the outside edge, it 2 appears, and that seems odd to me, his rationale and reason 3 behind that. Maybe he can answer that. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're talking about 5 Stablewood Springs Drive? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: I'll also point out, so far I 8 haven't -- haven't received the flood test -- flood study -- 9 the drainage study. I don't think I received that. 10 AUDIENCE: I faxed them twice. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Maybe we have them in the 12 file. I just didn't run across them, but I've been out 13 there several times during construction and looked at the 14 road, and I think it's well-built. But there will be some 15 testing on the final base, and then the -- at the time they 16 pave it, you know, we'll check that. But we haven't 17 received that, of course, yet. And Number 5 was supplied by 18 the surveyor. I think these lots are all separated; they 19 have horse trails between them. And the particular Units 11 20 and 12 are -- I think there's a contemplated buyer that 21 doesn't want them separated or something, so that's what 22 that is. May have been a provision of the condominium. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, going back 24 to your conversation with the lady in the rear of the room 25 right quick, she had faxed you what? The road base test? 2-10-03 102 1 MR. JOHNSTON: That would be compaction test. 2 AUDIENCE: I have them right here where I 3 faxed them, if they want. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the 5 drainage? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Drainage study, we haven't 7 received yet. It's still being worked up. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: My understanding. 10 MR. JACKSON: My turn? Thanks, Franklin. 11 I'm David Jackson, 820 Main, Kerrville, on behalf of the 12 applicant, to address the history, perhaps, as the -- in 13 answer to Commissioner Letz. We got preliminary plat 14 approval for a larger number of units encompassing all of 15 the property. My client decided to do two things; to reduce 16 the size of the development, both in the area covered, as 17 well as the number of units, and also to go to a condominium 18 concept. We appeared before the Court sometime in December, 19 I recall, as to the key issue of whether or not a 20 condominium is or is not within your rules. 21 That debate aside, we said at the time we'll 22 come in with a compliance to the extent that we can, but try 23 to adapt that to a condominium setting. There are other 24 condominiums in the county. I don't know that anybody other 25 than my client is going through this process, but that's 2-10-03 103 1 fine. Your rules are, to me, established, and my client 2 agrees with that approach to be sure that certain key 3 elements are satisfied. A drainage study is one of them. 4 We don't have it in, so your approval today would have to 5 depend upon that being submitted and the County Engineer 6 approving it. We want the roads to be up to standards. The 7 tests have been done. There's still some additional work 8 that would need to be done. 9 So, I think what I'm here today to say is, my 10 approach and suggestion to the Court is that if we do a 11 condominium, that you approve this map, and that that map be 12 incorporated into the condominium document, which is 13 recorded, which becomes the legal definition of a unit for 14 the purposes of completing a deed, loan work, and so forth. 15 And that that document, which is of record here in the 16 courthouse, also be provided to Frank so that he has it, and 17 that we not have a conventional recording of the plat. But 18 that's a distinction without any real purpose, meaning we 19 know we have to -- to get your approval, and we're willing 20 to do that. And we also know that we're going to record 21 something, but we can debate exactly how we record it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, on the -- are 23 there restrictions somewhere that the total number of units 24 are 12 -- 15, 16 units? Seventeen? 25 MR. JACKSON: Seventeen units. And the 2-10-03 104 1 restrictions would be under the Condominium Act. We have 2 a -- Texas has a Uniform Condominium Act. It has various 3 requirements. In fact, some are mandatory, some are not. 4 But the point being, that's where you'll find these units 5 and this configuration tied down. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And the -- the 7 property outside of the units is the common area? That's 8 owned by -- 9 MR. JACKSON: Correct. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the condominium 11 association? 12 MR. JACKSON: Correct, and that's one of the 13 concepts that's different than a conventional subdivision. 14 Common areas in a conventional subdivision, so-called 15 property owners' association approach, the common area is 16 owned by an association itself. Here, each of these owners, 17 by the very definition of the condominium, own an undivided 18 interest in the common area that's within the dark blue line 19 of the condominium project. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The road issue, how -- 21 the roads are not part of the condominium? 22 MR. JACKSON: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How are those maintained? 24 MR. JACKSON: We prepared a document that's a 25 dedication document that would make it clear that the 2-10-03 105 1 condominium owners have the access, which is the very 2 essence of why you require any of this. Secondly, that the 3 road be maintained. Third, that it's understood it's a 4 private road, so that the County does not -- in fact, I 5 copied it right out of what you require on the plat, that it 6 can't become a public road that's maintained by the County 7 unless and until -- the same language. There's been 8 discussions about being served by an easement. First, from 9 the logic point of view, the only reason that you, it seems 10 to me, have a rule about access is to be sure that the 11 people who have a unit, a lot, whatever it may be, have 12 access to the property. It's valid, enforceable, no 13 questions asked. There are probably different methods by 14 which you accomplish that. You could have a fee simple 15 title. You could have a dedication. You could have a 16 simple easement. All of that adds up to, in my mind, a 17 legal conclusion that access is afforded to the public road. 18 Maybee Drive does provide access, so 19 technically that is -- that particular requirement is met, 20 but I think that's a little misleading. That is not where 21 the main entrance is, and I don't want the Court nor anybody 22 to be misunderstood about that. While that may technically 23 be in compliance, I think it's more appropriate to consider 24 where are people really going to come in and out, and that's 25 out to Cardinal Drive. That's where the gate is. The 2-10-03 106 1 access through Maybee is available, but it's not going to be 2 used. In fact, that would be a little hard on the residents 3 in Bumble Bee if everyone comes in and out that way. I 4 think they probably prefer, like has been happening, to go 5 out the other way. 6 Frank's comment Number 1 says that it's 7 served by an easement. Technically, it's going to be a 8 dedication, but those are lots of words that don't add up to 9 very much, and I think you need to be furnished with a 10 document. I prepared it, and I can either submit it to 11 David or to Frank or to the Court, however you want to do 12 that, but it's going to unequivocally, without reservations, 13 say that that road is available for those residents and 14 they'll maintain that road. Now, it does go through private 15 property, which is my client's property, and he wants to 16 retain all of that property, so he'll also retain the use of 17 that road in common with them. But that doesn't mean they 18 don't have it, and it will be clear that it can't be -- with 19 exception of the gated -- the entrance, it can't be gated or 20 constructed in any way. Sixty foot wide, complies with your 21 regulations. That's important; you don't want to narrow. 22 Then he makes the comment that we never 23 allowed a subdivision by an easement. And I'm involved in a 24 lot of different projects, so this morning I spent some time 25 and I pulled some plats, and I'm happy to present these to 2-10-03 107 1 you, but let me just cover three that are accessed by a 2 private easement, not even a dedication. And, again, I'm 3 not sure there's a distinction, but maybe there is. The 4 Horizon is serviced by an easement, and the plat shows that. 5 And, again, I can show that if you want. The Grotto Springs 6 sitting out behind Whiskey Canyon, and it's also served by 7 dedicated easement; I pulled that instrument. I've tried to 8 make sure that my document does at least what they did, if 9 not more. Then the other one that I found that, from 10 memory, I looked at again is Twin Springs, and I think I 11 represented the developer in that one. I think I came to 12 the court. And it, too, has a document that provides access 13 across somebody else's property. It's not tied to a -- a 14 county, public maintained, or highway. I think there are 15 others. And I think that this particular -- if you would 16 approve this particular approach, it would be no different 17 than what we've done in a lot of other instances. But let's 18 apply logic. 19 What would be the difference in owning 20 property all the way out to the public road, or -- if I'm an 21 owner, or having a document that says, no ifs, ands, buts, 22 and wherefores, I have access to my property? I think it 23 adds up to the same thing. And in each of those other 24 instances, there are other people who are using some of 25 those roads. That's one of the reasons why I think they 2-10-03 108 1 were created as an easement or a dedication. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- you know, 3 this -- I haven't spent a great deal of time thinking about 4 this, but I tend to agree with you. I mean, I think that 5 the preference is to have it a deeded right-of-way, but I 6 don't think there's a requirement in our rules to that 7 effect. And I'm -- you know, we do have -- I'm sure there's 8 many, many people in the county that get access through 9 various types of easements, so I don't guess it's a big 10 issue. It just it seems a little -- you know, more of a 11 question as to why, as opposed to can you. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I know clients want to retain 13 the ownership of that property subject to that dedicated 14 easement, dedicated right-of-way, 60 foot. That's the 15 reason. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, what if he 17 sells that to someone, and then some morning that new owner 18 gets up and says, "Well, I don't want this easement here any 19 longer"? 20 MR. JACKSON: Legally impossible. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know -- 22 MR. JACKSON: No, I will give you that. If 23 you -- if you do a document and you record it, that owner 24 cannot take an adverse position. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That is the 2-10-03 109 1 point that I want the County Attorney to sell to us. 2 MR. JACKSON: Fair question. And there 3 shouldn't be any hesitation in his conclusion that if you -- 4 if you have a dedicated right-of-way, just as in all these 5 other situations, that that's true. Not that we should go 6 into all these other subdivisions, but I'm now representing 7 The Horizon homeowners' association, and I've just reviewed 8 it from that point of view. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 10 MR. JACKSON: And there is no question that 11 that document -- that particular access road that they drive 12 in every day can't be cut off. And, as a lawyer, I tell you 13 that, but I realize I'm not your lawyer. David will have to 14 tell you that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that can be worked 16 out between now and final plat approval. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, from my 19 standpoint. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't think 22 we're asking David on the spot to give us -- maybe you were. 23 MR. JACKSON: No. No, that would be unfair. 24 But I accept that challenge, and I think it's a fair 25 question, and I think I can satisfy the County Attorney that 2-10-03 110 1 that's true. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: He's the man you got to 3 satisfy, and you understand that. 4 MR. JACKSON: Absolutely. That's fair. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Jackson? 6 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: From the point of 8 view of a unit owner, a purchaser of one of these lots, 9 what -- what is the distinction between a conditional 10 subdivision with common areas and a condominium subdivision? 11 MR. JACKSON: In this setting, it's probably 12 only that each of those unit owners own an undivided 13 interest, actual undivided interest in all of that common 14 area, as opposed to that common area being in a property 15 owners' association. There is another distinction that, 16 simply stated, there is no law about property owners' 17 associations. There's a property owners' association 18 protection act, but it's got some limitations; it's not very 19 broad. Legislature tried to get into this area a lot in a 20 conventional subdivision. The Condominium Act -- the 21 Uniform Condominium Act, the new act, so-called, for the 22 last five years, really builds in a lot of protections to 23 the owners as to key issues: Repairing in the event of 24 casualty, payment of taxes, insurance protections. There's 25 some things under the Condominium Act that you've got to 2-10-03 111 1 file a budget, you've got to file management, you've got to 2 tell the owner of a condominium prospectively a lot more 3 information than you do in a conventional setting. Now, 4 ironically, the approach here for our purposes is, that's a 5 preferred approach. That's an approach that some folks will 6 view as an improvement, perhaps, in a conventional setting. 7 You can debate that all day long, but that's -- that's my 8 take on why there is a difference and why there are two 9 different -- 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What was the 11 developer's motivation to -- to change from traditional to 12 the condominium? 13 MR. JACKSON: He believes that the 14 condominium concept is more marketable. My client has done 15 another condominium and feels comfortable with what all that 16 means. It's not in this area; it's in Houston. And feels 17 like that that's a concept that seems to ring truer with the 18 concept of each owner buying into an entire property, not 19 just their little unit. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Overall, my comment -- I 21 mean my questions are not at all negative towards. I'm 22 exited about the -- I think this is a -- when we wrote -- or 23 did our last revision of the Subdivision Rules, this was the 24 direction we were trying to point the rules to. Based on 25 this deleting the word "condominium" at one point, kind of 2-10-03 112 1 make it a more encompassing -- that word probably needs to 2 go back, and make some adjustments to cover that. But I 3 think this is a -- you know, a good direction -- area of 4 direction that I would like to see the County going, where 5 we have more common areas and not quite the high density 6 development that we've had in some of the other 7 subdivisions. And there is a -- I don't know how many -- 8 what's the total number of acres? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: 144. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 144. So you can -- you 11 could have more units. 12 MR. JACKSON: And we did at one time. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're putting in 14 less, you know, number of units on it. Central water 15 system? 16 MR. JACKSON: Bumble Bee, yeah. You approved 17 the last one based upon the Bumble Bee availability. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it will be the same? 19 MR. JACKSON: Same deal, right. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Individual septics? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And both of those work -- 23 well, the community water system will work with the 24 condominium -- 25 MR. JACKSON: Right. 2-10-03 113 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- format. I presume the 2 septic -- 3 MR. JACKSON: Right, same issue. To the 4 extent a particular area -- we think that the septics can be 5 sited on each of those units properly, but they'll also have 6 an easement if it needs to encroach upon this large common 7 area, to be clear that the drain field or whatever -- those 8 regulations are what they are, and we'll comply with those. 9 We understand that. Now, the water system design's a little 10 better, if anything. With less units, there would be a 11 little better pressure, because it's the same system that's 12 serving Bumble Bee, and there will be some additional things 13 done, but served by the same well, the same capacities and 14 so forth. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the right-of-way -- 16 or the, I guess, dedications are all 60 foot? 17 MR. JACKSON: Yes. Yes. In fact, Charles 18 and I were just talking. I've got the document; I thought 19 perhaps you might want to try to do that today. That's a 20 little unfair. I think you've said go to the County 21 Attorney, and I accept that. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my final comment 23 would be -- on this is that the -- and I'm sure you're aware 24 of this. To me, the drawback for doing the dedication route 25 versus the other is that if, at some point, the association 2-10-03 114 1 wanted to turn those roads over to the County, there would 2 be -- it would not be as easy as if it was a deeded 3 right-of-way. You could just turn the right-of-way over. 4 It may be -- it might be okay. 5 MR. JACKSON: And that's a good point, but 6 the document does -- or should give them a right to dedicate 7 it to the public. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just more whether 9 the County -- 10 MR. JACKSON: And it's -- you know, if you 11 look through it, a properly drawn document should -- should 12 make clear the maintenance issues, the fact that it's 13 unobstructed, unless everybody approves, that it's 14 dedicated. The owners may want all those needs to be in the 15 document. Okay, thank you. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Any -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, one other comment. 18 And on the -- for final plat approval, remember that we -- 19 there will be the requirement from T.N.R.C.C. to declare -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There will be all the 21 other -- the drainage and all the other stuff. 22 MR. JACKSON: Right. And I think if we don't 23 finish the roads, we need a Letter of Credit, those sort of 24 things. Right, I understand. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Floodplain. 2-10-03 115 1 MR. JACKSON: We can locate the floodplain; 2 that's fine. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about this part 4 -- and there is, I guess, the question of Commissioner Letz 5 about Lots 45 through 49 being in another subdivision. 6 MR. JACKSON: It's not in our subdivision. 7 It's not in the condominium -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, nothing's 9 going on there? 10 MR. JACKSON: Actually, you can't build on 11 them. Well, let me address that. That's fair. You can't 12 build on them; it's in the floodplain. Be a mistake to 13 build on them, anyway. In order to replat or vacate those, 14 you have to go through the process of making sure that you 15 don't adversely affect anybody else in the subdivision in 16 which you're located. And, quite a long time ago, before 17 this ever happened, there was some discussion about that. 18 The leadership of the Bumble Bee association said, "We would 19 prefer that you not vacate that," 'cause they want the 20 assessments from those lots. They can't be built on anyway, 21 and so my clients said, "Okay, we'll sit there." There was 22 some discussion about trying to prepay a large number of 23 assessments to get them vacated, and said that doesn't make 24 much sense. We'll just leave them where they are, what they 25 are. And it's not -- when we record the condominium 2-10-03 116 1 document, they will not be in that condominium document. If 2 you look at the dark blue line, it's not in there. Right, 3 that heavy line. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: That's all the questions of 5 Mr. Jackson? We had two citizens who -- in addition to 6 Mr. Jackson that signed up to speak on this issue. The 7 first one that was presented to me was Catherine Fox. 8 Ms. Fox? 9 MS. FOX: Thank you. My name is Catherine 10 Fox. I'm a native of Kerr County, having lived the majority 11 of my life on a hill situated directly below the proposed 12 development here, and south of Unit 16 and 17, as designated 13 on your plat. From 1995 to the present, this parcel of 14 property, in various forms, has appeared before this Court a 15 total of four times for preliminary plat. The concerns of 16 my family and neighbors, who either have already been or may 17 very well in the future be adversely impacted by continued 18 development at the current site, remain. While I am 19 encouraged by the reduction of sites to 17 in comparison to 20 previous plats which proposed higher density, hydrology, 21 density, and also their corollary relationship still remain 22 serious issues. Sites are cleared and unpaved roads in 23 place. These alterations alone have proven their impact on 24 neighboring properties in the October 2000 and July 2002 25 floods, as well as in other lesser rainfall events. 2-10-03 117 1 The addition of homes on the sites and the 2 paving of roads in the future will further affect stormwater 3 runoff, as well as drainage impact from the common areas 4 designated on this plat, if they were to be made with 5 changes. Direction, velocity, volume, frequency of 6 flooding, and damage concerns remain. Our real property and 7 riparian creek lands are at stake. The proposed property 8 site presents itself as a very unique topographic challenge 9 with preexisting factors which make its hydrology complex, 10 the most important and obvious being this parcel's 11 stormwater runoff sheds rapidly onto downhill existing homes 12 and properties, many of which are located directly beside a 13 creek, known as Bumble Bee Creek. The runoff then travels 14 under Highway 39, less than a mile away, at two separate 15 locations. 16 One of these locations is directly beside 17 Highway 39 and my family's private entrance at the 18 confluence of Bumble Bee Creek and the Guadalupe River. The 19 other location is directly beside a point where a county 20 road, Highway 39, and a private drive all meet. Serious 21 adverse impact issues exist, therefore, to both private and 22 public access properties, and this should be carefully 23 analyzed. A professional hydrology study and strict 24 enforcement of county subdivision drainage rules are 25 imperative, as well as adherence to all T.C.E.Q. guidelines 2-10-03 118 1 with regard to on-site sewage facilities, et cetera. No 2 variances concerning these issues should be considered for 3 responsible development to materialize with this project. 4 If the Court will kindly indulge me for a 5 moment, when the previous plat appeared before this Court 6 one year ago, on February 11, 2002, Judge Tinley and 7 Commissioner Nicholson, respectively, were not on board. 8 Therefore, I wish to recount a few comments. Franklin 9 Johnston stated then, "There is a concern about drainage." 10 He also referred to the post-development runoff rule, which 11 is of utmost concern to myself and other neighboring 12 property owners. Commissioner Letz, quote: "Our 13 Subdivision Rules will require that very strict standards be 14 met regarding runoff." "I can assure the public that we 15 will do everything we can within our rules to protect other 16 property owners in the area," unquote. 17 Commissioner Baldwin stated that he grew up 18 near the area -- excuse me. Commissioner Baldwin then 19 stated, quote: "I will assist our Engineer's office in any 20 way I can to provide intense scrutiny to runoff and drainage 21 issues. I think, on this particular issue, the County 22 should require the developer to dot every I and cross every 23 T before coming back into this courtroom," end quote. 24 Commissioner Williams, quote: "We will look very carefully 25 at the hydrology issues, the runoff issues, to make certain 2-10-03 119 1 there is not corollary damage to other people's property. 2 That's important." End quote. Finally, Judge Henneke 3 closed with, quote: "Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by 4 Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the preliminary 5 plat of Stablewood Springs Ranch in Precinct 4, subject to 6 comments by the Road and Bridge Department, particularly of 7 the emphasis upon hydrology concerns and study for that 8 property," end quote. 9 Therefore, having briefly reviewed the 10 Court's previous stand on the previous plat submitted with 11 regard to hydrology issues, I submit to the Court 12 respectfully that this plat is basically more or less the 13 same, and therefore warrants the same attentions. I implore 14 you to weigh this into account before making any motion. 15 Anything less than a detailed, well-planned development that 16 factors in its hydrologic impact on myself and other 17 existing neighbors is unacceptable to us. Thank you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody here on the Court have 19 any questions of Ms. Fox? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Fox? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you -- excuse me. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one. If -- if 23 all of the T.C.E.Q. and the county rules are complied with, 24 without any variances, will that satisfy your concerns? 25 MS. FOX: Well, yes and no. I mean, I am 2-10-03 120 1 not, and I want to make this perfectly clear, as you can see 2 by the form that I filled out, against the development. I 3 simply want us to be protected from flooding, erosion, et 4 cetera, et cetera. And, therefore, we've got to see a 5 hydrology study. We've got to have time to review it 6 ourselves before it -- you know, final plat, which I 7 understand we will have that right. But we've just got to 8 have every single one, Section 5.06, A through E, with 9 drainage met. I mean, we were here first. We're bottom of 10 the hill. And I assure you that if you were in the same 11 position, you would be a little concerned, too. And that's 12 basically what this all revolves around, are water issues. 13 We don't have any issues with any other things. And, of 14 course, we're pleased that it's a high class development. 15 You know, that's wonderful. But I think that the Court 16 really needs to look at the hydrology issues, especially the 17 correlation between the density and the hydrology, because 18 if you were to look at a U.S.G.S. map of the topography, you 19 would realize that that common area has to be there, because 20 it would be virtually impossible in some of those places to 21 put a home. If you did, you'd be parallel to mudslides in 22 California on hillsides when it -- when it rained. Thank 23 you. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Appreciate your 2-10-03 121 1 comments, Ms. Fox. Mary Hart Frost. You signed up to speak 2 on this item. 3 MS. FROST: I did. And I have copies of my 4 statement for you and for each of the Commissioners. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Do you 6 want to just take them -- 7 MS. FROST: Just pass them across, yes, sir. 8 Good morning, Commissioners and Judge Tinley. I know all of 9 you, and I'm privileged to be able to have a chance to make 10 my statement before you. My name is Mary Hart Frost. My 11 husband and I are owners of a home on Lots 27 and 28 in the 12 Bumble Bee Hills Subdivision along Bumble Bee Creek. I also 13 share ownership of property with my cousins at Pleasure 14 Hill, which is a family development established in the 15 1920's. Both of these properties abut the proposed 16 Stablewood Springs Ranch Subdivision, and have been and will 17 be further adversely affected by the proposed development. 18 Our Pleasure Hill property has already suffered from runoff 19 flooding in homes located there due to the removal of a 20 substantial amount of cedar and underbrush during the road 21 building and home site preparation phase of the proposed 22 development. A home located on Lot 40 in the Bumble Bee 23 Hills Subdivision also suffered runoff flooding damage in 24 October 2000. Our property will suffer significant 25 additional runoff flooding damage during the continuing 2-10-03 122 1 construction of roads and home sites. The clearing and site 2 development work already done has damaged the natural 3 drainage gully by the county-maintained Pleasure Hill Road 4 that for years has carried the rain runoff to the Guadalupe 5 River under State Highway 39. This natural drainage gully 6 has been eroded by increased rain runoff due to the bare 7 caliche left by the road and site development and the 8 bulldozing and burning of cedar and underbrush. 9 Today I am speaking to concerns for myself 10 and numerous cousins and neighbors who own property at 11 Pleasure Hill and in Bumble Bee Hills. We made a statement 12 to the Commissioners Court one year ago opposing the 13 approval of the proposed preliminary plat for Stablewood 14 Springs Ranch Subdivision. We are pleased to see that the 15 preliminary plat approved by Commissioners Court on 16 February 11, 2002 has been withdrawn. Today you are 17 considering approval of a proposed preliminary plat for the 18 Stablewood Springs Ranch Subdivision. This proposed 19 preliminary plat shows a lower density; 17 home sites 20 instead of 28 home sites in the February 11, 2002 21 preliminary plat. Also, the acreage of the development has 22 been reduced from approximately 187 acres -- and I thought 23 it was to 160 acres, but they say today that it's 144 acres, 24 with the lake and four decorative ponds being removed from 25 the proposed plat. We are pleased to see that the density 2-10-03 123 1 has been downsized. This is a positive step towards 2 responsible development. However, the concerns we spoke to 3 the Court about on February 11th, 2002, are the same for the 4 proposed preliminary plat being presented today for your 5 approval: Drainage, pollution of Bumble Bee Creek and the 6 Guadalupe River, erosion of the Bumble Bee Creek creek bed 7 and its riparian lands, water availability, and septic 8 systems. 9 As the Court is aware, Stablewood Springs 10 Ranch Subdivision must provide a professional and 11 comprehensive hydrology study of the rain off -- rain runoff 12 impact of this development on our downhill properties at 13 Pleasure Hill and the Bumble Bee Hills Subdivision. The 14 development must also meet all Kerr County's water 15 availability requirements. This is imperative, as the 16 existing CCN holder, Bumble Bee Hills Water System, 17 currently provides water to our homes. We thank the Court 18 for their prior rulings and request that the Court continue 19 to keep our concerns in the forefront. Any future proposed 20 development that does not address these concerns would be 21 irresponsible development, and therefore simply not 22 acceptable. Thank you for your attention to these important 23 issues with regard to consideration and action for the 24 approval of this or any future proposed preliminary plat 25 submitted by Stablewood Springs Ranch. Do you have any 2-10-03 124 1 questions for me? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Frost, I do have a 4 question. In Paragraph 2 of your statement, you mention 5 that clearing and site development work already done has 6 damaged the natural drainage gully by the county-maintained 7 Pleasure Hill Road. Am I given to understand by that, that 8 the county-owned right-of-way for Pleasure Hill Road has 9 been adversely impacted, eroded, or otherwise damaged by 10 virtue of what's gone on out there? 11 MS. FROST: Yes, and I have pictures of that. 12 You can see how the gully has eroded toward the road, and 13 it's -- there's a very little space there between the road 14 and the gully dropoff. And that will just increase with 15 further construction, with houses that have roofs that shed 16 off more water. Yes, I am saying that. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: And it's based -- based upon 18 what you've observed living in that area? Are you telling 19 the Court that continued rains will cause continued erosion 20 and deterioration to the county-owned right-of-way and the 21 road itself on Pleasure Hill Road? Is that your belief? 22 MS. FROST: I'm absolutely saying that. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Frost, same 25 question as I had for Mrs. Fox -- Ms. Fox. If the 2-10-03 125 1 subdivision complies without variances with T.C.E.Q. and 2 Kerr County rules, will that satisfy your concern? 3 MS. FROST: It will satisfy our concerns if 4 we have a review of all the hydrology issues so that we can 5 be convinced that they will no longer -- they will not any 6 more adversely affect our downhill property, which has 7 already been flooded before any homes are built, before the 8 road is paved. All these variables make a huge difference, 9 as you well know, in what the runoff is going to be from 10 this subdivision. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mary, are you talking 12 about an independent review by a professional engineer? Or 13 just a review of the homeowners of the hydrology report when 14 you get it? 15 MS. FROST: We would -- we would review it 16 and then we would, of course, call in someone who was a 17 professional hydrologist to review it for us, because 18 obviously we wouldn't be able to make those determinations 19 without someone who had knowledge. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was the purpose 21 of my question. 22 MS. FROST: Right. Right. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only comment -- I've 24 talked to Ms. Hart and Ms. Fox numerous times about I think 25 our Subdivision Rules are, you know, putting as much 2-10-03 126 1 protection as we can to protect the people in surrounding 2 subdivisions. The reality is that people have the right to 3 do the developments, and our role is that, you know, we 4 require drainage studies and other studies, roads and such, 5 to -- to, you know, protect the residents of the new 6 subdivision and the surrounding area. Anytime you put in a 7 subdivision, there will be an impact. And, you know, it may 8 not be a positive impact. We don't know, even with the 9 drainage study. So, I mean, all I can say is we'll continue 10 to do -- you know, like our rules state, we have drainage 11 studies that are ordinarily strict, and we will follow them. 12 And, you know, the impact -- I mean, we -- as 13 we get more and more floods -- and you've been a longtime 14 resident of the area. Every time we get a flood, things 15 change a little bit, and they're going to continue to 16 change. And whether you have development or not 17 development, you're going to get changes. Creeks are going 18 to change course; rivers change course. The Guadalupe's 19 getting ready to make a huge change of course near Comfort. 20 Is it because of development? Maybe. But development's 21 here, and we have to adjust with that. All we can do is 22 pass rules and require studies that, you know, are 23 reasonable to protect, you know, most of the citizens. 24 MS. FROST: Let me just speak to that a 25 minute. As you know, this has been my little packet for the 2-10-03 127 1 last year, trying to understand what your rules cover so 2 that I can speak to this out of -- not out of emotion, but 3 out of regulation. And, obviously, you can imagine, this is 4 a very emotional situation for me. But under Drainage -- I 5 should have that paper -- here it is. Where's the section 6 on drainage? Here it is. Of your Subdivision Regulations, 7 5.06, Drainage, is very clear about the fact that drainage 8 facilities shall be provided and constructed in accordance 9 with approved plans. Drainage facilities shall be designed 10 to minimize any adverse impact to private property or public 11 right-of-way, either within or outside the proposed 12 subdivision. The post-construction runoff rates at the 13 point of flows leaving the new subdivision shall not exceed 14 the preconstruction peak runoff rate for the 2-, 10-, or 15 100-year storms, respectively. Provisions must be made to 16 assure that no adverse impact is made to existing drainage 17 systems within public right-of-ways. If you follow these 18 drainage guidelines, we will be protected. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 20 MS. FROST: If do you not, we will not be 21 protected. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Based on your comment that 23 you've made to me a bit ago, Ms. Frost -- 24 MS. FROST: Pardon me? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Based on the statements you 2-10-03 128 1 made to me a moment ago, it's your assertion that -- that 2 the development that has already occurred out there is 3 adversely affecting areas falling within county roads or 4 right-of-ways? 5 MS. FROST: Right. Any other questions? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions of Ms. 7 Frost? 8 MS. FOX: May I say one thing, please? May I 9 say something? Or I won't if you don't allow me to, 10 obviously. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: We don't want to stifle you. 12 Come forward, Ms. Fox. 13 MS. FOX: Thank you. I think there's a 14 compromise here that I can think of, and I'm not even a 15 hydrologist. But, I mean, with all due respect to the 16 developer and his representation, David Jackson, who has 17 been working very hard on this project for seven years now, 18 with us at his heels the entire time, and being a native of 19 the area and living directly below that hill all of my life 20 and playing all of my childhood life on the developer's 21 property, because my grandparents used to be the caretakers 22 of it, if everyone were to really work hard on this, I think 23 we can make this happen, myself. And I think one of the 24 ways to do that, as I stated before, is to just simply 25 downsize it some more. Now, I know that means dollars and 2-10-03 129 1 cents to the developer, but the correlation between the 2 number of sites and the hydrology cannot be disputed. It's 3 there. It's never going to go away. And to protect us, and 4 I would think to even increase the beauty of the sites and 5 the privacy and make them just, you know, really special to 6 the type of client who is going to purchase such an 7 expensive property anyway, that would be a way that we could 8 all be happy. Seventeen sites, in my opinion, is just still 9 too much. They may not think so, but that's why we've got 10 to see the hydrology study, because hydrology will dispute 11 or -- I mean, it will either prove or disprove that. Thank 12 you very much. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's the key. Thank 14 you. Okay. What action, if any, do we need to take on Item 15 2.4? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The action would be -- 17 and it's in Commissioner Nicholson's precinct, but the 18 question I have is, it's a preliminary plat, but it's really 19 not a preliminary plat. But I guess you would term it 20 preliminary plat. I don't know what else we would call it. 21 Preliminary approval of condominium concept is really what 22 it is, but I don't know how we -- I don't know what we do on 23 that. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is more the 25 concept -- 2-10-03 130 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- side of it than a 3 preliminary plat? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not a plat. There's 5 no plat required on a condominium. See, that's -- that's 6 what David Jackson addressed briefly. They're filing 7 everything, they're following our rules, but it's not -- it 8 doesn't fit the page right. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, is there a -- in 10 a condominium situation, is there a final plat? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, there must be in order 12 for them to have a document from which to do their 13 conveyance. There will be a final plat that's placed of 14 record, absolutely. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Correct me if I'm wrong, 17 Mr. Jackson. Is that not a correct statement? 18 MR. JACKSON: That's correct. It will be 19 attached to the uniform compliance condominium documents as 20 an exhibit, yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do we have to do 22 today, then? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think we would 24 approve the condominium plat as presented. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Concept. 2-10-03 131 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Concept or -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's more than a concept. 3 A concept, as defined in our Subdivision Rules, they're 4 beyond that. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: It's a confusing term. The 6 condominium law, I think, refers to a plat; it says in 7 parentheses, "This is not a subdivision plat." So, they 8 call it the same thing, but it's different. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think preliminary 10 condominium plat, that's what I'd call it. That's what it 11 is. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you making a motion to 13 that effect? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- it's his 15 precinct. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there another step 17 between here and final? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes -- well, final would 19 be the next step. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Final is the next 21 step, so there's not another place to -- for us to have the 22 opportunity to peek to make sure that all the things are 23 being done? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, but they have to be 25 able to -- they have to -- 21 days ahead of time, they have 2-10-03 132 1 to get to it Road and Bridge and -- you know, and get all 2 the documentation to it. Isn't it 21 days, Franklin? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: I think it is. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Twenty-one days. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that the point 6 where we would see the hydrology study? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Of necessity, I would think -- 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much time would 10 that allow, for example, for the Bumble Bee homeowners to do 11 their work on it? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what would 13 happen, I mean, from a -- assuming, you know, worst case, a 14 lack of cooperation between -- you know, David's shaking his 15 head, but it would be 21 days, we get it on our agenda. If 16 they object and they say they haven't seen it, we don't have 17 to act on it in 21 days. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: That's the final item, isn't 19 it? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a minimum -- 21 MR. JOHNSTON: If we need to review it 22 more -- 23 MR. JACKSON: We'll give them a copy at the 24 same time we submit it to Franklin. That's fair. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just because it's on the 2-10-03 133 1 agenda doesn't mean we have to -- frequently on final plat 2 approval, we haven't approved that. We might say, well, you 3 know, we need to get this. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's key 5 to final approval for the homeowners -- for Bumble Bee 6 people to get a chance to look at it and be satisfied that 7 it meets all the requirements without variances and have 8 time to get that done. So, I'll -- I will make that motion, 9 that we give this preliminary condominium plat approval of 10 Stablewood Springs Ranch. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion is made and seconded by 13 Commissioners Nicholson and Letz, respectively, that we give 14 preliminary condominium plat approval of Stablewood Springs 15 Ranch Subdivision. Any further discussion or comments? All 16 in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. We just lost 21 one member of the Court. It appears that it's going to take 22 us a while to wade through the rest of what we've got to do 23 here, so my suggestion would be that we adjourn and 24 reconvene at 1:15, 1:30. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear. 2-10-03 134 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 1:15 -- I mean 2 12:15. Oh, are you going to go to lunch? 3 MS. SOVIL: 1:30. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I thought you were 5 going to make arrangements for dinner. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, the lunch place is 7 full. We can't even get in. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess until 9 1:30 p.m. 10 (Recess taken from 12:04 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.) 11 - - - - - - - - - - 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. It's 1:30 in the 13 afternoon, and we will -- we recessed for lunch shortly 14 after 12:00, so I will call to order and reconvene the 15 regular Commissioners Court meeting originally commenced on 16 Monday, February 10th, at 9 a.m. Looks like we're down to 17 2.5. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Running right along, 19 aren't we? 20 MS. VAN WINKLE: We're just zipping right 21 along, aren't we? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Nothing wrong with healthy, 23 complete discussion. Item 2.5, consider and discuss using 24 the Grand Jury list for the Grievance Committee as per 25 Section 152.014(a) of the Local Government Code and 2-10-03 135 1 selection of such members, if approved, as per Section 2 152.015(a) of the Local Government Code. This item was 3 placed on the agenda at the request of the County Clerk. 4 MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, this is something 5 that we're supposed to do every January, except with the 6 election that we just had, it kind of threw me late. In the 7 backup, I have the section where the Grievance Committee 8 comes from, and we have -- y'all have a choice of either 9 selecting the Grievance Committee, being the County Judge as 10 the chairman, the Sheriff, Tax Assessor/Collector, County 11 Treasurer, the Clerk, District Clerk, County Attorney or 12 District Attorney, and then the number of public members 13 necessary to provide nine voting members, or you can take 14 the nine members from the Grand Jury. So, that's the first 15 thing you need to decide. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Historically, we get 17 it from the Grand Jury list, I think. Isn't it eight, plus 18 one? 19 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or is it nine -- who's 21 a non-voter? 22 MS. PIEPER: Normally we choose 15, just so 23 when I send out letters -- because I have to have replies 24 back, and some of those will reply that they don't want to 25 serve or would rather not, and so therefore we take the 2-10-03 136 1 first nine that do accept. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay. That's a 3 good -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Has that worked well 5 in the past? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I don't think 7 we've ever heard from anybody, have we? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I make the motion we 9 keep doing that. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 12 seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Baldwin, 13 respectively, that the Salary Grievance Committee be 14 composed of nine members drawn from the Grand Jury list -- 15 actually, we're going to draw 15, I believe, and -- but it 16 be composed of nine to serve off of those that are drawn, 17 with the County Judge being the chairman of the committee. 18 MS. SOVIL: No. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: As a non-voting member. 20 County Judge is non-voting. 21 MS. SOVIL: Okay. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: But merely chairman. It 23 provides for the chairman in Section 152.114. Any further 24 discussion on that? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It also says down 2-10-03 137 1 there that they respond back to you in writing? 2 MS. PIEPER: Yes. I will send all 15 of them 3 a letter, and then normally they'll just call, and then I 4 will make a note of that. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says here that they 6 will -- 7 MS. PIEPER: We ask them to respond in 8 writing, but they don't always do that. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, 13 signify 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. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now we pick them, right? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Right now? 20 MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir, and you have to call 21 out their name. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To make it quicker, why 23 don't you pick one? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the Judge has 25 to do it. 2-10-03 138 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Arnold Garcia, 132 Montebello 2 Court, Kerrville. Bill Huggins, 521 Oakland Hills, 3 Kerrville. Janice Rochelle Jackson, 317 Mack Hollimon, 4 Kerrville. Gunnar Kramm, K-r-a-m-m, 509 Oakland Hills Lane, 5 Kerrville. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Precinct 1. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Rebecca Jons, 3231 Cedar Wood 8 Drive, Kerrville. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Precinct 1. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Anne S. Williamson, 376 11 Englewood Drive, Kerrville. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Precinct 2. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should be Precinct 1. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Too bad. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Lois Shaw, 217 Pearl Street, 16 Kerrville. Ronnie Pace, 505 West Creek, Kerrville. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He'll love that. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Joyce Schupp, H.C.R. 78, Box 19 230-E, Ingram. George Daniel Boone, 1365 Saddlewood 20 Boulevard, Kerrville. Jack H. Parks, 208 Doris Drive, 21 Kerrville. Charles Browning, P.O. Box 769, Hunt. Mitzi Lee 22 Sprado, 929 Redbird, Kerrville. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Precinct 2. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hmm-mm. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Stephen Schmerbeck, 1505 2-10-03 139 1 Ridgemont, Kerrville. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is 15. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Larry Spillman, 129 St. 4 Andrews Loop, Kerrville. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Neighbor. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that 15? 7 MS. PIEPER: That's 15. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I got. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If he calls me, I'll 10 tell him the Judge did it. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, do you bring nine 12 of those people back at some point and -- 13 MS. PIEPER: I will just give a letter to the 14 Judge of which is the first nine that responded, that 15 accepted. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, they automatically 17 become the committee? 18 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that takes care of that 20 item. We now move on to Item 2.6, consider and discuss 21 review of the annual accounts deposited in the court 22 registry, pursuant to the provisions of Article 887(b) of 23 the Texas Probate Code. Ms. Pieper. 24 MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, this is just another 25 thing that we do once a year that I just have to give you a 2-10-03 140 1 report on, and I've attached where I got the code at, which 2 is 887(b) of the Probate Code. And this is a report of each 3 account that we have. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody got any questions? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We accept this? Or -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we accept the annual 8 accounts report as presented by the County Clerk. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that 10 motion. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 12 seconded by Commissioner Letz and Baldwin, respectively, 13 that the Court accept and approve the annual accounts as 14 presented by the County Clerk, as required by the provisions 15 of Article 887(b) of the Texas Probate Code. Any 16 discussion? Being none, all in favor, signify by raising 17 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. We're at Item 22 2.7. Where's Linda? She's not here. We'll go on to Item 23 2.8, consider and discuss request for Court approval of the 24 amendments to the contract with the attorney -- no, that's 25 Linda also, isn't it? Let's come on down to 2.9, consider 2-10-03 141 1 and discuss approval of new hire position at 12/5. 2 Ms. Rector. 3 MS. RECTOR: Yes. Well, I was very happy to 4 see this lady's application come across my desk, and didn't 5 hesitate to hire her. In the backup letter, she has 15 6 years experience in tax office and appraisal district work. 7 She has a very strong background in collections. In the 8 appraisal district she came from, they did both appraising 9 and collecting. She worked in Nueces County tax office. 10 She was City Secretary in another county, so she's very, 11 very qualified for the position, and has done voter 12 registration and motor vehicle also, so she's pretty 13 well-rounded. They also had Software Group in Burnett 14 County, where she came from, so she is very familiar with 15 the programs that we have in place already. So, I feel that 16 she should come in at a higher level than a 12/1, since 17 she's so highly-trained and knowledgeable, and just a very, 18 very pleasant person. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paula, what's this do to 20 your budget? 21 MS. RECTOR: The line item is -- that 22 position is already funded for a 12/5, and it's been sitting 23 vacant. I've hired two people since it came open, and both 24 of those have gone on to better paying jobs. So -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So the only thing that 2-10-03 142 1 we're doing is -- you're asking us to do is to allow you to 2 come in at 12/5 as opposed to 12/1? 3 MS. RECTOR: Right. And that position is 4 already funded at a 12/5. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to approve the new 8 hire position as a 12/5, per the request. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 11 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, respectively, 12 that -- that we approve the new hire at the Tax Assessor/ 13 Collector's office to come in at a 12/5 position. Any 14 further discussion? Being none, all in favor, signify by 15 raising your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 20 MS. RECTOR: Thank you, gentlemen. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Where were you? 22 MS. UECKER: In another meeting. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We'll go back to 24 2.7 now, consider and discuss rehiring a former employee as 25 a full-time employee, after having retired on March 20, 2-10-03 143 1 2002, and determine -- and to determine position, step, and 2 grade. 3 MS. UECKER: Basically, I'm -- I'm kind of 4 asking for some direction, in addition to a solution. A 5 20-year employee of mine retired March of last year. As a 6 result of that, she -- well, as a result of that, in the 7 budget process, I eliminated that 17 position, combined her 8 duties with another staff, and what I did was I eliminated 9 one 17, which created a 13/1. Now I have the opportunity to 10 rehire this person. She's requesting it because her 11 situation didn't quite work out. She's an -- has always 12 been an excellent resource for all of us, 20 years, 13 excellent employee relationship. I mean, good with the 14 other staff, really knew what she was doing. My problem 15 is -- is that she wants to come back full-time, and she 16 realizes that I cannot give her back her 17/9, and that's 17 okay with her, but then I have offered some options down 18 here. Number one is to offer the current position at a 19 13/1, which would neither be acceptable to myself or to her, 20 I know, or offer it at a 13/13, which would be an annual 21 salary of $24,000, approximately $2,500 less than what she 22 was making before. Now, that may or may not be acceptable 23 to her. It is to me. The other would be to offer a 24 position, and it was -- this is kind of based on a 25 recommendation from the personnel officer. Since I do have 2-10-03 144 1 some position 9's -- I mean 15's, to offer that position at 2 a 15/9, which would still be about $2,500 -- a little less 3 than $2,500 more -- less than what she was making. None of 4 those options would do anything to this year's budget. It 5 would, however, affect next year's budget. So, you know, 6 I'm -- I'd be lucky to get this employee back. I really 7 would. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What would it be in 9 next year's budget? What would it be compared to last 10 year's budget? Would it impact next year's because you 11 simply deleted that line? 12 MS. UECKER: Yes. Well -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it was there last 14 year? 15 MS. UECKER: It was there -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or the year before? 17 MS. UECKER: It was there last year. It is 18 not in this year's budget. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 20 MS. UECKER: However, knowing that I was 21 going to have her do some part-time work, purging -- making 22 room, with all the civil and criminal files that we could 23 destroy, I put in enough money in the part-time budget so 24 that she could come in and do that, which she has been 25 doing. In the meantime, she's been working full-time anyway 2-10-03 145 1 at various attorneys' offices. So, based on that, she's 2 made the decision that maybe she should come back full-time, 3 or she really wants to. And she's been wanting to for a 4 while, just didn't have the courage or whatever to ask me. 5 And I finally, you know, jokingly said, "Well, why don't you 6 come back full-time?" And she -- "Can I?" You know. So -- 7 and I think she's acceptable with the -- the lower rate. I 8 mean, we've already talked about that, the lower salary, 9 because she's having to pay the County to keep up her 10 insurance anyway. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 12 MS. UECKER: So she's losing money there. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: There's only about $500 14 difference between the last two. 15 MS. UECKER: Right. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: On an annualized basis. 17 MS. UECKER: Right, that is correct. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: As a 15, however, she would 19 have the supervisory role in -- 20 MS. UECKER: Which she would probably, 21 anyway. I would certainly take some of the administrative 22 stuff off of her, like -- well, that's already been done. 23 I've got another person that's doing all of her 24 administrative stuff. She'd still be supervisory, but I 25 would not ask her to do the administrative thing. As a 2-10-03 146 1 matter of fact, there's two -- I've taken appeals away from 2 her -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Taken appeal away from 4 her? 5 MS. UECKER: The appellate process to Court 6 of Appeals. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appeals, I see. 8 MS. UECKER: Appealing all those cases, and 9 then judicial reports have gone to someone else. And 10 those -- those are the administrative things that she's been 11 doing for years and years and years. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, can you go back to 13 last budget? And you eliminated the 17/9 and got a new 13 14 level? Or -- 15 MS. UECKER: No. That one -- because she was 16 retiring -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 18 MS. UECKER: -- that went back to a -- oh, 19 and what I did, rather than putting that position back to a 20 17/1, I combined those two positions, because we were 21 getting to the point where we had as many chiefs as we had, 22 you know, Indians. So, rather than do that, one, I talked 23 to the other employee that accepted those responsibilities, 24 and I think we got all that worked out real well, and that 25 was the accounting clerk. And then I was going to bring 2-10-03 147 1 another one in, instead of a 17/1, at a 13/1. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you increased -- the 3 other position was a 17 -- not this one; the other position 4 that you combined. I'm trying to make -- I mean, I'm just 5 trying to make sure that we're just not moving numbers 6 around just to meet the needs of an employee. I mean, we 7 shouldn't do that. I mean, if there's -- you know, I know 8 you made some changes based on the retirement, but at the 9 same time, you also get certain levels of her -- part of her 10 job went to somebody else. 11 MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. Her administrative 12 duties were split between two other -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But those -- both of 14 those two got raised, as I recall. 15 MS. UECKER: Not -- not -- no. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were at a 17 or an 17 18 or whatever? 18 MS. UECKER: Yeah. One of them -- yeah, they 19 were both administrative already in different areas. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 MS. UECKER: But, no, they did not get 22 raised. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they were two -- as 24 17's, and they stayed 17's? 25 MS. UECKER: Well, they were 15's, but then 2-10-03 148 1 the Court -- one of the studies raised them up to a 17. 2 But, no, it did not raise -- see, it was a step in grade. 3 Did not raise the step. It did, however, get the grade, I 4 think one grade each. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Linda, if this 6 individual has returned, will her responsibilities be the 7 same as they were when she left, or are they going to be 8 altered to some extent? 9 MS. UECKER: They're going to be altered 10 somewhat in the -- she's not going to have the -- as much of 11 the administrative stuff, because those have been divided 12 between two other staff members. But she will, however, 13 because of her experience, be in a supervisory position. As 14 a matter of fact, I'll probably use her as -- in a training, 15 as well as, you know, the filings and -- she knows how to do 16 everything. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She would be, 18 however, greater than a person put in at 13/1? 19 MS. UECKER: Absolutely. Absolutely, no 20 question. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And my other question 22 is, is there sufficient dollars in your part-time line to 23 offset the difference in the two? 24 MS. UECKER: Yes, there is. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a 2-10-03 149 1 hypothetical question; I won't drag out of you a yes or no. 2 If we -- if we offered every County employee that had 20 3 years employment with the county the opportunity to retire 4 and come back to work full-time six months later, would they 5 all take a set? 6 MS. UECKER: I'm sorry, what was the last -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The question is, if 8 you let everybody with 20 years service retire and then come 9 back to work as a full-time employee six months later, would 10 that be attractive? 11 MS. UECKER: Exactly. And that's why I'm not 12 offering her, you know, the 17 step back. You know, she's 13 going to have to go back somewhere to the beginning. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So the only point 15 here is -- is a precedent we can live with. 16 MS. UECKER: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it okay to do 18 this? I don't have the answer. 19 MS. UECKER: And I thought about that. You 20 know, I don't want to make this an encouragement for, you 21 know, someone to retire and then say, okay, I'm coming back, 22 and -- 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What you're talking 24 about, Commissioner Nicholson, is exactly what the State's 25 doing. 2-10-03 150 1 MS. UECKER: State's doing it big-time. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: State does that 3 intentionally. 4 MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In the private 6 sector, there are federal laws, restrictions. You -- 7 MS. UECKER: I work on a -- a board of 8 directors, and one gentleman that retired, full retirement 9 from the State, and they hired him back in the same 10 position. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a safe 12 assumption that she would go off of the pension? 13 MS. UECKER: Yes. Yes, she will lose -- she 14 won't lose that retirement; it will stay in the fund, but 15 she will not continue to draw retirement benefits. Plus, 16 she will have to -- 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That answers my 18 question. 19 MS. UECKER: She will have to -- she will 20 lose all benefits that she had accumulated at the time she 21 retired, including sick leave, vacation, everything. She'd 22 have to start from Page 1. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's a new hire. 24 MS. UECKER: She's a new hire, as far as 25 that's concerned. The only thing I'm trying to do is be 2-10-03 151 1 able to get her -- not anywhere near what she was making; 2 she realizes that, but enough that would justify her being a 3 20-year employee and, you know, knowing everything. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Question. 5 MS. UECKER: Okay. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I can see from the -- from the 7 prior position schedule that you apparently eliminated her 8 position and then brought back a lesser position. 9 MS. UECKER: Exactly. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, my question is, if you 11 back out the cost-of-living increases that have been 12 given -- 13 MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: -- in the previous year that 15 she was a full-time employee and the next full budget year, 16 would there really be any budget impact between the two? If 17 you do away with the -- the cost-of-living increases, which 18 is a variable for everybody. 19 MS. UECKER: Do away with those, would there 20 be an impact based on my request for the next full budget 21 year? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Total personnel costs in your 23 department. 24 MS. UECKER: Total personnel, not including 25 any cost-of-living? 2-10-03 152 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 2 MS. UECKER: Probably a little, yes, sir. 3 Except for the fact that -- well, no, I didn't either. I'm 4 not -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: You understand where I'm 6 coming from? 7 MS. UECKER: I thought I did, but let's try 8 again. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're going to bring 10 her in -- or you're proposing to bring her in at something 11 less than she was doing. 12 MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: At a -- at a lower step and 14 grade. You had another position that you created from her 15 higher position, which is in place for this budget year. 16 MS. UECKER: For the full year. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Right. Assuming that constant 18 remains, is the difference between the reduction that you're 19 going to get if she comes on board, and the increase that 20 you gave to the one that you elevated slightly when you 21 eliminated her position -- 22 MS. UECKER: Oh, I see what you're saying. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Are those approximately equal? 24 MS. UECKER: They'll be approximately equal. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 2-10-03 153 1 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're saying is, but 3 for the -- but for the cost-of-living increase, there's 4 probably not going to be a budget impact? 5 MS. UECKER: Except that I won't be reducing 6 those other two positions. If I reduced those, then that 7 would be equal. But the difference would be the increase in 8 those two steps of the -- of the two employees that took her 9 -- her duties. You see? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: So, you spread the difference 11 between two employees; therefore, you increased slightly -- 12 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: -- two positions when you 14 eliminated hers? 15 MS. UECKER: Exactly. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 MS. UECKER: And I was trying to do the 18 County a favor there too, 'cause, you know, I didn't want to 19 have to pull in another 17/1. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- you 21 know, I agree with Linda; she did try to do that, but I 22 see -- you know, in trying to reduce and split. But now the 23 result is, if we go through and bring back a 15, whether it 24 be 15/9 or -- we're ending up with more chiefs than you 25 had -- or more mid-level chiefs than you had last year, and 2-10-03 154 1 you have very few Indians left. 2 MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. Well, and another 3 reason for that, Jonathan, is you can look back at my 4 record. I have very few -- I have very little turnover. 5 So, you know, the County is saving money there by -- but I 6 don't have that turnover. And some of those have -- some of 7 the positions have increased to the point where the ones 8 that were doing it before -- it's hard to explain. I can't 9 -- I think you know what I'm trying to say, but, I mean, 10 it's up to the Court. I'm asking for direction here. And 11 whatever the Court decides is certainly fine with me. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, my personal 13 feeling, I don't particularly like the idea of a 13/13. I 14 mean, that doesn't -- that person really can't -- you'll be 15 coming back at budget and creating a new position, which, 16 you know, I'm not -- 17 MS. UECKER: But that is the level that's 18 open, is a 13. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But isn't 13 the highest? 20 MS. UECKER: 13/13 is the highest, yes. 21 Except I do remember, during the budget process, that the 22 Treasurer said that what she could do -- and I think it was 23 because of some of the Sheriff's employees, that just adding 24 2 and a half percent to that 13 would make a 13/14. I don't 25 like that step and grade system anyway, but -- 2-10-03 155 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd rather see it a 2 15/9, frankly. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that a motion? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, cut through to 5 the bottom line. Why not? 6 MS. UECKER: I mean, I don't have any -- I 7 understand the Court's position. You know, I'm between a 8 rock and a hard place. I don't want to lose a really good 9 employee, but I don't want to encourage anybody else to do 10 this. You know, whether it's my employees or anybody else. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know, I 12 don't think it's -- the fact that she, you know, retired, I 13 mean, is irrelevant. She -- her circumstances have changed; 14 she wants her job back. The problem is, her job isn't 15 there; it's a lower level job. That's what's happened. 16 MS. UECKER: In reality, I think she was kind 17 of forced to retire because of her family. And, I mean, 18 that's irrelevant here, but -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- 20 MS. UECKER: You needed a hard question for 21 today anyway, didn't you? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: From the long-term, I'd 23 rather leave it at 13, but I think it's -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my thinking is that 25 there's only about $500 difference between the two, number 2-10-03 156 1 one. And number two, if it's a 15, the training capacity, I 2 think, is important, because this particular employee I've 3 known for many, many years, and I think she has a good deal 4 of potential to train -- train other employees. 5 MS. UECKER: She even serves as an 6 interpreter in the courts with no fee, and -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And she runs me out of 8 the court at times, too. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gives you more 10 latitude. 11 MS. UECKER: Yeah. And the reason I'd really 12 like to see the 15, though, is because it doesn't really 13 look good to have a 13 doing the training. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. I'll offer a 15 motion -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will change your job 17 description for that employee? 18 MS. UECKER: Oh, yeah. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We got -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I offer a motion to 21 authorize the hiring of a 15/9, $25,374. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Got a motion and second by 25 Commissioners Williams and Nicholson, respectively, that the 2-10-03 157 1 District Clerk be authorized to do this rehire of a 2 previously retired employee, and to bring that employee on 3 as a -- as a 15/9. 4 MS. UECKER: Before you vote, I might need to 5 add to the motion that it's contingent on whether or not she 6 accepts this. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: You're authorized to offer the 9 position. 10 MS. UECKER: Yes. I just want to be 11 authorized to offer it. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, force her into it. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You don't have to put 14 a gun to her head. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You said that she has 16 a capability with this to train. Train who? You don't have 17 any turnover. 18 MS. UECKER: I know. I mean, they've been 19 there so long. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who's she going to 21 train? Are we going to practice on people? 22 MS. UECKER: Well, you can come up and train 23 if you want. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one other 25 question. This would require a rewrite of the job 2-10-03 158 1 description? 2 MS. UECKER: Absolutely. And, you know, then 3 we would just deal with that at budget time, as far as the 4 other. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other? 6 MS. UECKER: It's not going to be that great 7 of an impact. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next year's budget? 9 MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 MS. UECKER: But it will be an impact. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 13 discussion? Being none, all in favor of the motion, signify 14 by raising your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 19 MS. UECKER: Thank you. I apologize for 20 putting you in a tough position, but I decided if I gave it 21 to you, I wouldn't have to deal with it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Exactly right. 23 MS. UECKER: Now, the next item -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Item 2.8, consider and discuss 25 request for Court approval of the amendments to the contract 2-10-03 159 1 with the Attorney General of Texas, authorize County Judge 2 to sign same. 3 MS. UECKER: This is just kind of a 4 boilerplate deal that's going around the state. There have 5 been some amendments in the contract that are minor, 6 because -- I think basically because of Lockheed's buyout in 7 the S.D.U. program. They were the ones that had bid the 8 project. I think the old contract actually -- I'm not sure 9 -- I think it did. It's about that thick, you know, and 10 I've got a copy of it somewhere. I'm not sure you want to 11 read it, but it's basically a cleanup of -- with the S.D.U., 12 being the child support disbursement unit. See, this -- 13 this contract allows us to bill the Attorney General's 14 office for all of the personal input that goes to the S.D.U. 15 We send them a bill for every case that we input into their 16 program. One of their -- one of our computers is their 17 computer, and it's a product called Stratus. We log on and 18 we give them all of the case information on each case. We 19 charge them for that information. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: And we haven't been getting 21 reimbursement for that service previously? 22 MS. UECKER: Yes, we have. We have, 23 absolutely. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does this new 25 contract have any impact on revenues or costs? 2-10-03 160 1 MS. UECKER: No, none. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we 3 approve the amendments to the contract with Attorney 4 General, State of Texas, and authorize County Judge to sign 5 said contract. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 8 seconded that the amendments to the contract with the 9 Attorney General be approved and the County Judge be 10 authorized to sign the same. Is there any further 11 discussion or questions? Being none, all in favor of the 12 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 17 MS. UECKER: Do you want me to wait for the 18 contract? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll have it pretty quick. 20 (Discussion off the record.) 21 MS. UECKER: Thank you. Sorry. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Come again when you 23 can stay longer. 24 MS. UECKER: Well, Rusty's fixing to ask for 25 10 new cars. 2-10-03 161 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He can ask all he 2 wants. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it's gone down 4 some, huh? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item is consider 6 -- 2.10, consider and discuss authorizing the Sheriff to 7 make application for grant funds to assist funding for 8 continuation of the S.A.N.E. -- that's Sexual Assault Nurse 9 Examiner -- program. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. First off, Item 11 2.11, I do want to just scratch off the agenda. The 12 representatives from Daikon could not be here today. So, 13 that will help. And, actually, to kind of sum up what I'm 14 trying to do here, there's an editorial even written in the 15 San Antonio Express, I think a while back, that probably 16 explains more of what I'm trying to do than anything else, 17 and it is titled "Arrests Become a Joke if Evidence is 18 Uncollected." Unfortunately, it didn't sound good on the 19 Hill Country at all, but it says -- and I'll read it, 'cause 20 I do think it's kind of important to this. 21 "Law enforcement officials in the Hill 22 Country have their priorities a bit mixed up. What is the 23 sense of spending time and money to pursue criminals if they 24 don't also collect the evidence necessary to convict them? 25 The Sexual Assault Program at Sid Peterson Memorial Hospital 2-10-03 162 1 in Kerrville closed in May because it lacked funding. Thus, 2 for the past seven months, sexual assault victims have been 3 forced to travel to San Antonio to be examined for forensic 4 evidence. Understandably, not all victims are up to making 5 that drive to have the evidence collected. Police, 6 prosecutors, and health care workers agree that is a 7 problem, but they are all hesitant to allocate funding for 8 the program out of their budgets. 9 "This involves 20 to 25 patients annually. 10 Those highly traumatized victims deserve to have their cases 11 dealt with in an expedient and professional manner..." and 12 it goes on about the reporter, "but private donations helped 13 pay for a $40,000-dollar culpascope. This piece of 14 equipment is necessary to conduct the highly specialized 15 forensic examination that provides evidence juries expect 16 when they judge sexual assault cases. That equipment is now 17 gathering dust because no one can come up with $50,000 to 18 hire a nurse who can set up the program and run it again. 19 What might be beyond the reach of a single agency in the 20 community should -- could be shared. Leaving potential 21 evidence uncollected after a crime is committed is, in 22 itself, a crime." 23 What this is, the culpascope, the piece of 24 equipment they're talking about in here, is a highly 25 specialized piece of equipment that does minute examinations 2-10-03 163 1 of victims of sexual assault, and it's linked directly into 2 Dr. Kellogg, who is one of the four knowing-most experts on 3 it in San Antonio. And it -- they have been able to take 4 these kids over here and get them examined, and then you 5 have a lot of local agencies that step in to help. Kids 6 Advocacy Place, you know, helps with the traumatization. 7 You have Hill Country Crisis Council, who has volunteers 8 come over 24 hours and start working with the victims from 9 the time they reach the hospital, sometimes even before, all 10 the way through the court process. And there is crucial 11 evidence that has to be gathered during this time, and what 12 happens is, since they shut it down because of funding, 13 these kids have to go to San Antonio. Well, a lot of them 14 aren't going to go to San Antonio. Number two, they get 15 down there, they're traumatized again, and you don't have 16 the local agencies down there that we have here that can 17 access them. 18 In talking with the hospital and with the 19 police chief and both D.A.'s, and everybody -- everybody 20 agrees we need this program, but all this came up during the 21 middle of a budget year when nobody had that kind of money 22 in their budget to fund this program. And so, what I asked 23 the hospital to do -- the hospital is not against having the 24 program. They've guaranteed a room for the examinations to 25 take place and a place for the culpascope to stay, but they 2-10-03 164 1 were having a problem coming up with the funding to keep the 2 nurses trained, 'cause it is specialized training, and the 3 on-call hours and the other costs that go in with the 4 examination itself that they don't get reimbursed for. And 5 so, since nobody was willing to -- to -- none of the 6 agencies were willing to step up and just take a lead on 7 this, I got to thinking about meeting with them. And what 8 we came up with is to ask y'all for permission for our 9 agency to apply for a grant that would cover -- it's not 10 $50,000; it's not quite that much, but would cover for their 11 operating at least one more year, in hopes then that there 12 is some new reimbursement ways that we can get money back 13 from the A.G.'s office that we can help the program start 14 getting the reimbursements in to help fund some of the 15 exams, or at least give us time to go to each of the 16 different agencies and try and collect some money from them, 17 get them to budget it during the budget process, and see if 18 we can keep this program going. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much will this 20 cost us? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Nothing. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yet. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. 2-10-03 165 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been -- well, 2 motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and 3 Letz to authorize the Sheriff to make application for grant 4 funds to assist in the funding for the continuation of the 5 Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner program. There would, at 6 least at this juncture, not be any -- any residual cost, 7 ongoing commitments to the Court. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further questions 10 or discussion? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you identified 12 possible grant funds? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sources? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More than one? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're going to apply for 18 one right off the bat, one locally, and in hopes that that 19 will take care of our problem now. We have done most of the 20 grant application already and gotten letters of support from 21 the police department, both District Attorney's offices, 22 Kids Advocacy Place, Hill Country Crisis Council, even some 23 of the other law enforcement agencies, and they're -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- for this program. 2-10-03 166 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So I'm also asking that 3 the Judge sign his part of the grant application. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I gather that the motion would 5 also include my signing on behalf of the County? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know, I have 7 to think about that. May have to table that one. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Certainly. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I remember when 12 the -- I watched the community jump through hoops of getting 13 the scope, $40,000, and you and I both were around. And now 14 we've got this piece of machinery and we can't get anybody 15 to turn it on. That just absolutely blows my mind. We have 16 to go somewhere to get money to pay somebody to turn -- 17 well, I don't get it. Whatever. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 19 comments or discussion? Being none, all in favor, raise 20 your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're cruising now. 2-10-03 167 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're moving. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Blowing and going. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, what happened 4 to your number 11 here, buddy? I've got lots of questions. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a good one, too. 6 The representatives from that company called me first thing 7 this morning and had to cancel. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll now move to Item 2.13, 9 consider and discuss approval of contract between Kerr 10 County and Alamo Area Council of Governments regarding 11 Regional Juvenile Alternative Incentive Block Grant for 12 $4,966.50, with a match of $607.40. Mr. Stanton? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question related 14 to the last one, if I might. Is there anywhere in the 15 County that keeps track of all the grants that we apply for? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I keep track of 17 everything that I apply for. And all the bills and -- and 18 the rest of the grant stuff, as far as our department, Mindy 19 has in the Auditor's office, 'cause theres a special line 20 item added to the budget and everything that covers all the 21 grant expenditures individually. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the Auditor keeps 23 track of each one that's outstanding? Seems like we're 24 getting more and more around -- 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I know he does for my 2-10-03 168 1 department. I don't know what -- 2 MR. STANTON: They do the same for us. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's an indication 4 of where we need to look for the current tabulation of -- 5 all right. Mr. Stanton? 6 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Like the Judge said, 7 there is a contract or a grant agreement between us and the 8 Alamo Area Council of Governments for the block grant that's 9 used to supplement our county budget as far as placement of 10 children in detention, for detention services. Actually, 11 this -- this is -- this contract that we're talking about 12 signing today is already in effect, and has already been 13 going through. In fact, we applied for our $4,966.50 last 14 week. We just need to get it signed. It was supposed to 15 have been signed previously, and it just somehow didn't get 16 on the docket -- on the agenda. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where does the match 18 come from? 19 MR. STANTON: It's already funded in Fund 10 20 through the county budget; it's already funded in our -- in 21 our line items through residential placements. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 23 MR. STANTON: It's the grant that we've been 24 -- it's a grant through Alamo Area Council of Governments 25 that we've had since I've been here. It's the same thing 2-10-03 169 1 each year. We just pick different -- different things to 2 use it towards each year, and this year it was used for 3 detention services. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin, 7 seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve 8 the contract between Kerr County and Alamo Area Council of 9 Governments regarding Regional Juvenile Alternative 10 Incentive Block Grant in the amount of $4,966.50, with a 11 match of $607.40, and authorize County Judge to sign same. 12 Any discussion or questions? Being none, all in favor, 13 signify 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. 18 MR. STANTON: Thank y'all. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Item 2.14, consider and 20 discuss a one-time tax credit for cedar eradication. 21 Commissioner Baldwin. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you. 23 This will be short and sweet. I had a constituent approach 24 me that wanted us to do a similar action like we did in the 25 rainwater cachement program, and as a backup, I put one 2-10-03 170 1 sheet of -- from the water cachement program in there, and 2 just changed the verbiage to cedar eradication. I will not 3 vote for this, because I don't believe in these kinds of 4 things, but I assured my constituent that I would bring it 5 to the table. I understand that if we do the cedar 6 eradication program, that there is a small group that will 7 come in right behind them with special grasses and want a 8 tax credit for that as well, and I think it just goes on and 9 on and on. But I would like to hear your thoughts on it. 10 Hearing none, I'm not going to make a motion. Somebody 11 talk. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Cedar eradication is 13 a great idea. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Most wonderful thing 15 that happens. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think the County 17 can't afford to fund it. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just curious as to 19 what the criteria would be. I mean, what they would have to 20 do and so forth, but just -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's confidential 22 information. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is government. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you'd have to 2-10-03 171 1 kill me if you told me? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Might have to freeze 3 you up a little bit. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. But, you're 5 right, cedar eradication -- if I were going to do any of 6 those programs, it would be cedar eradication. That would 7 be the top of my list. But if do you one, you got to do 8 them all. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe there's some 10 funds from the Forest Service or somewhere to do that. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There are funds around 12 for this -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good program. It 14 really is. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- through the N.R.C.S., 16 and also -- and that's funded. Federal program. And 17 there's also a state program that is very similar to our 18 rainwater cachement program; that program exists, but 19 there's no funding in it to do anything with it, so it's -- 20 you know, or very little funding in the state program. I 21 think that's the way to approach it, is request the 22 Legislature to help fund it. And I'm sure with their budget 23 problems, it will be high on their priorities list to add 24 this. I mean, it's a good program; I totally support it, 25 but there hasn't been a way established yet to pay for it, 2-10-03 172 1 long-term. I think the Water Development Board is working 2 on how to pay for it, because they recognize that it is a 3 very important project, and long-term, I think it -- there 4 may be funding. But it's not something that the local 5 counties can afford to do. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a great 7 program too, and I agree. I never -- I never had an 8 opportunity to see firsthand what the results of the program 9 are until I've -- I took a look at a property owner out on 10 Elm Pass Road. And it's just amazing, the water coming out 11 of the hills after a period of time after cedar has been 12 removed. I have no problem with the program. I just didn't 13 see where the Commissioner found the money. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just like your water 15 -- your rain cachement; there isn't any. But -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unfortunately. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- if y'all see my 18 constituent, could you tell him how hard I fought for this 19 thing? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be Bob 21 Smith? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Tell him I 23 battled you guys, and just couldn't -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll vouch for you. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 2-10-03 173 1 That's all. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I have to make a copy of the 3 transcript. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, he doesn't 5 know we do that. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you for your 9 time. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move along to Item 2.15, 11 consider and discuss future renovation and construction 12 plans for the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. 13 Commissioner Letz. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I just figured, you 15 know, after three years, we ought to, you know, keep on 16 going. But, no, on a serious note, I mean, I think there -- 17 from what I heard, anyway, there is agreement that something 18 needed to be done out there from the Court's standpoint. 19 And I think, you know, we -- well, I think now is the time 20 to figure out what that -- if we can come to an agreement, 21 what that next step would be. I think it's -- we have a 22 problem out there, from a safety standpoint, in a couple 23 areas. And I think we need to figure out, if possible, in 24 total agreement as to what direction this Court goes. And 25 if we can't agree, then we have to decide the direction the 2-10-03 174 1 Court goes there, too, because we cannot continue to operate 2 it, in my opinion, the way it is. 3 So, I just put it on the agenda to try to get 4 things going. I will -- and this may or may not, you know, 5 impact the Commissioners' and Judge's position on this. I 6 talked with DRG -- Wayne Gondeck -- briefly about this, and 7 found out -- I asked him, I said, Where are we from our 8 agreement with you, and the selection that the Court made of 9 the building team if the bond issue passed? And their 10 opinion is -- or his opinion is that if we decide to do 11 something that somewhat fits in, even though it may not be 12 all at once, into the plan that was presented, which is 13 basically a new barn portion and renovation portion and 14 parking lot portion and maybe exhibit hall portion, you 15 know, they can be scheduled. That we -- if the Court 16 chooses, we can continue to use the design team that we have 17 currently selected, which is Huser Construction and Allen 18 Alder, the architect. 19 And I see a big plus to that, that there we 20 would have a -- if they're willing to -- I have no idea if 21 they'd be willing to work with us or not, but they would be 22 able to have some cost figures, certainly, enter into 23 anything we'd entertain doing. And it also shows that we 24 have not -- you know, the $10,000 or so that we sent to DRG 25 is still there, too. I mean, it's not like it was a wasted 2-10-03 175 1 exercise, necessarily. I toss that out for what it's worth. 2 But if we do want to use any of their services, I think it's 3 something that we could talk to them about doing, but -- and 4 I'm just looking kind of -- the bond issue had, as I looked 5 at it, four components. One was new barn, one was to 6 renovate the arena, one was to renovate the parking lot, and 7 one was an exhibit center. And I'd kind of like to go 8 around the table and get everyone's opinion on prioritizing 9 those; one, two, three, four, as to importance, as kind of 10 the first step to see where we go. 11 And I'll start. I mean, to me, the new barn 12 is the highest priority out there. I think renovating the 13 arena is second, and I think it's a toss-up between the 14 exhibit center, as it was previously presented, and 15 renovating the parking lot. I will note, though, that 16 the -- the exhibit center and the barn get kind of closely 17 tied together, depending on the direction the Court goes, 18 because some of the components that were going to be in the 19 new exhibit hall are now in the -- out there in the old 20 exhibit hall, and they need to be figured in somehow. I'm 21 not real sure, you know, how that is -- or how that would 22 happen. That's just kind of my opinion. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I've expressed 24 mine repeatedly over the course of the last year and a half, 25 so I'll wait to hear somebody else's for a change. 2-10-03 176 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll give it a shot. 2 I agree with Commissioner Letz, that we have to do 3 something. And the facility's in poor repair, and we can't 4 go on long like that. I'm also mindful that when we took it 5 over some years ago, we promised that we'd take it over, and 6 I guess it was either a direct or implied promise that we'd 7 maintain it, keep it up for the -- for the use of the youth 8 in the county, and I think we need to keep that promise. 9 So, while I've been, at best, tepid about the -- about the 10 proposal in the past, I'm now willing to try to find some 11 way to -- to at least create a new barn and renovate the 12 arena. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we're going 14 this way. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Fine. I'll be happy to speak 16 to it. I'm -- my position has been since the very 17 beginning, and I think -- I think it's been adequately 18 reported, that when you look at the history of that entire 19 facility out there, we had some hardworking farmers and 20 ranchers and people that were affiliated with them that dug 21 down in their own pockets and signed notes at the bank and 22 donated materials and donated time and donated labor and 23 everything else, and constructed the facilities that are 24 there now. And, having done that and gotten all of the 25 improvements that are now there up and running, they handed 2-10-03 177 1 them to Kerr County in mid-1990. I think we have an 2 obligation. I don't care whether we made a promise, didn't 3 make a promise, express or implied. We incurred an 4 obligation to these people that had put this thing together 5 as they had to go forward with it, and to keep it in some 6 kind of reasonable condition, and where it could be suitable 7 for the purposes that it was being utilized, and that 8 obligation has not been honored. It has not. And we must 9 do something from some standpoint to at least get the 10 facilities that are there up to a condition that -- that's 11 usable, they're safe, they meet legal requirements. We've 12 got a number of legal requirements that aren't met out 13 there. 14 And if we can, through some way, shape, form, 15 or fashion, give them the expansion room that they need -- 16 the size of that activity in the show, for example, the 17 stock show, has grown to a considerable degree since all 18 these hardworking people put that thing together out there. 19 And I think we -- part of our obligation is to give them 20 enough space to put that show on. If we want to go some 21 other direction, I think we need to look for other -- other 22 funds, and that may be forthcoming. I don't know. There 23 may be some other funds out there that can be used to go 24 beyond that, but at a minimum, I think we need to upgrade 25 those facilities, good and usable, and expand it to the 2-10-03 178 1 point where they've got enough room to do their thing. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, even though I'm 3 still reeling from the cedar eradication defeat, I'm in 4 agreement with almost everything that's said here today. 5 That if it's -- just the exhibit center is what I have 6 disagreed with all along. I see it as -- as a different 7 function altogether. But, as far as the stock show is 8 concerned, I'm -- I'm in total agreement that we need to 9 begin. I appreciate Commissioner Letz getting this back on 10 the agenda, and we need to keep going with it. It's -- I 11 know it's difficult to get -- to get grants or other moneys 12 from private organizations. Sometimes they -- they 13 certainly don't want to enter an affray, but they also 14 sometimes don't like to be the nest egg of an operation like 15 this. And it's my opinion that this Commissioners Court 16 needs to come up with "X" amount of dollars and lay on the 17 table, and let -- let the foundations come to those dollars 18 and start from there. But we have to renovate or rebuild, 19 or whatever the verbiage is, that new barn; the old -- the 20 old stock barn that we're in now. It has to have a roof, it 21 has to have windows, it has to have almost everything. And 22 just -- I'm not sure where we are in the arena, but I know 23 the arena's used so much that it has to have some work done 24 to it, too. But parking lot and exhibition center can drop 25 off the list, far as I'm concerned. That's just my opinion. 2-10-03 179 1 But I did pretty good to be so soundly defeated in this 2 cedar eradication thing. As you can tell, I'm bruised up, 3 and so I feel better; appreciate you letting me talk a 4 little bit. I feel so much better. Is that what you want 5 to hear? I mean, do you want me to go on? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question, but I 7 don't think that -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me -- I happen to 9 agree with Judge Tinley, that we do, in fact, have an 10 obligation -- that Commissioners Court has a very solid 11 obligation to provide public facilities, the nature of which 12 can be defined by the Court based on the utilization, 13 perceived or otherwise, of the entire community, not just a 14 segment of the community. I don't think anybody on this 15 Court, including my friend, Mr. Letz, has been a stronger 16 proponent of this proposal than I have been, and I continue 17 to be, and I think we need to find a way to provide, as the 18 Judge said, usable, safe, environmentally clean facilities 19 that will allow our stock people and agricultural folks to 20 do what they do and do it better in the future, and to 21 provide a safe venue for public events. If we put a new 22 barn up, if that ends up being part of the plan, then we're 23 going to have to take a solid look at a venue for public 24 events. So, you know, without assessing any particular 25 priority, I would hope that this Court can come together and 2-10-03 180 1 find a way to do what we were unable to find a way to do 2 with the most recently defeated bond election, but there I 3 am. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're saying bring 5 back the same plan -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't say that. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that people voted 8 down? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't say that. I 10 didn't say that. I just -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm 12 asking. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to find what 14 the plan is. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have -- 17 and I guess I'll ask Commissioner Baldwin. The current 18 exhibit center that's out there now, that's what I call the 19 front part of the hog barn, whatever you want to call that 20 thing. Do you think that needs to be renovated? Or you 21 just turn it into a big barn? And I'm just -- I mean, you 22 know -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think that's one 2-10-03 181 1 of the critical issues. I heard a lot of discussion about 2 the front portion of the building on the west side, what's 3 called the exhibit hall now, and people see that that's a 4 concrete floor, that's a tiled building, and it appears that 5 one probable option is to renovate that and use it. But I 6 think that one of the outstanding questions that we need an 7 answer to is, what's the real difference in terms of dollars 8 of renovating that or rebuilding that, as it were? I -- I 9 think the numbers are going to be very, very close. I don't 10 think there's going to be a whole lot of difference. But I 11 think we need some sort of expertise, people in the 12 engineering and construction trades business, to give us a 13 better idea of what it will take to rehab that front 14 portion, as opposed to replace it. And then, if it's 15 rehabable for appreciably less cost than it would to be to 16 replace it, how can you incorporate that with a back 17 portion, new area, where the current hog barn facility is? 18 I don't think there's any question about the arena; that's a 19 totally separate issue. But I see that as pretty much the 20 front-burner question. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I agree. That's why 22 I asked Commissioner Baldwin -- I'm not trying to paint you 23 in a corner or anything. I'm just curious as to -- I know 24 you didn't like the exhibit center as it was in the bond 25 issue. My question is, really, is it -- you didn't like the 2-10-03 182 1 stand-alone portion of it? You didn't like any part of it? 2 I mean, I'm trying to figure out which part you didn't like. 3 Maybe -- and maybe it's all of it. I mean, because it's -- 4 you know, it's a -- I'm willing to take, you know, and get 5 on board more easy on the first step of building a barn. I 6 think if you're going to build a barn, you certainly need to 7 figure out what you're going to do with that front part of 8 the building. And, I mean, I don't see it as a -- you know, 9 as an option. 10 I think to renovate it -- I mean, I think 11 I've talked -- we have talked -- or I have talked to a lot 12 of contractors about renovating it. It is possible. It's 13 just -- and I think it is cheaper than building new. It's 14 not a whole lot cheaper, I don't think, but it depends a lot 15 on how much you renovate it. You can renovate it into 16 making it like a barn, or you can renovate it to make it 17 like an exhibit hall. And -- and there's lots of things in 18 between there. I mean, and that's kind of where I think the 19 Court needs to -- or I -- what I'm trying to -- fishing 20 around trying to find out as to what kind of renovation, you 21 know, of that front portion are we talking about. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there is 23 something about that front portion that perhaps is 24 salvageable, and it is an expensive component, and that's 25 the concrete slab floor. And there was some discussion, 2-10-03 183 1 although very small in depth, with building experts who 2 believed that that could be incorporated into a new 3 flooring, concrete flooring, incorporated into a new barn. 4 Part of the barn plan to begin with was to have at least 5 one-third of the barn with concrete floor. You know, the 6 question is, can do you that? And, if so, you know, have 7 you saved any money? Is it more problem than it's worth or 8 whatever? And I don't know. I guess we've got to find out. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I see that as issue number 10 one. Can you cost-efficiently rehab that portion, or do you 11 just start over? And I think the other question that you've 12 got to plug into that is, the current exhibit hall area, if 13 you want to have clear span space, I think that presents 14 another issue, because we've got various support structure 15 on the interior within that space, and if -- if you're going 16 to opt to have clear span space in that particular area, 17 then you've got another issue from a structural standpoint 18 about those exterior walls. But I see that as step number 19 one, to try and get somebody with construction trades and 20 engineering expertise to give us some of that information. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think, you know, 22 that gets us to kind of where I started with the current 23 design team. I mean, and I think and we found out last 24 time, contractors are willing to give you a little bit of 25 information free. When they start to do any kind of detail 2-10-03 184 1 work, they're going to start charging, unless they know that 2 they're going to get the job at the end of the tunnel, if 3 there's a job. That's where I think we are right now with 4 the design team that we selected, is that -- you know, and I 5 haven't talked to them at any length, but I think if they 6 knew they're going to get the job, if we can -- you know, if 7 they're confident we're going to agree on doing something 8 out there, they're going to get the work, I think they'll be 9 very -- you know, put a lot of hard numbers together. But 10 if we're just going to go and say, "Can this be renovated? 11 Give us a ballpark," we're going to get what we got last 12 time. I mean, or we're going to have to spend money to get 13 a true evaluation. And last time we got -- you know, it was 14 difficult for the Court to authorize spending money, you 15 know, blindly. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: We may have to come up with a 17 lick-log and spend a little money to get a true professional 18 engineering evaluation. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right, 20 Judge. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: You know, we might be 22 penny-wise and pound-foolish. I would -- at this juncture, 23 it would be my suggestion that -- I don't mean to dump this 24 back in your lap, Commissioner Letz, but you've been at the 25 point of this column for some period of time; we just will 2-10-03 185 1 leave you there -- is to let you get back with the people 2 that you've been talking about consistently, and -- and talk 3 with them preliminarily about the ideas that you've heard, 4 and also investigate maybe what it would take us to get a 5 preliminary evaluation made by a true expert. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I'm hearing -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Bring it back to the Court, 8 and if we want to spend the money, that's fine. Let's go 9 for it. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm a little reluctant to 11 do it, and the reason is -- or go too far down the road, 12 because I did it last time, and I don't mean this ugly, but 13 it wasn't believed. Really. I mean -- you know, I mean, 14 I've -- I've been -- I've met with Mike Lowe and his 15 company, Don Biermann and his company, Steve Huser and his 16 company, and came up with estimates on what renovation and 17 construction are going to cost, and they were estimates that 18 I presented, and I'm hearing the same thing now as well. 19 Let's go out and get more estimates. We've already done 20 that, you know. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's before we 22 picked design-build. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I -- you know, to me, 24 we're at the point where we can either hire one of those or 25 another construction company to do some work for us, and 2-10-03 186 1 planning, or we go with Huser as the design team that we 2 selected. I don't see the point in me going out and getting 3 people to give me estimates again, 'cause all that will do, 4 it's going to waste six months. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask the 6 question, through you to Commissioner Letz. Could we obtain 7 that information from DRG based on our current contractual 8 relationship, even though it might cost us a few more 9 dollars to do so? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't see why we couldn't. 11 I mean, they're in that business. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can do that, but I 13 think you could get -- see, I guess it goes into -- I think 14 we get it free from Huser if we're going to do something, 15 but I doubt he's going to -- unless there's some -- I don't 16 want to speak for Huser Construction, but -- or the 17 architects, you know. I would suspect they're willing to 18 put some of their time, certainly, into it to advise us if 19 we're going to continue that design -- the relationship we 20 currently have with them. But if we're not, then I think we 21 need to hire somebody. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Legally, I don't think we can 23 make even a probable commitment to the design/build team 24 that were selected conditioned upon the passage of the bond 25 issue, 'cause we're talking about a different project, 2-10-03 187 1 obviously. Or I think we're going to be talking about one. 2 Obviously, we're -- the bond issue wasn't approved, so 3 apparently we're going to switch gears. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess the -- 5 according to Wayne Gondeck -- and what we probably ought to 6 do is get, maybe at the next meeting, Gondeck and Steve 7 Huser here so you all can ask them questions, 'cause I don't 8 want to -- even though I've talked with them, because -- but 9 Wayne Gondeck feels that the continuation of the project was 10 based on the bond issue passing, but hiring them was not 11 contingent on the bond issue passing. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hiring Gondeck? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hiring Huser. Hiring the 14 team, you know, was one thing, but they didn't have anything 15 to do until the bond issue passed or we had funding for it, 16 basically. We don't have funding, so, you know, they're 17 still hired as a team, but we don't have any money for them 18 to do anything. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: If the project's going to be 20 different from the one that the design-build teams were 21 invited to participate on, I don't think we can legally make 22 any commitment to any of those people that bid on it. I 23 think if the project's going to be different in any material 24 respect, I think we've got to go back out and -- and give 25 everybody a shot at it on whatever basis we select. I don't 2-10-03 188 1 think we can lawfully do that. Now, having Huser here 2 and -- and Gondeck, and asking Gondeck about his thoughts 3 on -- you know, possibly even hiring him specifically to 4 look at some specific aspects from an engineering/ 5 architectural standpoint, give us his opinion, certainly, 6 we -- that's a professional services thing, and that's -- I 7 think it would be -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with you. It 9 depends on how far different -- I mean, you know, if we 10 change it materially, yes, I think you're right. It just 11 depends on how much it ends up being changed. That's why I 12 asked the question, is it a matter of moving the exhibit 13 hall renovation into the building or building a new one? 14 I'm not sure that that is a change in the project. I could 15 easily see if we were to renovate the current exhibit hall 16 to the point that it is now, that it would not be -- you 17 know, build a barn, do some renovation to the arena, and 18 then plan to do an in-house parking lot over time, I don't 19 see that's a whole lot different project. I don't know that 20 the cost, to be honest, would be a whole lot different. If 21 you add it all up, probably save maybe a half million 22 dollars, I guess. But that may be phased in over five years 23 to get that done. But if we're talking about just building 24 a barn and renovation of the arena, that's all we're going 25 to talk about, well, then, I think it is a materially 2-10-03 189 1 different project. That's where I -- where we're headed 2 directionally as to what we're going to do out there, you 3 know, has a direct impact, to me, on whether it's material 4 to the project or not. But if there's a cause for concern, 5 we certainly can talk to Gondeck and see what he'll charge 6 to be an adviser, and get him here next meeting. That's 7 kind of where I'm coming from, if we do have a contractual 8 relationship with DRG, Wayne Gondeck. And I think it would 9 be interesting to pose the question to him in terms of what 10 it would cost either to take that building down in its 11 entirety and replace it with a new barn, or attempt to 12 renovate it, and see what kind of response we get from him. 13 And if he has to have some additional fees to make those 14 determinations, then we can decide how to pay him. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The Sheriff was waving his 16 arms frantically back here. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, but if y'all don't 18 mind my making a comment, even though that was a very -- 19 probably one of the worst voter turnouts I've seen in this 20 county, they still spoke and didn't want to use taxpayer 21 money. Everybody well knows I'm definitely in favor of 22 grants, and I think our department's done excellent on 23 getting grants over just the last couple of years. It's 24 been about over half a million dollars. And with that 25 project and that whole facility out there being geared 2-10-03 190 1 towards the youth of this county, and I know I even checked 2 into that one time, getting donations -- when we went out 3 for donations for, like, bulletproof vests, you know, where 4 as long as it's for a specific cause, we could do it. Why 5 can't there be somebody -- instead of talking about grants 6 here or there, why can't someone go ahead and just apply for 7 some grants and see, you know, what you can get? Mainly, 8 I'm like Jonathan, rebuilding that first barn, the old -- 9 old barn and exhibit hall; that's been -- ever since I've 10 been a kid, is probably one of the most important parts, 11 because the big barn out there, if you look at it, it's even 12 got the plaques on all the awnings out there on where -- who 13 donated and who helped pay for that. Why don't we let the 14 community -- Buster -- I don't know if Buster had the guy 15 that came in here during the deal and said he was against 16 it; said that he was against it because it only helped, 17 what, 3 percent of the county, being the youth or whatever, 18 and that it helped the businesses economically. And some of 19 his points I, you know, kind of agreed with. But -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't have him in 21 here. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But some of his points 23 -- and why can't -- you're talking about having to spread it 24 out over the next five years, anyhow. Why can't the County 25 do something with applying for grants and taking donations 2-10-03 191 1 and see what we can come up with? Because there are a lot 2 of ranchers and a lot of youth that need that facility. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, we've done that. 4 I think I know at least three of the -- of the members of 5 this Court have talked to grant people about this project. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But has a grant ever 7 been applied for? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Court -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you apply 10 for? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Court has to first 12 come up with something that we agree on that we want. 13 'Cause no grant person is going to give us any money if we 14 can't get five of us to agree what we want. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's exactly the 16 point. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the thing. That's 18 where we are. We're sort of trying to get that -- if we can 19 get the five of us to come up with something that we're all 20 comfortable with and agree to, I think that there -- and I 21 think Commissioner Baldwin's right, and if we can find some 22 seed money from the County to put out, I think there's a 23 really good chance we can get some of this funding through 24 grants. But the Court has to agree as to what we want, and 25 until we -- 'cause grants, if it's controversial, they're 2-10-03 192 1 not going to do anything. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's exactly right. 3 They're not. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's what it -- 5 that happened through the bond issue; it became very 6 controversial. So, you know, everyone was "King's X" until 7 the Court gets their act together, was what it's perceived. 8 I don't have a problem. I think that's why it's on the 9 agenda for to us agree on what needs to be done, and what 10 I'm hearing is the next step is to get Wayne Gondeck in here 11 and see what it's going to cost to get some professional 12 input. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's invite him and see if 14 he'd be willing to come see us at our next meeting, and we 15 can kind of bring him out and see where we go from there. 16 Is that pretty much a consensus? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think, in the 18 meantime, if all the Commissioners would kind of figure out 19 what -- you know, what they want -- you know, maybe they 20 already know. But we need to be able to start putting that 21 on the table so we can see if we can get an agreement. 22 MR. BARRON: I hope that y'all remember, 23 y'all do have an engineer on y'all's staff. Maybe he could 24 go over there and give you some elementary numbers as to 25 what it's going to take to go back and forth. 2-10-03 193 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Been there. 2 Suggested that. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great idea. He's a 4 structural engineer, too. That's a great idea. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further discussion 6 on that item, or do we move on? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'm thinking 8 about Commissioner Baldwin's concept about putting some 9 money on the table and seeing -- and having a plan that we 10 all agree on. He didn't say that, but he implied it, I 11 think. And seeing if we can attract some money. Let me 12 hear from you. Is that conceivable? When we're not going 13 to -- I'm pretty sure we're not going back to the voters 14 again on another bond issue. Maybe we are; I don't know, 15 but I don't think so. Is there any circumstances where we 16 would put a half million dollars on the table and -- and say 17 we'll put this much up by the taxpayers' funds if we can 18 attract another million or million and a half? Is it 19 doable? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the question 21 is, what are you putting it on the table for, Commissioner? 22 If we have identified that, we're all on the same page. Put 23 "X" number of dollars out with the view that it's bread on 24 the water, if you will. Then there may be some opportunity. 25 But I think -- as Commissioner Letz said, I think we all 2-10-03 194 1 have to come together, know what we're going to do. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, on that same 3 line, the other part of it is -- I mean, depends on how big 4 a project as to what percent we're putting up. One way you 5 read the vote is they don't want tax dollars spent on that 6 project. The other is, you know, they don't want 100 7 percent of the tax dollars to be spent on the project. 8 Depends on what you think. So, I mean, I think we need to 9 have somewhere in there, before I'm going to vote to take 10 money out of tax dollars, I'm going to want some public 11 feedback that they support it. Because I'm not inclined to 12 -- you know, like, one thing that I wouldn't do is turn 13 around and try a tax anticipation note or anything, which to 14 me circumvents the voters. I'm not any more in favor of 15 putting it back before the voters than I would be something 16 like that. But, you know, if we can, you know, go into 17 reserves and find some -- you know, maybe $500,000, I think 18 we'd have to, one, really look at what that's going to do 19 for our budget for a while, and then I think you have to 20 figure out and really give the public a lot of time to give 21 us some feedback as to what they think about that, because 22 if we don't get positive feedback, I would not be in favor 23 of it. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the point you just 25 made is very, very important. The voters told us, by a slim 2-10-03 195 1 margin, that no prevailed over yes. But what we need to 2 hear from those voters that did vote, and also the ones that 3 didn't vote and others, is what is it that they do want? 4 And we've got the media here, and I wish they'd put a great 5 big question mark on their story, and let us know. We have 6 a difficult time reading minds. I'm reminded on a very 7 frequent basis by my wife that I'm not a very good mind 8 reader, so I need -- I need to know what they're thinking. 9 All of us do, I think, and we'd encourage them to let us 10 know. The more people that are voting, the better off we're 11 going to be insofar as knowing where we are. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a very 13 good point. I was reminded by a lifelong resident of Kerr 14 County, whose family has blood, sweat, and tears in that 15 building right now, that -- she said, "Bill, you may have to 16 go back and to voters twice." Been known to happen in Kerr 17 County before. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It would only be 19 speculating, but as somebody said, it passed -- or failed by 20 76 votes or something like that. I would guess that there 21 was more than 76 people that voted against the exhibit 22 center. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The stand-alone? I think 24 that's a very real possibility. But, like I say, tell us 25 what they didn't like, what caused them to go negative 2-10-03 196 1 instead of positive. It's hard for us to read their minds, 2 again, so -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the other 4 point that I'll just toss out on the table is on the exhibit 5 hall. And this is, you know, for those in the community, 6 whether or not the Court supports that. Are they opposed to 7 the exhibit hall concept, or are they opposed to tax dollars 8 to build the exhibit hall? In other words, if we were to 9 receive a grant for the exhibit hall, would they like that? 10 Or, no, we don't want that either? I mean, and I don't -- I 11 don't know the answer to that, but I think that enters into 12 it, because I think it -- the exhibit hall question as a 13 long-term -- you know, whether we should have it, should be 14 addressed, because I think it directly impacts potentially 15 the renovation of the current exhibit hall, what you do 16 there. And because they're somewhat related; at least they 17 were intended to be related in the bond issue. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a 19 correlation. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we've sufficiently run 22 that one out. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We'll go on to the 25 next item, 2.16, consider and discuss allowing public 2-10-03 197 1 information rack to be installed in the main hall of the 2 courthouse. I placed this on the agenda as a result of 3 receiving a letter, as indicated in the backup material. 4 Not as any particular sponsorship of that item, but merely 5 to put it out for the Court, for their consideration. I 6 would -- my concern is the establishment of precedent. What 7 would we end up with in the final analysis? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's exactly 9 my concern. Although I'm a big fan of Alcoholics Anonymous. 10 You might have the Cedar Eradicators of America come in and 11 want -- want their own little booth or little table, you 12 know. And we would have to draw the line there. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can get out of 14 control. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It could get out of 16 control. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very quickly. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to say no 19 right up front. You don't have to sit here and visit with 20 me all day. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it sets a bad 22 precedent, regardless of the organization. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else got any comments? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm on 2.17 now. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 2-10-03 198 1 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move on to Item 2.17, at 2 the request of Commissioner Letz. Consider and discuss 3 appointment of two representatives from Kerr County for the 4 Alamo Senior Advisory Committee. I placed that item on the 5 agenda after receiving communication from the Alamo Area -- 6 Area Agency on Aging, which is some sort of a committee 7 under AACOG, is my understanding, and we are allocated two 8 spots, two positions on that -- on that committee, Alamo 9 Senior Advisory Committee. One of them just expired at the 10 end of last year, and another one is not filled. My 11 recommendation would be that we accept requests or 12 applications, as it were, from persons who might be 13 interested in that, with the assistance of the media, if we 14 advertise the availability of those positions. I might 15 point out that -- that the committee, I believe, meets once 16 a month, traditionally. That they are attempting to obtain 17 funding to offer some sort of travel reimbursement to those 18 persons who might be designated by this Court to fill those 19 positions, or we would encourage anyone with an interest 20 in -- in senior-type activities to contact us for 21 appointments to those positions. That would be my 22 suggestion. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I was 24 interested that you put this on there, 'cause I had it 25 coming from the last AACOG meeting. I wrote a note to 2-10-03 199 1 myself to talk about this. So, I took the liberty of going 2 over to see -- I talked to Maggie Schreiner up there about 3 this, who is the head of this, and then this past week I 4 took the liberty of talking to Tina Woods at Dietert Senior 5 Center about this to see if she had any recommendations and 6 so forth. One of the problems that she identified for me, 7 which I'll pass on for the benefit of this discussion, has 8 to do with the time of the meeting. On that very same day, 9 they have a meeting in the a.m. for vendors who are engaged 10 in senior activities; i.e., Dietert Senior Center and others 11 around the AACOG who do similar things. And then at 12 1 o'clock, they convene this meeting, and so Tina told me 13 that she has offered representatives or people who might be 14 interested in representing Kerr County to ride in with her 15 for the meeting, but the problem is that she goes in for a 16 9 o'clock or a 10 o'clock meeting, whatever, and they're 17 sitting there twiddling their thumbs until 1 o'clock. And, 18 more importantly, by the time the meeting's over, for a lot 19 of the -- lot of folks who might think about this, they're 20 in the heat of the San Antonio go-home traffic, and they 21 don't like that idea. So, finding those people who might be 22 willing to serve has not been all that easy. Having said 23 all that, I asked her, is there a possibility that Dietert 24 transportation could arrange to take them in and bring them 25 back? And, while it's possible, it seems at this point to 2-10-03 200 1 be a bit cost-prohibitive in terms of one van, one driver, 2 two people, and all the time engaged in that. So, I just 3 wanted to bring you up to speed, that I had talked about it 4 a little bit, and that's kind of the dilemma that we face. 5 But we do need to get that -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, what's the 7 -- I guess the main purpose of this committee? I mean, does 8 it -- is it a way to attract funding to -- if it's a funding 9 thing, I mean, how about somebody -- Tina or someone at 10 Dietert who would have a -- I guess an interest in really 11 procuring the -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Item 3 in that 13 stuff, that material that the Judge provided, I think it 14 sort of answers your question, Commissioner. It has to do 15 with policy and funding and monitoring and contract 16 monitoring and various controls and so forth and so on. 17 It's -- I guess they do have a good bit of oversight on 18 these programs. That's the best answer I can come up with. 19 I don't know, but I can find out for you. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe, rather than trying 21 to find -- I think in the past, we've tried to find retired 22 people to fill this position. If we try to find not 23 necessarily retired people, but people that are in the 24 retirement business, they would have more of an interest and 25 be better able to attend the meeting. Just an idea. 2-10-03 201 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Someone with nerves of steel 2 to drive in San Antonio traffic, maybe. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's just like all 4 those other committees down there, Jon. You know, this 5 committee deals in -- in senior citizen issues, funding for 6 the -- this bus, funding for meals, you know, all those 7 funding issues. And we really do need those two people on 8 there for -- there's our seat at the table. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that committee 12 comes out with their recommendation and goes to the full 13 board, which Commissioner Williams sits on, but it's pretty 14 important. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why if we get 16 somebody from -- you know, from Dietert staff and, you know, 17 maybe some of the other retirement communities or -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It doesn't say 19 anywhere that they have to be older folks. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, no, they don't. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can get somebody -- 22 maybe someone from Hermann Sons. Seems to me that people 23 that are dealing in the -- in that segment of the population 24 would be, I mean, much more inclined to want to attend, be 25 interested in it and being able to bring something back to 2-10-03 202 1 the community as well. Which -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it is important, 3 especially when they -- demographics being what they are in 4 Kerr County, that -- that we're actively represented. It 5 certainly doesn't hold us in a very good light if we have 6 these high numbers of senior citizens up here, and we don't 7 have representation. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going back to the 9 Judge's comment about taking applications. I really -- I 10 think that's a great idea. And send them in to 11 Commissioners Court, and let's wade through them and see who 12 is available at certain times, and understand that they got 13 to drive through San Antonio and Boerne. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Customarily on a Friday 15 afternoon. Normally, the second Friday of the month in the 16 afternoon is when those meetings are held. And the persons 17 do not have to be over 60. I suppose they could be 26, as 18 far as that goes. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If they have an 20 interest. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. And we appreciate 22 the media's cooperation in publicizing that. We'd be 23 interested in knowing about those folks, and them applying 24 to us so we can consider them. Anything else? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, the same thing 2-10-03 203 1 applies -- although it's not on the agenda, but the same 2 discussion about the Alamo Regional Transportation Board. 3 Currently we only have one representative to the Alamo 4 Regional Transportation Board, and we desperately need 5 another one. Now, that meeting -- I think that group, I 6 believe, Judge, meets quarterly, and I believe it meets in 7 Boerne. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That's even better. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Even better. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't have to go 12 that far. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the media's going 14 to advertise, put a "Help Wanted" sign out for us, maybe 15 include the Transportation Board as well? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: They're all writing quite 17 furiously. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm -- I'm pleased. I was 20 going to let you do the ad. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're going to sell 22 us an ad? 23 MS. LAVENDER: You've got to do it. I'm 24 going to video the ad. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have anything 2-10-03 204 1 further? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a question 3 for Commissioner Baldwin. Do you have any update on when 4 our State Representative might come and visit with us about 5 water covenants, legislation support? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. I talked 7 with his staff -- I believe it was last Thursday. I'm 8 sorry, I can't remember when it was. I tried to get it on 9 the agenda today. I was checking on it to see if it could 10 land on today's agenda, and they haven't gotten it back from 11 the Legislative Council yet. And as soon as -- as soon as 12 they get it, they're going to notify us -- me, Thea, 13 whoever -- to get it on there. I think there's -- in your 14 question there, I don't believe -- or at least staff tells 15 me that it never has been the intent of the Representative 16 himself appearing here. I don't know if I started that or 17 how that started, but they tell me that he never has any 18 intention of actually coming and presenting. He'll just 19 send it down here, let us look it over, run it by our 20 attorney and vote and go on. I guess we'll have to do our 21 own resolution. But they assured me that it's going to 22 happen. I even mentioned that I'd heard a rumor that he 23 wasn't going to send it regardless, but that is untrue. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, would you like to 2-10-03 205 1 handle that? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're doing a good 3 job. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, just wanted to 5 make sure. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I have noted that 7 you -- about 10 years ago, you moved from west Kerr County 8 to Kerrville. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And now you're 11 already backing the cedar choppers. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, no, not exactly; 13 that's not backing. Are you telling me that I'm going to 14 get run out of one, too? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. There being nothing -- 16 nothing further to come before the meeting, I'll declare it 17 adjourned. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that. 19 (Commissioners Court meeting adjourned at 3:03 p.m.) 20 - - - - - - - - - - 21 22 23 24 25 2-10-03 206 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 19th day of February, 8 2003. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2-10-03