1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, February 24, 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 24, 2003 2 PAGE --- Commissioners Comments 4 3 1.1 Pay Bills 6 1.2 Budget Amendments 7 4 1.3 Late Bills -- 1.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 11 5 2.1 Resolution in support of funding request 6 for Texas Tech University, Hill Country 12 2.2 Resolution in support of proposed legislation 7 regarding consolidation of Headwaters Ground- water Conservation District and U.G.R.A. into 8 Kerr County Water Authority 13 2.12 Resolution to join safety incentive program 9 offered by Kerr County's Workers Compensation carrier, Texas Association of Counties 58 10 2.13 Approval of Project Plan for Kerr Emergency 911 Network 66 11 2.3 Letter of support/resolution for HB-630, designation of section of State Highway 173 12 as 173rd Brigade Memorial Highway 83 2.4 Request for variance from replatting within 13 subdivision to move property line by survey 89 2.5 Preliminary revision of plat of Tract Nos. 48 14 and 49A of Kerrville Country Estates, Section Two; set public hearing date 100 15 2.6 Preliminary revision of plat of Site 15, J.L. Nichols Subdivision, set public hearing date 102 16 2.7 Consider installing signs on roads in Pct. 4 105 2.8 Consider name changes for privately maintained 17 roads in accordance with 911 Guidelines 108 2.9 Request for budget amendment to transfer money 18 from salary line item for Constable, Pct. 1 112 2.11 Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement 19 between Kerr County and Upper Guadalupe River Authority 117 20 2.14 Recommendation of Airport Advisory Board to approve revised Airport Layout Plan and Airport 21 Master Plan Update, authorize Judge to sign 122 2.15 Recommendation of Airport Advisory Board to 22 approve revised airport lease agreements with Kerrville Aviation, Inc. 130 23 2.10 Acknowledge receipt of copy of 2002 Racial Profiling Files submitted by Constable Ayala 162 24 2.16 Discuss future renovation and construction plans for Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center and hiring 25 consultants to assist Commissioners' Court 166 --- Adjourned 211 3 1 On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a special 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. I'm going to 8 call to order the special Commissioners Court meeting for 9 Monday, February 24th. It's 9 a.m. local time. Looks like 10 we don't have adequate seating for those -- and I anticipate 11 that there will probably be some more shortly, so we have 12 made arrangements to utilize District Courtroom Number 1 13 upstairs. As you get off the elevator, if you'll make a 14 right and go down to the courtroom there, that's District 15 Courtroom Number 1. So, at this time, we will stand in 16 recess and we will reconvene up in District Courtroom Number 17 1, just as soon as we can kind of get situated there. 18 (Commissioners Court was moved to District Courtroom Number 1.) 19 - - - - - - - - - - 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'll reconvene the 21 meeting, special Commissioners Court meeting, Monday, 22 February 24th. I believe -- Commissioner Nicholson, I 23 believe it is your honor this morning. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let us pray. 25 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 2-24-03 4 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I'd like to remind 2 you that those of you who desire to speak on an item that is 3 on the agenda, that's listed on the agenda, we would ask 4 that you fill out a participation form indicating your 5 desire to speak on that item. And there should be some, I 6 believe, at the back of the room. You'll find them back 7 there. We'd ask that you please fill those out and see that 8 they get up here towards the front. Now, with respect to 9 items which are not listed on the agenda, you have the 10 opportunity to speak to us about any matter that is not 11 listed, and that time is now. Any person who has anything 12 that they want to address this Court about concerning an 13 item which is not on the agenda, they are entitled to come 14 forward at this time and to tell us what's on their minds. 15 So, if there's anyone -- any citizen out there that wants to 16 come forward and speak on an item not on the agenda please 17 come forward at this time. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Again, any citizen who has 20 anything to say on an item not on the agenda, please come 21 forward at this time. I assume there's no one. At this 22 point in time, I will call for Commissioners' comments. 23 We'll start with Commissioner, Precinct 4, Commissioner 24 Nicholson. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have 2-24-03 5 1 anything, Judge. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have nothing, sir. 3 Thank you. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Two? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing, Your Honor. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One brief comment. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll be talking about 9 water later on. I thought I'd start out with water first 10 thing this morning. Last year the Commissioners Court and 11 the City of Kerrville and Region J and other entities passed 12 a resolution to the Water Development Board appealing the 13 population projection for Kerr County, and I'm pleased to 14 announce that late last week, I received a letter from the 15 Executive Administrator of the Water Development Board 16 saying that they have approved the revisions as submitted 17 and they are going to present those -- actually, they'll be 18 presented to the Water Development Board for their final 19 approval today, but it's just a matter of them voting to 20 approve it, now that the staff has approved it. That's very 21 good news for Kerr County. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: The only thing I have to 25 mention this morning is -- it got some media attention this 2-24-03 6 1 past week -- the local Vietnam Veterans of America chapter 2 of -- the Hill Country chapter has managed to secure the 3 moving wall, which is a replica of the actual memorial wall 4 in Washington, D.C. to the Vietnam veterans. And they have 5 made arrangements for that replica wall, which is 6 approximately one-half size, to come here to Kerrville. It 7 will be at the V.A. Hospital. The exact location on those 8 grounds has not been yet ascertained, but it will be there 9 from July 11th through July 17th. It will be there for a 10 week. I was very happy to see them be able to secure that. 11 They are working now to try and raise funds to cover the 12 expenses of those, and any of you who feel that that's an 13 appropriate thing to help with, there's been an account -- a 14 fund set up at Bank of the Hills in order to help them 15 defray that cost. But I would urge every one of you, when 16 it does come here, to go to that memorial, because it is -- 17 it is a very moving situation if you've never been there. 18 I -- you may have some thoughts about that particular 19 conflict, but I assure you that your thoughts of the 20 veterans and the men who gave their lives -- men and women 21 in the service of this country, will be renewed, and your 22 spirit changed accordingly at that memorial. That's all I 23 have this morning. We'll now move to the approval agenda. 24 We're going to talk about paying the bills. Mr. Auditor? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Do you have any questions 2-24-03 7 1 regarding the bills? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we pay the bills. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 5 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, 6 that the bills be paid. Is there any discussion or question 7 or comment? Being none, all in favor, signify by raising 8 your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Let's move to 13 budget amendments. Budget Amendment Number 1. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Number -- Budget Amendment 15 Number 1 is for Road and Bridge. We're asking for a 16 transfer of $2,776 from Workers Comp Insurance to Property 17 Insurance. It's to pay a bill to J.I. Specialties Risk. 18 It's for the liability coverage of above-ground fuel 19 storage. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 23 seconded to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1 by 24 Commissioners Williams and Letz, respectively. Yes? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Judge, I do have a -- I do 2-24-03 8 1 need a hand check for that bill. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: And your motion -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Included in the 4 motion. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. The motion is to 6 include the delivery of a hand check in connection with that 7 item. Any discussion or comment? Being none, all in favor, 8 raise your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 13 Amendment Request Number 2. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Request Number 2 is for the 15 J.P. office, J.P. Number 1. It's for the replacement of 16 a -- a matrix printer, $498.15. Our request is to transfer 17 $498.15 from Contingency in Nondepartmental to Operating 18 Equipment for that department. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move for approval. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: I need a hand check for that, 21 also. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 24 seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Letz, respectively, to 25 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2 and authorize 2-24-03 9 1 issuance of a hand check. Any discussion or question? If 2 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 7 Amendment Request Number 3. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: This request is for 9 Commissioners Court and the County Court. The request is to 10 transfer $203.75 from Professional Services in the 11 Commissioners Court, a hundred -- $140 in Conferences and 12 Dues for the County Court, $63.75 into Books, Publications, 13 and Dues for Commissioners Court. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 17 seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Letz, respectively, 18 to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any 19 discussion? If not all in favor, signify by raising your 20 right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 25 Amendment Request Number 4. 2-24-03 10 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is a request from 2 the 198th District Court to transfer $750.60 from the 3 Court-Appointed Attorney line item. $650 of that goes to 4 Court-Appointed Services and $100.60 to Court Transcripts. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 8 seconded by Commissioners Williams and Nicholson, 9 respectively, to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 4. 10 Any discussion? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A question. Tommy, 12 tell me again what court-appointed services are? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: This -- this particular bill 14 is for -- it's for psychiatric evaluation for Cause Number 15 1356; it's a criminal case in the 198th court. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? If 18 not, all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Do we have 23 any late bills? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: None. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a -- I 2-24-03 11 1 have another budget amendment here. Am I the only one here 2 that has it? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that amendment's under 4 another item. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: It's an agenda item, as far as 6 I know, if it's the one I think you're referring to. I 7 think it's Number 12. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nine. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Nine? Okay. Approve and 10 accept monthly reports. What action do we need, gentlemen? 11 Do you have any reports over there, Ms. Hamilton? I have a 12 report from the District Clerk for the month of January. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we accept the -- 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- report presented. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 17 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson to approve the 18 monthly report for January 2003 of the District Clerk. Any 19 discussion? Being none, all in favor, signify by raising 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. All right. 25 Next we'll go to the consideration agenda. The first item 2-24-03 12 1 on the agenda is to consider and discuss approval of a 2 resolution in support of the funding request submitted to 3 Texas Legislature supporting Texas Tech University, Hill 4 Country. I placed this item on the agenda at the request of 5 Mr. Greg Shrader. Mr. Shrader? 6 MR. SHRADER: Thank you, Your Honor, 7 gentlemen of the court. My name's Greg Shrader. I 8 represent the Advisory Board of Texas Tech University of the 9 Hill Country. We have an appropriations request before the 10 Legislature this year for about $2.7 million to fund the 11 operations of Texas Tech University, Hill Country, its three 12 campuses for the next two years. That is an exception item; 13 it is not a special item, so it should get good 14 consideration. But we are asking the Court to support this 15 resolution as we pass it on to our -- to the Legislature in 16 Austin. Last year, Texas Tech Hill Country campuses served 17 about 150 students through a combination of distance 18 learning and traditional classroom settings, and we are a 19 growing university, and the goal is to offer public higher 20 education in the Hill Country. And, with your support, we 21 think we can get that funding approved. Appreciate your 22 consideration. Any questions? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not unless you want to 24 talk basketball. Which y'all can, I understand. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move the adoption of 2-24-03 13 1 the resolution as presented. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 4 seconded by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin, 5 respectively, to adopt the resolution in support of the 6 funding request submitted to the Texas Legislature 7 supporting Texas Tech University, Hill Country. Is there 8 any further discussion? Being none, all in favor of the 9 motion, please signify by raising your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 MR. SHRADER: Thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Thank you, 15 Mr. Shrader. Appreciate your presence here this morning. 16 Okay. Next item of business, 2.2, consider and discuss 17 resolution by Kerr County Commissioners Court in support of 18 proposed legislation entitled "An act relating to the 19 consolidation of the Headwaters Groundwater Conservation 20 District and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority into the 21 Kerr County Water Authority." Commissioner Baldwin? This 22 item was placed on the agenda at your request, I believe. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I 24 did it, only because I'm the messenger here. I don't -- I 25 don't exactly -- I understand that there may be one or two 2-24-03 14 1 people here that would like to speak to this issue. Do you 2 want to -- my recommendation is, let the audience speak as 3 they wish, and then maybe we could have our round around the 4 table up here, and then call for a vote. That's my 5 recommendation. Or we can break for lunch. 6 (Laughter.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: We may have to do that at some 8 point in time. I have a number of public participation 9 requests as to this particular agenda item, and I will go 10 through them. Looks like the number that I have here is 11 somewhat equally divided, it appears. The first 12 participation request I have is Mr. Jerry Griffin. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks familiar, 14 doesn't he? 15 MR. GRIFFIN: A little familiar? Thank you. 16 I'm Jerry Griffin. I live in Hunt, and I'm here to oppose 17 the resolution, and basically on two points. One, its form, 18 and the other is its substance. The form, I think the Court 19 is being asked to approve a draft bill, unfiled, that has 20 not had any public hearing related to that bill conducted 21 with it. I think that puts the Court in a very tough 22 position, almost an unfair position, to take a position as a 23 court. Obviously, as individuals, I think you could, but as 24 a court, I think it's -- it's not a good practice to take a 25 draft piece of legislation and comment on that. Perhaps if 2-24-03 15 1 you had jurisdiction over either one of these state 2 agencies, I think that would probably be appropriate, but in 3 this case, since you don't, I think that the form is to -- 4 is somewhat against good practice; let me say it that way. 5 As to the substance, I really believe that water issues -- 6 and I know Commissioner Letz is wrestling with this on 7 Region J. Water issues for this region go far outside Kerr 8 County boundaries. We have a situation here where we've got 9 a big dog in the hunt called Bexar County and San Antonio. 10 Don't take this comment to me -- from me 11 meaning that groundwater's not important. It is. It's 12 very, very important. But I think surface water, and 13 particularly those owned by the State in the rivers and 14 tributaries, are going to be extremely important, because I 15 think that's where Bexar County and San Antonio is going to 16 look, to the north and to the northwest particularly, to 17 find those -- those resources. I believe we need a state 18 agency focused on surface water, with no other distraction, 19 if we're, in the next 10 to 20 or even 30 years, to make 20 sure that Kerr County has the water that it needs. And for 21 that reason, I think the U.G.R.A. structure is -- is proper, 22 and I think the Headwaters is proper. But there you have a 23 difference, again. State-owned versus right to capture, 24 property owner issues. And I think trying to mesh the two 25 of them together is not the way to go. Thank you very much 2-24-03 16 1 for your consideration. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Mr. R.E. Warren. 3 MR. WARREN: Thank you, Judge and 4 Commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to come and 5 present the -- pardon me -- proposal that was developed by a 6 committee that Harvey Hilderbran formed in September and 7 October last year. But let me give you, by way of 8 introduction first, I'm a geologist by training. I'm an oil 9 and gas explorationist by vocation, and I'm a citizen of 10 Kerr County by choice, and I plan to stay here. Getting 11 back to the committee that was formed by Representative 12 Hilderbran, this committee had a charge, and I'm going to 13 read it. It says the committee's charge was looking at 14 long-term planning for the county's water supply -- doesn't 15 make the distinction between surface and underground 16 water -- and the management of surface water by the 17 Guadalupe River Authority and the management of underground 18 water by the Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District. 19 So, 16 people got on this committee, and we 20 served about eight weeks. We asked for and received input 21 from the T.C.E.Q., from the Texas Water Development Board, 22 from the Watermaster, from the U.G.R.A., from the Headwaters 23 group, City of Kerrville, and a whole host of concerned 24 citizens. Throughout their presentation, it became pretty 25 obvious that perhaps there was a lack of communication 2-24-03 17 1 between some of these organizations. We asked -- when we 2 saw the U.G.R.A. present its population projections for the 3 next 50 years, that Kerrville -- Kerr County, pardon me, 4 would be decreasing in population, and yet here's U.G.R.A. 5 telling us that they're going to use twice as much effluent 6 water as they are now in a given period of time. And, quite 7 frankly, I don't remember how -- what that time is. So 8 that's pretty obvious that somebody's not talking to 9 somebody else. When the Headwaters presented their 10 approach, we asked the question, because it was on our minds 11 then, do you stand and talk with the U.G.R.A. to see if they 12 have common problems that you might be concerned with and 13 they might be concerned with? And the answer was no. 14 So, in line with the mandate, we came up with 15 a democratic vote to take the presentation that was -- that 16 was given to the Court as of this day. I think some of the 17 benefits of not changing the duty of the U.G.R.A. or 18 changing the duty of the Headwaters group, but of merging 19 the two entities with exactly the same mandates, with 20 exactly the same type of bonding authority for this new 21 group that's going to be adhering to all contracts that have 22 been signed by both entities, is going to result in kind of 23 a conjunctive management, which both entities are going to 24 be working together. And I realize that their 25 responsibilities are different, but I also realize that you 2-24-03 18 1 can't divorce water from water. It's -- it's a fact. 2 I think another thing that we could look at 3 as a benefit from this proposal would be the tax situation. 4 Our state is looking at cutting taxes every place they can 5 get and raising taxes every place they can get. The 6 U.G.R.A. has a taxing authority of 5 cents per hundred of 7 real estate valuation, and they're currently at 3.34 cents 8 per hundred. They could go to 5 without paying anybody 9 leave or anything. I'm not saying they are; I'm just saying 10 they have the ability to go there legally. The Headwaters 11 group is at -- have 1 cent per $100 of valuation, and 12 they're at their max. We're proposing in this proposal that 13 we have a limit of 4 and a half cents per hundred. That's a 14 25 percent reduction, if everybody went to their limit; if 15 U.G.R.A. went to 5 and such. So, that's one advantage I 16 feel that we would gain from the merging and not divesting 17 of any authority from either entity together. 18 I think another thing, right now we're 19 sitting out here and we're paying rent over in one building, 20 and insurance, and if we brought them all to the U.G.R.A. 21 building and put them under one manager -- one general 22 manager who would look after -- but this general manager 23 would be supervised by a nine-man board, two men elected 24 from each precinct, and one at large. So, we'd -- we'd 25 reduce taxes, and hopefully we've insured local control, and 2-24-03 19 1 I think we've gone a long step towards conjunctive 2 management. Gentlemen, I thank you for allowing me to come 3 and speak. Is there any questions? I'll sure attempt to 4 answer them. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Warren, I do have 6 one question. When you say electing this nine-man board, 7 you don't mean just men, do you? 8 MR. WARREN: No, no. 9 (Laughter.) 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just wondering. 11 MR. WARREN: I mean everybody. No. Thank 12 you, Buster. I appreciate that. 13 (Applause.) 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Warren? 15 MR. WARREN: Yes, sir? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. The -- I was 17 not part of the committee, as you know, that Representative 18 Hilderbran put together. Can you tell me who was the 19 representative that spoke from U.G.R.A. and Headwaters? 20 MR. WARREN: Jim Brown and the leader -- the 21 then president of the board for U.G.R.A., and Jim Hayes from 22 Headwaters. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I asked 24 that is because of two of the comments that you've made 25 regarding -- related to Region J. One was population 2-24-03 20 1 projections, and I can explain the difference there real 2 easily. Those numbers were changed by the State and we 3 appealed them, and they've changed back up, so the 4 population projections now approved by the State show a 5 steady increase over time. And the number's all we're 6 doing. Your committee, they came out with a new revision 7 and showed the population going down, so you were told what 8 the State had just said they were going to use, but they 9 have already revised them to what we -- I guess basically, 10 in effect, they were. 11 MR. WARREN: I think that's right, 12 Commissioner, but -- but my point is -- is that one hand 13 wasn't talking to the other hand when they were projecting 14 one going down and one going up by the use of effluent 15 water. And -- and subsequent actions -- subsequent actions 16 I didn't put into this, because I was trying to do it -- 17 what we were considering at the time. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- and my 19 point goes back to -- I don't want to get too far off on 20 this. Both of those organizations are very active 21 participants in Region J, and talk at those meetings. I 22 mean, they're the -- primarily City of Kerrville are the 23 primary people from -- from Kerr County, and they -- and 24 they both were very familiar with the population 25 projections, and both their boards appealed the projections, 2-24-03 21 1 so I don't understand -- 2 MR. WARREN: Why would not, then, the two 3 agree when the presentation was made to Representative 4 Hilderbran's committee? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. I wasn't 6 there, so I can't answer -- I know that they do fit 7 together. 8 MR. WARREN: I think we have -- there's 16 9 people that were on that committee, and while we might not 10 all agree, which we didn't, on even the proposal, we heard 11 the same thing. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Region J made a 13 presentation, too. There was probably half the members 14 there when I was there that night. So, I don't know 15 anything about Representative Hilderbran's committee. I've 16 never received a report; I don't know anything about it, 17 really. All I know is that those agencies -- the population 18 issue raised, those two agencies communicated and agreed. 19 And they agreed to meet, if you look at the minutes from 20 Region J, about every month for the last, probably, three 21 years. So, anyway, that's all. 22 MR. WARREN: They have an individual -- I 23 can't -- I can't recall his name. I can describe him. 24 Little, bitty, short guy with a mustache that presented the 25 dichotomy of population. And he's going down, and effluent 2-24-03 22 1 water is going up. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 MR. WARREN: Those are the facts we had to 4 take into account. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions for 6 Mr. Warren? Thank you, sir. We appreciate you being here. 7 MR. WARREN: Thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bill Stone. 9 MR. STONE: I'll just make a very short 10 presentation here. I oppose on the -- the -- I don't see 11 that they're going to gain anything from it, and they're a 12 state agency. You're going to try to set up a nine-man 13 board, and locally elected, and it can be influenced 14 politically too much. So, my -- I'm just against the 15 proposal. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Mr. Lewis E. 17 Cosby. 18 MR. COSBY: Morning, gentlemen. Thank you 19 for having this -- having this agenda item here today. We 20 appreciate it. A lot of folks have worked very hard sending 21 around petitions throughout the county, talking to people, 22 having meetings at people's homes, talking about the water 23 issue. And because of all of those -- those petitions and 24 all those concerned citizens, Representative Hilderbran came 25 in here and set up a citizens' committee to study this. 2-24-03 23 1 He's listening to the people. I'm hoping that you will, 2 'cause this is what the people want. And they've put a lot 3 of thought in this, a lot of work, and I hope that you 4 gentlemen this morning will consider that when you decide 5 what you're going to vote, and support this resolution. 6 It's important to us. It will reduce our taxes, and that's 7 something that we need to have done in this county. We 8 don't need two separate boards controlling our water. One 9 can do it. If we have it -- an elected board, then they 10 have to answer to the people. Right now, Headwaters 11 doesn't -- I mean U.G.R.A. doesn't; they're not elected. 12 The people have no say in what they do. Headwaters, it's a 13 different story. But you can look already in the newspaper 14 in the last few weeks, all of the stories about Headwaters, 15 the mismanagement there, the loss of moneys, the fact that 16 nobody's bonded when they're supposed to be bonded. Maybe 17 we need some people out here, citizens looking at that and 18 supervising these people. That's why I support this, and I 19 hope that you gentlemen will too. Thank you. 20 (Applause.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Mr. James F. 22 Hayes, president, Headwaters Groundwater Conservation 23 District. 24 MR. HAYES: Thank you, gentlemen. Honorable 25 Judge Tinley and Honorable Commissioners of Kerr County, my 2-24-03 24 1 name is James F. Hayes, and I am President of the Board of 2 Directors of Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District. 3 I come before you today to urge your vote against the 4 proposed resolution that would support legislation merging 5 Headwaters and U.G.R.A. into a single entity. The Board of 6 Directors, at our February 12, 2003 Headwaters meeting, 7 spoke and voted against this proposal. Each director spoke 8 against the proposal from his own perspective. While we're 9 not always united, we vote -- we voted unanimously against 10 the opening of our legislation. I am -- I know most of the 11 distinguished people that serve on the water advisory 12 committee. Many are my friends, and I respect their 13 opinions. However, as president of Headwaters and as 14 individually, I respectively disagree with their decision to 15 recommend the merger of the two entities. To merge 16 Headwaters and U.G.R.A. would be like trying to merge the 17 army and the navy. The army and navy operate in two 18 different environments, as do Headwaters and U.G.R.A., and a 19 merger would not be beneficial to the citizens of Kerr 20 County. 21 Surface water is owned by the State of Texas, 22 and in Kerr County the state water is overseen by U.G.R.A. 23 through its authority granted to it by the State of Texas. 24 Kerr County is the only county in Texas to have a one-county 25 water authority. If we play fast and loose with U.G.R.A., 2-24-03 25 1 Guadalupe Blanco River Authority will gladly take this over. 2 If we lose U.G.R.A. to Blanco -- Guadalupe Blanco River 3 Authority, we'll be taking our issues to Seguin instead of 4 taking them across the river to visit with our friends and 5 neighbors about it. G.B.R.A. has some groundwater authority 6 in place, and that would threaten the Headwaters effort. 7 The preferred method of groundwater regulation in the state 8 of Texas is through independent groundwater districts. 9 We're fortunate in Kerr County that Headwaters is a 10 single-county district. All of our directors are local 11 residents and are elected to four-year terms. The citizens 12 of this county have the opportunity each year to change the 13 complexion of this board. There are two open positions on 14 the board this year, and the election is May 3rd. Sign-up 15 is going on as we speak. Each board member serves without 16 pay and puts in an abundance of time and effort. 17 Headwaters is still a new district by water 18 district standards. The oldest water conservation district 19 in Texas is the High Plains Water District in Lubbock. I 20 grew up on the South Plains and lived the better part of my 21 life in the Texas panhandle, where there are numerous other 22 water districts that contribute economically and to the 23 quality of life of the citizens who reside in these areas. 24 All of these districts have had growing pains in the early 25 stages. Headwaters has had growing pains also. However, 2-24-03 26 1 with time, this district will become a significant asset to 2 this county. Give us time to become involved with us. If 3 you're unhappy, offer up the candidates and then go vote. 4 If it is the objective of your vote to strike 5 down a board that has been duly appointed by the governor of 6 Texas that has oversight of state water, and to strike down 7 a duly elected board that oversees and manages groundwater 8 for the district of Kerr County, both offering local 9 control, then your objective will be realized if you vote 10 for this resolution. If it is the goal of your vote to risk 11 both the entities because there are a few disgruntled, vocal 12 persons who do not get requests granted to their 13 satisfaction, then your goal will be realized when you vote 14 for this resolution. If it is your objective to create a 15 super agency that would possibly be less responsive, then a 16 vote for this resolution will start that train down the 17 track. If it is your goal to risk both entities to the 18 whims of the Legislature, who may or may not be swayed by 19 our local representation, then that's where we're going. 20 Remember, an elephant is a cow after a committee of the 21 Legislature has worked on it. 22 And last, but not least, what do you say to 23 the Headwaters board candidates? They're in the process of 24 filing and gearing up for a campaign. Your vote for the 25 resolution will say to them, You can run, but you will only 2-24-03 27 1 have a four-month term. How many good people are willing to 2 put their names on the line for a four-month term? Would 3 you? Kerrville and Kerr County enjoy a good community 4 value. By that, I mean we're located in a good area, and 5 people want to live and work here. Basically, Kerr County 6 is a good neighborhood. Few are leaving and many are 7 coming. Good community is no accident; generally as a 8 result of moderate taxation and moderate regulation. 9 U.G.R.A. and Headwaters should both use good judgment in the 10 application of rules and good judgment in the assessment of 11 taxes and fees. No doubt, we have failed to meet the 12 citizens' needs in some areas, but failing on some issues is 13 no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Good 14 community values is indicative of rising real estate values 15 and an ever-increasing tax base. Basically, community value 16 is defined as a value of all the future benefits when added 17 together. So, having said this from both the position of 18 president of Headwaters and personally, I urge you to vote 19 no on the resolution. Let's find a better way to solve our 20 problem. Thank you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Any 22 questions for Mr. Hayes? 23 (Applause.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Tom Milligan. 25 MR. MILLIGAN: Morning. Judge Henneke and I 2-24-03 28 1 decided a while ago that I might chicken out and walk out 2 and not testify. Good morning, gentlemen. My name is Tom 3 Milligan, and I'm a resident of Kerr County, Precinct 1, 4 for -- be 10 years in October. And I admit to former mayor 5 of Bluebonnet. If I had the -- the vote, and the Headwaters 6 were a dictator a number of years ago, I would -- Headwaters 7 would have never been created. I was a press agent, 8 information education director of the Texas Water 9 Commission, predated by Texas Water Development Board; 10 changed names, Texas Water Precinct, so forth. Well, 11 actually, I was on my way to retirement; it wasn't a 12 full-time -- I was a full-time employee, but some delegates 13 of Kerr County had to get a groundwater district created, 14 I'm told, and I can't prove it. Some of us ex-Water 15 Development Board, by that time, they were locked out of 16 those meetings, because mid-level and geologists thought -- 17 have told me this is not a critical groundwater area. 18 But let me go back to your agenda item. I'm 19 for the merger of the two -- two entities. I've been in the 20 water reporting business since 1953, commercial, and then 15 21 years at the state. And I didn't get appointed or asked to 22 be on this Water Advisory Committee, but Representative 23 Hilderbran offered me the opportunity, or -- or said he 24 would, to look at a draft of this before y'all got it, and I 25 didn't see it till last week, which is beside the point. 2-24-03 29 1 Yes, this is the only one-county water authority. Oh, by 2 the way, one of my credentials I'm rather proud of, I was a 3 director of the Headwaters district for about three or four 4 hours. 5 (Laughter.) 6 MR. MILLIGAN: George Holekamp, Mary 7 Virginia, and one or two others got me to run as soon as I 8 moved to Kerrville, so I did, and I won by 8 or 10 votes. 9 And a well driller, Mr. Edmonds, called for a recount, got 10 him a lawyer, spent money which I didn't spend, 'cause I'm a 11 poor boy; I don't get this Social Security, and I lost by 12 three or four votes. Well, the old lady election judge -- 13 god bless her, I can't remember her name -- said the ballot 14 box had to be mailed. But I got sworn in to serve one day, 15 and we had an executive session. And I think, Fred, were 16 you our lawyer then, that day I served? It was executive 17 session. Is it legal to tell what Colonel Parker said in 18 there? Look at -- yeah. Anyway, you're not interested in 19 history. 20 Do you know, I -- after hearing Mr. Griffin, 21 I tend to agree. It really ain't none of the Court's 22 business at this point to -- to -- unless you get out and we 23 get public participation when we see a draft of this 24 legislation more extensive and spelled out. And, you know, 25 I admire you for taking the challenge here, but Harvey told 2-24-03 30 1 me a long time ago -- I mean Representative Hilderbran -- 2 that he was -- I don't know what he's going to do if y'all 3 turn the resolution -- just say, you know, you're not going 4 to recommend this. I was hoping he'd be here today. But, 5 you know, in the long haul of water business, it really 6 ain't going to make a whole lot of difference, except to us 7 bureaucrats. The public can participate at any level if 8 they're willing to get off their duff and get involved on 9 water issues. I tried to write during the drought for 10 commercial newspapers, magazines, success stories coping 11 with no rain, and it wasn't a pleasant chore, but I made $50 12 a week doing it. 13 I put my trust in y'all. Most of you 14 Commissioners and new County Judge, in their wisdom, if you 15 want to be a big dog in this fight over these two agencies, 16 why, just get with it. And I might ought to -- you know, 17 they didn't tell you a while ago, Brother Hayes, who -- and 18 the article in the newspaper didn't say. It mentioned it 19 would have two distinct divisions, a groundwater division 20 and surface water division. Now, way back there -- you 21 know, and water don't stop at the county line, Commissioner 22 Letz, and all that business. But I sat and watched them for 23 years, Texas Water Development Board, taking census and 24 population projections, and 25, 30 years ago you didn't have 25 to go to -- threaten to go to court to get yours adjusted 2-24-03 31 1 and changed. You go to Dr. Herv Grupp, Texas Tech guru, 2 who's now -- well, very good man. 3 (Discussion off the record.) 4 MR. MILLIGAN: I asked the former Judge if 5 y'all had a time limit. A few times I've been before bodies 6 like this -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The answer is yes. 8 (Laughter.) 9 MR. MILLIGAN: I believe the County Judge -- 10 my question was addressed to him. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. You said 12 "y'all." 13 MR. MILLIGAN: Thank you very much. 14 Appreciate your courtesy. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Milligan. 16 (Applause.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Fred Henneke. 18 MR. HENNEKE: That's a hard act to follow; 19 that's not fair. Everyone, my name is Fred Henneke. I live 20 at 1207 Warbler in Kerrville. I rise in opposition to the 21 resolution, and I would like briefly to remind you all that 22 Representative Hilderbran's committee, which has gotten a 23 great deal of attention today, had a 16-person committee. 24 The vote on the proposition that's now embodied in the 25 legislation before you is, taking that one meeting, without 2-24-03 32 1 prior notice, the proposition got seven votes, which is 2 significantly less than a majority. There were six votes 3 registered against the proposition, leaving three members of 4 the committee who were not registered as either in favor or 5 opposed. I believe strongly, from visiting with the members 6 of the committee, that those members of the committee would 7 have been -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Use the microphone, if you 9 would, please. People in the back are not able to hear. 10 MR. HENNEKE: Thank you, Judge. I apologize. 11 I believe strongly that the members of the committee whose 12 votes were not registered would have been opposed to the 13 proposition. I do not believe that a signif -- that a 14 change of this stature and importance is in order with less 15 than overwhelming support from the majority of the 16 population, if not at least from the majority of the body 17 that considered the resolution. I believe it requires a 18 great deal of study, a great deal of thought, and a great 19 deal of evangelism if a change of this nature is to be 20 presented to the Legislature, and the people who then are in 21 support of the resolution are in need and encouraged to go 22 to the Legislature and speak in favor of it. I believe with 23 the division of the community that we have today, if the 24 legislation before you were to be introduced and presented 25 at a committee hearing before the Legislature, you would 2-24-03 33 1 find the unique situation of the community in which the 2 legislation was designed being very greatly divided as to 3 its benefits, and I don't think that serves any of us at 4 this point in time. I would urge you all to vote against 5 the resolution. Thank you. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 7 (Applause.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any other persons 9 here in the audience that wish to speak in favor of the 10 proposed legislation? Would you please come forward, ma'am? 11 And you'll need to give your name when you come forward. I 12 wasn't referring to you, Marie. I was referring to the lady 13 behind you. I'll get to you. 14 MS. DAVIS: All right, I'll sit right here. 15 MS. RACKLEY: My name is Shirley Rackley. My 16 address is Boerne, Texas; however, I own property in Kerr 17 County, and I'm incensed at -- and I support the merger, and 18 for a very good reason. I personally asked to see the 19 budgets of both entities. I was told that they were not 20 available to the public. Those are public entities, and 21 they are, by law -- since I was a federal auditor -- 22 required to have a budget available to the public. I'm 23 incensed that anybody in this room would tolerate these type 24 of headlines with directors. I will be glad to hand these 25 out to you if you would like to see them. One says 2-24-03 34 1 Headwaters Directors Disagree. What is a budget? The 2 budget is published. It's not a budget, it's just some 3 numbers put on a paper. It doesn't show where any revenues 4 from permits -- doesn't show anything. It's -- it's 5 disgusting. It's appalling. And it shows that an 6 interested citizen had to go file in Kimble County against 7 Headwaters, instead of being able to file in Kerr County. 8 So, I support the merger, and I'd like to be on that board. 9 (Applause.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Bronson Evans. 11 MR. EVANS: I'm a resident of Hunt, and I 12 just wanted to get my opinion noted that I agree with 13 Mr. Henneke and Mr. Griffin on their points, and they're 14 very much against the merger. Thank you. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Ms. Davis? 16 MS. DAVIS: Good morning. I'm Marie Davis. 17 I live in Precinct 1, and I support the merger. I think if 18 there has ever been a time in our history that we need 19 smaller government and lower taxes, it's now. Thank you. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 21 (Applause.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: John D. Fatheree. 23 MR. FATHEREE: I'm John Fatheree from Hunt, 24 Texas. I'll be very brief; Commissioner Baldwin can get his 25 lunch on time. I oppose the resolution. I don't think the 2-24-03 35 1 -- the Court should be involved in this at this point. It's 2 an unfiled bill. I think it's a mistake to merge these two 3 entities. I think they do have different purposes. So, I 4 would ask the Court please oppose this or not pass this 5 resolution. Thank you. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there 7 anyone else who desires to speak in favor of the resolution? 8 Yes, sir? You may come forward. Please give your name 9 before you speak. 10 MR. BASS: My name is Randy Bass. I'm a 11 sixth-generation resident of west Kerr County; been in Hunt 12 all my life. Water in Kerr County is my life. I'm in the 13 water business; I'm a pump installer. I'm also representing 14 the newly formed group, Concerned Citizens for Fair Water 15 Regulations in Kerr County, and I would like to point out a 16 few things that I think are being overlooked. First of all, 17 there's too much made out of the separation of surface water 18 and groundwater, and I'll point a couple examples out to you 19 that may make that clear. Before we had a river, it was 20 groundwater. The water that feeds the Guadalupe River is 21 coming out of the ground. Because of that, it's pretty 22 hard, in my mind, to completely separate them. Secondly, 23 the biggest water user in Kerr County is the City of 24 Kerrville. City of Kerrville pumps out of the groundwater; 25 also pumps out of the river. Not only do they pump out of 2-24-03 36 1 both, they treat ground -- surface water and put it back in 2 the ground. 3 Now, I want to ask you, whose water is it? I 4 feel like that it started out as groundwater. It may have 5 been surface water for a little while, but now it's being 6 put back in the ground, so I don't see any reason why one 7 authority can't have jurisdiction over both. And I seem to 8 hear from the people that are opposing this resolution that 9 they think there has to be a loss of authority because you 10 combine two agencies into one. I don't see that problem at 11 all. If we're going to have legislation that will change 12 the format and allow this to take place, I see no reason why 13 Kerr County Water Authority cannot have authority over both, 14 cannot participate in the Region J water, just as they're 15 doing now separately. But it looks like, to me, if you've 16 got one agency that is controlling all of the water in Kerr 17 County, there has -- there is no need to lose any authority, 18 to lose any local control, and instead of having a 19 two-headed dragon, maybe just have one. You're going to 20 have a dragon either way, but I think it's easier to fight 21 one head than it is two. So, I definitely support this 22 resolution based on that fact, plus I'm not opposed to 23 having a little lower taxes either. Thank you. 24 (Applause.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Bass. And I 2-24-03 37 1 want to thank all of you who took the time to come here 2 today to give us your views, and we appreciate that. We 3 need to know what the citizens are thinking about particular 4 issues that come before the Court. The matter is now before 5 the Court, and I guess the question is, where do we go from 6 here, gentlemen? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I have some 8 comments that I'd like to make, and I feel like everyone at 9 this table probably does as well. I want to tell a little 10 story about Senate Bill 1 and Region J. Several years ago, 11 Commissioner Letz and I got ahold of Senate Bill Number 1, 12 and we had to buy us a wheelbarrow to carry that thing 13 around for a while, but we started looking into it. And the 14 more we looked into it, the more serious business we saw in 15 it, and that was particularly the development of the 16 regional water plan, and ultimately the state water plan. 17 And we read the thing and saw the direction it was going, 18 and realized that if we wanted to -- Kerr County to 19 participate and be able to protect our own waters, that we'd 20 better get busy early and get -- get in the program. 21 So, he and I hopped in the car and drove to 22 Bandera and met with the county judge and loaded him up, and 23 went to Rocksprings and met with the county judge, and 24 ultimately ended up down in Del Rio, and worked our way west 25 down to the border, and designed what we know today as 2-24-03 38 1 Region J. And Jon and I took that to Austin and met with 2 the Executive Director of the Water Development Board, and 3 walked into his office, said, "Here's our plan, and we're 4 pretty adamant about this plan, and we want -- this is what 5 we want to do." And a few months later, when the Water 6 Development Board was ready to vote on creating the regions 7 around the state, Region J's proposal came up, and the City 8 of San Antonio was there to protest with a loud voice, 9 because they wanted to -- Kerrville and Kerr County included 10 in the same region as Bexar County and San Antonio. But 11 guess what? The Water Development Board told them no, that 12 Kerr County has put together a plan and had several months 13 ago, and therefore, the Region J was birthed at that time. 14 Not only that, we got Commissioner Letz put 15 in as the chairman of that region, and through his hard work 16 and diligence, has built Region J as one of the leaders in 17 the state. Now, they came along and put together the water 18 plan for Region J and turned it in, and then the State takes 19 all the regions and puts them together to make a state water 20 plan. That plan is not 100 percent complete yet. My -- one 21 of my fears is that we -- we are -- we can base part of our 22 vote today on the issue of we're not sure where the state 23 water plan is and what it does. We're not -- I don't have a 24 lot of confidence in it. You know, our health and safety is 25 in jeopardy as long as the Legislature's in session. And, 2-24-03 39 1 you know, at any point up in Austin, there can be 2 amendments; there can be all kinds of things happen, as we 3 all know. And I just kind of have the fear -- have a fear 4 of something going awry there, and we're really not sure 5 what plan -- what's -- what the plan is going to be for the 6 water in Kerr County, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 7 Now, besides that, the State came up with, a 8 couple of years ago, a groundwater management area. If you 9 looked at a map and looked at the State's groundwater 10 management area, that does include Kerr County and Bexar 11 County. They're in the same area. This Commissioners Court 12 last year sent a resolution to the State opposing this area, 13 and did not want -- we clearly said we do not want to be 14 included in anything that San Antonio does, much less water. 15 And, to me -- I mean, I've got this sometimes devious mind, 16 but I can see -- what makes me scared -- I'll just lay it on 17 the table. What makes me fear all of these things, I can 18 see us consolidating the groundwater and the surface water 19 together, and San Antonio tap into all of it. That's a 20 scary thought to me. There's a lot of us have been here a 21 long time, protecting the water rights and the water of Kerr 22 County, Texas, against San Antonio in particular, and I'm 23 going to continue that. 24 I know I don't agree with everybody in here. 25 I've had -- actually, there's been two folks from Precinct 1 2-24-03 40 1 that spoke here today that are in favor of this issue. It's 2 the only two that I've heard from, and I saw them today. 3 So -- and, believe me, my telephone has been ringing a lot, 4 at my house all weekend long. I guess -- I guess it just 5 hit the papers at the end of the week or something. I don't 6 know what triggered all that, but I'm glad it did. And 7 that's where I'm at in the issue, and I just -- I just think 8 that in everything that this court does, we need to be 9 careful how we go about doing things, and -- and that's what 10 I intend to do as your representative. Commissioner 11 Williams? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this will come 13 as no surprise to my colleagues, who I've served on this 14 court for some four-plus years, that I will have something 15 to say about it. And for the new Judge and Commissioner 16 Nicholson, I do, in fact, have a few thoughts that I think 17 need to be imparted to you. Kind of interesting to me how 18 history has a way of repeating itself. Sixty-four years 19 ago, a group of people from Kerr County petitioned the 20 Legislature to establish the Upper Guadalupe River Authority 21 for the very express purpose of protecting our river -- our 22 stretch of the river, and doing those things necessary to 23 properly manage our surface water. Here we are 64 years 24 later, and we're sitting here in Commissioners Courtroom and 25 we're debating whether or not the U.G.R.A. should continue 2-24-03 41 1 its life as a single entity or be merged as -- into some 2 other entity, which may or may not have the same vision and 3 authority and opportunity to serve the people that asked for 4 it to be created. 5 After an unprecedented yearlong assault on 6 the U.G.R.A., we're here today attempting to convince our 7 State Representative whether it's good to have one agency or 8 we should have two agencies, as it was originally intended 9 by the Legislature. In my opinion, this whole harangue over 10 the past year has been about septic tanks and State and 11 County rules and regulations governing their use. Perhaps 12 there may even be some personal agendas in here as well. 13 For the past year, U.G.R.A., its board, its employees, and 14 Headwaters and its board and its employees, have been 15 publicly pilloried, particularly U.G.R.A., for administering 16 Kerr County's on-site sewage facilities, and as everybody in 17 this room knows, those rules are promulgated by the State of 18 Texas. We've been repeatedly told that U.G.R.A. 19 detractors -- by U.G.R.A.'s detractors that about 2,000 Kerr 20 County residents have signed petitions calling for the 21 abolition, or more recently, the merger of U.G.R.A. with the 22 County's other water regulating agency, Headwaters. By my 23 calculation, that's about 4.5 percent of Kerr County's 24 population, which tells me that 95.5 percent of the people 25 in Kerr County are, as typically is the case in the United 2-24-03 42 1 States of America, the silent majority. 2 So, the following reasons I advance to you 3 support my belief that the legislative intervention that 4 Representative Hilderbran is being pressured into 5 introducing is bad for Kerr County. U.G.R.A. is a river 6 authority by statute, a water conservation agency. 7 Headwaters is a regulatory agency. The agencies have 8 differing legislative intents, missions, and purposes, 9 which, if combined, will ultimately lead to conflict. An 10 example: Would the combined agency allow groundwater to be 11 used to augment river flow to the City in times of drought, 12 to the possible detriment of the thousands in the county who 13 rely on groundwater? Think about it. Legislature -- 14 legislation initially creating Headwaters put that agency 15 under the administrative management of U.G.R.A. Shortly 16 thereafter, all the concerned citizens realized that their 17 conflicting missions created major problems. Representative 18 Hilderbran then introduced legislation permitting Headwaters 19 to go about its business on its own. Surface water is owned 20 by the State, and river authorities were designed and 21 legislatively created to protect statewide resources from 22 the vagaries of local politics. Groundwater is available 23 for use by whoever owns the land it is under, so it's a 24 controlled -- controlled locally. There is no overriding 25 state interest in terms of groundwater. 2-24-03 43 1 This proposed legislation puts local politics 2 right smack-dab in the middle of our water, and in my 3 opinion, that is wrong, wrong, wrong. So, I think 4 Representative Hilderbran's Water Advisory Committee, after 5 hours of listening and discussing the notion, they managed 6 only a bare majority in favor of a merger, and they 7 discarded the notion of abolishing U.G.R.A. Mr. Warren has 8 put a lot of time in on this proposal, and it came out of 9 the committee. It does not eliminate bureaucracy. In fact, 10 it adds a layer to it to be funded by the taxpayers. In 11 fact, there are no savings to taxpayers in the proposed 12 legislation. Currently, the combined agencies' tax rates 13 are below the proposed cap; thus, no savings. Of greater 14 concern, a cap imposed without taking into account the costs 15 of future worthy and desperately needed county projects is 16 shortsighted. The problem today is not the existence of two 17 water agencies in Kerr County, but the perceptions held by 18 special interest groups about each county's or each agency's 19 administration. If there are problems to be addressed, we 20 should take them up with the governing bodies in charge, 21 seeking solutions instead of creating a new entity that has 22 the potential to obstruct or dilute the ability of each 23 agency to perform within the Legislature's intent. 24 As to water diversion rights and beneficial 25 projects for Kerr County, think about this one. U.G.R.A. is 2-24-03 44 1 the holder of 2,000 acre feet of water diversion rights for 2 the use of its citizens who live outside Kerrville city 3 limits. This permit expires in 2010. That means we have 4 seven years left to use it or lose it. Water treatment and 5 distribution projects are not put together overnight. 6 Political distractions have cost the U.G.R.A. 12 to 18 7 months of work on needed projects, and who knows how much 8 more time will be lost if its governance is changed. Who 9 among us wants to take the blame for losing 720 million 10 gallons of surface water annually if the water rights 11 diversion deadline is not met? You think about that one. 12 U.G.R.A. is involved in several projects important to Kerr 13 County's water quality. For instance, the wastewater 14 treatment collection system has been designed and 15 construction is underway in an area of Kerrville South where 16 there is a high concentration of failing septic systems, 17 tanks that are now polluting Camp Meeting Creek. The 18 project involves Kerr County, the City of Kerrville, and the 19 Upper Guadalupe River Authority. 20 U.G.R.A. and the City were in negotiations 21 for expansion of the water treatment facility, which would 22 allow U.G.R.A. to begin distribution of some of the 2,000 23 acre feet to unincorporated areas. The meter is likewise 24 running on this one. Mapping for a Center Point wastewater 25 collection system and a consolidated water system needs to 2-24-03 45 1 get started now. Headwaters is engaged in aquifer well 2 monitoring and establishing pumping regulations, both vital 3 to our future use of groundwater. It is time to remove the 4 cloud of uncertainty from U.G.R.A. and Headwaters so that 5 these agencies can get about the business they were meant to 6 do. Finally, as to governance of the boards. Personally, I 7 would not presume to tell the governor of Texas that he is 8 incapable of selecting and appointing qualified, respectable 9 citizens competent among us to serve the best interests of 10 the state of Texas and Kerr County. That is the heighth, in 11 my opinion, of impudence, so I would hope that 12 Representative Hilderbran after today would shake his head 13 and say about this legislation, it's not a good idea. It's 14 time for it to go away. Thank you, Judge. 15 (Applause.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. 17 Commissioner Letz? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comments will be a 19 little bit briefer, I think, but I do have a few things I 20 would like to say, and they go a lot to -- going back to the 21 committee a little bit. And when I talked to -- or asked 22 some of the questions to Mr. Warren, it's kind of the guts 23 of what I was -- one of my concerns is. I wasn't part of 24 the committee. I don't know who the committee talked to. I 25 don't know what the people were asked. I don't know how 2-24-03 46 1 much time they had. I don't really know anything about the 2 committee, other than a few articles I read in the paper. 3 And while I hope that was reliable, I'm not going to bank on 4 that either. So, you know, I'm -- I feel like I'm at a -- 5 sorry, Greg. But I don't -- so I don't have any report as 6 to what the committee did, wants to do, what they looked at, 7 or anything like that, and yet I've been presented with a 8 draft of legislation based on the committee. I can't do 9 that. I mean, I -- even if I was going to be in favor of 10 this concept, which I'm not, I need more information. I 11 mean, it doesn't make sense to me that we're being asked to 12 make a recommendation to the Legislature on something I 13 don't know anything about. So, that's just kind of my first 14 problem I have with the process we're in right now. 15 From listening to people today and other 16 times, you know, there's a lot of -- evidently a lot of 17 frustrations and a lot of concerns, but I'm not sure which 18 of these concerns the legislation is really aimed at trying 19 to correct. I've heard very little today about, really, the 20 science related to groundwater, surface water, and a lot of 21 things that I've had -- I've learned a lot about recently on 22 Region J; very little that this is a better way to manage 23 water in the state of Texas. I haven't heard -- I think 24 Mr. Bass was really the only one that even addressed that 25 difference between groundwater and surface water in this 2-24-03 47 1 area. It is a very hazy line. But, to me, it's a -- if 2 there is a better way to do it, well, then it should be done 3 statewide. Kerr County shouldn't be treated differently 4 from a legal standpoint with water than every other portion 5 of the state. So, if it's truly felt by the State of Texas 6 and its citizens that we should really start merging surface 7 water and groundwater, it needs to be done statewide. I 8 don't want Kerr County to be a guinea pig, because I think 9 that leads us down a very scary road potentially. 10 A lot of what I hear as the reason for the 11 legislation is discontent with both entities. If that's the 12 reason, well, then we need to go back in the community, and 13 I would certainly help -- and I've been very critical of 14 both these agencies at times. They need to do a better job. 15 But there's no reason to combine them because you're mad at 16 each of them. That doesn't make sense either. I hear a -- 17 concerns about taxation, and it usually -- a lot of times 18 that follows with taxation without representation or 19 lowering taxes. Well, I -- I don't think this would set 20 lower taxes by combining them, based on the -- the draft 21 that I've looked at. But I do have an issue -- and I agree 22 with, I think, all the comments -- or many of the comments 23 that I've heard about the fact that an appointed board has 24 the ability to tax. And I would be much more inclined to go 25 down that road and see how to correct that problem, but that 2-24-03 48 1 has nothing to do with combining the two entities, in my 2 mind. 3 Another problem I have with the process right 4 now is that, one, it still is a draft legislation, and I 5 have learned as a Commissioner that every time I vote on 6 something before it's the final version, I get burned, so 7 I'm not doing that any more. Now, if they want to resubmit 8 this to the Court at a later time when they have a final 9 version, then, you know, that's another issue. And, related 10 to that, I don't know if everyone in the room has read or 11 not the -- the draft that Representative Hilderbran 12 submitted to the Commissioners Court, but most of the -- 13 it's a very short bill. But it refers to Article 16 of the 14 Constitution and Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Development 15 Code, and that's really where all the changes are made. I 16 didn't -- I received this late last week. I haven't had 17 time to go back and really look at what this bill does. It 18 has great and very far-reaching ramifications, I do know 19 that. 20 And I think the final thing that I want to 21 say is -- and going on -- I touched on it a minute ago. It 22 goes back to property rights. One of the things that I have 23 been -- you know, tried to be a very strong advocate of is 24 private property rights, and right, I guess, closely related 25 to that is local control. That's something that 2-24-03 49 1 Commissioner Baldwin mentioned, when I first got involved 2 with Region J. He and I agree with that, and we have fought 3 very hard to keep -- you know, fight for property rights and 4 fight for local control. I'm very scared, by combining 5 these agencies, you're combining a -- a surface water that 6 is owned by the State with groundwater, which is owned by 7 individuals. And when that happens, to me, we're merging or 8 getting closer to, you know, making that line even vaguer 9 than it already is. And I know from dealing -- my dealings 10 with Region J and dealing with the entities in Austin, they 11 would be nothing happier for them to get rid of the rule of 12 capture, get rid of property rights, owners owning 13 groundwater. It would make it a lot easier for the State. 14 And I see this as potentially a step down that road, and 15 that's probably the biggest reason I'm not in favor of it. 16 Thank you. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What we're faced 19 with in Kerr County is unique. We have two single -- two 20 single-county agencies that have the responsibility to 21 protect our water, surface and subsurface. Both doing a 22 poor job. They're poorly planning and they're a burden to 23 taxpayers, and they are insensitive to the needs of their 24 constituents. The good news is that there's a solution 25 readily available. We have the opportunity to resolve this 2-24-03 50 1 intolerable situation by merging the two agencies under new 2 management, with oversight by an elected board, selected by 3 the people who they serve. We have the opportunity to 4 create an agency that would be effective in protecting our 5 precious water resources, and do that in a way that is both 6 cost-effective and user-friendly. Over the past few years, 7 we've become increasingly aware of both the need to be 8 proactive in protecting our water, and also become aware 9 that the two agencies charged with that responsibility are 10 not doing that job. It's not new news. Often our 11 newspapers contain stories about their mismanagement, and 12 citizens have increasing alarm about the appalling 13 situation, and citizens' groups have been formed in an 14 attempt to deal with the problem. 15 Two failing agencies, the Headwaters 16 Underground Water District and the Upper Guadalupe River 17 Authority. I can't say much about Headwaters that hasn't 18 already been chronicled in the newspapers. Watching 19 Headwaters operate would be comical if it wasn't so tragic. 20 They're so dysfunctional the director had to use the Open 21 Records Act to get information about the agency that he was 22 elected to manage. Board members have had to resort to 23 asking the District Attorney to investigate the conduct of 24 other board members. Attending their board meetings is 25 comical; best entertainment in town, and it's free, unless 2-24-03 51 1 you're a taxpayer. If you believe for a minute that this 2 agency can fix what's wrong with it and get back to the 3 critical work of protecting our aquifers, you're way too 4 naive. They're broke and they need a fix. 5 U.G.R.A. is not funny. It has a history -- a 6 tragic history of extravagance, incompetence, and 7 misconduct. U.G.R.A. has squandered taxpayers' dollars on a 8 series of expensive projects like the ASR well and the flood 9 warning system; probably about $2 million on those two 10 projects alone. They've squandered more than a half million 11 dollars on their extravagant office empire that's about 12 three times the space that they require. They're hostile 13 and abusive with their constituents, and they're 14 continuously on the prowl for ways to satisfy their lust for 15 power and additional revenues. U.G.R.A.'s a disaster, and 16 it's a disaster that we're paying for in terms of tax 17 dollars and the angst of having to deal with mean-spirited 18 bureaucrats and the failure to protect our water. 19 U.G.R.A.'s deteriorated too far to be a candidate to be 20 fixed by an overhaul. It requires major surgery, and the 21 surgery cannot wait. If we don't find a cure now, the 22 disaster will only worsen. 23 Kerr County citizens have been crying out for 24 several years. They're frustrated by their inability to get 25 local officials to act on their grievances. The citizens 2-24-03 52 1 have periodically formed ad hoc committees or groups in an 2 attempt to bring attention to the need for reform. Mostly 3 these efforts have been ignored, or the people who work on 4 it have been -- have been denigrated. They've been referred 5 to as small groups of radicals, special interest groups who 6 want to pollute the environment, vigilantes, crooks, or 7 other labels to discredit them while preserving the 8 status-quo of a political system open only to an elite few. 9 That strategy was a mistake. The concerned citizens have 10 grown larger and their voices have grown louder. While the 11 politicians ignored them, the bureaucrats at the U.G.R.A. 12 employed a circle-the-wagons strategy; ignore them and 13 stonewall them and they'll go away, just like the other 14 groups did. One of these groups, with no budget and no 15 organization, mobilized hundreds of people and collected 16 more than 2,000 signatures to inform the County about the 17 abuses of the U.G.R.A. They petitioned their State 18 Representative to abolish the U.G.R.A. 19 Now, for the first time, an elected official 20 took the time to listen to these grievances and to follow up 21 on citizens' concerns. Our State Representative, Harvey 22 Hilderbran, met with concerned citizens and then established 23 a committee consisting of a cross-section of community 24 leaders to look into the problems that had been exposed. 25 This committee worked hard to do the research needed to 2-24-03 53 1 understand the problem and to devise a workable solution. 2 The Hilderbran committee solution proposes to reorganize 3 water management in Kerr County. It provides for citizens 4 to have a say in water management by electing the board of 5 -- of the reorganized entity, and to provide for a permanent 6 method of redress of grievance. This brilliant solution has 7 the potential to solve all of the problems we're currently 8 experiencing, to do that in a cost-effective way. It will 9 reduce -- reduce the tax cap of the combined agencies by 10 25 percent. Some estimates of the annual cost savings of 11 combining the two shows that it would produce more than 12 $200,000 a year in savings. 13 Our Representative, Mr. Hilderbran, has 14 prepared a legislation for us to realize this effective 15 government, and asks Commissioners Court to indicate its 16 endorsement to the legislation. I am grateful to 17 Mr. Hilderbran for his commitment to the people of Kerr 18 County for and for his leadership on this critical issue. 19 I'm also grateful to the many citizens who have worked hard 20 to improve their government. I fully support this plan for 21 reorganization, and I urge this Court to give it its 22 endorsement. Thank you. 23 (Applause.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Lest we lose sight 25 of what's before us in this proposed draft -- and that's all 2-24-03 54 1 it is at this stage, is a draft. It is unfiled legislation. 2 It is a draft. It is a starting point. When it was 3 submitted to us, the -- the condition to its submission was 4 that in the event there was no resolution by this Court in 5 support of going forward with this draft being filed, it 6 would not be filed. So, what is before us is whether or not 7 we're going to discontinue the debate on a legislative 8 solution, effectively. The debate can continue, but it 9 can't effectively if there's a bill not there to debate. It 10 doesn't mean that there will, ipso facto, be a bill filed 11 and passed and immediately placed into effect. 12 If the Court passes a resolution in favor of 13 the draft as it is before us, there will be a bill filed. 14 The debate will continue. The various concerns will 15 continue to be voiced. The opportunity to voice those 16 concerns will be many and in various locations; I suspect 17 not only in Austin, but also here in Kerr County. So, the 18 action today is not whether or not there will, in fact, be a 19 merger of the functions of those two existing agencies as we 20 know them into one agency. This is only the first step. 21 But without this first step, a possible legislative approach 22 to the problem, whatever you may perceive that problem to 23 be, will no longer be available. I think debate is healthy. 24 I appreciate the interest you citizens have shown, and I 25 think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered, 2-24-03 55 1 and some concerns that need to be probed. Different ideas 2 need to come forward and to be put into the mix on this 3 thing. 4 There are some obvious -- obvious benefits to 5 having a consolidation of government functions. In this 6 case, you would go from two boards to one board. 7 Presumably, that's more efficient. You would go from one 8 general manager -- two general managers to one general 9 manager. Again, presumed efficiency. You would be 10 maintaining one office instead of two. Again, presumed 11 efficiency. The tax cap that is in this current bill -- 12 current draft is less than the tax cap that is available to 13 be imposed upon you now as you sit here today. So, there 14 are a lot of different thoughts to be had with respect to 15 the proposal of consolidating these functions. Contrary 16 to -- contrary to the statement that it would be like 17 merging army and the navy, the army and the navy work under 18 the Department of Defense, and they both got one daddy, and 19 they must necessarily be coordinated, I think. I sure hope 20 they're going to be, or we're going to be in big trouble 21 here pretty quick. 22 The fact that there are differing functions 23 and differing directions that they're coming from from an 24 administrative and bureaucratic standpoint doesn't mean that 25 they cannot administratively be combined under one roof. 2-24-03 56 1 But back to my main point. I think we should keep the 2 debate alive and keep all of the options open to, quote, 3 solve the problem, whatever you perceive that to be, by 4 whatever means, including legislative. And when this draft 5 was forwarded to us by Representative Hilderbran, the 6 indication he gave is that it will not be filed to allow 7 that particular aspect of the debate to continue unless this 8 Court passes a resolution permitting it to be filed. I 9 think the debate will continue irrespective of what happens 10 here today. I hope it does, because it is an important 11 subject. But I think we need to put today's action in the 12 perspective that it really fits. Thank you. 13 (Applause.) 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, may I make one 15 comment? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want to make one 18 comment, and that's going back to the process a little bit. 19 I've been a Commissioner for going on seven years, and this 20 is the first time Representative Hilderbran has given this 21 Commissioners Court veto authority over one of his bills. 22 So, I need to make it clear that the -- you know, from what 23 the Judge was talking about, the -- for the debate to 24 continue. I think debate will continue either way. I think 25 it's good and healthy for the community. But Commissioners 2-24-03 57 1 -- Representative Hilderbran made the decision that he's 2 going to want to hear from the court first. He can file 3 this bill at any time if he so chooses, and, you know, it 4 has nothing to do with what we do as a Commissioners Court. 5 So, I mean, it's -- you know, I appreciate -- I'm glad he is 6 listening to us and turning to us for a dialogue, but for -- 7 you know, I don't think it's an accurate statement that, you 8 know, we're going to prevent the debate from going forward 9 if we don't vote for it. I mean, Representative Hilderbran 10 can clearly file this bill at any time, and that's what he 11 is in office to do. Like I said, we've never -- he's never 12 asked us to do this up to this point in time. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: What's your pleasure, 14 gentlemen? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we 16 endorse the bill as requested by Representative Hilderbran. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion by Commissioner 18 Nicholson that we endorse the draft legislation as proposed 19 by Representative Hilderbran, that legislation relating to 20 the consolidation of the Headwaters Groundwater Conservation 21 District and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority into the 22 Kerr County Water Authority. Do I have a second to the 23 motion? 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Being no second, the Chair 2-24-03 58 1 declares that the motion dies for lack of a second. We have 2 a -- we have a time-specific item for 10:30. It's a bit 3 after that now. I would like to call that particular item. 4 That's 2.12, consider and discuss approving the resolution 5 to join the Safety Incentive Program offered by Kerr 6 County's workers compensation carrier, Texas Association of 7 Counties. I placed this on the agenda after discussing the 8 matter with Larry Boccaccio, who is the Texas Association of 9 Counties' safety representative, and he's here with us 10 today. And I'm sorry we're running a little bit over and we 11 got you on a little late, but we're glad to see you. 12 MR. BOCCACCIO: Thank you, Judge. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I might point out that in the 14 past year, our workmen's compensation rates, through Texas 15 Association of Counties, has decreased approximately 16 20 percent, which is a pretty stunning increase in workmen's 17 compensation rates as those rates go. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you say decreased 19 or increased? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Decreased. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Decreased by 20 -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 19.6, I think, is the 23 figure they -- they gave me. I actually calculated about 22 24 or 23 percent. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like your math better. 2-24-03 59 1 JUDGE TINLEY: My calculation was 23 percent, 2 down from $221,250 to $170,283. That's a pretty good chunk 3 of -- pretty good chunk of money; I calculate over $50,000. 4 So, those are your tax dollars that we managed to hang onto 5 and not send to an insurance company, at least so far. It's 6 a retro audit arrangement, so we'll have to see what the 7 final result is. Mr. Boccaccio? 8 MR. BOCCACCIO: Good morning, Your Honor. I 9 promise you I took a shower this morning, so I -- I saw the 10 crew get up and leave as I walked in, so I just, like -- oh 11 well. Anyway, what I want to present to you is -- is the 12 TAC Safety Incentive Program. And it's similar to what Kerr 13 County participated in -- I believe it was two years ago. 14 The Safety Incentive Program itself is modeled after two 15 programs that the Texas Workers Compensation Commission 16 uses. They use it in their Hazardous Employer Program. 17 They use it in their Rejected Risk Program. What TAC has 18 done, we have basically adopted the same plan, and we put it 19 out to our counties and say, Participate in our plan. 20 Complete all the seven components, and at the end of the 21 year, when we come back and audit it, if everything was done 22 successfully, we'll rebate you 10 percent of your workers 23 comp premium. And for Kerr County, I believe that's about 24 $17,000 -- yeah, almost 18. 17 -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 856. 2-24-03 60 1 MR. BOCCACCIO: $17,856. So, it's a pretty 2 good chunk of money. What I will tell you about the 3 program, it does follow the same seven components that the 4 Commission uses. At a bare minimum, we require Road and 5 Bridge and the Sheriff's Office to participate. Anybody 6 else that -- that you see that has a problem or that I see 7 that has a problem, if -- if we can get them to buy into 8 this safety program, then that's a bonus. But as far -- as 9 I said, bare minimum is Road and Bridge and Sheriff's 10 Office. It does have seven components that are listed in 11 here, and if you'll flip to Page 2, it will show you -- 12 actually Page 1 on this -- it will show you a timeline that 13 we have established. The initial letters went out the first 14 week in January. We're still in the initial phase meeting 15 right now, and I'll actually be completing those with my 16 other seven counties by the end of this week. The adopted 17 resolution is due Friday in Austin. 18 After we've gotten the resolution to 19 participate, then we have approximately two months to get 20 the seven-component accident prevention plan in place. And, 21 if I'm not mistaken, there is already one working; there's 22 one there. I just -- I don't know how much it needs looking 23 at and kind of massaging and seeing what's there. So it's 24 not like you're starting from ground zero and working up; 25 you've got something in place already. We just need to see 2-24-03 61 1 what's there, take a look at it, see if there's any needed 2 changes or anything needs to be added. Once the plan's in 3 place, oh, I'm free to do some training with the safety 4 committee to teach them how to investigate accidents, do 5 inspections, things of that nature. I'll come back around, 6 oh, mid-July, and somewhere in between September and October 7 I'll come back to do a final audit, and then I'll let you 8 know the -- the respective percentage at that point. How's 9 that? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. 11 Mr. Boccaccio, I seem to recall that Kerr County 12 participated in this program last year, or -- and perhaps 13 years before that. My question is, is the $17,856 Safety 14 Incentive Program fee reduction based on our participation 15 last year? Or is that kind of a pro -- proactive estimate 16 of what it will be for this year? 17 MR. BOCCACCIO: It's based on participation 18 this year. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Current? This year? 20 MR. BOCCACCIO: Right, correct. A couple 21 years ago, when y'all were in the program, we did it a 22 little bit different. We awarded the county the money up 23 front, and at the end of the year we audited it. And it 24 caused some problems, because we'd already given the money, 25 and towards the end of the year it's like, well, let me see 2-24-03 62 1 the work, and some of the work wasn't there. So, it was 2 like having to go back and take back the money. So, this is 3 an award, basically. You earn it in this year, this 4 calendar year. And in October, that's when I'll send the 5 letter to the Judge and say, "You've received 'X' number of 6 percentage, and the estimate is..." In this case, $17,856. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that come back 8 to us in the form of an actual monetary rebate, or credit 9 against next year's premiums? 10 MR. BOCCACCIO: It will come back -- what 11 I'll actually do, probably January, we issue a big check and 12 we'll do a press release. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Big check. How big 14 is it? 15 MR. BOCCACCIO: Big. It's a big check. So, 16 it will -- it will be directly -- you'll actually see the 17 money the first part of next year. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Boccaccio, the -- the 20 workers comp rates, which, of course, is -- is the big 21 insurance rate that we pay, is it your belief that the -- 22 that the significant reduction that we've gotten this year 23 from last year's premium may be, at least in part, due to 24 our participation in the safety program in -- in the year 25 prior to that? 2-24-03 63 1 MR. BOCCACCIO: I do, Judge. It's a -- like 2 I said, there's something in place, and they're working at 3 it, or I really don't think you would have seen that type of 4 reduction. The -- the pool, as a whole, saw a 40 percent 5 increase this year, basically across-the-board. Some of 6 them saw a lot more than that. So, it's -- what I will say 7 is that, yeah, you do have something in place, and let's 8 keep it in place and maybe take a look at it and see if it 9 needs a little bit of changing, and we'll go from there. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: My point is that if we -- if 11 we continue to participate in viable safety programs, in 12 addition to the big check, we also have the opportunity, 13 hopefully, to -- through safety procedures and programs, to 14 have a further decrease in our workers comp rate? 15 MR. BOCCACCIO: You bet. That's -- and I'll 16 tell you what. Y'all know as well as I do that the cost of 17 medical and the cost of workers comp these days is -- has 18 basically just gone through the roof. And the only way that 19 we see right now to stop it is the prevention phase, to keep 20 the accident from happening in the first place. And -- and 21 the only way you're going to do that is with a viable safety 22 program that -- that is backed from the top down, and that 23 the employees know is there. So, yeah, it's -- you keep 24 that safety effort up, and I forecast that you'll see some 25 money -- some benefits out of that in the future. 2-24-03 64 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Got any other questions for 2 Mr. Boccaccio? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that 4 we approve the resolution as presented to join the Safety 5 Incentive Program offered to Kerr County by TAC. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I presume that would include 8 me to sign the resolution? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: To deliver to Mr. Boccaccio 12 today? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made by 16 Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, to 17 approve a resolution to join in the Safety Incentive Program 18 offered by Texas Association of Counties, the Kerr County 19 workers compensation carrier. Any discussion? 20 MR. SMITH: I'd like to make one comment, if 21 I may. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? 23 MR. SMITH: I think I can talk loud enough 24 here. My name is Gene Smith, and I was an election judge 25 out on the bond issue for the barn -- the Ag Barn. And one 2-24-03 65 1 young man came up to me and he said -- he was an 2 electrician, and he said -- he said electrical wiring in the 3 Ag Barn is -- is in very poor shape, and they might have a 4 fire out there. Well, I didn't think anything more about 5 it, but we've had a lot of citizens burned up in fires, even 6 though they're not the same kind of fire. But -- and I 7 don't know the truth of this guy, if it was just one man's 8 opinion, if it's not a valid deal, but I would think that it 9 would be appropriate if we would have some type of 10 inspection on the wiring out there, because he said it 11 should be condemned. So, if you're having a safety program, 12 I would like to suggest if we do go forward in this safety 13 program, that we would inspect those facilities and make 14 sure we don't have the type of publicity these other places 15 are having. Thank you. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Your concerns are noted. Any 17 further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, 18 please signify by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Thank you, 23 Mr. Boccaccio. 24 MR. BOCCACCIO: Thank you, Judge. Thank you, 25 Commissioners. 2-24-03 66 1 JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, I'm going to 2 propose that we take our mid-morning recess. We're running 3 a little bit late there; I think the reporter is probably a 4 little weary, needs a little break. And we will -- we'll 5 recess until 5 after 11:00. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably be easier to 8 reconvene downstairs. We're giving everybody their exercise 9 today. Thank you. We appreciate your patience in 10 accommodations with us moving up and down. 11 (Recess taken from 10:51 a.m. to 11:05 a.m.) 12 - - - - - - - - - - 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item -- we will 14 reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting, that being the 15 special Commissioners Court set for Monday, February 24th, 16 originally beginning at 9 a.m. Next item for consideration 17 is a time-specific item, Item 2.13, consider and discuss 18 approval of the Project Plan for Kerr Emergency 911 Network, 19 and execute specific deliverables as specified in the 20 agenda. Mr. Amerine. Amerine, I believe it is. I 21 apologize. 22 MR. AMERINE: Amerine, correct. Welcome -- 23 I'm glad to be here. My name is Bill Amerine. I'm 24 Executive Director for the Kerr 911 District. Thank you for 25 hearing me today on this issue, Commissioners and Your 2-24-03 67 1 Honor. Today -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fix the mic so people 3 can hear you. Might get a little clearer. 4 MR. AMERINE: Okay. Today with me in the 5 Commissioners Court are a couple folks from my Board of 6 Managers. Stand. Charles Lewis. We have Walt Harris over 7 here, and sitting behind him in the camo outfit -- he 8 doesn't want to be seen -- is my manager of M.I.S., Bill 9 Reese. The singular purpose why I'm here today is to 10 discuss and seek approval for this plan for the Kerr 911 11 District, their charter for execution to provide the 12 infrastructure and ability for public safety for 911 13 service. This plan -- what makes it different from previous 14 plans is the coordination of multiple suppliers to that 15 process, those being the Kerr 911 District, the County, the 16 two cities, Ingram and Kerrville, and the U.S. Post Office. 17 The essential reason why I'm here to talk to you is that 18 we're obligating the County in this plan to several 19 activities, and I would like to discuss those in some detail 20 after I give you the summary of what the plan entails. 21 911 District will spend the next several 22 months, through August, doing an address analysis of the 23 current citizen base in Kerr County. That will be a 24 validation of addresses against phone numbers, with names, 25 to make sure that what we present in the notification 2-24-03 68 1 letters is valid and points to a physical address for each 2 phone number that resides in our database. Once we're 3 complete with that activity -- and, by the way, that process 4 will include the coordinated efforts of both the Post Office 5 and the Address Coordinators of the County and the two 6 cities. Once we're complete with that process, we're asking 7 the County to send out a mailer to all the citizens allowing 8 them to understand what address changes may be in store for 9 them. Once that's complete, we're asking the citizens to 10 come forward and identify for us any problems with the 11 addressing that we've recommended. 12 Also, there's a situation where we have a lot 13 of property owners in Kerr County that have multiple parcels 14 of land and may have renters or leasers on those properties 15 that need to be notified of the 911 addressing effort. 16 During that citizen-input period, we'll be validating and 17 correcting those address issues that are discovered during 18 that process and updating our database. At the tail end of 19 this process, which we'll probably be sending sometime in 20 the November-December time frame, we'll be sending all of 21 our appropriate information to Post Office for their 22 official notification that they'll do, which will be in the 23 -- probably in the time frame of January 2004. We believe 24 this process will clear up a majority of the problems we 25 have with addressing in Kerr County. 2-24-03 69 1 Just kind of a general thought: Why is this 2 even important? We have addresses out there. We could put 3 those addresses in the database as they exist, and we should 4 be able to operate just fine. Why inconvenience the 5 citizens of Kerr County? Back in 1999, in a joint effort, 6 911 District, in conjunction with the County and cities, 7 approved a naming standard, which I brought with me, Road 8 Name and Address Guidelines. The reason for even going 9 through that process is to make sure that our emergency 10 service response folks can absolutely have the best chance 11 of finding a caller. Having inconsistent numbering on 12 roads, having duplicate road names, having no-named roads, 13 having number blocking that does not make sense will result 14 in a tragedy, there's no doubt. It hasn't happened; we've 15 been lucky, but it will happen. We believe the slight 16 inconvenience that we'll cause in this addressing effort 17 will pay off in dividends in saving lives or property. 18 Now, specific to the plan and how it affects 19 the County, we've asked in our proposal for the County to 20 approve five major points, adopting first of all the plan, 21 then formalizing the timeline that I've presented in your 22 packet, which starts on the 1st of March and goes throughout 23 the remainder of the year. Second item is to resolve the 24 issue of unnamed roads. And I believe, through our 25 analysis, we've determined that there's something less than 2-24-03 70 1 900 roads that still need to be named. Most of these are 2 private roads. And the issue with those, if they were just 3 private roads with one citizen living on them, probably we'd 4 leave them the way they are. They're currently numbered, 5 and currently in our First Response books, and you can find 6 them in that way. There's no sign, but you can find them. 7 But what we're finding is, a number of these private ranch 8 roads and private roads have multiple dwellings on them and 9 small subdivisions being built, and without them being 10 named, it will be difficult to find these residences. 11 Adopting a standardized numbering for the 12 county. Kerr 911 acts in a consulting role in this process, 13 and we don't have the authority to request or demand -- 14 whatever the correct adjective is -- to have the citizens 15 change their numbering scheme. So we ask, as we make these 16 recommendations through our address coordinators, that the 17 County, with their authority, have those addresses changed 18 in court order form so that they will go out and be legal. 19 Finally, funding of these notifications is something that 20 we're not funded for in the Kerr 911 District, and there is 21 some inherent cost with that. I don't have those estimates 22 for you. I think -- correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner 23 Baldwin -- that's in the works? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it is. We'll 25 talk about that in a moment. 2-24-03 71 1 MR. AMERINE: Okay. And then establish 2 effective date. And what we're recommending, so that 3 there's the least amount of confusion with the citizens of 4 Kerr County, that we correspond the effective date of these 5 physical addresses with the Post Office notification, which 6 would be sometime first of next year, around the first of 7 January 2004. Those are the major elements of our plan that 8 the County would be responsible for approving. The rest of 9 the plan, I'd be glad to comment on any of other 10 contributors to the plan, as you see fit. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, how many -- on the 12 unnamed road issue, you said the majority of them are 13 private roads. How many of them are not private roads? Do 14 you have a count? 15 MR. AMERINE: They're all private roads. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're all private 17 roads? 18 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The -- and the 20 criteria you're using is still the quarter mile, and when 21 there's multiple -- or I guess and/or multiple dwellings on 22 it? I'm going back to these guidelines. 23 MR. AMERINE: Right. I believe it's 52.8 24 feet is the -- what we're using. I could be wrong. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, but to 2-24-03 72 1 name a road, it has to be longer than a quarter mile? 2 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir, you're right. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And has to have -- and 4 multiple dwellings? Or multiple dwellings? 5 MR. AMERINE: Well, multiple dwellings would 6 definitely be the minimum that you would want to look at. 7 You could go ahead and name -- you know, we do this thing 8 where if a citizen of a private road wants to have a sign 9 put up and name this road, he can do that through petition. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 MR. AMERINE: And he pays for the sign. But 12 the real key is when it looks like property's going to be 13 subdivided and multiple dwellings are going to exist, it 14 would make sense to go ahead and number those parcels as 15 they're created and platted, and go ahead and name the road. 16 Then the naming is -- the addressing and naming is pre -- 17 pre-taken care of before the dwellings are actually built. 18 But for these that we're specifically talking about, we 19 believe these do need to be named, for the fact that they're 20 more than a quarter mile long and there's multiple 21 dwellings. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 MR. AMERINE: I kind of went a roundabout way 24 to answer your question. Hopefully I didn't -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. No, I'm just -- I'm 2-24-03 73 1 thinking as I'm going through, 'cause it's been a -- it's a 2 difficult point for me to wrap around because of, you know, 3 my familiarity with some of the rural areas where these 4 roads exist. And do you -- does 911 have a high level of 5 confidence that your maps of where these roads are are 6 correct? 7 MR. AMERINE: Yes, we do. In many cases, a 8 lot of those maps have been -- a lot of those roads have 9 been surveyed by site and we've gone out with GPS to 10 actually get the points to put into our database. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. How are you going 12 to -- how are you going to get the information to the 13 Commissioners Court as to what roads you feel need to be 14 named? 15 MR. AMERINE: I think that we've already made 16 a cut of it, have we not? If not, we'll -- we definitely 17 can provide you a list of the numbered roads, what they are 18 today, that need to be named. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- I mean, but, you 20 know, how do we -- will there be a map associated with that? 21 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I haven't seen a recent 23 list, I don't think. 24 MR. AMERINE: Certainly, we can provide that, 25 along with the numbered roads. 2-24-03 74 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think that -- I 2 mean, I think, you know, I have no problem with, you know, 3 trying to solve that problem. I'm not sure that we're going 4 to be able to if we can't get people to cooperate. 5 MR. AMERINE: Well, certainly, it's 6 voluntary. And, I mean, with a private road that's not 7 state or county-maintained, it's strictly up to the property 8 owner to decide whether they want to name the road. If they 9 choose not to, even though it's not as ideal, there will be 10 no signage; there'll be no specific name associated with the 11 road. They're still numbered. They'll still be in the 12 First Response books that we provide to our emergency 13 service personnel. They can still be found, but they're not 14 signed as numbered roads. They never will be. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- well, then, the 16 plan is going to have it that we send out the notification, 17 the original -- what do you call that -- the -- I guess the 18 notification letters, and let everybody know on that letter. 19 Right now, it will -- for those 900 roads, it will just say, 20 "You're on road..." and it's got a four-digit number? 21 MR. AMERINE: I think the -- that is a 22 prerequisite process. The naming of the roads has to occur 23 prior to that notice that will be sent out. It's a separate 24 process altogether. I mean, the notices will be the final 25 address. This is what your old address -- mailing address 2-24-03 75 1 was; this is your new physical 911 address. Please come 2 forward if there are issues with what we're proposing. But 3 the named road issue probably has to be addressed prior to 4 those notices. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But let me -- you're 6 going to be able to give us a list, then, of the names -- or 7 the names of all the people based on the phone numbers right 8 there, I presume? 9 MR. AMERINE: We can do that. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we can send them a 11 letter saying, "Your road's going to be a four-digit number 12 unless you name it"? I'm trying to figure out how, 13 physically, we're going to be able to, in a couple of -- 14 matter of two or three months, name these roads that I never 15 have been convinced we need to name. I don't know why we 16 can't just request just the name -- 17 MR. AMERINE: We may be the best source of 18 that information, since we've consolidated it from the phone 19 company and from KCAD against the -- the legal ownership of 20 those parcels of land. We -- we will be able to provide 21 some level of that information -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 MR. AMERINE: -- for you. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So if we can get, you 25 know, by precinct, all the unnamed roads, with addresses. 2-24-03 76 1 MR. AMERINE: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And names. I mean, 3 otherwise, I don't know how we're going to tackle the 4 problem. And, you know, I have no problem tackling it. I 5 just need to know how to do it. 6 MR. AMERINE: Without eyes in the back of my 7 head, I don't know if I have someone squirming like crazy 8 there. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not too bad. Keep going. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, he's squirming. 11 MR. AMERINE: But, no, we -- based upon my 12 relatively new and recent knowledge of what we have in our 13 databases, I believe I've seen all that information that 14 you're requesting. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And our -- the 17 County's address coordinator will -- is going to assist us 18 in all of those things. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of obtaining all that 21 information from them that we need, as well as when we get 22 ready to mail out the notifications, there's going to be 23 some expense of that, and we are going to work in the next 24 two weeks on putting that together. He's going to come up 25 with probably a number of some sort and what kind of 2-24-03 77 1 envelopes, you know, the total expense of the thing. And 2 we'll be back here at this Commissioners Court in two weeks 3 with a request for funding of it when we get rocking and 4 rolling on the issue, huh? We're going to get this program 5 going. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very good. I just -- I 7 just was trying to get -- I wasn't paying attention as much 8 as I can. So -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're not going to 10 do it, I can tell you. But I also saw -- I heard you voice, 11 too, the -- the enormity of -- how many unnamed roads? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 900. 13 MR. AMERINE: Less than 900. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Less than -- you know, 15 898 or something like that, unnamed roads. And that -- that 16 is a big undertaking. That's a huge one, and we're -- we 17 have to get to work and get that done. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying. 19 We have about three months. By June, that needs to be done. 20 Otherwise, we're going to start sliding. So, you know, we 21 either need to, by -- by June 1st or close to it, either 22 have a new name and approve it, or leave it as the number. 23 MR. AMERINE: I think we can provide the 24 Commissioners Court -- Commissioners that information 25 relatively quickly. I'm not talking weeks, I'm talking days 2-24-03 78 1 to put that together. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to commend 4 you, Mr. Amerine, for your really complete and 5 straightforward synopsis of what our varied responsibilities 6 are among the all the interested parties. And I'm 7 particularly gratified by your statement, which we have 8 never heard in this court before, that despite past 9 addressing efforts, Kerr County addressing is largely 10 incomplete. I think we've been saying that to the 911 folks 11 for a long time. It's really neat to hear the 12 administration of 911 admit it, and have a plan to step 13 forward and correct it, so I really appreciate your work 14 that you and your board have put into this. And as far as 15 my thoughts on Kerr County, the sooner we get it done, the 16 better it's going to be. 17 MR. AMERINE: One of the things I failed to 18 mention with any kind of detail is that I think a key 19 element to this plan is citizen awareness, and we have, as 20 you can see, on the timeline a rather extensive strategic 21 plan for getting the word out to the citizens. We're going 22 to use the media largely for that. We're also going to go 23 to a lot of publicly held meetings to try to answer 24 questions. I think the awareness issue is key, because I 25 think the more folks know about why we're doing this and 2-24-03 79 1 what it really means to them tangibly, I think the less 2 severe impact it will have on them. It is an inconvenience; 3 I'm not going to deny that. People have held their same 4 addresses for sometimes decades, and it seems a gross, you 5 know, intrusion by the government to come in and say, "You 6 need to change." I think the key element here -- and, you 7 know, I'm pounding this drum a lot -- is it's about public 8 safety. It's not about anything else. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I totally 10 support -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just to tag along on 12 Commissioner Williams' remark, I like what I see here. It 13 inspires some confidence that we know what we're doing and 14 we're going to get it done. If we can execute as well as we 15 plan, that will probably happen. I am concerned about the 16 County's ability to get its 898 roads done within three 17 months. I'm sure that can be done, but to reinforce what 18 you said, we've got to get after it. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: About 850 of them are 20 in your precinct. So -- 21 (Laughter.) 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- we're going to do 23 our job. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In the Kerr County 25 government, who is responsible or accountable for -- for 2-24-03 80 1 handling the process of getting those roads -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our coordinator is 3 going to help you and I do it. That's our job. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know about 5 you, but I am going to need some help. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, so am I. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Amerine, do we have our 9 duplicate road name problems solved? 10 MR. AMERINE: They're being addressed, and I 11 believe they will be solved by the time -- that includes 12 inside the City of Kerrville as well as the county. They 13 are being addressed as we speak. I haven't had any 14 indications, sir, that there's going to be any roadblocks to 15 getting those duplicate road names taken care of. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, going back to these 17 guidelines, which I'm -- with all my little yellow 18 stickums -- or green stickums in it. Do you mean to relook 19 at some of these at some point? 20 MR. AMERINE: The guidelines themselves? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Some of the -- and 22 I'm talking -- they're very minor things, but to me they're 23 -- as an example, I was going through this book again over 24 the weekend, and one of them is, under the guidelines, if 25 it's a farm-to-market road, we call it a parkway. And it 2-24-03 81 1 never -- never made a lot of sense to me. And I -- you 2 know, and I think of Cypress Creek, which is probably the 3 main one that I have in my precinct, the Cypress Creek 4 Parkway. If there's an emergency, someone out there is 5 going to say Little Cypress Creek Road, and I think it is 6 more confusing to have some of these, to me, artificial 7 names associated with roads, you know, just for the sake 8 of -- because it's in our guidelines. Never made sense to 9 me. And there's very few things of that nature, but at some 10 point I really would, you know, like to either use the 11 opportunity to, one-on-one, sit with you, go over these. 12 That might be the easiest way, and then if there are, you 13 know, some changes recommended, come back to the full Court 14 or something like that. 15 MR. AMERINE: Certainly. I'd be a little bit 16 concerned about introducing a lot of changes. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 18 MR. AMERINE: I understand the process is 19 happening even as we speak, and the District is already 20 starting the renaming in our database. I'd be concerned 21 about introducing that kind of change, because it 22 fundamentally could change a lot of what we've already 23 accomplished. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 MR. AMERINE: But, yeah, certainly, I think 2-24-03 82 1 any document we have -- and that kind of leads me to segue 2 to what I want to kind of wrap up on this plan, is that this 3 is a framework. It's a living framework, and as we get into 4 this and see how it's executing, we may need some changes. 5 I may be back in front of the Commissioners Court talking 6 about some of these substantive changes to the plan. I 7 think it's well thought through, and I want to thank the two 8 Commissioners that have been on our working groups, 9 Commissioner Letz and Baldwin. Their input's been valuable. 10 But I think, like this plan, until you get into this and 11 actually see how it's going to work, you can't be confident 12 that it's just going to go. But, yeah, I think -- I made a 13 note, sir, that we can sit down and talk about that and see 14 what could be changed. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right, appreciate it. 16 Looks good. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions? Do I 18 hear a motion that we approve the Project Plan? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I so move. Is that 20 what we're doing, approving the Project Plan? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That's it. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we do, 23 yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 2-24-03 83 1 seconded that we approve the Project Plan as presented by 2 the Kerr Emergency 911 Network principals. Any further 3 discussion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by 4 raising your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 9 MR. AMERINE: Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've taken care of 11 four whole items, I think, already. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're important 13 items. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, they are. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item up for consideration 16 is 2.3, consider and discuss approving a letter of support 17 or resolution for House Bill 630 relating to the designation 18 of State Highway 137 between Kerrville and Jourdanton as the 19 173rd Airborne Brigade Memorial Highway. I placed this 20 matter on the agenda at the request of Representative 21 Hilderbran. There has been legislation introduced in Austin 22 to so designate that stretch of highway between Kerrville 23 and Jourdanton as the 173rd Airborne Brigade Memorial 24 Highway. It will be, like a number of them, a dual 25 designation, I'm sure, just like we have a portion of 2-24-03 84 1 Highway 27 East out here designated as Memorial Highway. 2 The history of -- of the 173rd is contained -- background 3 and history is contained in the -- in your materials, 4 gentlemen. And the most recent activity, of course, for the 5 173rd was a very elite Special Forces/Special Operations 6 type unit in Vietnam, and it was deactivated after that 7 time. And, however, it was reactivated in Europe just two 8 years ago for action in that region. As I say, the matter 9 is being furthered by a bill filed by -- or to be filed, 10 apparently, by Representative Hilderbran, since it does 11 concern more than just Kerr County, but goes on down to 12 Jourdanton. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, let me make a 14 comment about it. There -- the 173rd Airborne Brigade is a 15 tremendous, distinguished outfit, and probably deserves to 16 have some recognition, even in the form of a road, but we 17 were just talking about duplicate names there just a moment 18 ago, and that's been a plague in Kerr County. And what I -- 19 what I am concerned about is that this legislation moves 20 forward -- maybe to conclusion, maybe not -- without the 21 benefit of some public input, as we have spent most of our 22 morning taking on other topics about this. And what -- and 23 what we're doing here is changing the name of a very 24 important road. Runs right through the heart of my 25 precinct, so I guess I have a piece of interest here. And 2-24-03 85 1 without the benefit of the public weighing in on it and 2 saying, "Yes, that's great; we'd like to do it," is the name 3 going to change actually? Or is it just going to change on 4 the books in Austin or in TexDOT or wherever? And I really 5 would -- I really would hope that somehow or other we could 6 figure out a way, if the Representative doesn't ask us to do 7 a public hearing, that -- I would be more comfortable if we 8 did, in fact, do a public hearing. If no one showed up, 9 then they didn't show up and that's it. But I think it's -- 10 it's important that the public weigh in on the change of the 11 name of a major highway that runs through their property or 12 that they access every day of their life. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Your point's well-made. Any 14 other thoughts on this particular item? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see any 16 problem with doing it. What's the problem? Is there 17 something wrong with doing this? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're dealing with 20 groundwater and surface water here? Or -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see that 22 there's anything wrong. I just would be more comfortable if 23 we had people tell us, "Fine, change the name. I like it." 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it's on the 25 agenda, just like that item was a while ago. I mean, I 2-24-03 86 1 don't care one way or another. What -- I mean, I don't see 2 them -- I see the importance of it honoring a group of 3 people that gave their lives for our country in Vietnam. I 4 don't -- you know, I don't know. Y'all do whatever you want 5 to. I don't see the debate. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- I mean, 7 I'm in favor of doing it either today, or doing a public 8 hearing and then doing it. I mean, I can't imagine anyone 9 being against it. I don't have any problem at all with it, 10 you know, putting it on the next agenda, doing a public 11 hearing on our next agenda, doing that. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would be 13 comfortable doing that. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Does that change everyone's 15 mailing address that front that road, then? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I don't believe so. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: No, it would just be an 18 additional designation. Memorial highway. That particular 19 stretch would -- according to the text of the bill, it would 20 require TexDOT to put up appropriate memorial highway 21 markers at both ends and at various intervals in between. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: People's addresses on the 23 highway -- it's called Bandera Highway, not even called 173. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if that's all 25 that's involved, Judge, just putting up a sign somewhere at 2-24-03 87 1 the beginning and end that says that this has been 2 designated such-and-such memorial -- 173rd Airborne Brigade 3 Memorial Highway, and doesn't change the actual designation 4 or people's addresses, then, you know, I don't have a 5 problem with that. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The text of the -- of the bill 7 that's -- that's before me says the Department shall design 8 and construct memorial markers indicating the highway 9 number, which it would continue to remain Highway 173, that 10 designation as the 173rd Airborne Brigade Memorial Highway 11 and any other appropriate information. And I assume there 12 will be some sort of historical or similar type markers 13 that -- at either the beginning, the end, or somewhere in 14 between, along with the other designations. But as I read 15 the legislation, it's not going to change the official 16 designation of State Highway 173. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Still going to be 18 Bandera Highway. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's similar -- I think 20 if anyone's driven on Highway 83 to Leakey, that's 21 designated -- I believe it's the Vietnam War Memorial 22 Highway. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, there are 24 others out there that have the designation. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's still Highway 2-24-03 88 1 83. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Highway 27 out by 3 Schreiner College and V.A. Hospital -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wish we would have 5 asked the 911 folks how they would treat it. If they're 6 going to continue to represent it in their -- in their 7 system as State Highway 173, Bandera Highway, then I'm cool 8 with that. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we 11 approve. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 14 seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Letz, respectively, 15 that we approve a resolution in support of House Bill 630 16 relating to designating State Highway 173 between Kerrville 17 and Jourdanton as the 173rd Airborne Brigade Memorial 18 Highway. Any further discussion? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I never have 20 seen an actual resolution. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Bill? 22 MS. SOVIL: It's -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we'll just tell 24 them we'll consider this your resolution. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Letter of support or 2-24-03 89 1 resolution is what it indicates. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Authorize County Judge to 3 write a letter of support and attach the court order. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what my 5 motion said. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I said. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glad y'all picked up 8 on it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. With that 10 addition, is there any further discussion? If not, all in 11 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 12 (Commissioners Baldwin, Letz, and Nicholson voted in favor of the motion.) 13 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Record me as an 17 abstention, Judge. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The record will note 19 that Commissioner Williams abstained from voting. Next, 20 Item 2.4, consider and discuss request for a variance from 21 replatting within subdivision to move the property line by 22 survey on Lot 14 onto Lot 15 to allow septic leach field. 23 Commissioner Baldwin. 24 MS. KROHN: Good morning, Judge and 25 Commissioners of the Court. My name is Virginia Krohn, and 2-24-03 90 1 my husband and I have bought these two lots in Country 2 Manor, and one of the lots is -- Lot 14 is a half-acre lot. 3 Lot 15 is an acre and a half. And we're not really asking 4 to replat, and there's nothing that we really come under to 5 actually move a property line. So, what we want to do is 6 ask that we move the property line on 14 over onto 15, 7 making two full 1-acre lots, which would make two, 200-foot 8 frontage lots, which is a more desirable lot in the county, 9 and it would allow us to move the septic field up from a 10 lower area up into a more desirable area beside the house, 11 instead of down the hill. This would have no impact on 12 the -- on the community. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's on a water 14 system. 15 MS. KROHN: It's on a water system, a public 16 water system, Kerrville South. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it your intention 18 to keep both lots, or to -- 19 MS. KROHN: Both lots will be sold. And 20 that's why I want to do this before I sell them, because 21 once I sell them, that's going to be set at a half acre and 22 an acre and a half. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, to me, it is 24 a revision of plat. I mean, you're changing -- especially 25 if you're getting ready to sell the property. I was getting 2-24-03 91 1 ready to -- you know, if you were going to keep them -- 2 either way, doesn't make that much difference, though. But 3 if you're changing the lot line, that is a revision, by 4 definition. And when we -- when you go to sell it, do the 5 title work, they're going to -- it's going to be a problem. 6 MS. KROHN: Well, what I was requesting to do 7 is actually move the property line by survey. Just -- 8 Charles Domingues has already surveyed the entire plat, and 9 he would basically come in and move that center line over to 10 where they're both two 1-acre lots. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the subdivision -- 12 the plat of the subdivision on the county records will not 13 be accurate, then. 14 MS. KROHN: Could be. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- I mean, 16 that's -- 17 MS. KROHN: So, then, that's relating -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, it's a minor 19 revision of plat. 20 MS. KROHN: Well, what you get into there in 21 this area, these are, like, $5,000 lots. And when you get 22 into meeting all the requirements, I'm going to spend $5,000 23 to move that line. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jannett, what's the fee 25 for minor revision? 2-24-03 92 1 MS. KROHN: It's not the fees, it's the 2 survey and the paperwork that Charles Domingues is going to 3 have to submit. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But he's already 5 surveyed. 6 MS. KROHN: He's only surveyed the outside 7 line. He said when he gets into replatting and then he 8 comes in, surveys that line, and does the replatting 9 paperwork, it's going to be quite expensive. Everyone will 10 have to be notified of this, too. And -- and it gains me 11 nothing, I can tell you that. I can still put the two 12 houses; I can still put the septic tanks in there. It's 13 just going to make two more desirable lots. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand what you're 15 saying. I'm just saying that -- I mean, and I -- you know, 16 I understand the -- the cost issue to it. 17 MS. KROHN: Mm-hmm. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if we start going 19 down the road of having plats on record that are not 20 accurate, then there's no reason to plat. 21 MS. KROHN: Correct. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's just -- I mean, 23 it's a first, you know, and if you make an exception here, 24 you -- how do you not make an exception somewhere else? 25 MS. KROHN: Sure. 2-24-03 93 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do recall that we have, 2 on occasion -- and I believe it was in Falling Water 3 Subdivision. I'm looking at Lee; I believe it was Voelkel 4 Engineering. There was a note put on a plat once, to 5 prevent from having to resurvey the whole area, that you 6 were relying on the field notes of a prior survey, and that 7 -- you know, and then you just had to use the work that 8 Charles Domingues has already -- already done. Lee, do you 9 remember doing that? Maybe it was Don's. 10 MR. VOELKEL: It was my brother, probably. I 11 don't recall that. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I -- and I'm 13 pretty sure we did do that. But this same situation, 14 they're changing a lot line, and we -- you know, rather than 15 having to do a full survey of the plat, it was just a note 16 on the plat that -- you know, to protect his liability, 17 basically what it was, that he just surveyed this one line, 18 and was relying on the prior surveys on the plat for the 19 rest of the survey information. 20 MS. KROHN: Sure. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would save funding 22 or save money, I think. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Would make the lot -- how long 24 would that take? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How long? I mean, 2-24-03 94 1 Charles already has the -- well, I mean, that's -- I mean 2 I'm not a surveyor, so I don't know how long -- I mean, what 3 he has to do to locate the line to start with. 4 MS. KROHN: It's not the location of the 5 line. He can come out and locate the line and put the pins 6 in, but then he has to submit the paperwork to the County, 7 and that's where he said his expense comes in. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's interesting. 10 MS. KROHN: And I have talked to a couple of 11 private people who have done this, and they said it does 12 come up to, like, $5,000 by the time you move that line. 13 Now, they could have been completely replatting, you know, 14 coming in and splitting a piece of land. Maybe that's 15 something different. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's essentially what 17 you're doing; you're moving a lot line here. And that -- 18 that price seems high to me for moving a lot line, I agree. 19 But I don't -- you know, I can't, you know, comment 'cause I 20 don't know -- you know, if Charles Domingues gave you that 21 quote, that's his quote. 22 MS. KROHN: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have the County 24 Engineer and the county -- elected County Surveyor in the 25 room. I wonder if we could get a comment from either one of 2-24-03 95 1 them, or both. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not to mention County 4 Attorney. What, Franklin? 5 MR. VOELKEL: Are you talking about a comment 6 on pricing or comment on the moving of the lot line? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Both. 8 MR. VOELKEL: No. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about moving of 10 the lot line? Do you have any comment about moving the lot 11 line? 12 MR. VOELKEL: My comment as the County 13 Surveyor would be the normal procedure, which is what Mr. 14 Letz said, would be to file a replat or revision of a plat, 15 just to keep all those records straight and no title 16 problems down the line. That's basically what we've been 17 doing, the procedure we've been following. And it -- I know 18 there's some expense involved in that. There's no doubt 19 about it. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much of an 21 expense, elected official? 22 MR. VOELKEL: I'd really rather not comment 23 on that, because of some fees that have already been -- that 24 seemed to me to be a little bit high on the ones that I 25 have. But -- 2-24-03 96 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's enough. 2 MR. VOELKEL: They vary. How about that? 3 They vary in cost. The County has made it a little simpler 4 with the -- with the new -- what do you call it? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Revision of plat. 6 MR. VOELKEL: Revision of plat. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Minor revision of plat. 8 MR. VOELKEL: Minor revision, making not so 9 many fees involved, which has helped also. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin? Your turn. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: There again, it now falls 12 under the definition of revision of plat. So, you know, any 13 change to that would be in your court to grant a variance or 14 whatever to that. 15 MS. KROHN: That was what I did at first, is 16 I went and visited the County and talked to Franklin, and 17 that's what he recommended, I do go for a variance, because 18 what -- this particular piece of property falls within the 19 City's jurisdiction and the County. And since the City was 20 less rigid -- or is supposedly less rigid, I thought that I 21 would go to them, so I went to Franklin and said would he 22 give up jurisdiction over that property so that I could go 23 to the City to move that property line, and he said I'd be 24 better off going before the Court. So, that's how I wound 25 up here. 2-24-03 97 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the -- I think maybe our 3 rules may be more -- more stringent now than the City's, 4 some of these ETJ lots. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Irregardless of the 6 wisdom of doing it, what would it take to give -- to make 7 this happen, other than go through the process? Is there a 8 way to do that? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only thing we can do 10 is grant a variance. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can grant a 12 variance to -- that's what you're asking us to do? 13 MS. KROHN: That's what I'm asking you to do. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No other way? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you're talking 16 about the cost. I mean, the Court, in our last revised -- 17 or revision to the Subdivision Rules, we lowered the cost 18 substantially for a minor revision of plat. 19 MS. KROHN: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the -- the cost side 21 of it that we had control over, we reduced, you know. I 22 don't know what it totaled up, all the fees, but a couple 23 hundred dollars maybe from the County and to all the other 24 entities. So, the other, you know, piece of the puzzle is 25 the surveying charge to prepare the document, and it can 2-24-03 98 1 come to court at one time. 2 MS. KROHN: Mm-hmm. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is a public notice 4 and notification requirement, 'cause it's a revision, but -- 5 MS. PIEPER: It's paid by the County. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that's paid by the 7 County. 8 MS. KROHN: Yeah, there's no cost there. 9 It's strictly by the surveyor. Could it be that Charles 10 Domingues is not aware that there's -- is there less 11 paperwork involved in the minor revision? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He'd spend less time, 13 clearly, because he'd come to court one time. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: He's aware of the process; 15 he's done those before. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is exactly the 17 reason we made the revision to our rules, to allow for it 18 to -- because it is -- I mean, it was costing a great deal 19 of money, and they're having to come to court two times when 20 all they want to do is a lot line. So, we eliminated one 21 trip to the court and most of the fees. 22 MS. KROHN: Mm-hmm. Okay. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: I might point out, the 24 variance process, too, that you -- just strictly saving 25 money is not a valid reason for a variance. 2-24-03 99 1 MS. KROHN: Well, this isn't just about 2 saving money. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Has to be other reasons. 4 MS. KROHN: You have a letter from U.G.R.A. 5 that talks about it would be a better septic field. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think it -- I 7 mean, it's something -- you know, I think it's a better 8 configuration for those lots to have two 1-acre lots. 9 MS. KROHN: I think so too. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ms. Krohn, may I 11 suggest to you that possibly you go back and visit with your 12 -- with your engineer -- your surveyor? 13 MS. KROHN: Charles. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And make sure that 15 y'all are on the same page and thinking the same things. 16 And you can always come back here -- 17 MS. KROHN: Sure. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- in two weeks. 19 MS. KROHN: Sure. 20 MR. KROHN: Can I just say one thing here 21 also? I'm Virginia's husband. This isn't where we're 22 trying to get more financial gain to ourselves by doing 23 this. It's going to cost us the same amount of money to 24 bring in all the dirt for the leach field in either place 25 that we put it. In Lot Number 14, which is the smaller lot, 2-24-03 100 1 if you would go out there, take a look at it, there's 2 various big boulders that -- first of all, this lot really 3 has an incline on it. There's very big boulders at the 4 bottom portion of this lot, and if we have to put the leach 5 line there, we may have to tear up those boulders, which may 6 cause disruption in the soil down there, and then could 7 cause our neighbors further down below us more problems with 8 water runoff. So, we're trying not to disturb that boulder 9 field there, if you want to call it that, and that's why 10 we're trying to do this. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I appreciate your 12 -- 'cause it will. There is no question, it will cause 13 problems downstream. 14 MR. KROHN: Yes, it is. Yeah, like I said, 15 it's going to cost us the same amount to do it either way. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's talk. We'll 17 talk in the next week or so. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to -- 19 MS. KROHN: Appreciate your time. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Krohn. Item 21 2.5, consider preliminary revision of plat of Tract Numbers 22 48 and 49A of Kerrville Country Estates, Section Two, at 23 Volume Number 4, Page 131, and set public hearing date. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Even though it says 25 preliminary revision of plat, this is actually one of those 2-24-03 101 1 expedited alternate platting process -- yeah, it is. 2 They're dividing a lot, 10.11 acres, into two 5.06-acre 3 lots, and what we're asking for today is the public hearing 4 part of that, to set a public hearing, and then they'll 5 actually come back with the plat at that time or on a 6 one-time basis to get it approved. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to make one 8 comment. You remember Mr. Evans brought this to the Court 9 before in a little bit different form, that didn't fit us 10 very well. And he's happily, with a smile on his face, 11 going to do it the right way this time. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Like -- Mr. Evans was kind of 13 like the previous item. He didn't want to do it at first. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Similar. Very 15 similar, yeah. What date? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Thirty days. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10th or the 24th? 18 MS. SOVIL: I think it's -- they asked for 19 March the 10th, I believe. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: We can do a 30-day -- 21 MS. SOVIL: Next meeting after that is the 22 24th. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: 30-day wait, I think. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: March the 10th is what they're 25 asking for. That's not going to work. 2-24-03 102 1 MS. SOVIL: March 24th is not 30 days either. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: April 14th? 3 MS. SOVIL: April 14th. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: April 14. I move that 5 we have -- set a public hearing date for April the 14th at 6 10 a.m. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 9 seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Nicholson, 10 respectively, that we set a public hearing on April 14, 11 2003, at 10 a.m., to consider the preliminary revision of 12 plat of Tract Numbers 48 and 49A of the Kerrville Country 13 Estates, Section Two, as shown in Volume 4, Page 131. Is 14 there any further discussion on that item? All in favor of 15 the motion, signify by 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 carried. Public 20 hearing is set on that item. Next item for consideration is 21 2.6, consider preliminary revision of plat of Site 15 of 22 J.L. Nichols Subdivision in Volume 2, Page 59 -- I assume 23 that's plat. And set public hearing date for the same. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: This was a 5-plus acre lot 25 that's -- that they want to divide into 1.97 and 3.25. It's 2-24-03 103 1 on a water system, and actually it's in the Ingram and the 2 Kerrville ETJ; it's in everything, so I guess they'll have 3 to get them to sign off on it also. It's on Lafayette Road. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, while 5 they're looking at this, do you have any idea where the 6 issue is of ETJ subdivisions, whether the -- the new law 7 says that we can either join forces with the City or do one 8 or the other? And the City was working on that in their 9 master plan. Have you heard any -- where we are on that 10 issue? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: I think Judge Henneke 12 approached both the City of Kerrville and Ingram, and I'm 13 not sure that there's any -- there was any resolution to 14 that. I don't think we ever came to agreement. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We really need to get 16 the resolution. People -- this kind of stuff, they have to 17 file in both jurisdictions, and it's very expensive. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Almost a year late in 19 doing it. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have visited briefly 21 with the City Attorney about this, and -- you know, about 22 moving this forward. One of the City Attorneys. 23 MR. BRINKMAN: We took this to the City of 24 Ingram, because they were the majority, and I talked to 25 Danny Edwards, and he had one question that I answered, and 2-24-03 104 1 he said everything was fine. Even though the plat did not 2 ask for his signature -- or the preliminary list that we 3 took it to, but they signed off on it. I'm sure they'll 4 sign off. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: They would have to sign off on 6 the plat, though there needs to be a block on there for them 7 to sign. 8 MR. BRINKMAN: For some reason, it wasn't on 9 the list of -- the sheet y'all gave me for the preliminary 10 plat to go around and pay the fees and such. But we did 11 take it to the City of Ingram. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Then the final plat, they need 13 to sign off that they agree with all the -- 14 MR. BRINKMAN: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do either of these 16 have construction on them? Are there buildings on either of 17 these lots? 18 MR. BRINKMAN: The Dr Pepper people are here; 19 they own the property, and they -- they have their building 20 on the 1.97 acres. And they do have a septic on it, and 21 it's recent. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: They have -- 15B, I think, is 24 the open lot. 25 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir. Vacant, yes, sir. 2-24-03 105 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What do we need to 2 do? Set a hearing for the same date as the previous one? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, we'll have to set a date 4 for public hearing. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What date is that? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: April 14. 7 MS. SOVIL: 14. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we set a 9 public hearing on this for April 14th. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: 10:30 okay? 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10:30. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 14 seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Letz, respectively, 15 that we set a public hearing for April 14th, 2003, at 16 10:30 a.m. to consider preliminary revision of plat of -- 17 plat of Site 15 of J.L. Nichols Subdivision, as shown in 18 Volume 2, Page 59 of the plat. Any further discussion? All 19 in 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 (Discussion off the record.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is 2.7, consider 2-24-03 106 1 installing signs on roads in Precinct 4. Road and Bridge. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Want something to 3 throw at him? Or -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to the next item 5 there if -- are you here on 2.7, Franklin? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Oh, Truby -- I told Dave this 7 morning Truby was ill today, and I don't know a whole lot 8 about 2.7. I think Dave probably knows more about it than I 9 do. It's about changing the -- changing names in a 10 subdivision. It's our understanding that we have to get a 11 court order in order to change those names. 12 MS. SOVIL: No, this is installing signs. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is installing 14 signs. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it relates to the 16 moratorium we put on putting signs up because of the 17 addressing, and these are ones -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We asked them to hold 19 up. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that we asked them to 21 hold up on. Buster, is this the list we talked about with 22 911 that needed to be released? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, this is the same 24 issue. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- and Truby was at 2-24-03 107 1 that meeting, and they're going to work it out, so I presume 2 these are the ones they agreed to put -- to go ahead and put 3 signs up now. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Truby's 5 concern was that she wanted to bring this back to court to 6 make sure that she had the authority to put these signs up. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And in talking with 9 her, my concern was that -- and you all could help me with 10 it -- is anyone going to be surprised? Do we have a lot of 11 confidence that everybody out there whose road is being 12 changed knows that it's going to be changed? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: The names are all being 14 changed. There's a list in there, what they're changed to. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any 16 confidence in that point. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our addressing 18 coordinator is here, and he may -- may or may not lend some 19 confidence. But -- 20 MR. BULLOCK: Yeah, those people on those 21 streets have been notified of the address changes, and 22 that's what Truby was waiting for, is to make sure that 23 everyone had been notified. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's what we do; 25 we wait till they're notified, and then we put our signs up. 2-24-03 108 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we could, as sort 2 of a rule of thumb, no surprises. If, over the next -- next 3 year or so, if we could do the kinds of things that 911 is 4 proposing, so that whether or not they like it, they know in 5 advance what's going to happen to them, I think that would 6 be a good thing. So if we have some confidence in there 7 being no or few surprises on this, I'll propose that we go 8 ahead and I make a motion that we give Road and Bridge the 9 authority to put up signs. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that emotion. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 12 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin -- or Nicholson 13 and Baldwin, respectively, that -- that Road and Bridge be 14 given the authority to put up the new road signs for the new 15 road names, as per the list provided. Any further 16 discussion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by 17 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. Next item is 22 consider name changes for privately maintained roads in 23 accordance with 911 guidelines. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll start with this one, 25 'cause the majority of them are in my precinct. And it's 2-24-03 109 1 kind of -- I think it goes to Commissioner Nicholson's 2 confidence level. We do the -- the name change originally. 3 There's always -- there's a backup, hopefully, saying who's 4 requesting the name, and -- and usually it's the property 5 owner. In this case, we have that, and I'm in favor of all 6 of the changes in my precinct. I think there's one in your 7 precinct too, Dave. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that all we're 9 dealing with today, are these five? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five private road name 11 changes. Four of them are in my precinct, and they're all 12 -- you know, back up. The property owners in the area 13 wanted to change them. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if you 15 would -- let's see. The -- this sheet, if you would go back 16 one more, can you do that with me? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I got all mine out of 18 order already. Would we be looking Newberry Road? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It has my name all 20 over it. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why is your name all over 23 it? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see Les Newberry's name 2-24-03 110 1 all over it. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Down at the bottom, 3 the Commissioner. I'm the Commissioner. Les Newberry is a 4 property owner. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, down there. Well, 6 it's in my precinct. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't have it. 8 Somebody wrote my name on there. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's your precinct? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know about 11 the first one, but the second one -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. On the second one. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're so confused. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: You're on another one there, I 15 see. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the third one. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You're on four of them. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So everybody is in my 19 precinct these days, huh? Is that what we're getting at? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not everybody. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're the one 22 that's designated to take the phone calls. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's the answer to 25 "no surprises." They get to call you. 2-24-03 111 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think that -- 2 I think this is Precinct 3. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I think Jones is in 4 mine. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know Jones -- I mean, I 7 know it's in my precinct. Unless I'm more confused than 8 I -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ask Road and Bridge 10 to correct their document. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I visited with 12 Truby about this, and I was aware that they're certainly in 13 my precinct, based on the line, and Mr. Newberry requested 14 these changes. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's okay for you -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's okay from my 17 standpoint. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to slide it back 19 from Buster's precinct to yours and approve these? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, from my four. For 21 your one? I make a motion that we approve the name changes 22 for the privately maintained roads as presented by Road and 23 Bridge. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 2-24-03 112 1 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, that -- that 2 we approve the name changes for the privately maintained 3 roads in accordance with 911 guidelines and -- as presented, 4 those being five specifically numbered ones, 1753, 3037, 5 3038, 3036, and 3035. Any further discussion? All in 6 favor, raise your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item, 11 consider and discuss request for budget amendment to 12 transfer money from salary line item. Precinct 1 Constable, 13 Mr. Pickens, is here with us. That was the item you were 14 referring to earlier. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: With the budget amendment, the 17 unnumbered one. Mr. Pickens? 18 MR. PICKENS: Thank you, Judge, 19 Commissioners. I know it's 12 o'clock; everybody wants to 20 go eat lunch. I'll make this real quick. What I have 21 before y'all is, I've discussed with Mr. Baldwin here last 22 week considering a budget transfer amendment from salary 23 line item to some new line items, as we had discussed in the 24 past, for some office supplies, from $50 up to $500. And 25 that's for -- to get my letterheads and business cards and 2-24-03 113 1 envelopes so I can conduct my business in the proper manner. 2 For books and publications, dues, which in the past budget 3 was $75, increased up to $500 due to the fact that -- from 4 one example right here, I purchased a book out of my own 5 funds for -- to help me serve my papers within my precinct 6 and within the county. Due to the fact of listening all 7 about the -- the road changes the name changes and so forth, 8 this really helps me get along and get my papers served in a 9 timely manner. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bobby, you purchased 11 that out of what? Out of your pocket? 12 MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was $75. Why 14 didn't you just spend it out of this? 15 MR. PICKENS: Because at the time, this just 16 came in. I just got this, just recently. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That explains it all, 18 yeah. Okay. 19 MR. PICKENS: And then also for the -- due to 20 the fact that Legislature is meeting right now as we speak, 21 from my past experience being in law enforcement, on the odd 22 years is when they meet and they pass new laws, criminal 23 laws, civil laws. So, we're going to have some new books 24 coming into effect September 1st to be purchased, as far as 25 traffic laws and so forth. The next one will be the 2-24-03 114 1 telephone. Being the fact that my office is now located 2 downstairs, it's no longer the J.P. office, so I'm absorbing 3 the expense on that phone. Also, I have purchased a cell 4 phone to help me with my duties as the -- serving the 5 papers, and where the J.P.'s office can keep in contact with 6 me at all times. I'm asking that the Court increase that up 7 to $500. That's a new phone line item. The vehicle repair, 8 as far as using my personal vehicle, for oil changes and 9 therefore because of the increased mileage on serving 10 papers, to help with preventive maintenance. Same as -- as 11 far as the fuel; it's $250 to offset some of the expenses 12 that I've acquired on that. What I've just given you is 13 also a letter from the County Treasurer showing that at the 14 end of this fiscal year, I'll have a little over $3,800 left 15 in my budget, which this is the money that was not spent 16 October 1st and part of November, 'cause nobody was in the 17 office at that time, due to the fact that we had the 18 election. All I'm asking is for $2,000 to be transferred 19 around to these line items. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. I move for 21 approval. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 24 seconded by Commissioner Baldwin and Commissioner Williams, 25 respectively, that we approve the budget amendment request 2-24-03 115 1 made by Precinct 1 Constable, and transfers as therein 2 requested. Any further discussion? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you. 4 You can see the note at the bottom where Bobby and the 5 County Auditor had visited and worked out some things before 6 it ever got to me, but I visited Bobby and -- in order -- 7 and it's hard to tell -- I mean, he doesn't have any 8 spending record to know what it's going to take to get that 9 office going. The former constable just simply didn't spend 10 money, and so it's difficult. So, I thought we would fire a 11 shot and let him get it cranked up, let him get going, but 12 also advised him that -- not to hang his hat on -- on his 13 budget looking like this next year. I mean, there's -- we 14 have to address the constable's budgets on -- I'll point 15 out -- when we get down to it, I'll point out some 16 discrepancies all the way through it and take a look at it. 17 But I just want you to understand, Bobby, there's a 18 possibility it may not look anything like this. 19 MR. PICKENS: I understand. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Did he say, "I 21 understand"? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Didn't say, "I 23 agree." He said, "I understand." 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Long as he 25 understands, that's all I'm looking for. 2-24-03 116 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can make a quick 2 comment on that as well -- and this is kind of more to the 3 Court than it is to Bobby -- is that the constables' 4 salaries, about five years ago we went to great lengths to 5 get them all equalized. We raised them, eliminated travel 6 allowance, large part of it as I recall, and somehow in the 7 last five years it's gotten all out of balance again. And I 8 think it's something -- that's one of the areas that we 9 really need to look at with the next budget, because I 10 think -- I mean, they're -- you know, they shouldn't -- they 11 should be the same, to me. Whether we need to adjust -- you 12 know, do something to get them more in line with each other 13 again. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When it comes that 15 time for that discussions, I'm also going to want to talk 16 about Precinct 4 being somewhat different, in that it covers 17 60 percent of the county. And I -- I know y'all have had 18 these conversations before, but we're going to have to have 19 them again. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fair enough. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? All 22 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 2-24-03 117 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 2 MR. PICKENS: Thank you, Judge. Thank you, 3 Commissioners. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: You betcha. Thank you, 5 Constable. Did I hear your stomach growl, Commissioner 6 Baldwin? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what that was? 8 Yes, sir. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: About 9:30 this 11 morning. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. What's the pleasure? 13 Do we go forward? Do we -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got some folks 15 waiting; they've been here a long time. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd do the -- let's do 17 11. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, let's do 11. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll go straight to 20 2.11, consider and discuss and take appropriate action on 21 amendments to the intergovernmental agreement between Kerr 22 County and the U.G.R.A. Commissioner Williams. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Returning this item 24 again for the fifth time, I believe. And I think this time 25 we have a -- a document in front of the Court that -- that 2-24-03 118 1 passes muster from both the County Attorney and the attorney 2 representing the River Authority. David, would you address 3 that, please, and Richard, so that the Court knows? 4 MR. MOTLEY: Do you have a copy of it? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe we have 6 copies of it. 7 MR. MOTLEY: I ran an extra copy off for you 8 this morning. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. 10 MR. MOTLEY: There's not much to say about 11 it, except that we -- we made the changes that the Court had 12 requested. We made this -- and Richard had made some 13 suggestions on this that we make this apply only to what I'm 14 calling the second grant. It's really the third, if you -- 15 if you count the study grant, but the 722411; it's that 16 grant. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's -- the second 18 applies to the -- to the sewer project. 19 MR. MOTLEY: Right. Yeah, I'm sorry, right. 20 And we made it apply only to that. And we made any 21 change -- as we had done in the engineering contract, we 22 made any reference to Tetra Tech instead be the reference to 23 Grove and Associates, Incorporated, until we find out a 24 little bit more about the status of the buy-out or what 25 happened on that. Left a blank only for the date of the 2-24-03 119 1 contract and the amount of matching funds that U.G.R.A. has 2 placed into that. I'm not sure what that amount is. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's on record; we 4 can research it. 5 MR. MOTLEY: Basically, it was the same 6 agreement that -- or the template agreement, except that it 7 did not -- this one is -- is retrospective, in that there 8 already have been appointments of -- and contracts retaining 9 Grove and Associates and Grantworks. So, this is a 10 historical-type thing, to make up for a past situation. And 11 Mr. Mosty had suggested that when we get to the next two, 12 that we would just use this sort of as a template to go 13 forward with it, but then prospectively deal with the fact 14 that the Court would, at some time, take up the issue of -- 15 through RFP's, the issue of the engineer and then 16 administrative consulting firm, and we'd change it at that 17 time. But I think Richard had the right idea, to just make 18 this the retrospective agreement, and -- and I think it's 19 just basically the same agreement that you already had. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which memorializes 21 the second contract for grant moneys? 22 MR. MOTLEY: Yes, that's correct. Put that 23 one to bed, and we'll deal with the next two if and when 24 they get funded. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 2-24-03 120 1 MR. MOTLEY: On a related issue, I assume 2 that you got the copy of the contract on the engineering? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 4 MR. MOTLEY: And that's okay. Passed on down 5 the line. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Been signed by the 7 County Judge. 8 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. All right. Well, I don't 9 have anything else to add to it. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Very good. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval 12 of the intergovernmental agreement as amended between Kerr 13 County and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, and 14 authorize the County Judge to sign same. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second that motion. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 17 seconded by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin, 18 respectively, that the Court approve the intergovernmental 19 agreement for Texas Community Development Program, Texas 20 Colonia Construction Fund awards relative to Contract Number 21 722411, and authorize the County Judge to sign same. Is 22 there any discussion? 23 MR. MOSTY: Well, and you will insert the 24 last grant -- there is that one blank for the last grant. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 2-24-03 121 1 MR. MOSTY: The last matching funds you see 2 on Page -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Matching funds 4 amount. 5 MR. MOSTY: You can just have the County -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the bottom of Page 7 1, you're referring to? 8 MR. MOSTY: County Judge's -- yes, that's a 9 matter of record in the last resolution. So, just for that 10 clarification. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate that, Mr. Mosty. 12 Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 13 by raising your right hand. 14 (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) 15 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (Commissioner Nicholson voted against the motion.) 18 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 20 MR. MOSTY: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, we have a room 22 full of airport people, City employees, et cetera, et 23 cetera. We could work it two ways. We could go ahead and 24 knock it out on an empty stomach, or they could take us out 25 to lunch, and -- 2-24-03 122 1 JUDGE TINLEY: What is your preference, 2 Commissioner Baldwin? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd rather do it on an 4 empty stomach, of course. No gifts here. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You have attorneys 6 and city engineers and busy airport folks, and city 7 attorneys and county attorneys and -- wow, a lot of talent 8 out there. Let's go. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Better hire some 10 lawyers to take care of us. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's take up Item 2.14. I 12 assume it's the pleasure of the Court at this time to 13 consider and discuss, take appropriate action on 14 recommendation of Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Advisory 15 Board to approve revised Airport Layout Plan, Airport Master 16 Plan Update as presented, and authorize County Judge to sign 17 same. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. 19 I'm going to defer to Paul Knippel, who is the City of 20 Kerrville's Director of Public Works -- I think that's the 21 correct title -- who is serving in the capacity of interim 22 director of the airport as we search for a new airport 23 manager. Paul? 24 MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir. You took my opening 25 lines, but that's all right. And we're not here tonight 2-24-03 123 1 to -- this afternoon to -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't say "tonight." 3 MR. KNIPPEL: This evening -- this afternoon 4 to ask for any -- any money. I'm here to try to carry a 5 couple of items across the end zone, so to speak, get some 6 closure on some matters that have been pending for several 7 months now. The first item is 2.14, regarding approval of 8 the Airport Layout Plan and approval of the Airport Master 9 Plan Update. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everybody get a copy? 11 MR. KNIPPEL: The -- the driver behind both 12 of these documents is the Airport Layout Plan. That's an 13 11-page reproducible-type document with full-size drawings. 14 It has -- it outlines proposed growth for the airport, both 15 from an air operations standpoint and also a land use 16 standpoint, for the next 20 years. That document, the 17 Airport Layout Plan, has been through the F.A.A., it's been 18 through TexDOT Aviation. Everyone has approved it. It 19 hasn't been signed; the signatures start on the local level. 20 So that document, the Airport Layout Plan, is enclosed in 21 the Airport Master Plan. It's one of the fold-out sheets, 22 the 11-by-17. So, that's the first thing. The second thing 23 that we're here today to ask approval on is the Airport 24 Master Plan Update. That's more of a -- a verbal narrative 25 expansion of the -- the drawings themselves. It doesn't 2-24-03 124 1 carry quite as much weight as the Airport Layout Plan does. 2 It sort of provides the basis for the development of the 3 Airport Layout Plan. 4 The Master Plan also goes through an 5 inventory of current facilities. It provides projections 6 for what we think we're going to see out at the airport over 7 the next 20 years, and it discusses three growth 8 alternatives. One of those three alternatives has been 9 accepted by the F.A.A. and TexDOT Aviation. That growth 10 alternative is -- is the Airport Layout Plan that we bring 11 before you today. Both of these documents began work in -- 12 in 1998, and they -- they culminate, you know, with -- with 13 authorization by the Court. I'm going before the City 14 Council tomorrow night to ask for the same. These documents 15 are important in that, should the direction of the Court and 16 the -- and the Council be to further pursue airport 17 improvement grants, those -- we are only eligible for those 18 grants if the specific improvement is shown in these 19 documents. Approval of these documents doesn't commit the 20 Court or the Council to further expansion or development of 21 the airport; it just provides us a basis for doing such. 22 So, with that being said, that's basically all I have on 23 2.14. If there's any questions? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Paul, by -- by us 25 voting and adopting 2.14, that doesn't -- 2.14 does not 2-24-03 125 1 address the 2.15 issue? 2 MR. KNIPPEL: No, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The leases and the 4 verbiage and the names and all that are not in there at this 5 point, are they? 6 MR. KNIPPEL: Not directly. The Airport 7 Layout Plan does designate different parts of the airport 8 property, of the 550 acres, I think it is, within the 9 airport property for different uses. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 11 MR. KNIPPEL: Aviation or non-aviation, 12 different areas for different types of hangars within the 13 aviation area, so forth. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand, and I 15 think you've answered my question. Thank you. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for 17 Mr. Knippel? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This -- this 19 approval of the plan, I'm -- I'm trying to get straight what 20 we're approving here. We're not starting down a path that 21 will lock us into expenditure in the future? I'm looking at 22 Commissioner Williams, 'cause he knows more about this. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I can't say 24 that there won't be times when we might have to put up some 25 match money for grants, but the approval of the plan is the 2-24-03 126 1 precursor to any grant applications. You have to have that 2 in place, or you're out in left field with no opportunity. 3 So, there may be some times down the line, but those are all 4 separate things that the Court would take under discussion 5 and discuss the relative merits of it. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would we essentially 7 be saying to the Airport Board, then, yeah, go ahead and 8 start down this path and we'll deal with each one of those 9 as -- as they come up? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 11 Airport Board recommends it. This has been in development 12 for, what, two-plus years, Paul? 13 MR. KNIPPEL: Since '98. It -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Five years. And the 15 Airport Board does recommend Court approval, and is 16 recommending the same thing to the City Council tomorrow 17 night for its approval. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have a comment. I 19 guess, what is the timeline for this? What if we didn't 20 approve it today? When does this have to be approved by? 21 Is there a -- a date? 22 MR. KNIPPEL: There's not. Obviously, 23 something that's been in development for five years doesn't 24 have a great sense of urgency. I think that we run the risk 25 of -- of F.A.A. taking another shot at it and starting the 2-24-03 127 1 process over again, and that's a concern on the part of the 2 folks at TexDOT Aviation also. I think there's a desire on 3 the staffers who have been working on this to close it. I 4 will say that the -- the growth alternative plan that is 5 identified in -- in the document that you have there, the 6 Master Plan is a 20-year document. The growth plan in there 7 is a zero to five-year document. We are already halfway 8 through the improvements that are shown in there. In terms 9 of the last couple of years, as you recall, the Court 10 approved matching funds for some -- some big capital 11 projects at the airport, and so we're kind of well on our 12 way buying into the document, effectively. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- and, you know, 14 the documents -- I don't have any problem with it, the 15 substance of it, at all, but I do have a problem with the 16 text. And it goes back to something that I've mentioned on 17 numerous times, I think, in this court, is the -- it goes 18 back to, I guess, the lack of recognition the County gets 19 for being a fifty-fifty partner in that project. I had to 20 reread the first, I don't know, 15 pages twice before I 21 could ever even find Kerr County, and I -- I strongly object 22 to that. This airport has been funded by county residents 23 as much as city residents throughout, and I think that the 24 County needs to be recognized. And, you know, going through 25 here, and it talks about all the reasons for the growth and 2-24-03 128 1 all the things that are good; it's because it's next to the 2 City of Kerrville. Well, that's not true. It's because 3 it's in Kerr County. It talked about 50 percent of the -- 4 you know, the -- 45 percent of the population is in the city 5 limits, which is why this airport is needed and going to 6 grow more. Well, again, I mean, it's -- Kerr County's 7 growing. The county's growing faster than the city is. I 8 don't know what the breakdown is, but I'm quite certain that 9 there's quite a few people that have airplanes out there 10 that are county residents, not city residents. 11 So -- and I'm not going to vote against it 12 for this reason, but I would vote against the next plan, if 13 I do have the opportunity, if the County isn't recognized 14 better and isn't shown to be a fifty-fifty partner in this. 15 And this goes to the next step that really needs to be 16 addressed more at the City Council, I think, and probably 17 the City Manager, is that in the past, whenever the grant 18 came up, the City kind of came to the County and said, well, 19 it was in the Master Plan, so y'all need to pay your, you 20 know 10 -- 15 percent, 10 percent, whatever the percentage 21 is, with very little input going into the process, and that 22 needs to change. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Commissioner 24 Letz' comments should be well-taken. I don't disagree with 25 them. 2-24-03 129 1 MR. KNIPPEL: Yes. And that had been 2 mentioned to me prior to this meeting, just your first 3 comment regarding the equal recognition, and we'll get that 4 on the cover page for sure, and we'll endeavor to change the 5 text accordingly as well. And as far as the grant process 6 goes, it's -- in my opinion, it's easier to get your 7 approval on the front end, before we spend a lot of time 8 developing any further projects out there, than it is to 9 just show up and say, well, here it is. So, I'll -- I 10 wasn't involved in a lot of those, but that's how we intend 11 to do business. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're just the 13 messenger, Paul. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the point that 15 we made when interviews begin for the new airport manager, 16 so that the airport manager realizes that it's a fifty-fifty 17 partnership, just like it is at the library. 18 MR. KNIPPEL: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Paul. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you, Paul. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are we? Let's 22 see, which one is that? I would move approval of the 23 recommendation of the Airport Advisory Board for the County 24 approval of Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Master Plan -- 25 Airport Layout Plan and Airport Master Plan, as -- as will 2-24-03 130 1 be amended, and authorize County Judge to sign same. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 4 seconded by Commissioners Williams and Baldwin, 5 respectively. Do we have any further discussion? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to vote 7 for it also. I'm going to support what Commissioner Letz 8 said. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? All 10 in favor -- all in favor of the motion, indicate 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. Item 2.15, 16 consider and discuss and take appropriate action on 17 representation of Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Advisory 18 Board to approve revised airport lease agreement with 19 Kerrville Aviation, Inc. I might note for the record that 20 we do have two requests from the public to participate in 21 this particular agenda item. Commissioner Williams, do you 22 have any opening comments? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just for openers, 24 Judge. Just -- again, I'll turn it over to Paul to present 25 the revisions as are being recommended to the Court and 2-24-03 131 1 explain them, and invite anyone else who might have comment 2 in support of or against to speak up. Paul? 3 MR. KNIPPEL: I want to -- staff is here 4 today to request your approval of three lease documents that 5 are before the Court regarding our -- the fixed base 6 operator, or Kerrville Aviation, out at the airport. The 7 three -- the three lease documents cover an area -- this is 8 the Airport Loop Road right here. This is what is known as 9 the -- the KX Aviation lease, where the Kerrville 10 Aviation -- you know, kind of our quasi-terminal building 11 right here, if you will. And then we have over here the 12 S & S lease, which is known in your documents as -- as Lots 13 9 and 10. There's a -- what's become known as the blue 14 hangar here on the end, so we're talking about these two 15 properties right here. And in relation to the airport apron 16 right here, this is the taxiway out to the main runway. So, 17 this is the Lots 9 and 10, and this is the -- the KX lease. 18 With regard to that, we'll cover the first one. What we're 19 bringing to you today is a -- is a proposed sixth amendment 20 to the lease for Lot 3 and the two buildings -- three 21 buildings they're on. The sixth lease amendment basically 22 just accomplishes two things. It increases the number of 23 mandatory services that must -- that are required of the 24 F.B.O. to air frame power -- air frame and power repair of 25 the airport -- airplanes, and also, that amendment also 2-24-03 132 1 releases -- also changes the wording that's involved with 2 the establishment of fuel flowage fees. 3 Just to kind of set the stage, the main 4 sources -- the principal sources of revenue for the airport 5 are ground leases, fuel flowage fees, and primarily that's 6 it at the moment, and some sales tax and property taxes. 7 The -- so that -- that document is fairly straightforward. 8 It's an amendment or an addendum to an existing document 9 that's been carried forward since the -- since the '60's. 10 I'll back up just a second here. I think Commissioner 11 Williams included a copy of an agenda bill that I have, and 12 I also gave the same agenda bill to our City Council. These 13 same items are going also to the Council tomorrow night. 14 That agenda bill went into a lot of -- a lot of detail. I 15 tried to convey what occurred at the Airport Advisory Board 16 meeting with regard to all these leases as best I could 17 without getting any more verbose than necessary. We're here 18 today very simply to seek your approval on all of these 19 lease items. 20 The second item is the -- is a new lease 21 for -- for the Lots 9 and 10. Right now, those are ground 22 leases only. They're due to expire in 2005. In 2005, the 23 blue hangar, which was built by the original F.B.O. hangar 24 owner, will become the property of the airport and subject 25 to outright rental rates. The incentive for the City and 2-24-03 133 1 County to approve of this lease is that the -- the lessee 2 has performance requirements in that he has requirements to 3 construct an additional hangar on the Lot 9. There will 4 also be a release of a portion of the Lot 9 as well, back to 5 the airport for further leasing, which will provide some 6 additional airport frontage road -- airport apron frontage 7 availability, and there's a number of different things. And 8 I think I probably should best stop right now and just see 9 if there's any questions. You've all had an opportunity to 10 read the agenda bill and so forth. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Remind me again, 12 without going back and reading it, how -- how's the fuel 13 flowage fees adjusted? 14 MR. KNIPPEL: The -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's happening with 16 that? 17 MR. KNIPPEL: The current lease says that the 18 fuel flowage fees, which is basically a tax on top of the 19 rate, on top, is -- that fee is set based on a comparison 20 with some named airports; New Braunfels, San Marcos, and 21 three others. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 23 MR. KNIPPEL: So -- and it also has a cap in 24 there, and I believe that cap is at 5 cents per gallon. 25 This addendum will change the language to say that the fuel 2-24-03 134 1 flowage fees will be based on a comparable rate at other 2 airports. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No specific number? 4 MR. KNIPPEL: No specific airports. And that 5 -- and in doing so, it removes the cap as well. And I think 6 our fees could go up quite a bit. We seem -- right now 7 they're 5 cents a gallon, and they could go up to -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who sets that rate? 9 First of all, who gets that money? Does the City/County -- 10 MR. KNIPPEL: Airport -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me. 12 MR. KNIPPEL: Sorry, sir. It goes to the 13 airport fund. Which, right now, the -- the City has the 14 airport -- an airport fund in the budget, and most fees and 15 expenditures -- or revenues and expenditures come in and out 16 of that budget, and any projected shortfalls are approached 17 through the Council and the Court to make up on an annual 18 basis. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me why -- and 20 this will be my last question for a minute. Tell me why the 21 City and County wouldn't want to just allow the blue 22 building to run its course, and then -- I think by 2005 was 23 the year that the lease is up there, and then we become 24 owners of that facility. And as -- in my mind, it looks 25 like to me that a good business way to handle that facility 2-24-03 135 1 out there is that we let the lease run out and then we take 2 ownership, and then lease it to make money, as opposed to 3 not make money. Where am I -- where am I wrong in that? 4 MR. KNIPPEL: I -- I think that the -- I 5 think that we will make money off this proposed lease. I 6 think there'll be revenues directly to the airport, in 7 addition to additional property and sales tax that come 8 right back to Kerr County and the City. I think the short 9 answer to your -- your question is a -- goes back to a -- 10 one bird in hand is worth two in the bush. We -- we 11 could -- the benefit to the City and the incentive that's 12 brought forth in it as a negotiating point also with this 13 lease is that -- is the added improvements that come forth 14 with the lease. The additional hangar that will become the 15 property of the City -- or not -- of the airport, excuse me. 16 I'm used to standing up before the Council. That -- the new 17 hangar that will become the property of the airport at the 18 termination of the lease, I think that's a benefit right 19 there. It's a new building. I think there's also the -- 20 the -- of course, the added -- there's a requirement as well 21 to construct a self-fueling depot. So, with -- and also, 22 with the -- there's a variety of additional sources of 23 revenue other than simply the rent on the blue hangar that 24 come forth with this lease. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Were you not going to 2-24-03 136 1 crunch some numbers for presentation to the Court on these 2 options? 3 MR. KNIPPEL: I did that, yes, sir. I did a 4 -- a local economic revenue analysis on this. I'll pass 5 that to the Court. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now you got to 8 explain it to us. 9 MR. KNIPPEL: The box there is really the -- 10 the revenue sources themselves, over to the right part of 11 the page. The things to the left part of the page are kind 12 of what goes into the right part of the page. Down at the 13 bottom are the assumptions. Essentially, what we have here, 14 when we get to the bottom line, we projected over a 30-year 15 period of this lease the total income to the area, meaning 16 the airport and Kerr County and the City of Kerrville, those 17 three entities, is over $1.3 million. Now, that's based on 18 some very, in my opinion, conservative numbers, such as a -- 19 a growth of fueling of only 2 percent annually, flat-line 20 tax rates, flat-line sales and property. No -- no increases 21 in those in terms of the percentages. There's a -- a 22 3 percent growth projected based on the Consumer Price Index 23 for the hangar rental itself. There's a -- a 3 percent 24 projected C.P.I. growth of the land lease itself, also. The 25 past five years, we've seen a 4 percent. 2-24-03 137 1 So -- and to get to the heart of Commissioner 2 Baldwin's question, we ran it out where we compared the 3 proposed lease, as it is before the Court now, to a 4 hypothetical lease that may come online in 2005, and we are 5 projecting a -- a -- about a $300,000 difference over that 6 time period. Now, there's a lot of variables that could 7 move in this. The projections, I think they're 8 conservative; they could be much higher than what they are. 9 There could be a whole lot more revenue than the 1.3 shown 10 here on this page. Somebody -- alternately, somebody could 11 say well, I'm willing to pay a whole lot more than what we 12 consider fair market value for that blue hangar in 2005. 13 The -- and that may or may not be the case. And are they 14 going into a 30-year lease at that rate, is another 15 question. So, the -- there's a lot that can be said. If 16 there's no other questions, I can continue. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I guess it 18 really boils down to, you know, the competitive bidding 19 issue. Or it does to me, anyway. I mean, I may be a little 20 bit off base on that, but -- so if we -- if we -- what 21 you're saying is, if we go along with the recommendation of 22 the Airport Board -- and this hasn't meant anything to me 23 quite yet; these are a lot of numbers -- we would be better 24 -- you're saying we'd be better off financially, probably, 25 by going with the recommendation of the Airport Board than 2-24-03 138 1 going the competitive bidding route? 2 MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir. I think that -- and 3 that is because the -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where's the income 5 on -- on the recommendation? Where does the income happen? 6 By -- you know, the way I understood it, and I may be off 7 base again, that the new -- the new facility or the new 8 building being built out there on the Lot 9 or 10, whichever 9 one, is a storage facility, is it not? 10 MR. KNIPPEL: The new facility will be used 11 for storage. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And how does that 13 create any additional revenues? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Airplane storage or other 15 storage? 16 MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir, airplane storage. 17 It -- it brings additional fuel consumption to the airport, 18 for one. I think that -- and it works in with the overall 19 business plan of -- of Kerrville Aviation right now. The 20 lease isn't just Lot 9. It's -- the lease is Lots 9 and 10, 21 and they work together with the whole overall operation. So 22 -- and that hangar will become the property of the airport 23 at the termination of the lease, which then it will be 24 opened up for -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 2-24-03 139 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the question 2 of competitive bidding that Commissioner Baldwin raised is 3 also a question I raised the other night, and in subsequent 4 discussions I -- I had, I rethought the issue, but I think 5 it would be important perhaps if the County Attorney would 6 just give us a brief expression about competitive bidding 7 when we are involved in leasing something, as opposed to 8 when we are involved in the purchase of goods and services. 9 Can somebody enlighten the Court as to the distinction so 10 that there is comfort -- a comfort level is raised on 11 leasing versus purchasing? 12 MR. MOTLEY: Are you talking about now? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not? 14 MR. MOTLEY: Well, because, you know, I -- 15 this is an item I did not know was on the agenda. Getting 16 surprised again, I guess. There is exceptions to the laws 17 that would allow this kind of agreement. How's that for an 18 answer? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Works for me. 20 MR. KNIPPEL: I think that on a -- and this 21 issue of a competitive bid versus a -- a fair market type or 22 a -- a rate structure formula came up during the Airport 23 Advisory Board meeting when we had this -- this lease before 24 them. And then the gentleman over here is going to probably 25 make a presentation in a minute saying, well, I can pay a 2-24-03 140 1 lot more money than what they're proposing to. And so it 2 becomes the -- the nature of the issue then before us 3 becomes a -- one of, are we going to have a competitive 4 basis for lease execution on the airport, or are we going to 5 set a rate and adopt a formula for rate structure, and then 6 invite people to -- kind of on a first-come, first-served 7 basis is -- is sort of where that tends to go. I think -- 8 and on that note, the -- the staff, our City Manager, we all 9 kind of would want to voice our opposition for a competitive 10 structure. I think that that does not create, necessarily, 11 a development-friendly environment. 12 You might have some short-term gains with 13 that, but there are some -- but if you're into -- if we have 14 a new user, for instance, who wants to use some of the 15 nonindustrial or the nonaviation related land out there, and 16 he goes through the process of spending a couple of months 17 with the City or the County, developing, negotiating a -- 18 what part they want to lease, and seeing how it works in 19 their business plan, and then we get to where we agree on 20 it, then we have to say, "Wait, let's go out for a bid," and 21 we have to go -- and go to the public. Perhaps this could 22 become the policy, that we need to go to the public then 23 and -- and solicit any other higher bidders that could come 24 in for a dollar more, for instance. I couldn't find 25 anything -- our City Attorney didn't find any requirements 2-24-03 141 1 or prohibitions in -- in the local code for purchasing 2 that -- that applies to this, nor did I see anything in our 3 grant insurances that we have with the State that requires 4 or prohibits this. We can only do things in a fair and 5 reasonable way. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, see, that's 7 where you and I kind of are on opposite sides of the -- the 8 fence here, because I -- I see a fair and a reasonable way 9 is offering it -- offering the opportunity for public 10 property to all citizens. You know, I mean, I hope we 11 can -- I hope we can spend enough time here where you can 12 convince me and show me that I'm wrong, okay? But I really 13 don't see -- I don't see what you're saying up to this 14 point. 15 MR. KNIPPEL: Well, and I -- I think that -- 16 I think there's merits to both sides. It's what's going to 17 be the best thing for the City -- for the airport overall, 18 with what we have right now and in front of us. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's start throwing 20 something at him every time he does that. 21 MR. KNIPPEL: I'm sorry. I'm going to have 22 to start saying "the airport." I think we have an 23 opportunity to -- to -- to work with an existing business 24 that we have at the airport who has been there, has a 25 history with the airport, who has come forward wishing to 2-24-03 142 1 expand and grow. And by virtue of -- by the expansion of 2 the -- and the extension of this lease at this time, he's 3 able to accomplish some of the goals, but he needs to tie up 4 that blue hangar with everything else to make that happen. 5 So, it's kind of a -- we -- we make the best decision with 6 what we have in front of us. That's my take on it, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have a few 8 comments. I'll be much easier than Commissioner Baldwin, I 9 think, on this one. First, I don't know that the whole 10 Court knows Mr. Kennedy, if he may have introduced himself 11 to the full members of the Court. He currently leases the 12 property, the Kerrville Aviation building, and has done 13 it -- you know, I don't have a plane. I'm not sure if 14 that's good or bad, but I'm probably glad I don't have one. 15 But a number of people I know in Kerrville do, and a lot 16 greater number of people outside Kerrville use this airport, 17 and speak very, very highly of the way he runs his facility. 18 I think he's done -- and that was, what, three years ago you 19 took over? 20 MR. KENNEDY: Less than two. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than two years ago, 22 took over operation. He's, in my mind, done a real good job 23 out there to start that. I mean, I think we have a good 24 lessor that we're working with. When I look at the -- the 25 chart -- Paul, you can stand up again; I have a question for 2-24-03 143 1 you. Thought you were going to be out of it. Where on this 2 chart in the box does it show the -- the flowage revenue? 3 Is that the right terminology, fuel flowage revenue? 4 MR. KNIPPEL: This part right here. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see the fuel. It went 6 from self-serve depot. The other is from additional planes. 7 MR. KNIPPEL: Right. If -- the one is from 8 the self-serve depot. That's self-explanatory. The other 9 is from additional planes that will be -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the new hangar, I 11 imagine. 12 MR. KNIPPEL: -- in the new hangar. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where is the current 14 revenue? I mean, the current amount that we are getting 15 each year? Not the -- I mean, that column is the additional 16 planes in the new hangar. That's something new. These come 17 in online, so to speak? 18 MR. KNIPPEL: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then the self-serve 20 depot, I guess that's online? 21 MR. KNIPPEL: No, it's not. It has some time 22 requirements to be -- to be built. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 MR. KNIPPEL: Along with this new lease. 25 I -- I think that all the hangar -- the aircraft that are 2-24-03 144 1 being stored now are on -- are under the other lease, on the 2 Lot 3 facilities that are currently on the other lease. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So this analysis only 4 shows Lot 9 and 10; it doesn't include Lot -- or the current 5 operations? 6 MR. KNIPPEL: Right. This is only for the 7 purposes of what -- what the new proposed lease on Lot 9 and 8 10 would do to it. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Under the -- 10 the blue hangar rental, in Year 2016, there's a large 11 increase, and that continues throughout the balance of the 12 lease, and that's where the majority of the revenue comes 13 from. Is it that they're -- I mean, I guess, what's the 14 logic behind that, of why that starts all of a sudden in 15 Year 2016? 16 MR. KNIPPEL: That's -- that's the give that 17 the airport has in the negotiation of this lease, is a delay 18 in the rental rates for that hangar. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And in -- I guess, in 20 lieu of that, we're getting another hangar built? 21 MR. KNIPPEL: We're getting another hangar 22 built. We've got some taxes and some flowage fees that come 23 in the door. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When's the new hangar 25 built? 2-24-03 145 1 MR. KNIPPEL: It's got a timeline to be, I 2 think, constructed roughly in two years, it has to be 3 finished. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's done in the 5 front end of the lease? 6 MR. KNIPPEL: There is a -- there's some -- 7 in the lease document, there are requirements for -- for 8 timeline for getting a building permit and subsequent 9 construction of the hangar and completion. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there an estimate of 11 the cost of that hangar? 12 MR. KNIPPEL: Four to five hundred thousand 13 dollars. 14 MR. JACKSON: 500,000. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four to five hundred 16 thousand? And the -- the revenue -- the rental revenue, you 17 know, of the people that, you know, rent space in the 18 hangar, in the blue or the new one, that revenue goes to the 19 operator, correct? 20 MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I think one of the -- one 23 of the questions that may not be clear -- one of the items 24 may not be clear, the extension of the lease that applies to 25 the blue hangar is only a 10-year extension, through 2015. 2-24-03 146 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why that -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That's why that income stream 3 to the blue hangar comes online in 2016. 4 MR. KNIPPEL: That's correct, sir. I didn't 5 make that point. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the -- in the -- 30 7 years down the road, or, you know, 30 -- whatever, 33 years 8 down the road would be when the revenue stream on the new 9 hangar would kind of hit the City/County. 10 MR. KNIPPEL: Yes. County/City. 11 (Laughter.) 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's getting good. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Paul, another couple of items, 15 if I might. The -- the release of a portion of Lot 9 when 16 the new hangar is built, what portion of that lot will be 17 released? 18 MR. KNIPPEL: The map that you're looking at 19 doesn't show that. Right now, Lot 9 is all of this area 20 right here. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 22 MR. KNIPPEL: Here's the proposed hangar. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 24 MR. KNIPPEL: This -- about 100 feet of it 25 will be released, so there will still be room for another 2-24-03 147 1 hangar right here on the end. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 MR. KNIPPEL: Is that -- the lease document 4 requires that once this -- there's a -- a certificate of 5 occupancy issued for this new hangar, that a survey be 6 recorded on this property, and then -- and that cleans it 7 all up. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Where's going to be the new 9 self-service fuel depot? 10 MR. KNIPPEL: Right here. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Over by the blue hangar? 12 MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Okay, next item. 14 On your fuel flowage charges, you had mentioned that the 15 modification of the revision -- of the sixth revision, I 16 believe this is, to the Katz Aviation lease -- or Kerrville 17 Aviation, excuse me; I go back a ways. I won't tell you how 18 long I've been looking at this stuff. That it puts it on a 19 comparable -- the comparable is that fuel flowage charge, or 20 is that gross fuel charges relative to other facilities. 21 Are we only talking about the fuel flowage charge? 22 MR. KNIPPEL: I think the document uses the 23 word "rate." Comparable rate to other airports. So -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So we're talking about, 25 then, if -- if the comparable facilities are -- are 2-24-03 148 1 charging, say, what, two-forty for one hundred, that -- that 2 he's going to be required under that formula to take his 3 fuel price to be comparable with other F.B.O.'s in -- in the 4 -- in the industry for comparable facilities? Is that what 5 I'm hearing? 6 MR. KNIPPEL: I think that -- I see your 7 point. I think it means the comparable not so much applies 8 to a comparable dollar amount that's charged to other rates 9 for fuel, but to a comparable in terms of operations and 10 airport capacity. How many -- how many planes are coming in 11 and out of an airport? Do they have a tower? Do they not 12 have a tower? That sort of thing. Population it serves. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Mr. Jackson may have 14 a comment. 15 MR. JACKSON: I hate to interrupt the 16 discussion. I believe the flowage fee is an added on 17 charge, and a component of the price that's paid. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly. 19 MR. JACKSON: And what we're talking about is 20 comparables of what other facilities and airports charge for 21 that fee. Not -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Fuel flowage. 23 MR. JACKSON: That's right. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Not the price of fuel itself. 25 MR. JACKSON: Right. Price of fuel could 2-24-03 149 1 modify -- it could be different, I suppose, depending on 2 what area, just like you have different charges for 3 passenger vehicles in different parts. This is just the -- 4 if San Angelo, for example, has "X" and we're charging "Y," 5 the cap goes to what "X" would be, so that there's not any 6 -- so that the City/County revenues are treated the same. 7 But it's not the price -- it's not adjusted based upon the 8 price, itself, of the fuel. It's the fee. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Nor does it control the price 10 of the fuel. 11 MR. JACKSON: That's correct. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: He can charge anything he 13 wants to for his fuel. 14 MR. JACKSON: Right. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: But out of each gallon, he's 16 required to -- to rebate to the airport fund a nickel or six 17 cents or whatever that fuel flowage fee happens to be per 18 gallon. 19 MR. JACKSON: That's my understanding. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 MR. KNIPPEL: The lease documents -- the 22 proposed lease here also has a requirement for review of 23 that fee every six months. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For competitive 25 purposes? 2-24-03 150 1 MR. KNIPPEL: Yes. Doesn't say necessarily 2 revision, but it is a good look. Be part of our operation. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: The thought being that 4 hopefully, by a periodic review, we can try and be 5 competitive with other areas and try and get increased fuel 6 flowage out there, and additional activity overall? 7 MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a -- one real 10 quick comment. This is a -- you know, and I commend whoever 11 negotiated the lease, because, I mean, this is a big 12 departure from where we were 20 years ago, when many of our 13 leases out there were virtually at no revenue to the City 14 and the County. And there is a -- you know, a potential it 15 will yield $1.3 million over the life of the lease, and I 16 think it's -- you know, it's -- that's where we should be 17 going. The airport should be more or -- trying to get more 18 self-funding -- or self-funding, and I think this is a step 19 in that direction, and I'm in favor of moving in that 20 direction. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Jackson had signed up to 22 speak on this matter. Do you have anything else that you -- 23 MR. JACKSON: I really don't. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: -- would like to offer? 25 MR. JACKSON: We'd be happy to answer your 2-24-03 151 1 questions, and I appreciate you staying late, and so I don't 2 want to add to that. I think that the only thing I would 3 add to the discussion is what this is is an intertwined 4 issue lease and amendment, and that is the F.B.O. -- and I 5 think Megan has said this. I know Paul, in our discussions, 6 has said this many times, and that you want to be sure that 7 you have an arrangement that provides for the growth of the 8 airport by making sure that you sustain the F.B.O. We've 9 had trouble over the years. I know she's said that to you 10 more than once, with having more than one F.B.O. and being 11 able to sustain that operation. We are moving in the right 12 direction with more competitiveness in these negotiated 13 items, so my client certainly is in favor of this approach. 14 Not in favor of bidding out each component, and you have to 15 look at this as a total package. It's not just the blue 16 hangar. It's the new hangar, it's the development of the 17 airport, it's the self-storage fuel, it's the increased 18 revenues of the fuel flowage. It's all of those components. 19 It's the package that's before you. 20 If you break down any package, you probably 21 can find a component that, if you competitively bid that 22 component, it might be higher or lower. I'd submit to you, 23 it won't be higher. But let's just, for argument's sake, 24 say it is. That's not the total package. And once you 25 tinker with Item A, Items B through Z get adversely 2-24-03 152 1 affected. It adversely impacts the F.B.O. who's operating 2 successfully at this point, and that's why it's been 3 proposed. When this all began, Megan sat down and said, "I 4 need a quid pro quo." She said, "In order for me to be able 5 to feel good about promoting this lease, I want you to build 6 a new hangar; I want you to do this, I want you to do that," 7 and that's why it's the way it is. I've got more to say, 8 but you've heard more than you want to hear at this point. 9 Do you have any questions? My client's here. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one quick 11 question, David or Paul, whomever. It has to do with the 12 C.P.I. Your -- your analysis here is based on the C.P.I. of 13 3 percent, which triggers in the lease; is that correct? 14 MR. JACKSON: Right. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question is, if 16 the C.P.I. unfortunately should rise beyond 3, the trigger 17 also protects the County and the City in terms of that 18 increase as well; is that correct? 19 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That's all the questions of 22 Mr. Jackson. Mr. Stephen King has also asked to speak on 23 this item. Mr. King? 24 MR. KING: Thank you, Judge. Well, I -- I 25 want to present a little different view of the situation. I 2-24-03 153 1 am a resident of the county. I do own an aircraft. I own 2 three aircraft, actually, one based here in Kerrville for my 3 business. We own an oil and gas exploration company in west 4 Texas, so I use this as a travel point. The overall 5 proposal -- and I do business with Mr. Kennedy, so I'm in a 6 sort of a little bit of a bad situation here, opposing him. 7 But the proposal as -- as out -- as it's been laid out, I 8 think you have to look at the financial benefit to the City 9 of this deal, of what they're going to receive by giving up 10 a 14,000-square-foot hangar that they're going to take 11 possession of in two years. An important point is the lease 12 is not out on either one of these, on either one piece of 13 property. The lease is ongoing; it has two years left on 14 the Lot 9 and 10. 15 What you're doing is, you're basically 16 renegotiating the lease prior to the end of the term. The 17 legal concerns, I'll let the County and the City Attorney, 18 if they -- if they feel there's no legal -- legal concerns 19 as far as discrimination. I've checked with the F.A.A. this 20 morning through the A.O.P.A. They're -- they are not going 21 to answer back on it yet as to whether it's -- does cross 22 any of the discrimination clauses. I feel like -- and I say 23 discrimination, in that only one person can sign this lease 24 today, and that is Kennedy Enterprises. I can't sign a 25 lease. If I want to lease Hangar 4, I can't. I have to 2-24-03 154 1 wait two years to sign that lease. I may have an interest 2 in signing the lease and making a proposal, but my proposal 3 is two years away. You're -- you're giving one person a 4 right that no one else in your -- in the county has the same 5 right, because it is an ongoing lease. He has it for two 6 more years. He's not going to lease it for two years. He 7 stays with it for two years. And then I think you have to 8 look at the -- the precedent you're going to set by -- you 9 know, how are you going to do business on a property -- do 10 business on airport property? You know, are you going to 11 make deals and exclude everyone else that may be interested 12 in cutting a deal? And how -- you know, how that's going to 13 be carried forth? 14 Now, the -- you know, when I looked at this 15 deal, I thought I -- I couldn't ever understand why this 16 proposal was not laid out in two separate parts. I mean, he 17 wants to build a hangar. If the hangar's to be built on Lot 18 9, that's fine. I think that's great. It's a storage 19 facility. It will -- we need -- probably need more storage 20 on the airport. If -- if you want -- if an airport -- if a 21 hangar -- if a 30-year lease needs to be given on Lot 9, and 22 a 30-year lease would -- would help him pay out the cost and 23 everything, I have no problem with that. The problem I have 24 with -- is with the City allowing this Hangar 4 to be tied 25 to Lot 9. It's currently with Lot 9 now in the lease, but 2-24-03 155 1 in two years, the City will own Lot -- the hangar on Lot 10. 2 And, like I say, I have no objection to building a new 3 hangar on Lot 9 at this time. I think the City is giving 4 him a -- an advantageous right on the ground lease. The 5 ground lease for Mr. Drane that y'all approved several years 6 back was at $200 per acre. He was given a 20-year lease to 7 pay out his cost. You're giving a 30-year lease on this 8 property at a -- at a much lesser rate, around $134 per 9 acre. When it comes to Lot 10 is where I have a problem. 10 With the existing hangar, the City's giving 11 up -- the City/County is giving up revenue that they're 12 going to be -- they're going to own a piece of property in 13 two years, and they're basically saying for the next -- 14 until the Year 2016, we're going to forego all revenue from 15 that hangar. And I do -- I did some -- some comparables on 16 what that property should lease for. You're leasing the 17 Gibson's hangar. That Gibson's hangar is the property on 18 the other -- on the outside of the -- behind this hangar. 19 Same type of deal; it went back to the City/County. Y'all 20 put it up for bid, leased the property out. You leased it 21 out for about 15 cents a -- 15,000 or 10,000 square foot 22 hangar, you leased it for $1,500 a month. B.A. Products 23 leased it. They've got about 25 people working out there. 24 They're blowing and going, you know. They're making money 25 for -- making money for their -- for themselves. They have 2-24-03 156 1 employees. It's a perfect deal. It's the way it should 2 work. 3 I checked with Hondo. Down at Hondo, they 4 have a building down there, 10,000 square foot hangar built 5 on a government contract, came back to the City. They took 6 possession of the hangar, leased it out to an aircraft 7 interior company. They're paying about 13 cents a foot, 8 paying $1,300 a month. They're employing about 12, 15 9 people, and the City's receiving income and everything's 10 working fine. I -- I think that -- I think you have to look 11 at what this storage facility brings to the airport. I 12 mean, it's not going to bring any jobs. It's going to bring 13 some -- it's going to bring some more airplanes to be stored 14 there. Sales tax is variable; there will be no sales tax, 15 'cause there's no one working in the hangar. It's basically 16 airplanes being stored. The ground lease payment will bring 17 in, like I say, $134 per acre, probably less than $175 a 18 month revenue just off that piece of land that they're going 19 to use. 20 The property taxes, they're going to build a 21 $450,000 to $500,000 hangar; a lot of money. The property 22 taxes are basically the main revenue output on this -- on 23 this hangar facility, but you have to look at the property 24 taxes in a different way also. This is property taxes on 25 leased -- on a leased hangar. On a lease. The value of the 2-24-03 157 1 lease is always declining, all the way to the end of the 30 2 years. It's not like you're building a house or a 3 commercial building, a $450,000 commercial building and 4 every year the value goes up. If you look at the Hangar 4, 5 perfect example. Hangar 4 is a 14,000-square-foot building. 6 It's on the books for about $208,000 with your appraiser. 7 It has two years left on the lease, and its value currently, 8 being taxable value, is $20,000. Total taxes being paid on 9 that hangar at this current time are $518 per year, of which 10 the City reaps $204 a year. The City/County, you guys are 11 getting $204 a year off that property tax on a $200,000 12 building. 13 You look at the hangar next to it. That's 14 owned by Dugosh Aviation; it's a different deal. They own 15 their building. They have an older lease where they 16 actually own their building. They lease the land from the 17 City/County. They have a $208,000 -- around $208,000 18 building -- excuse me, $210,000 building and facilities in 19 the area. They're paying -- because they own it, it's not a 20 lease, they're paying roughly $5,100 a year in property 21 taxes to the City/County, versus what I said, $518 on a 22 $208,000 building on a lease. So, it's a misconception that 23 this lease -- and I've been trying to get to Fourth Coates 24 for the last week to get some clarification on how this is 25 going to -- how this lease and revenue stream is going to -- 2-24-03 158 1 is going to drop. But it's a misconception that taxes are 2 going to just continue in a flat rate. They're not. 3 I mean, if you look at the -- the total 4 property leased right now by Kerrville Aviation, counting 5 the Hangar 2 and 3 of Lot 2 and 3, with the big facility on 6 one side and Hangar 4, all of their total facilities are 7 valued at $610,000. It's on the tax rolls at 600 -- about 8 $604,000. They're actually being taxed at about $60,000, or 9 10 percent of the value. The total tax on that facility is 10 around $1,100 a year, of which you guys are not reaching 11 39 percent. So, the main revenue source from this storage 12 building -- this storage hangar is -- if you're looking at 13 it as property taxes, is a really a nebulous figure. It's 14 not really going to be that much money. My feeling is that 15 what -- really, what should have happened on this deal was 16 they should have negotiated a deal to build the hangar on 17 Lot 10, give him a 30-year lease, a low rate on the -- on 18 the ground lease and everything, and if it's -- if it's 19 advantageous to build that hangar and he's going to make 20 money off it, it should stand on its own. I don't see tying 21 Hangar 4 and throwing Hangar 4 in as a gift for the next 11 22 years. 23 The other thing -- the other point I think 24 has to be brought out is that the facility on 2 and 3, the 25 lease runs out in 2016 on that. In 2016, that lease 2-24-03 159 1 expires. What you're doing by -- by extending Hangar 4 for 2 30 years, you're giving it up to 2016 and then you're going 3 to collect market value in 2016. Well, then after 2016, you 4 negotiate with Kennedy Enterprises an extension onto the 5 rest of the terms on the end of the 30-year term. What 6 you're doing is you're -- in 2016, when the main facility, 7 the F.B.O., comes under renegotiation, now you have this 8 Hangar 4 sticking out another -- to the end of another term, 9 so the leases are not running concurrent, and the City 10 doesn't have a good package -- the City/County does not have 11 a good package to offer to anyone who may be interested in 12 the facility. 13 I -- the flowage fee, I mean, I think 14 that's -- you know, that's something that's been pointed out 15 already. It's a -- you know, we'll -- what will be in that 16 hangar? Will -- will there be two, three large jets that 17 actually use a whole lot more fuel? That's -- you know, 18 we've looked at these things. I've been here 10 years. 19 We've looked at these things in the past. There's been a 20 lot of deals on the table that jets were going to fly in; 21 they were going to fill up here on the way to California, 22 and it was -- all this was going to happen. So far, none of 23 it's happened. I think Commissioner Nicholson was right; we 24 need money in the airport. The airport needs funds. They 25 don't have enough money to apply for grants. They always 2-24-03 160 1 come back to you. The City comes to you looking for this 2 money -- grant money. There's a lot of great grants out 3 there, but we have no income. And what you're doing here is 4 you're giving up income, I think. I mean, you can do all 5 the flow charts you want, and you can throw in tourism and 6 how it's going to affect motel and hotel and, you know, you 7 can get up to $10 million if you want to. But when it comes 8 down to -- it's just a big storage building that's going to 9 hold some airplanes, and you're giving up at least 10 to 11 10 years rent on a hangar that I -- you know, I think -- I know 11 will be leased in 2005. I'll make a proposal in 2005. I 12 would make a proposal today, but I can't. And I think 13 that's all I have for right now. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody got any questions for 15 Mr. King? Thank you, sir. We appreciate your interest, and 16 we appreciate you being here. 17 MR. KING: You're welcome. Have a great day. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Finished with 19 questions. We're now down to what we're going to do, right? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: If anything. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to move 22 approval of the recommendation of the Airport Advisory Board 23 to approve the revised airport lease agreements with 24 Kerrville Aviation, as presented by the interim airport 25 manager. 2-24-03 161 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Run that by me again? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Moving approval of 3 the recommendation of the Airport Advisory Board for the 4 extension of lease -- extension and modifications of -- or 5 the revised lease agreement with Kerrville Aviation as 6 presented by the interim airport manager. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made by 8 Commissioner Williams to approve the recommendation of the 9 Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Advisory Board and approve the 10 revised airport lease agreement with Kerrville Aviation, as 11 proposed by the interim or acting director of the airport, 12 Mr. Paul Knippel. Do I hear a second? 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Being no second, I declare 15 that the motion dies for lack of a second. The -- let's go 16 back and pick up -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before we leave 18 that topic, I think Mr. King raised some questions that I 19 need answered, bottom line. And I need -- you know, and I 20 don't know really -- you know, I don't know who negotiated 21 the lease and/or -- you know, I presume Mr. Jackson did for 22 Mr. Kennedy. I don't know what the -- you know, on the City 23 side, really what was done and what was looked at, if some 24 of these things that Mr. King has brought up were looked at 25 and felt this -- you know, this is still the best deal, you 2-24-03 162 1 know. I just need more information. But I think that he -- 2 based on -- you know, I didn't see -- hear anything to 3 refute what Mr. King says. I didn't second the motion. I 4 think Mr. Kennedy's done a real good job, like I said, but 5 the bottom line is, we're stewards of the taxpayers' 6 dollars. We need to try to maximize our revenue, and I just 7 need more information at this point. And I don't know if 8 this is -- you know, it's recommended we put it back on the 9 agenda or have a workshop or see what the City does 10 tomorrow, or all the above. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's going to 12 require some more discussions between the airport 13 leaseholder and the representative who represents both the 14 County and the City, the interim managing the airport. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, what you said 16 is right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'm going to go back 18 and pick up Item 2.10. I think it's a very quick item. 19 Acknowledge receipt of copy of the 2002 Racial Profiling 20 Files submitted by Precinct 2 Constable, Joel Ayala. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's just what it 22 says, Judge. In terms of a requirement of the law, is that 23 the governing body, in this case Commissioners Court, 24 acknowledge receipt. Nobody seems to know what we do with 25 them and under which file we place them or why we're taking 2-24-03 163 1 them, but it says "acknowledge receipt," and so my 2 comment -- my constable presented his report. I asked the 3 Sheriff what he knew about it. The Sheriff says, 4 "acknowledge receipt." So I just -- I'm moving that we 5 acknowledge receipt of them, and if the County Clerk has a 6 special file for them, that she place these forms in there. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second the motion. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 9 seconded that we acknowledge receipt of copy of the 2002 10 Racial Profiling File submitted by Precinct 2 Constable, 11 Joel Ayala, to be delivered unto the County Clerk to be 12 placed by her in a special file, if any, maintained by her 13 office for that purpose. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have just a quick 15 question. It says racial profiling, and I'm -- I glanced 16 through the report information here, and based on, you know, 17 what kind of -- I don't see there's any profiling here. 18 There's men, women, people of -- you know, by surnames, you 19 know, different races. What's the -- how is it racial 20 profiling? I don't understand. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. I 22 think the law leaves a lot of questions unanswered like 23 you're posing. I don't know. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm guessing someone 25 wants to build a database so that they can analyze it 2-24-03 164 1 several different ways, and see if some local law 2 enforcement agencies are -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the Sheriff 4 will be in here with a similar report soon. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, all law 6 enforcement -- I don't -- this is one of the most -- it 7 ranks up there in the top 10 ridiculous things I've seen in 8 the last 24 hours, actually. But you can rest assured that 9 you're not to provide the names of these people. You can -- 10 can go to the bank on that. That's a no-no. But, you know, 11 there's got to be some way -- you know, I mean some kind 12 of -- they're looking for -- you know, "I made 25 stops and 13 there was seven Hispanics, three African-Americans, and two 14 Indians drinking firewater" or something. You know, that's 15 what they're looking for. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A summary of the 17 activity. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just seems weird. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is. I mean, why? 21 And who cares? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Y'all are not drawing me into 23 this deal. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kept trying, 25 throwing a little bait out there. What about -- 2-24-03 165 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further comments? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- pizza? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further comments? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pizza. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, 6 signify by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to eat. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: We now move on to Item 2.16, 13 consider and discuss future renovation and construction plan 14 for Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, and hire consultants 15 to assist Kerr County Commissioners Court. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not going to go 17 eat? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Look at all the 19 people sitting out there. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if we can just 22 get somebody to call and order some -- order us some pizza, 23 maybe we can eat and talk, and -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody could call 25 over to Green Grocers and get us a sandwich. 2-24-03 166 1 JUDGE TINLEY: By the time that happens, we 2 could be through with this item. Let's either adjourn, go 3 to lunch, or let's get with the program. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- you know, if we're 5 going to have a lengthy discussion, I want to go to lunch. 6 If we're going to deal with this in five minutes and not do 7 anything, then let's deal with it. I have no idea where the 8 Court's going on this one. 9 MS. SOVIL: Kathy's running out of paper. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: She just give us a good 11 excuse. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're out of here. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess until -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2 o'clock? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: 2 o'clock? All right. 16 (Recess taken from 1:14 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.) 17 - - - - - - - - - - 18 JUDGE TINLEY: We will reconvene the 19 Commissioners Court meeting -- the special Commissioners 20 Court meeting posted for Monday, February 24th, 2003, which 21 commenced at or about 9 a.m. this morning, local time. It's 22 now 2 o'clock, and we're ready to get on with the -- I think 23 it's the final agenda item of business, 2.16, consider and 24 discuss future renovation, construction plans of the Hill 25 Country Youth Exhibit Center, and hiring consultants to 2-24-03 167 1 assist the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Commissioner 2 Letz. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this back on the 4 agenda, try -- hoping to take another step towards getting 5 something solved out at the Hill Country Youth Exhibit 6 Center. And I think the -- probably the best way to 7 approach it is, y'all -- Wayne? 8 MR. ADLER: He just stepped out for a second. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the -- the way I 10 thought we could approach it was first to have Wayne give us 11 an opinion as to where we are with the contract we currently 12 have with DRG, and where we are with the selection of -- 13 selection the Court made with the design/build team of 14 Huser/Adler, and kind of figure out where we are with that 15 and what options we have. You know, just continue with 16 that, or close it down and start a new -- whatever we're 17 going to do. And then the next item that we -- to talk with 18 Mr. Gondeck about is -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, before you leave 20 that, what about our attorney being on the ground floor of 21 this conversation? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would be good 23 for him to be here. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, personally, so 25 we don't have to go back and re -- talk. 2-24-03 168 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See if he's there. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This morning you 3 couldn't find a chair for lawyers, and now we can't find a 4 lawyer. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plenty of chairs. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because there are some 7 legal concerns, and there's also appearance concerns 8 potentially, in my mind, and I need to make sure that we're 9 above-board, in my mind, on both issues. Once that's -- we 10 kind of know where we are with that, a separate but related 11 issue is what our relationship is with DRG and Associates. 12 They were originally hired to assist the County in 13 developing the scope of work and developing the criteria for 14 the design/build team. They've performed their requirements 15 under the -- our agreement with them, and they were paid 16 $10,000 for that fee. So if we're going to continue, you 17 know, the next -- based on our last Commissioners Court 18 meeting, it became apparent that there was somewhat 19 consensus, if not total consensus, that we need some 20 expertise from somewhere to help advise us as to cost 21 figures, you know, and what it's going to take to get things 22 done. And I've mentioned -- I've talked with Mr. Gondeck 23 and -- on the phone, and said we may want to use his firm 24 for that purpose. We may not. We just really hadn't 25 discussed it, but kind of to help us with our relationship 2-24-03 169 1 with DRG, if we're going to rehire them or what we're going 2 to do. And I'll turn it over to Wayne, but I'll give him a 3 brief update as to -- Wayne, if you could first give us your 4 opinion on where we are with the -- the last agreement? I 5 mean, you've fulfilled your responsibilities under it, but 6 kind of, is our agreement, in your mind, dead? And then 7 what do you think our relationship is with the design/build 8 team that we selected, being Huser/Adler? 9 MR. GONDECK: Commissioner and Judge -- 10 Commissioners, as far as our agreement as the consulting -- 11 or independent consulting architect, for us to take it any 12 farther, other than the construction phase of the project, 13 it was contingent upon the project being funded. It was not 14 that it was to be, you know, abandoned or automatically 15 abandoned, from our reading of it, but it was not in any way 16 obligatory on the County to continue it on without, you 17 know, funding of the project. So there really -- you know, 18 to us, there needs to be some action on the County's part to 19 either continue it on, ratify it, or amend it in some way 20 that we want to continue on, irregardless of where the 21 funding structure stands at this time. So, as far as it 22 being dead in the water, I don't -- I don't think it is. 23 But as far as there being any obligation on the County's 24 part to utilize us any further, no. If you tell us, "Thank 25 you very much. Go away. We don't want to see you any 2-24-03 170 1 more," we understand that too. 2 Secondly, as far as the process that the 3 County has gone through up to this point, from our 4 understanding of it -- and, again, it's not a legal 5 understanding; it's just a practical standpoint or a 6 professional application of it -- is that our understanding 7 is that the 90-day period that we asked the contractors to 8 hold their proposals was that it was obligatory on their 9 part to hold their proposals for 90 days, and it was not, 10 you know, in any way one of those issues that we could not 11 mutually extend that between the selected party and the 12 County. The County did reserve the right within the 13 advertisement to waive any irregularities or informalities, 14 and also that today is that 90 -- 90th day, as far as my 15 count, for the County to take some sort of action as to 16 whether or not they wanted to even enter into some level of 17 negotiation, and what that negotiation actually would be. 18 So, to me, there's quite a bit of latitude here as to how 19 the County wants to proceed. 20 I think the first question is, what does the 21 Commissioners Court want to do about the project? Because 22 there -- there's a lot of ideas that we could come up with 23 as far as professional knowledge, as far as design, 24 construction, costing, scoping, everything of the project. 25 But I think what we need to know is that, one, are there 2-24-03 171 1 funds available? If not, you know, when would funds be 2 available? Is the process that you've decided to go on this 3 far, such as the design/build, is that still the process 4 that you want to continue on with? If it is, is there any 5 reason that you would not want to continue on with the 6 present, you know, selected team and process that you've 7 gone through to this point? So, without having some sort of 8 input as to where the Court is right now, to what funds may 9 or may not be available and where you want to go, it's very 10 difficult for me to say, "Gentlemen, this is the track that 11 I think you should go on." 12 I think very well that all the elements that 13 are within the scope that we have right now, whether they be 14 in separate buildings or combined into one structure, still 15 represent the renovations and additions to the Youth Exhibit 16 Center, so therefore, to me, still express the -- the intent 17 of the original project. So, whether or not it's in a 18 separate outbuilding or whether or not it's incorporated 19 into the barn structure itself, we're still dealing with 20 that same project. Just that the scope is somewhat modified 21 to meet the scope -- or to meet the budget restraints that 22 the County may have. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we know one 24 thing. We know that the voters said that they didn't like 25 what our plan was that was on the table. So -- 2-24-03 172 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that's all I know 3 for sure. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me pose 5 something here, if I might. One of the -- one of the things 6 that I heard frequently, Wayne, was that the -- part of the 7 proposal that was on the table and presented to the voters 8 contemplated the demolition and rebuilding of the current 9 area that we'll call the exhibit center and the hog barn 10 area immediately behind it. One of the -- one of the 11 consistent comments and line of thought that's been given to 12 me, some prior to that time, but more since that time, is 13 that why in the world can't we use at least that front 14 portion? The thought being, is it economically feasible to 15 use the existing concrete area, walls and floor, for 16 example? Is that a possibility? Is there something that's 17 salvageable there in that portion, rather than just 18 demolition and -- and starting over all the way front to 19 back on the west side there? And, if so, you know, what are 20 the variables on that? Will there be an ability to have a 21 -- for example, a clear span area, or what will the cost 22 savings be? And -- you understand the analysis that I'm -- 23 MR. GONDECK: Yes, sir. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: -- trying to lay in front of 25 you? 2-24-03 173 1 MR. GONDECK: Those are some of the issues 2 that were discussed, and some in more detail than others. 3 As far as the demolition of the total existing exhibit hall 4 and barn, to my knowledge, there was no doubt in anybody's 5 mind that the existing barn should be and still should be 6 demolished and rebuilt, that portion -- the back portion of 7 that facility. That -- as far as trying to renovate it to 8 any point of meeting any nowaday codes and making it totally 9 functional is not financially feasible. As far as the front 10 portion and salvaging portions of it, I think that was even 11 brought up during the interviews by more than one of the 12 teams, that that may be an option to be looked at during 13 that actual design/build phase by the proposers, to look at 14 as a cost-saving measure, to actually save a portion of 15 that -- or that front portion, to reuse portions of that. 16 So, that was an option to -- that was thrown out, and has 17 not been something that has been ruled out at this point. 18 As far as the initial program, the program 19 that, you know, we developed and put out initially was for 20 them to consider the demolition totally of that and 21 rebuilding that. We did, however, you know, within that 22 interview process, ask them to come back with discussing the 23 feasibility of all the program issues and to -- to give us 24 options within that, and they did for -- you know, several 25 of them did talk about that there may be some salvageable 2-24-03 174 1 portions, such as that front exhibit hall area. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Were there any specifics about 3 that one, other than to say that there -- 4 MR. GONDECK: No, sir. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: It may be that you could 6 salvage -- 7 MR. GONDECK: No, sir. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- economically some of the 9 front portion? 10 MR. GONDECK: No, sir, because at that point 11 in time, that process dealt with selecting a team -- 12 design/build team based on qualifications, and the cost 13 could not be a factor at that time. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 15 MR. GONDECK: So that's -- that's why 16 everybody was sort of -- was with their hands tied behind 17 their backs, as far as asking some of the questions, and 18 really couldn't get to that point of, "Where are we with 19 dollars and cents?" Because, according to the statute, you 20 know, dollars could not be a portion of that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: In terms of generalities, how 22 difficult and expensive would it be to determine whether or 23 not the front portion, the exhibit hall, exhibit -- exhibit 24 hall area could be utilized in a -- in a renovation similar 25 to what was under discussion, merely adding additional 2-24-03 175 1 space, new space onto the back where the hog barn area is to 2 make that comprise approximately 50,000 square feet? 3 MR. GONDECK: If that is the direction that 4 you want to look at, the most feasible thing that I would 5 say, if you're going -- okay. Let's say one option, if 6 you're going to retain the existing team that you have, is 7 to negotiate a -- and compartmentalize, you might say, an 8 agreement with them to go through a -- you might say a 9 schematic design or a preliminary design that sets down the 10 actual structure and all the elements physically to that, 11 and come up with a guaranteed maximum price that the 12 contractor says, "This is what we can do." This is what the 13 price on it -- you know, the architect of record will say, 14 "This is what we can design." The contractors say, "This is 15 what the price will be." We will look at it for the program 16 elements and make sure it looks -- you know, it works within 17 the statutory requirements. But, you know, utilizing that 18 design/build team to come and give you a cost design 19 proposal. But that is -- is what we would say, you know, to 20 go forward on. As far as the actual dollars and cents on 21 that, I -- I probably can't give you a hard, fast number, 22 because that's really a negotiable thing that would have to 23 be, you know, proposed if the Court chose to go that 24 direction. That something would have to be proposed from 25 the design/build team, and either accepted or rejected by 2-24-03 176 1 the Court. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, it seems -- I 3 mean, we've gone back to what I think needs to be answered 4 first, is the process we're going to use. I mean, if -- and 5 I don't -- you know, the proposal -- you're talking about 6 renovating the current exhibit hall, adding an Ag Barn 7 behind it or, you know, something along that line. If 8 that's -- if the Court is in full agreement with that, 9 that's what we want to do, to me the next question is, can 10 we use the design team that we've picked under the current 11 scope of work and RFQ that we did to do that? And then, if 12 we can, do we want to use that, or do we want to hire an 13 outside consultant? Or -- you know, to give us that 14 information. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think where I'm coming 16 from is, based upon Mr. Gondeck's knowledge of the property 17 and the project and its varied components -- you know, and 18 I'm willing to concede, and I don't think anybody in their 19 right mind could concede otherwise, that the rear portion of 20 the hog barn area, you'd be throwing good money after bad to 21 try and rehab or renovate that particular -- particular 22 area. But would it be -- from a professional engineering 23 standpoint, how complicated and how expensive, in general 24 terms, to ascertain, number one, if the front portion there 25 could feasibly be utilized -- feasibly and economically, and 2-24-03 177 1 if so, what the limitations on that would be; i.e., could 2 you have a clear span area, for example, if -- as opposed to 3 one that's got these various support structures in there? 4 I'm trying to find out if we ought to even be thinking about 5 utilizing that front portion. That's really where I'm 6 coming from at this point. 7 MR. GONDECK: Judge, if you're going to reuse 8 the front portion, what I would recommend, from what I've 9 seen in looking at the facility, that you would use it 10 pretty much saving, or -- or saying that we could upgrade 11 interior finishes and things of that nature. Structurally, 12 you would keep it pretty well arranged the way it is. There 13 are some portions in the office area and other areas that 14 have to be fixed up, but as far as going in, changing 15 anything structurally from what it is now, as far as column 16 placements, any more clear span than it is, no, sir, you 17 wouldn't want to get into that. That would not be 18 structurally feasible. If you wanted to take something 19 behind it in that next bay and do a clear span back there 20 and have a solid floor in lieu of a dirt floor, that would 21 be more feasible. But as far as just a space up front, 22 you're going to want to utilize that pretty much in its 23 current structural form, and -- and see if that works within 24 your program. But if you -- if you need a larger clear span 25 than that provides, you would want to do that in the next 2-24-03 178 1 portion behind that. I mean, I -- that's pretty 2 straightforward. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That -- you've -- 4 you've answered my question. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to follow 6 up on the Judge's question. You could, however, in the 7 scheme that was -- was put forth, you could use the concrete 8 portion of that front part and integrate it into the 9 remainder of the big barn so that, in effect, you had the 10 one-third concrete that we talked about and two-thirds dirt 11 floor in the new facility? 12 MR. GONDECK: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct? 14 MR. GONDECK: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the walls go and 16 all the low supports and that go, but the concrete flooring 17 could be salvaged, possibly? 18 MR. GONDECK: And you may be able to, you 19 know, keep some of the actual superstructure itself, and 20 even go with some sort of, like, light-gauge roof grating to 21 bring back the roof structure to match up with the other 22 behind it. And that way, you make it -- sort of make it all 23 look like one building structure. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Someplace in this 25 process -- picking up on what Jonathan said, I'm not sure 2-24-03 179 1 what our process is either, but at someplace in it, I think 2 we need to have a more basic discussion about the future of 3 the Youth Exhibition Center. I would like to usually be 4 guided by the majority interests of people in Precinct 4, 5 and on this issue, I've -- I've gotten a lot of feedback on 6 both sides. Quite a few are supporters of doing something 7 to improve the Youth Exhibition Center, and some of them 8 are, of course, adamantly opposed to it. I don't have much 9 guidance, 'cause this recent vote came out exactly 10 fifty-fifty in the vote. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In your precinct, 12 yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, I guess that 14 gives me some freedom to use my own judgment. That's scary. 15 They give me good guidance on things like water management. 16 There's no proposal in here, but it's just trying to get 17 back to basics. Should we be in the business of providing a 18 Youth Exhibition Center? Have we made a promise to people 19 who began that and built it and put their -- their label and 20 their money and their signed notes to build it? Do we have 21 an obligation to them to rehabilitate this? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you asking that question? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm asking a series 24 of questions. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll be happy to answer that 2-24-03 180 1 question. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'm -- I'm not 3 -- again, I'm not saying we don't. I think we do. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I agree with you 100 percent. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Should we sell the 6 Youth Exhibition Center? Should we bulldoze it and sell the 7 property? Should we bring it up to some minimum standards 8 that keeps our promise, or should we go beyond that to be in 9 the -- in the tourism and convention business? That's, from 10 my point of view, the options available to us, now that 11 the -- the voters, albeit not very many, by a majority sent 12 us back to the drawing board. Should we be considering all 13 of our options? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you consider what you 15 like, but in answer to your question, do we have an 16 obligation, I don't know that there was any specific promise 17 or assurance given back when that facility was handed to 18 Kerr County after what's essentially there now was put there 19 on the backs of a bunch of hardworking people in this county 20 over almost 50 years. But when we took it from them, even 21 if we didn't give them any express assurance that we keep it 22 and maintain that -- that trust that they'd handed us, I 23 think we have an obligation to do that. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You said it like I 25 would say it. My question, then, is that's a place to build 2-24-03 181 1 from. Is there a consensus on this Commissioners Court that 2 we do have an obligation and we need to provide a self -- a 3 safe and useful facility for the youth? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I just spoke for myself. 5 Everybody else can speak for themselves. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll pick it up. I 7 agree with the Judge. I think we have a -- a moral -- a 8 moral equivalent obligation to operate that facility in 9 terms of the type of agricultural and related programs that 10 we do now. In my opinion, it is totally, totally valuable; 11 100 percent valuable to our young people, and I would hate 12 to see us going in a different direction. I also think -- 13 and this gets the ice a little thinner under my position, 14 but I also believe we have an obligation to the community to 15 provide a venue of some sort for all sort of other things 16 that the community has a need to have a venue for. The 17 question is, how far do we want to go? We've been accused 18 -- or it has been suggested that we don't need or want to 19 get into tourism as such, or economic development as such. 20 Well, I would remind those who are critical of that, that 21 tourism is our number one industry. Absolutely. Pours more 22 money into this county than anything else that goes on. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The county or in the 24 city? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the city's in 2-24-03 182 1 the county, and I'll say the county. I really do. So, I 2 think there's an obligation. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: These youth camps 4 bring in more money than anything else I know of in Kerr 5 County. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking about 7 agricultural, youth. I'm -- I'm 110 percent; we have a 8 commitment. And we need to -- if we don't have a 9 commitment, we need to make a commitment to it. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. The thing that 11 I would, you know, say and kind of be a little bit -- or 12 kind of, I think, differ slightly from what the Judge said, 13 that the facility was built, you know, by a bunch of 14 hardworking -- primarily ranchers and other people, but they 15 built it not 100 percent exclusively for the stock show and 16 for kids. I mean, that was a large part of it. That was 17 how they raised a lot of money for it, but they also built 18 it for agricultural uses in general. And I think the -- you 19 know, if you look at -- I mean, the reason the arena is 20 built the way it is is because there was some people that 21 were using that facility, and -- for a while, and I think 22 that they -- you know, and it fit very closely with the -- 23 the youth side of it, and they were all very -- you know, 24 very big supporters of the youth stock show and other youth 25 organizations, but they -- I don't think they ever 2-24-03 183 1 contemplated, or in their reason for doing it, that it was 2 exclusively for youth. It was for agricultural; I think 3 exclusively for them, pretty much. And I think that -- you 4 know, that doesn't say, you know, as to -- you know, you 5 can't -- we can't say we're only going to commit for youth 6 or we're going to go further. I'm saying that the history 7 of it was not 100 percent youth. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It sounds -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Dave. I 10 can't put words in Judge Neunhoffer's mouth, because he's 11 long gone, but one of his longtime friends and supporters 12 assured me the notes were written in the Judge's hand, in 13 which he said when the -- when the restrictions on the 14 facility and the property were removed, it was for all those 15 things in the community, including amusement. Right. Well, 16 we don't do much -- I don't think we do much that's amusing 17 out there. There's a carnival every now and then, but -- 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to go out 19 there cooking in a couple weeks. That's amusing. It sounds 20 to me like that there's -- there is general or unanimous 21 agreement that, at a minimum, we need to bring that facility 22 back up in good shape, safe and usable for the purposes that 23 it was intended for. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good place 25 to start. 2-24-03 184 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All it takes is 2 money. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that gets us 4 to -- I mean, back to, you know, I guess, what the Judge 5 asked Mr. Gondeck about, because that was, you know, could 6 we -- could it be renovated or -- you know, and add a barn 7 to the back? And that's basically what we're talking about, 8 and the answer is yes. The question that we have then is, 9 we don't have any money to start with. I'll make that real 10 clear. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Wayne's leaving. 12 MR. GONDECK: Not the first time I stood up 13 here and heard that. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we -- at the same 15 time, we need -- we need expertise to tell us, you know, 16 one, what is the most cost-effective way to do something out 17 there? And, two, to give us real cost estimates. You know, 18 I would say, you know, I don't see any reason that we can't 19 legally use the design team that we've picked and figure out 20 a way to compensate you to be a consultant to us, why we 21 don't continue. I think there needs to be some parameters 22 set that within -- and I haven't talked to Huser, if 23 Huser -- if they want to continue down this road or not. 24 But, you know, maybe 90 days to have them give us some 25 advice and see if we can come up with a plan that we can 2-24-03 185 1 agree on. And if we can, we'd be committed to using them; 2 if we can't, you know, let's go on about our business. I 3 mean, I don't think we need to rehash this over and over and 4 over again. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Beginning with the 6 end in mind, if -- if we come up with another plan that says 7 it's going to cost "X" dollars, are we then saying we're 8 going to go back to the well for those dollars? I'm going 9 to be very reluctant to support going back to -- to the 10 voters on another bond issue. Is it -- if we're going to 11 start down this path, we might as well decide now how we're 12 going to fund it. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That brings up my 14 thinking. What I would like to do is, I'd like the County 15 Judge to ask the Auditor, being the chief financial officer 16 of the county -- ask the Auditor to provide this Court with 17 the balance of the Fund 10 reserves. Fund 10 reserves. 18 And, as well -- you know, that number, that overall number, 19 as well as the number that he would use for a six-month 20 operating budget. And if we could get those numbers in -- 21 you know, it's just my thinking, is that that is an avenue 22 that we could take. And I'm not -- I'm not proposing that. 23 I just think that that is something that we need to consider 24 and get out on the table so we can all at least know what -- 25 where that is. 2-24-03 186 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What does that mean, 2 Buster? Fund 10 reserves? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the General 4 Fund and what we have in reserves. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said six months. 7 Doesn't he typically talk to us about what he likes to see 8 is a three-month reserve? Or is it six? I thought -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know what he 10 says. Is it three? Is that what we do? I thought we 11 always did six. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three is the State 13 recommendation, I believe, but we have traditionally always 14 had -- at least long as I've been on the Court, been closer 15 to six. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Six has always stuck 17 in my mind, just whatever the County Auditor -- and he stays 18 in tune with that pretty regular, I think. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He does. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To see what our 21 three-month, six-month operating fund would be, and compare 22 those numbers and see where we are. And I just -- I just 23 believe that -- that if we -- if the County could afford to 24 have "X" amount of dollars to lay on the table, that would 25 be the seed money, and then invite the foundations -- local 2-24-03 187 1 foundations. And I understand that there -- in a recent 2 luncheon I had with some folks, that there may be some 3 national-level money, grant money out there that does this 4 kind of thing. So, you know, we could plant the seed and 5 then let the foundations come to it. I mean, no, I won't go 6 to the -- back to the taxpayers. But there is -- you know, 7 and that may not be a feasible way to do it. I don't have 8 any idea, but I think it needs to get on the table and let 9 us look at it as an option. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster, I think I agree. 11 I mean, it's a good -- a step to figure out how much -- 12 first we got to know if there's even any money there that we 13 could use as seed money. How do we develop a plan to go -- 14 to raise -- I mean, to try to -- how do we put a plan 15 together, I guess, to go to the foundations, local and 16 national, to try to raise the money? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I was just 18 piggy-backing on the -- Commissioner 4's comments. He 19 said -- you know, he started talking about funding, and I 20 threw that out there. I know you keep bringing us back to 21 square one, and our funding thing is over here on square 22 six. I understand that. You know, I -- I kind of like the 23 idea here of leaving that front building like it is, and 24 building another barn. Now, how much does that cost? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you asking? 2-24-03 188 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's exactly 2 what I'm doing. I'm asking the question. How much does it 3 cost? How much money do we have in reserves? Let's go. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can give you a ballpark 5 based on what I think it's going to cost, but that's not -- 6 it's just a ballpark. The only way we're going to get a 7 number for that is to hire someone to tell us. And the way 8 I see that we have to hire people, we can either -- and if 9 we can use the design team that we've had, you know, if it 10 -- and they are agreeable, saying it would cost this much, 11 and we're going to tell you, if we -- you get the job if we 12 raise the money. Or we can hire a third party to tell us 13 and just say we're going to give you $10,000 to tell you 14 what it's going to cost to -- hopefully be less than $10,000 15 for that -- give you $5,000 to give us a price and act as a 16 consultant. I mean, those are the two approaches -- well, 17 two new approaches. The other approach that we've used is 18 just to ask for estimates, but then they're not, you know, 19 detailed enough. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I agree with 21 Jonathan. We've got to come to grips with that. How do we 22 arrive at a number, and what does that number build for us? 23 And is that going to satisfy the needs that -- as we try to 24 define them? So I think we're kind of back to square one. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Can you get Tommy? 2-24-03 189 1 MR. GONDECK: Can I just interject a few 2 comments? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Come on. We need to listen. 4 MR. GONDECK: Just going back, again, 5 historically, the last several months, and my understanding 6 of the -- of the rationale to hire me, and maybe to flip 7 over to -- to the other side from that. Even if y'all tell 8 me to go away, I won't be too far away, 'cause I'm still 9 working for the County on the juvenile facility. So, as you 10 may well know, my interest is in doing whatever Kerr County 11 needs here. I'm working for Kerr County anyway, so I do 12 want to make sure that whatever y'all do here, it is done 13 the right way, or that y'all make as much of the right 14 decisions as is practical. But I was not hired to be your 15 independent consulting architect 'cause I'm the best hog 16 barn builder in all of central Texas. I was hired because I 17 understand the process, as far as how it was established, as 18 best as it can, because it is new legislation, and I 19 understand the working process with county government. And 20 I think also because the County had some faith in me as to 21 my reputation of working with counties. 22 I think you all have selected a team that 23 does have some experience in these type of facilities, both 24 from the design end, and then secondly, someone that locally 25 does have the construction experience, that is dependable 2-24-03 190 1 and can give you good, hard numbers. If you choose to go 2 forward in -- in getting a design and hard cost on that, to 3 me, it makes sense that you put more effort -- more dollars 4 into that team than looking at your independent consulting 5 architect. However, if you do that, yes, we still need -- 6 by statute, need to be retained, at least on some 7 contingency basis, if that -- if that goes forward. So, I'm 8 very amenable to staying around on the periphery. But I 9 think if you're going to go forward with coming up with some 10 more hard facts, that your best dollars spent, if you're 11 going to spend dollars on -- on designs and hard costs, or 12 hard budgets and hard proposals, is to go with your 13 design/build team. And if you choose not to do that, I'll 14 still say fine. I'll put together a design for you and put 15 together a cost proposal, but it's still just going to be an 16 estimate. But if you want a hard cost, to me, the best way 17 to do that is to utilize the team that you have selected 18 based on qualifications, that you've gone through the 19 process, and get a -- you know, a good, solid, preliminary 20 design, and get a good, guaranteed cost to it. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wayne, I don't want 22 to put you in a position of practicing law, 'cause we got 23 one of those sitting here, but from your understanding of 24 the legislation that permits us to engage in the 25 design/build concept, all right, having gone through all 2-24-03 191 1 that and done what we've done, and we're here today talking, 2 by your reading of the law, we could proceed and continue 3 with the same design/build team? Again, I don't want you to 4 practice law if you're uncomfortable answering it. 5 MR. GONDECK: I do not see any -- nobody has 6 shown me anything as to any reason why we couldn't. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8 MR. GONDECK: Because we're still talking 9 about the same project. We're still talking about the same 10 project elements. We're still talking about the same 11 process. We're still talking about going, you know, forward 12 with it, the same design/build construction. Now, if you 13 decided to say, okay, we don't want to do design/build any 14 more, then the game's over, or the -- the process is over. 15 If you decided to go off-site, the process is over. If you 16 decided, you know, that you're going to do a swimming pool 17 instead of a hog barn, to me, that's a definite change. But 18 you're still looking at, you know, exhibit facilities. 19 You're still looking at hog barn or, you know, livestock 20 facilities. You're still looking at improving the 21 restrooms. You're still looking at making sure we do the 22 A.D.A. improvements. Yes, you may not be able to do the 23 parking right now, but those are all scaling down to meet 24 with your budget, which happens on every project. 25 Whichever -- every project that we've ever done, it all 2-24-03 192 1 comes down to -- even if you go and design a project and 2 then you take bids, open a design bid, if you get bids in 3 that are too high, and if you scale back the project and 4 have to take out the parking or take out the paving and you 5 go down with chip seal, it's still the same project, even if 6 you have to scale back the project, so I don't see any 7 difference with that and what we're doing here. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 9 MR. GONDECK: And that's not a legal opinion. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy, the question has been 11 asked, what is our Fund 10 reserve balance, number one? And 12 number two, what figure do you -- do you give as an estimate 13 of a three-month operating fund reserve and a six-month 14 operating fund reserve? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Our estimated -- let me stop 16 and ask for a definition. As far as -- are you talking 17 about General Fund as it relates to general M & O tax funds? 18 Or -- or just the General Fund? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The area that you use 20 as -- when we talk about if we had a flood and the entire 21 county washed off, or all of our roads and bridges washed 22 off, how much money do we keep in there to operate on? You 23 know, what -- is that M & O, or is that L & M? Or -- 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Let me give you what our 25 estimate is for -- for 9/30/03, for -- for all the funds 2-24-03 193 1 combined that are funded by the general M & O tax, and that 2 includes Fire Protection, Library, Indigent Health, and all 3 the interest and sinking funds. And we estimate that at 4 about 4 million, 1. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Reserve? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, there's 9 another -- is there something you were going to say? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I was going to tell 11 you, I mean, what the total expenditures for -- for that -- 12 for those funds is almost 14 million. So, a fourth of that 13 is about 3.3 to 3.5 million. So -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: 3.75. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: So that's -- so if you're 16 asking what is three month's operating money, then that 17 would be an estimate of what we'd have to have to operate it 18 for three months, is about -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: $350,000. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 350. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. The -- the rest of the 22 dollars are either for Road and Bridge operations; that's 23 restricted, or special revenue funds that are -- that are 24 restricted. So, our total -- our total cash reserves for 25 9/30/03 is almost 5 and a half million. But I only -- only 2-24-03 194 1 four point -- 4.1 we can use for general purposes. They 2 aren't restricted for some other reason. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We can't use the restricted 4 funds anyway, can we, unless they fall within this 5 particular purpose? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: And none of those do, so 8 effectively, we're looking at the 4.1. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Less the 11 three-month reserve, which is about one-fourth of 12 $14 million. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Right, that's correct. Of 14 course, that -- you know, that depends -- that number 15 depends on, you know, what your budget is for -- for '03/'04 16 also. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: 3.5, so it's -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 600,000. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's how much we 21 can spend? 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we could spend 24 about 600,000 and still meet the state-recommended reserve? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 2-24-03 195 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we chose to do 2 something like that, Tommy, what would you say about that in 3 terms of fiscal responsibility? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: The only thing that I'm 5 concerned -- really concerned about is if -- if -- if we're 6 going -- going beyond that, you know, to reduce our reserves 7 below that point, or if we attempted to -- we have -- we 8 have some debt obligations that -- that, you know, the 9 County -- the County has, you know, general obligations and 10 revenue obligations that we -- we have given the purchasers 11 of our debt, you know, financial statements that look better 12 than that. And I think the County has an obligation to 13 maintain that -- that -- that strength in order to satisfy 14 the -- the requirements of the debt holders. And that -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: What are the minimum 16 requirements of the -- of the owners of that debt, insofar 17 as reserves? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: There's nothing written -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: -- in those agreements. But 21 I -- I think it's just good business to maintain what -- 22 what we had when we obtained that debt or when we sold that 23 debt. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, we committed 25 2.08 cents for the amortization of the debt on the 2-24-03 196 1 courthouse and annex, correct? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many more 4 increments of that before that is satisfied? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Two. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Two more years. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two more after this year? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's right. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two after this budget 11 year? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: I have it right here. The 13 last payment is -- is $430,000 in '05. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: And we still -- we do have -- 16 we have payments that average $150,000 per year for the 17 contractual obligation that -- that we sold this last year 18 for the radio -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: -- project. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just was talking 22 about the annex and the courthouse renovation. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: And the jail's paid off in 24 2012. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 2-24-03 197 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions, Buster? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you, 3 Tommy, very much. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it, Tommy. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Sure. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask one more question. 7 The -- at the time of the issuance of this debt that was 8 acquired by purchasers, do you recall what our approximate 9 fund reserves were? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: We've maintained a minimum 11 of -- of three months for the last 8 or 10 years, so it was 12 either -- either at that level or better. We've never 13 fallen below that level as long as -- in the last 10 or 12 14 years. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: So, in your eyes, that's 16 really -- that's really the base line that you think is -- 17 that's the point of -- of not going below? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I just -- you know, I'm a 19 believer in having the operating capital to -- to operate 20 with, at least for that period of time. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: But with -- with regard to -- 22 at the time these assurances were made that you mentioned 23 and these debts were incurred, is it your belief we had a 24 significantly higher -- 25 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 2-24-03 198 1 JUDGE TINLEY: -- reserve balance? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think it's 3 significantly higher. I know it was, but -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: -- not -- not a material 6 amount. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I wasn't suggesting whether -- 8 that we ought to go below that. My inquiry went to the 9 point whether or not they had an expectation that maybe we 10 should be sitting there at six months -- 11 MR. TOMLINSON: No. No. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- operating reserve. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, another thing. This 16 has -- this number has -- has been significant in the 17 County's maintaining their -- their bond rating. I mean, 18 for -- you know, our bond rating in this county's been A, 19 A-plus for a number of years, and -- and our -- our strength 20 and our ability to collect taxes have -- have been the key 21 to maintaining that rating. And I think -- I think that's 22 important, 'cause, you know, if we do -- you know, the 23 difference in -- in a B or triple-B to an A rating could be 24 as much as, you know, a half of one percent in rates, you 25 know, if we ever borrow money again. So I think we need to 2-24-03 199 1 strive to maintain that rating. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very smart statement. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what's the next step? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do we got left 5 in Professional Services right now? Anybody know? Tommy? 6 MS. SOVIL: About $4,500. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Professional Services? 8 MS. SOVIL: About $4,500. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: $4,500? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. I don't have 11 my monthly report. 12 MS. SOVIL: We hit it today. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if we were to use the 14 design team that we pick -- since they're here, I can ask 15 them a question. At what point would you quit providing us 16 free service? 17 (Laughter.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Can't you do better than that, 19 Jonathan? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yesterday. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's late today. 22 MR. ADLER: The contractor passed the ball to 23 the architect. As I know this project, and having 24 thoroughly been through the RFP and -- with Wayne, and what 25 all of y'all presented, I understand what y'all are trying 2-24-03 200 1 to do now, I think. And the normal next step to me would be 2 to make a thorough examination of the program today, and you 3 started that process right here today. I mean, you've sort 4 of ratcheted back and you've said, this is -- this is what 5 we want to try and accomplish, at a minimum. The next step 6 would be, as I think Wayne mentioned in the beginning, the 7 schematic design, and that would be the normal process. If 8 everything had gone forward, we would have given a fee, and 9 we would have gone forward with telling you the best way to 10 design this, and giving you all kinds of options and 11 everything else, which is what I hear you searching for. 12 That's exactly what we do in that phase, is 13 we go through it and we say, do we tear down or do we keep 14 it? We have engineers who look up there and say, all right, 15 what's the best way to ventilate this building? And I went 16 through it, you know, two or three times during the last 17 livestock show, and I think I know why you're looking for 18 additional help. And -- but it was -- it was a fun 19 experience, too. I mean, it's not -- it's a -- it is a 20 worthy project. I mean, I echo what you're saying. And I 21 saw a lot of children there, and even in the -- in the 22 auction at the end. You know, that was pretty neat, too. 23 But that would be what we would do next, is -- is I would, I 24 think, sign on for a schematic design package with you and 25 give you all the answers. 2-24-03 201 1 And if -- if it came down to funding, and -- 2 from a foundation or something, we would obviously help and 3 interject the proper amount of documentation for that. I 4 see that as the normal process. I mean, I hear what you're 5 saying. I mean, I -- where does the free and being paid to 6 do this start and stop? Would it typically be paid for? I 7 mean, I can only tell you that we would like to do it, and 8 we would like to do it as inexpensively as possible to help 9 you make it happen. But I don't know if we can do it 10 totally free. I mean, 'cause at the end, you're going the 11 have a guaranteed maximum price, and not, as Wayne said, an 12 estimate. So, you got to do some hardball design, hardball 13 engineering, and cost estimating to get you the real thing, 14 and you'll have all the options and you'll be able to sit 15 here and make the -- make the right decision. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could it be structured, 17 though -- I mean, since it's the same process that we would 18 have gone through if the bond issue passed, seems to me that 19 if we go through it and get the funding, that we should get 20 a credit for whatever we've paid you. 21 MR. ADLER: Oh, definitely. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Against the construction. 23 MR. ADLER: Definitely. Oh, yes, it's just 24 the first phase of the process. That's all it is. And you 25 can -- and you can saw it off and say, "Nope, no more," or 2-24-03 202 1 you can say more, or you can say go another step. I mean, 2 we can go one step at a time; we don't have to do the whole 3 thing. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever fees are 5 paid go to the total architectural fee and engineering fee 6 for the project -- 7 MR. ADLER: Absolutely. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- no matter where 9 you abort it, right? 10 MR. ADLER: Right. It's not an independent 11 study. It's the first one, unless you change and say, "I 12 want a swimming pool." I mean, or you -- say you go back 13 and change it. But if it's just a matter of going from that 14 point on, oh, no. I mean, that's definitely -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The contractor wants 16 to say something. 17 MR. GONDECK: Scott wants to jump in here, 18 too. But there -- there's not an actual architectural 19 engineering fee until after there has been an agreed 20 guaranteed maximum cost based on that preliminary design. 21 It's really a two-part contract that you would sign with the 22 design/build team. You know, one is for that first phase, 23 which is to get you up to that guaranteed maximum price. 24 And then from that guaranteed maximum price, then that would 25 go through the rest of the engineering and everything from 2-24-03 203 1 there, and that's what -- that's where we would jump in the 2 middle of it, sort of, after that, to insure that all that 3 their -- all their architectural design, all their 4 engineering and everything, meets all their -- their 5 schematic design, all the codes, all the other requirements 6 of that program. And that's sort of the -- that's sort of 7 that whole design/build process, that it allows you to go -- 8 to get more guarantee, more commitment with doing less of 9 the -- the total design work up front, in other words. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I'm understanding 11 what you're saying, though, as opposed to what I heard Alan 12 say, we've got to get ourselves past the design issues and 13 options before we can ever get to an ironclad guaranteed 14 maximum price? 15 MR. RAIN: That's correct. 16 MR. ADLER: That's correct. 17 MR. GONDECK: But you continue to have all 18 the engineering done. You won't be paying for a full, 19 complete set of contract documents, as you would from a 20 standard design/bid/build type project. 21 MR. ADLER: The very structure of the 22 design/build process allows for a clear separation of what 23 I've just called schematic design. I mean, that -- and it 24 just stops it there, but you can stop a regular contract 25 there, too. I mean, it's just a different way of saying it. 2-24-03 204 1 MR. RAIN: To answer Jonathan's question, the 2 timing would be critical. Since the County doesn't have 3 money, how far will we extend before we've got a job? 4 MR. ADLER: Good point. 5 MR. RAIN: If we're willing to donate some 6 services conditional upon a bigger project, how far out is 7 that project and how far legally can this contract 8 arrangement extend if we don't have a contract? If we write 9 a contract, we can certainly write in whatever time 10 extension there is or that the Commission needs, but to 11 donate services conditional upon something happening, we 12 need a little more. You know, what is that something, and 13 when? 14 MR. GONDECK: To me, it would make more sense 15 if the Court would instruct us to work with the design/build 16 team to come up with a proposal back to the Court as to what 17 specific services they could provide, at a -- a cost 18 proposal at this point to be structured based on a revised 19 scope to be presented back to the Commissioners Court, where 20 you can really see what would be some terms and conditions 21 of the project. 'Cause right now, we're talking about some 22 very loose figures and everything else, and without being 23 able to say, you know, they can provide some services for 24 whatever dollars and cents, I don't think you're going to 25 get much farther down the road. And, honestly, I don't 2-24-03 205 1 think that you're going to get much free -- free work. 2 You're going to get about what it's worth. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Been there. 4 MR. GONDECK: Well, and that's where -- 5 before you went to this process, that's what you had. You 6 had a -- a lot of -- of good advice, but it was still -- it 7 was a lot of free work. And a lot of people put a lot of 8 time and effort into it, but it was -- you can't get that 9 level of commitment. And, again, knowing that there's not a 10 funding mechanism in place, you still are working through 11 that issue, I think. You know, one, they need to make a 12 proposal on what type of services -- and there -- you know, 13 services they could provide at this point, and that needs to 14 be meshed somehow with what levels of funding can be done 15 for the project, both on services and construction. That's 16 the best that I can offer right now. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems like a good step. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think it's -- it's the 19 next logical step of the process, itself, that's already in 20 place. 21 MR. ADLER: That's correct. 22 MR. RAIN: Regardless of whether it was -- if 23 the bond issue was approved, we'd be doing this. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: You'd be doing the same thing. 25 MR. RAIN: We'd be starting right where we're 2-24-03 206 1 starting, which is to gather information, confirm the design 2 and concepts with the Court, and then put a price on it that 3 we guarantee. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: But with various alternatives 5 also? 6 MR. ADLER: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's what -- 8 MR. ADLER: A shopping list. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what our real problem 10 is at this point, is the alternatives. And it's hard for us 11 to deal with the alternatives without having a little bit of 12 ballpark on price. 13 MR. ADLER: You need a shopping list so you 14 can just -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: We sure do. 16 MR. ADLER: After, I think, parameters are -- 17 are well established, we just need to give y'all thoughts 18 and options. 19 MR. GONDECK: And just in case there's any 20 skepticism on anybody's part about my contract, anything 21 that's decided today, I'm presuming that there's no action 22 being taken on my contract, even though you're 23 instructing -- or would possibly instruct me to work with 24 them. So, until some future date, we're -- I'm just working 25 with them, but I don't want anybody to think that, "Well, we 2-24-03 207 1 told him to go forward; now we're obligated to him." We're 2 still at the same point we were before I walked in this 3 room. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate that, Wayne. 5 MR. GONDECK: If we can figure out what in 6 the heck we're doing. 'Cause I don't know where we're at 7 until we know -- so -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the next logical step, 9 anyway. Do we -- do we need to -- other than to -- do we 10 even need a motion and a vote on telling them to proceed? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so at this 12 point. I think that, you know, the next step would be for 13 them to, I guess, come back with what they're going to do or 14 -- you know. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: An agreement, I guess. A 17 contract for us to get -- enter into the -- with the 18 design/build team, and at that point the contract with DRG. 19 MR. GONDECK: I will move forward, based on 20 the discussions and consensus of the Court today, to give 21 instruction to the design/build team to develop a cost and 22 services proposal to be presented to Commissioners Court for 23 a reduced-budget version of the project, to be presented at 24 whatever date that the Court deems appropriate, and we will 25 go from there. Is that -- 2-24-03 208 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We appreciate you 2 gentlemen's patience, and -- and -- and also your 3 appreciation of the predicament we're now in. When you open 4 up your checkbook and suddenly you find out that you've got 5 very little balance, it does kind of throw you into a little 6 quirk. 7 MR. ADLER: When would you like -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your 9 cooperation. We really, really do. 10 MR. ADLER: You're quite welcome. When would 11 you like the proposal? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next meeting? 13 MR. ADLER: When is that? 14 MR. GONDECK: The second Monday in March. 15 10th. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10th? March 10th. If 17 that's too soon, it will be -- 18 MS. SOVIL: 24th. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 14th, right? First 20 meeting? 21 MS. SOVIL: 14th is the first meeting in 22 March. 23 MR. ADLER: March 14th? Sure, that's fine. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: No, no, no. It's 10 and 24 25 again in March, just like it was -- 2-24-03 209 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, that's right. 2 MR. ADLER: March 10th? Is that it? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If possible. If you 4 want -- 5 MR. ADLER: No, that's fine. No, that's 6 fine. That's great. That's no problem. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: We realize you guys have 8 probably got to figure out a way to make a living on 9 something else between now and then. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll bet they have 11 some paying jobs out there. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I sure hope so. They haven't 13 done too well by this one yet. 14 MR. GONDECK: Thank y'all for your time. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Wayne. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate it, Wayne. 17 Thank you so much. Okay. Any further discussion or any 18 proposed action on 2.16, other than as discussed? Okay. Do 19 we have any reports to consider? Any further action? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't want it to 21 last much longer. I'm still thinking about the Ag Barn. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, still there. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm probably 24 thinking out loud. We can't do nothing. Double negative. 25 It can't set there like it is. 2-24-03 210 1 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can't continue to 3 use it very much. There's a cost of not rebuilding, to tear 4 it down, board it up, something. There's costs associated 5 with that, so that not -- doing nothing is not an option. 6 I'm just jumping out. We've got three, that I know of, very 7 capable grant writers in Kerr County. Does any of the 8 organizations we're a member of provide grant -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: R.C.& D. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: R.C.& D. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they can and they 13 will at the proper time. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or we can hire somebody 15 else, you know. I mean, there's -- I mean, I think 16 you're -- the direction you're taking is correct; that at 17 which point we're ready to do grants, we need to get someone 18 to do it for us. Because -- 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Especially if we're going 21 to national grants, because there's lots of things that you 22 need to go through, and it's a lot of paperwork and takes a 23 lot of time. And I've written quite a few grants for other 24 organizations, and, you know, it's something that, for a 25 governmental entity, it's even more complicated. 2-24-03 211 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And as Commissioner 3 Baldwin mentioned, I agree with that. I think there -- 4 there ultimately are dollars out there through U.S.D.A., 5 programs of that nature, of that type. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Far as I'm concerned. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand adjourned, then. 10 Thank you. 11 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:08 p.m.) 12 - - - - - - - - - - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2-24-03 212 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 5th day of March, 2003. 8 9 10 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 11 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 12 Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2-24-03