1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, November 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 November 24, 2003 PAGE 2 --- Commissioners' Comments 3 3 1.1 Resolution to authorize execution of TexDOT 4 General Aviation Terminal Grant 11 1.2 Proclamation declaring November as Adoption Month 23 5 1.3 Elect commissioners to Kerr County Emergency Service District No. 1 Board of Commissioners 24 6 1.4 Elect commissioners to Kerr County Emergency Service District No. 2 Board of Commissioners 26 7 1.5 Consider replacing 1993 Chevrolet used by C.I.D. 28 1.6 Consider changes in Flood Damage Prevention Order 8 #26463 31 1.7 Allow Road & Bridge to go out for annual bids on 9 paving materials 46 1.12 Privately-maintained road name changes 48 10 1.13 Discuss singular review for Subdivision in ETJ and possible proposed committee 53 11 1.14 Resolution of thanks to Riverhill Country Club 69 1.8 PUBLIC HEARINGS for Alternate Plat Revisions 71 12 1.9 Alternate Plat Revisions for Falling Water, Lots 138A and 139A, Volume 7, Pages 75 & 76 73 13 1.10 Alternate Plat Revisions for Falling Water, Lots 125A and 125, Volume 7, Page 52 74 14 1.11 Alternate Plat Revisions, Greenwood Forest, Lot 8, Block 6, Volume 3, Page 123; and Lots 15 16 and 17, Block 6, Volume 5, Page 92 76 1.15 Revisions to Kerr County Parks and Recreation 16 Master Plan, 2003-2008; authorize plan to be forwarded to Texas Parks and Wildlife, extend 17 letter of thanks and appreciation to KCVB 78 1.16 Discuss legal restrictions to the Commissioners' 18 Court plan to rule on proposals made by elected officials to grant merit pay increases 81 19 1.17 Consider establishing merit pay policies 87 1.18 Set date for Commissioners' Court Workshop for 20 strategic planning 89 1.19 Approval and award of bid for County Insurance 21 coverage to Texas Association of Counties 108 1.20 Discuss approving Mutual Aid Agreement with 22 AACOG to continue accessing regional assistance 127 1.21 Approval of Resolution opposing unfunded mandates, 23 authorizing referendum to be placed on March 2004 primary election ballots 128 24 1.22 Approve contracts between Kerr County and the Comfort VFD, Castle Lake VFD, and Hunt VFD 133 25 Approval Agenda 136 --- Adjourned 146 3 1 On Monday, November 24, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a special 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE TINLEY: It's 9 o'clock, so I'll call 7 to order the special Commissioners Court meeting scheduled 8 and posted for this date, November 24th. I believe, 9 Commissioner Nicholson, you have the honors this morning. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Please join me in 11 prayer. 12 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Please be seated. 14 If there is any member of the public or anyone in the 15 audience that wishes to address the Court about any matter 16 that is not listed on the agenda, this is the time for you 17 to come forward and do that. If -- if you wish to address 18 the Court on a matter that is listed as an agenda item, we'd 19 ask that you wait until that item is called, but if you have 20 anything you want to say to the Court about anything that's 21 not on the agenda, we'd -- we'd be happy for to you come 22 forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind. 23 Seeing no one moving towards the podium, why, I gather 24 there's none. Commissioners' comments. Number 4? 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, it's a 11-24-03 4 1 beautiful morning in west Kerr County, and white-tailed 2 bucks are running and turkeys are strutting, and we got our 3 first good, hard freeze of the winter. The other thing I 4 wanted to report, just as information to the members of the 5 Court and others who may be interested, that you may be 6 aware that there's been a debate over the past few weeks 7 over whether the County changed the holding rule for -- for 8 animals in the shelter from 48 to 72 hours. The genesis of 9 this debate was the appearance of a 72 -- a 72-hour rule in 10 the County's Rabies and Animal Control Rules document, and 11 that was an error. The basis of that was, we were relying 12 on an old document. 13 You may recall, Commissioner Baldwin, in 14 1997, the holding period was changed from 72 hours to 48 15 hours, and at that time, that change was penciled-in on the 16 courthouse documents. And then in August of this year, the 17 Commissioners Court considered and took action to revise the 18 Animal Control Order, and that action took place following a 19 number of meetings between me and Marc Allen and the Humane 20 Society and quite a number of Kerr County veterinarians and 21 others who are interested in animal welfare. And, based on 22 the input from these meetings, me and Marc Allen brought a 23 proposal to Commissioners Court to do two things; one, 24 change the rabies shot cycle from one year to three years, 25 and two, to change the fee schedule. The Commissioners 11-24-03 5 1 Court discussed these two issues. We held a public hearing 2 on the proposed changes, and we passed a court order by 3 4-to-0 vote to authorize these two changes. A change in the 4 minimum holding rule was not an issue. It was not proposed. 5 It was not discussed. It was not a part of the public 6 hearing, and it was not a part of the court order. 7 Apparently, there are some who are making an attempt to get, 8 through a procedural error, what they cannot get through 9 legitimate political process, to change the 48-hour rule to 10 72 hours. In my view, these efforts are disingenuous. 11 The facts on the issue of the 48-hour rule 12 versus a 72-hour rule are these: One, the County's Animal 13 Control facility operates at capacity most of the time. 14 There is no more room for more animals. Changing the 15 holding time to 72 hours would require the construction of a 16 larger facility. Two, changing the holding time from 48 to 17 72 hours will not result in reducing the number of animals 18 that are destroyed. The number of animals that come out of 19 the end of the pipeline is a function of the number of 20 animals that are put into the pipeline. The cause of the -- 21 of animals being destroyed is irresponsible pet owners. 22 And, three, no pet owner who obeys the Animal Control rules 23 will have his pet destroyed. That's an update on that 24 issue, and hope that the -- it might serve to -- to end the 25 debate. 11-24-03 6 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I have. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 1? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A comment on that. 5 Commissioner, I appreciate you bringing it to the Court, and 6 I think that everything that you said is 100 percent 7 correct. I -- I believe that it's been said at this table 8 several times that we'd like to have 72 hours, but, again, 9 it -- it's the cost of adding on to the facility. But it 10 has been 48 hours, and that's where it is, and if there is a 11 debate, that debate needs to be in this room, not out on the 12 streets. And it kind of angers me to hear that, that 13 someone is trying to go around the rules and do those kinds 14 of things, and -- but, anyway, I appreciate you doing that. 15 I want to talk a little Tivy football. Had a big victory 16 Friday night against New Braunfels. You know, New Braunfels 17 last year was defeated in the state championship game, and 18 came back and Tivy beat them twice this year; beat them 19 17-to-7 last Friday night. And the next game is this coming 20 Saturday night, and I think its 8 o'clock back in the 21 Alamodome. Last week, I understand there was a 17,000 22 crowd, which is a pretty good crowd for a 4-A high school 23 football game. But this Saturday night, the Alamodome, 24 against Calallen, which is -- during -- all during the year, 25 they were number four and five in the state, and they're 11-24-03 7 1 huge and great and all that. So, anybody looking for some 2 good high school football, you can find some Saturday night 3 in the Alamodome. There are eight teams left in the entire 4 state on our level, and Tivy is still one of them and still 5 in there scrapping. Good bunch of kids. And that's all. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You weren't numbered 7 among those 17,000 in the Alamodome? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I was. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I was. I didn't 11 count but 16,500, but -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- I read there were 14 17,000. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just wanted to check. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a few thoughts 18 with respect to the happenings and activities of the weekend 19 here on the courthouse lawn on Saturday night. It was a 20 wonderful party and a grand entry into the holiday season, 21 and it's really always interesting to see how, when 22 different groups and individuals put their minds and 23 shoulders to work toward a common purpose or goal, good 24 things can happen. So, I want to extend my thanks and 25 appreciation to the Christmas Lighting Corporation for all 11-24-03 8 1 of its hard work in acquiring the lighting and getting it 2 up, and the community service people and the jail inmates 3 that the Sheriff provided to help them put that up, as well 4 as the Kerr County Maintenance Department. Thanks, too, to 5 the downtown merchants and Main Street people for their 6 efforts in putting on the Christmas parade. The parade is 7 in its third year, I believe, and every year it's gotten 8 bigger and better, and who knows, one of these days it might 9 rival Comfort. I don't know, maybe one of these days. And, 10 lastly, to Wells Fargo Bank for its participation in what 11 they number as the 24th annual Christmas program that they 12 have sponsored here. So, you put all those components 13 together, and it truly was a grand, grand entry into the 14 Christmas and holiday season, and I commend all of them for 15 their efforts. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Likewise, I'd like to 18 commend everyone that had a part in the events Saturday 19 night here at the courthouse with the parade and lighting 20 and all of that festivities. A football note; Comfort 21 continues to win as well. They had a -- I think had a 22 record -- almost a record; probably was some sort of a 23 record, 545-yard rushing in their 61-to, I believe, -26 24 victory. And so they're continuing on to the playoffs 25 again. And the final note is, this weekend is Christmas in 11-24-03 9 1 Comfort, which is a -- anyone who has not been to that 2 event, it's pretty amazing for a town as small as Comfort to 3 put on a -- the holiday festivities as large as this. It's 4 kind of food booths and entertainment, things of that nature 5 going on all day, and culminating with a parade -- a night 6 parade on Saturday night. And one of the -- you know, I 7 think the -- probably the Fiesta Night parade's probably the 8 only parade around here that rivals it in size and events. 9 In fact, there are some -- I forget the name -- the queen's 10 coronation float out of San Antonio always comes to the 11 parade. They don't go everywhere, so that's kind of a big 12 deal. It is a -- anyone who has not been, I really 13 recommend you go, 'cause it is a -- a big event, a lot of 14 fun. Something like, probably, 80 entries or so. And 15 interestingly, just a footnote, this parade is put on by one 16 individual in Comfort; his name is Gary Schwab. His, I 17 guess, passion is this parade, and he is the organizer, puts 18 it on totally, organizes the entire thing by himself. And 19 he and his wife Janice have done a fantastic job, and he'll 20 be dressed as Santa Claus at the end of the parade. Anyway, 21 big crowd; get there early. They anticipate 12,000, 15,000 22 people. A lot of people come in big buses. I know 23 Fredericksburg has three or four buses coming down for it. 24 Good event. Hope everyone can turn out. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. On the Animal 11-24-03 10 1 Control issue, when it was brought to light, I have asked 2 the County Attorney's office to look into what procedures, 3 if any, this Court needs to look at in order to make 4 whatever changes the Court might deem appropriate with 5 respect to the issues concerning the Animal Control 6 regulations. So, I'll await hearing from the County 7 Attorney as to what -- what procedures we're required to 8 follow. 9 I'd also like to echo Commissioners Williams 10 and Letz; kudos to people that were responsible for the 11 parade and the ceremony and lighting here at the courthouse. 12 It came off, as far as I know, without a hitch. The parade 13 was great. It proceeded orderly, and there were a lot of 14 folks, and the weather was fantastic; we couldn't have 15 ordered it in. I told Steve Brown after the ceremony that 16 since he was in the weather business, he ought to take 17 credit for it, if nothing else. But it really came out 18 fantastic. And especially want to thank everybody from our 19 courthouse staff and -- and the Sheriff's trustee inmates 20 that participate in these things. Frankly, I don't think 21 the thing could be done without the cooperation of everybody 22 that was involved in it. And -- and, of course, the 23 Christmas lighting people and the -- the community service 24 people participate and are the driving force behind it, but 25 we appreciate all of their efforts. And that's all I have, 11-24-03 11 1 and let's move on with the business at hand. First item on 2 the agenda is the consideration and approval of a resolution 3 to authorize the execution of a grant agreement pursuant to 4 the Texas Department of Transportation General Aviation 5 Terminal Grant. Good morning, Mr. Pearce. 6 MR. PEARCE: Good morning, Judge and 7 Commissioners. What you have before you today is a 8 resolution to execute grant agreements and to continue with 9 proceeding for a terminal -- General Aviation Terminal 10 grant. Back when I got on board in -- I believe it was 11 April-May time frame, we went through a number of capital 12 projects that we were looking at and kind of reviewed them 13 with the Board. Some of the priorities that were given at 14 that particular time was a general aviation terminal, and 15 that was the second priority. First one was an instrument 16 landing system, but we're not ready to pursue that. They 17 asked me to go out and try to pursue obtaining funding at 18 that particular time. I talked at great length with TexDOT. 19 TexDOT has a state project where they will do a fifty-fifty 20 match for a general aviation terminal, which is up to 21 $600,000. And, of course, that means a local match of 22 $300,000. From there, we talked with the E.I.C. 23 corporation, and it fit into their criteria; they were very 24 exited about it and unanimously approved the match funding 25 for $300,000 to match that. 11-24-03 12 1 Once we obtained that funding, we jumped in 2 an airplane and literally flew up to Austin, proceeded to 3 tell them we had the match funding, waited for their 4 response. TexDOT did respond within two weeks, and said 5 that, yes, we will be funded for a terminal. And, 6 additionally, we were able -- because of our quick response, 7 we were able to tap into some discretionary money, and they 8 will proceed going to the Transportation Commission so we 9 can start the design within the next 60 days, and that means 10 consultant selection, doing a design. By about the time we 11 complete all of those phases, I envision that we could have 12 the package ready to bid for construction, about August time 13 frame. When it goes into the second phase of their -- their 14 fiscal year, which is September, they will go to the 15 Commission again for the construction phase, and we 16 literally could have this building on the ground within 14 17 to 16 months. It's a real success. It's a gateway to the 18 city, to the community, to Kerr County, to the airport. I 19 call it -- it's a transition facility for people on the 20 ground to go in, and a gateway to our area, or a transition 21 from ground to go back into the air. We do not have one of 22 those facilities right now. We do not have a facility that 23 meets our criteria, or to the level that we think we need, 24 and we ask that you approve this. Any questions? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Pearce, thank you 11-24-03 13 1 for your report and thank you for bringing this to our 2 attention. A couple questions. First of all, the $300,000 3 is, as they say, in the bag? We have that from the E.I.C.? 4 That's a guaranteed funding? 5 MR. PEARCE: It's a guaranteed funding. The 6 acceptance was already approved. The contract is already 7 let, and we have it in a -- in the bank, so to speak. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's been blessed 9 by City Council? 10 MR. PEARCE: Blessed by City Council. 11 Contract has already been signed between the two. We have a 12 project fund; it's completed. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The second part of 14 the question would be, what additional funds from TexDOT 15 have you been able to identify, other than the $300,000 16 match? You indicated there's some additional funds that 17 you've been able to tap into for planning and early design, 18 perhaps, or whatever? 19 MR. PEARCE: This is -- this is part of 20 that -- excuse me. This is part of that $300,000. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, just part of 22 the $300,000? 23 MR. PEARCE: Yes. So, what you end up with 24 is a project cost of $600,000. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which includes the 11-24-03 14 1 soft money up front? 2 MR. PEARCE: Includes the soft money up 3 front, which is design, the geotech, all of the -- the 4 preparations, the bid packages, and then the remainder is 5 the construction. Normally, what happens is the geotech, 6 engineering design, complete process runs between $50,000 7 and $60,000. So, in essence, the construction portion of 8 the building will be right around $540,000 -- 500 -- 9 $540,000 to $550,000. The range of the -- there's a number 10 of different terminals that have been accomplished in the 11 state for the last five years. We took a snapshot of that. 12 The range for the types of facilities are running between 13 $98 and $134 a square foot. So, in essence, you would -- 14 meeting the public facility criteria, there's a number of 15 issues we have to do there, but you would end up with a 16 facility in the neighborhood of a 4,800 to 5,500-square-foot 17 facility. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Given that we're 19 still having some unresolved issues between the two owners 20 and the Airport Board, how do you envision -- how do you 21 envision the planning process to unfold? Give us a thought 22 or two on that. 23 MR. PEARCE: We'll have a selection committee 24 that will actually select a design consultant, once we go 25 out for a Statement of Qualifications. The individuals have 11-24-03 15 1 to submit their qualifications at that particular time. We 2 do a selection committee for the design consultant. It all 3 falls under the TexDOT criteria. They monitor this whole 4 process. We award points. Really, the best individual -- 5 the best-suited, we will select them. Then we have to 6 negotiate a fee with them. Once we negotiate that fee, we 7 go back to TexDOT, TexDOT reviews it, accepts it or denies 8 it. Once we're ready, at that point, it's a contract with 9 that design engineer. They do the project, complete it. 10 Once it's ready to go for bid, then we go out to bid for the 11 facility, and then it's low bidder who meets the 12 qualifications, unless there's a reason that we need to 13 discriminate from them, and that is that they don't meet the 14 qualifications or they have a track record in the past that 15 doesn't -- questionable, if you will. This is a pretty 16 boilerplate-type process. TexDOT has had this program in 17 place for about 10 years right now. They have constructed 18 approximately 50 facilities around the state; simple process 19 that they follow. We just -- we have to work hand-in-hand 20 with TexDOT as we go through, very similar to how we did the 21 entrance road relocation, the runway overlay, those type of 22 projects. The only difference is, this is state money; it's 23 not federal money, which is a real good opportunity. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Pearce, I'm 11-24-03 16 1 looking at the resolution here and the sign-off page on it. 2 I'm assuming that the County Attorney is prepared to advise 3 this Court whether this is a good document or not, but I 4 don't see any -- I don't see -- I see where the Mayor has 5 signed off, the City Clerk and the City Attorney has signed 6 off, but I don't see any County signatures on here. And -- 7 MS. SOVIL: We added those after you made -- 8 he made those copies. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I'm not privileged 10 to the same documents that you all are? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I think at the bottom of the 12 page, that page just -- just below those two signatures on 13 the left. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. And the only thing 16 that's been added is -- is, below that, where the County 17 Attorney has approved the original sign-off on it, so you 18 don't have the sign-off of the County Attorney. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That's on the original. It's 21 on all the documents here before the Court for execution. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, you have -- do 23 you have it? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have it? Do 11-24-03 17 1 you have it? We don't have it. And how in the hell do you 2 expect us to make a decision if we don't have the right 3 documents? That's what I'm saying. And I certainly 4 wouldn't vote for it if it didn't -- if those 5 weren't available. Now, my only other question to you, when 6 you hopped in the airplane to run up to Austin, was anybody 7 at this table invited to go along? 8 MR. PEARCE: No, they were not. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would ask you, from 10 this point on, you include the County in everything you do. 11 MR. PEARCE: Does that mean I do not proceed 12 with pursuing grants and development of the airport unless 13 somebody's there? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that is exactly 15 what that means. That means that we have an appointee here 16 that -- that goes to the board meetings, and I want him at 17 least advised of it and where he can come back and report to 18 this Court. Do you have a problem with that, Mr. Pearce? 19 MR. PEARCE: No, it's not a problem. I'm a 20 little bit, I guess, amazed that we had two Commissioners 21 that knew that we were -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're half-owners in 23 the thing, and we want -- we are a part of it. We have not 24 been a part of it, and we're trying to get a foothold in the 25 thing and be a part of it, and we're going to be a part of 11-24-03 18 1 it from this point on. That's all. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me add a thought 3 here, following up on Commissioner Baldwin's comments. I 4 think the Commissioners' concerns are valid, but it also 5 goes to -- not to say that I didn't know what's going on. I 6 did know that we were pursuing this grant. I thought he was 7 aware, too, because County Judge also knew. It does -- it 8 does make or bring emphasis to the point that we need to 9 iron out the unresolved issues of governance so that the 10 Court and the City Council and everybody are clearly aware 11 of not only what you're doing, but the decisions that cause 12 you to spring into action, and that is the transfer of 13 whatever authorities need to be transferred to make the 14 Airport Board not advisory, but an action board. And the 15 last time we met and talked about any of that, Judge Tinley 16 and I were involved in the meeting right here in this 17 courtroom with representatives of the City, and we talked 18 about governance, and governance has to be changed to the 19 extent that it becomes an authoritative board, and 20 representatives of this Court or representatives of City 21 Council become action members or voting members of an 22 Airport Board. I know that's not in your purview, but it 23 needs to be on the record that this issue needs to be taken 24 care of. Commissioner Nicholson is also aware, so I think 25 it's time, Judge, that we do resolve this issue so that we 11-24-03 19 1 make certain all of our colleagues are on board and the same 2 path, and we're all working toward the same goal, which is 3 to make that an economic development generator, as it should 4 be, and as it's headed in the direction to be. I think the 5 terminal itself is a wonderful addition and will cause the 6 airport, at some point in time -- if it doesn't make it 7 before we have the building, that airport will be 8 self-sustaining by the time we get that building, and I 9 think that's a goal we all ascribe to. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let me ask one 11 more question. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have the County 14 Attorney's signature added on yours. The document -- is the 15 document exactly the same that I have here? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not -- I'm not sure, 17 Commissioner. The -- very frankly, the -- I've got to 18 assume that it probably is, but I don't know that. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would assume that as 20 well. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I invite to you look at it 22 here. It's the original that was tendered to me. It 23 appears to be the same, with the exception of a sign-off 24 spot to the right of the County Clerk's signature for 25 approval by the County Attorney, which is on all of these. 11-24-03 20 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more 2 explanation -- comment, Commissioner. When this document 3 came in -- wasn't it Thursday or Friday? When was it? 4 Wednesday or whatever last week, Ms. Sovil brought it to my 5 attention that the County Attorney would need to review it, 6 and there wasn't a line for signature. I suggested to her 7 to suggest to the Judge that we add a review line for the 8 County Attorney on the original document, send it to the 9 County Attorney for review and so forth. The fact that it 10 didn't get copied with that line on it, I think, is an 11 accident and not intentional, but it was reviewed. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. Well, 13 while I'm chewing here, the -- and your comments, everybody 14 at this table except Commissioner Letz and I know everything 15 about it, so would you please -- would you please bring the 16 information to this table so that we'll all know what's 17 going on? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be happy to. If 19 I failed to do so, I apologize. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just going on your 21 comments. You named everybody but him and I. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only comment I 23 have -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I assumed you read 25 the paper, Commissioner. It was in the paper. 11-24-03 21 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I didn't read the 2 paper. Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to commend you 4 for pursuing the grant and getting it. All said and done, I 5 think, you know, the -- myself and I presume the whole Court 6 is happy with receiving the grant and the fact that we're 7 having a terminal built, but I think you also probably -- I 8 don't disagree with what my colleagues have said, but I 9 think you understand that the -- I think the frustration is 10 that this Court has been trying to get the City to get this 11 governance issue resolved for over a year now, and we seem 12 to go at a snail's pace. And I think if you can just take 13 that back to City Manager and say, hey, you really need to 14 get, you know, the mayor to get with Commissioners Court and 15 get this resolved, so you don't get beat up every time you 16 come over here, Dave. I know you don't appreciate it 17 either. 18 MR. PEARCE: I'm just trying to get money and 19 build the airport. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Thank you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson, do you 22 have anything to offer? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, sir, I do not. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would offer 11-24-03 22 1 for action Commissioners Court approval of resolution to 2 authorize execution of a grant agreement pursuant to Texas 3 Department of Transportation for General Terminal Aviation 4 Grant as presented to Commissioners Court, and authorize 5 County Judge to sign same. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 8 the approval of the agenda item, and authorize County Judge 9 to sign the same. Any further question or discussion? With 10 regard to the omission of the County Attorney's approval 11 line, I think what had happened was, when we got that 12 in-hand -- the originals in-hand, I think the copies had -- 13 Ms. Sovil had already run off copies to go in our respective 14 agenda item books, and as a result, it lacked that item. 15 From the priority standpoint of trying to iron out the 16 remaining issues at the airport, I met -- earlier this 17 month? This month with the City Manager, and our primary 18 discussion at that time dealt with airport matters. And he 19 and I have both, I think, concluded that that's an item 20 we're putting on the front burner to try and get that 21 resolved, so that we've got these lingering issues with 22 respect to those airport matters resolved and nailed down, 23 and that therefore everybody can move forward. 24 Lastly, I -- I'm very happy to see E.I.C. 25 look favorably upon this, and I applaud their efforts. I 11-24-03 23 1 think this is truly a project that falls under the purview 2 of economic improvement and economic development, and I 3 think that whole airport complex is going to be a 4 significant economic generator for this area in the years to 5 come. And I know that's Mr. Pearce's thought, and he's 6 looking down the road at having a pretty significant 7 complex, not just aviation, but a lot of second- and 8 third-tier operations out there. In fact, we've already got 9 some. But I really think it's -- it's an appropriate E.I.C. 10 project, and I appreciate their looking at this thing 11 favorably. Any other questions? Comments? All in favor of 12 the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next 17 item on the agenda -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Dave. 19 Judge has it for signature right here. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is 21 consider and discuss approving proclamation proclaiming 22 November as Adoption Month. This item came to me from the 23 governor's office, and I put on it the agenda accordingly. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, is there a -- I 25 mean, the proclamation attached is the one from the 11-24-03 24 1 governor. Have you prepared one? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I have not yet prepared one. 3 There would be some very minor changes. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 5 MS. SOVIL: The lady from C.P.S. was supposed 6 to bring one this morning. Judy -- the one that signed the 7 letter. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judy Houston? 9 MS. SOVIL: Yes. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I've not seen it, 11 Commissioner, but there would necessarily need to be some 12 very minor modifications. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That may be coming. Why 14 don't we pass on this until we get the actual letter? And 15 she'll probably be here later this morning. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have a problem with 17 that? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I think it's 19 wise. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We will return to 21 that item. The next item on the agenda is consider and 22 discuss and elect the Commissioners to the Kerr County 23 Emergency Services District Number 1 Board of Commissioners. 24 Commissioner Nicholson. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have two items on 11-24-03 25 1 the agenda that pertain to -- to Commissioners for our rural 2 emergency service districts. You'll recall that Ingram 3 Rural Fire Prevention District is -- has become Number 1, 4 and now we have a new Number 2. This one deals with an 5 Ingram -- a proposal to reelect Mr. Kenneth Wood -- 6 reappoint, I'm sorry, Mr. Kenneth Wood, Bruce Bond, and 7 Donald C. Oehler as Commissioners of the district to serve a 8 new two-year term. If you've been out in the Ingram area 9 lately, you have seen that new fire -- firehouse is under 10 construction. As Buster said, larger facility, and will 11 allow them to respond quicker and in a more efficient way to 12 fires. And, from what I can see, that between the volunteer 13 fire department there and the -- the District Number 1, 14 they've done a terrific job of raising money and improving 15 their capability to fight -- fight fires. All that 16 editorial is to say that I recommend the -- the appointment 17 of -- these three men's appointment as Commissioners. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 20 the appointment or reappointment, as it were, of the 21 following persons to serve as Commissioners on the Board of 22 Commissioners of the Kerr County Emergency Services District 23 Number 1; that being Kenneth Woods, Bruce Bond, and Donald 24 C. Oehler. Any further questions or discussion? All in 25 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 11-24-03 26 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item 5 on the agenda is consider, discuss, and elect Commissioners 6 to the Kerr County Emergency Services District Number 2 7 Board of Commissioners. That would probably be more 8 appropriately known as the Mountain Home District, would it 9 not, Commissioner? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's -- that's 11 probably a good term. It's officially the Kerr County 12 Emergency Service District Number 2. And we have nominees 13 in front of you, and you have their resumes, to -- to 14 appoint five Commissioners for an additional term. 15 Procedurally, today we'll appoint five Commissioners, and on 16 January 1, we will act again to determine the terms of those 17 commissioners. Some will be one year, and some will be two 18 years. These five -- Cleo Meadow, Bruce Oehler, John 19 Gibbens, F.C. "Corky" Henson, and Wesley Patton -- all meet 20 the qualifications of the act. They all reside in the 21 district. From my point of view, we're very fortunate to 22 have such a good combination of experience among these 23 Commissioners, including business and finance experience, 24 firefighting experience, government experience. I think the 25 mix will make for a good Board of Commissioners. I've met 11-24-03 27 1 with each of them, and I'm very impressed that -- and very 2 thankful that they're willing to serve in this capacity. In 3 fact, I might, just as an aside, say that Commissioner 4 Oehler just celebrated his 50th birthday last weekend. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd heard that. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I've counted 7 backwards, and he wasn't -- when he first served in an 8 elected capacity, he wasn't old enough to vote. (Laughter.) 9 Some of the -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't think he was 11 that old. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Three of the 14 nominees are here with us, as is Mr. Bernard Syfan, who's 15 been very instrumental in helping to form this -- this 16 emergency service district. So, I -- I move that we -- we 17 approve the nominations of Cleo Meadow, Bruce Oehler, John 18 Gibbens, F.C. "Corky" Henson, and Wesley Patton as 19 Commissioners of Kerr County Emergency Service District 20 Number 2. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 24 approve as Commissioners for the Board of Commissioners of 25 Kerr County Emergency Services District Number 2 Cleo 11-24-03 28 1 Meadow, Bruce Oehler, John Gibbens, F.C. "Corky" Henson, and 2 Wesley Patton. Any further questions or discussion? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Comment. Judge, thank 4 you. I don't know all of them, but I know three of them 5 real well. Super quality. This thing's going to work; 6 there's no question in my mind. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 8 discussion? All in favor of the motion, please signify by 9 raising your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Notion does carry. Thank you, 14 gentlemen, for your willingness to serve, and we'll shuffle 15 you up come January, I suppose. The next item on the agenda 16 was placed there at the request of the Sheriff, and he's 17 requested that we -- 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Put it back on now. The 19 County Attorney did get his research done. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item is 21 consideration and discussion of replacing an older '93 22 Chevrolet used by his C.I.D. with a '98 Ford Taurus, to be 23 purchased with moneys available in his Seizure and Donation 24 Expenditure accounts. Sheriff? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What this is, is the '93 11-24-03 29 1 Chevrolet. Y'all will recall, it's a maroon Chevrolet 2 Caprice that we have had for a number of years. It had 3 belonged to a highway patrol sergeant here first. Once he 4 got through with it, it was traded in. It's one of those 5 the County did purchase from D.P.S., and mileage is up about 6 2,000 -- or 200,000 on it. And the mechanic at the shop 7 says it's literally a bucket of bolts rolling down the road 8 and shouldn't be on the road, so we're at the point of 9 having to get rid of it. It's been in service for a number 10 of years. Ran across this vehicle by accident, really. The 11 sticker price that I saw posted here at the courthouse, I 12 saw the vehicle parked out front. It's the same type of 13 vehicle we've been putting in C.I.D. It's a '98 with 76,000 14 or something miles on it, in excellent shape. The price out 15 of -- taking about $1,000 out of our Seizure account, and 16 the remainder out of Donation account. We can purchase this 17 vehicle and won't have any budgetary impact at all. The 18 main reason I brought it to the Court is because it is owned 19 by a spouse of one of the employees, and there were some 20 legal questions I had under that, whether we could actually 21 purchase something owned by a spouse. Late last week I had 22 contacted the County Attorney to do some research and let us 23 know and make sure it was legal to do it this way, and I 24 originally was going to pull it, 'cause I hadn't had that 25 response yet; David's been swamped. But David walked in a 11-24-03 30 1 while ago and told me he has got an opinion on that, and 2 does have one that he'll voice today. So, if he does, I 3 would still like to go forward with it, okay? 4 MR. MOTLEY: It's a purchase. There's 5 nothing to prohibit the purchase. The fact that it's an 6 employee's spouse is -- even if the property were considered 7 community property, it's okay. This book -- this vehicle is 8 well below the book value -- Blue Book value. It's an 9 arm's-length transaction; there's no evidence of insider 10 trading, insider dealing, or overreaching by the Sheriff. 11 In any event, it's a -- it's a -- it's a fair purchase, and 12 I don't see anything wrong. And we have no bidding problem; 13 the price is $3,500, so we're not required to bid it. So, I 14 don't see a thing wrong. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion -- 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Any the only other thing 19 I would add, I need to take -- be able to have the authority 20 to take it out of that Donation expenditure. Seizure 21 account, I don't have a problem, but the way the Auditor has 22 our Donation account set up is that it is a budgetary line 23 that goes in there, that authorizes the -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much comes out of 25 that line? 11-24-03 31 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $2,500. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $2,500 out of the 3 Donation? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And $1,100 out of 6 Seizure? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, $1,000. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,000 out of Seizure. 9 That's my motion. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 12 approval of the agenda item, with $2,500 to come out of the 13 Donation line item and $1,000 to come from the Seizure 14 account. Any further question or discussion? All in favor 15 of 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 does carry. The next 20 item on the agenda is to consider changes in Flood Damage 21 Prevention Order 26463. Mr. Johnston. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Good morning. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: I was reading through the 25 Flood Prevention Order, and there's three items that I 11-24-03 32 1 thought I'd bring to your attention for possible 2 consideration of making a change, first item just being an 3 update from "T.N.R.C.C." to "T.C.E.Q." Second item appears 4 to be somewhat of a conflict in the -- as you read through 5 this, there's development allowed in the special flood 6 hazard area, in the fringe areas, as long as it does not 7 increase the base flood elevation more than 1 foot. And it 8 seems to me that once development is -- is completed, as we 9 go along, ultimately the base flood elevation will be plus 1 10 foot, all developments finished. And so, therefore, I make 11 this recommendation; that we change the order to read 12 "elevated 1 foot above the base flood elevation for 13 construction in the fringe area of the special hazard area, 14 Zone A." As an aside to that, the City of Kerrville 15 currently has 1 foot above the B.F.E., and I understand 16 they're considering changing to it 2 foot above the B.F.E. 17 The third item being under the subdivision part, new 18 subdivisions that have lots within a flood hazard area, that 19 we should have the recommendation that they have 1 acre at 20 least outside of the special flood hazard area, to minimize 21 construction in that area. The whole purpose is not to 22 build in those areas. This will pertain only to new 23 construction. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is -- Franklin, is the 25 third item -- is that part of the Subdivision Rules, or is 11-24-03 33 1 that part of the flood prevention, or part of both? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: That's Section 5. Section C 3 is in the flood prevention order pertaining to new 4 subdivisions. And, concurrently, if you agree with this, it 5 probably should be also in the new Subdivision Rules. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question, Frank. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The -- there's a 9 chart that you show -- that you provided the Court -- 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- showing 12 potential -- potentially reduced insurance rates. Is that 13 really true? 'Cause there are some significant savings to 14 homeowners or property owners by reason of our doing this. 15 MR. JOHNSTON: That is my understanding. 16 We're not in the insurance business, but as a result of 17 this, actually it would, I understand, change that rate to 18 very -- to minimize that rate, yes. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And my second 20 question has to do with the change -- subdivision rule -- I 21 believe it's subdivision rule change, isn't it, Jonathan, on 22 the 1-acre thing with -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't think 24 it's -- 25 MR. JOHNSTON: What I'm saying is, if there's 11-24-03 34 1 a lot in the fringe of the -- of the Zone A on a subdivision 2 plat, instead of the entire lot -- which I think we don't do 3 that now. I think we -- you know, we usually have some 4 property outside of that. But codify it and say that of 5 that lot that's in the floodplain, at least 1 acre of that 6 would be outside the floodplain. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that goes to my 8 question. For example, out on Wharton Road, we have -- 9 we've had, within the last two, three years -- three years 10 maybe, construction of some homes which are obviously in -- 11 in the floodway -- not the floodway, but the flood -- 12 whatever it is. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fringe. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fringe area. And I 15 guess they were constructed through the -- to the current 16 rules in terms of septics and so forth and so on. But with 17 this change, my question is, would they have been permitted 18 with this type of a change? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, if it was a new 20 subdivision and they -- you know, the lot was entirely 21 within a floodplain, it would -- wouldn't -- you know, if 22 you approved this, it would have to have acreage outside of 23 that also. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This change, for 25 example, where a person owned a lot currently that's in the 11-24-03 35 1 floodplain, or part or all of it, would this change cause 2 that lot to become worthless? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: If it's already platted, it 4 wouldn't have any effect on it. It's only new subdivisions. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just new -- 6 MR. JOHNSTON: All the rest would be 7 grandfathered in. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I don't 9 have any problem with that. I think it's probably a good 10 idea, but if we passed that 1-acre part now, it's going to 11 be in conflict with our current rules, because it is 12 possible, if you're under a septic -- I mean, a centralized 13 septic and centralized water system, to have -- there's no 14 minimum in our current rules, even though we're going to 15 change that. But there would -- therefore, if there -- if 16 the lot's less than, you know, an acre in size, they 17 couldn't -- they could never get a 1 acre. I mean, it seems 18 to me it's a conflict with our current rules. I think it 19 wouldn't be when we change the rules, but I'm just 20 wondering -- I think it's a pretty rare scenario that, you 21 know, it would happen, but it would be a potential conflict, 22 as I see it. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: That may be all we're talking 24 about. We're talking about lots in the floodway or the 25 floodplain, so -- you know, in that fringe area, which is in 11-24-03 36 1 Zone A floodplain, so we're trying to keep people out of 2 that area anyway. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But what I'm 4 saying is, though, that we're putting a -- this -- this is a 5 stricter rule than our Subdivision Rules have, and I don't 6 know that -- if that's a conflict or not. I mean, if you 7 look at our Subdivision Rules, and all of a sudden you go -- 8 and this would say you couldn't do it. Subdivision Rules 9 say you could do it. That's my question, as to whether you 10 can have a -- if this can be -- 11 MR. JOHNSTON: If this concept's, you know, 12 something you agreed with, I think we probably would carry 13 through and come back next time, or -- I think you're still 14 working on your changes, right? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but that's what -- 16 I'm just saying, can we? I don't know if it's wise to make 17 this change until we change the Subdivision Rules. Do both 18 at the same time. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bring it back at the 20 same time we do the Subdivision Rules, 'cause I agree with 21 what you're saying. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: What's the date -- date on the 23 Subdivision Rules? They've been kind of floating around for 24 a while. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 20 years. 11-24-03 37 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 20 years. We've been -- 2 I mean, the -- I was kind of waiting on feedback from the 3 draft that got back, and I haven't gotten any, so I guess 4 everyone agrees with what I wrote. I was thinking that I 5 was going to get some comments from somebody, but I never 6 have, so they'll be on our next agenda to set the public 7 hearing. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Johnston, how would this 9 affect a -- a situation where there's a bunch of fill 10 brought in to build up an area to bring it above base flood 11 elevation or -- or in order to put improvements on it? Your 12 plat's going to show something in the -- in the flood 13 fringe, and then the owner of the tract decides they want to 14 build close to the water course, whatever it may be, and -- 15 and bring in a bunch of fill in order to build up that area 16 where it's above base flood elevation, put in improvements. 17 How is that going to interconnect with the -- 18 MR. JOHNSTON: For them to bring fill in to 19 bring that above the B.F.E., they have to get a permit from 20 the -- from the County. They'd have to have an engineering 21 study and -- you know, several things they have to do in 22 order to get that permit. And this would -- if they built 23 in this 1 acre that's outside that limited area, they 24 wouldn't have to do any of that. Actually saves them money 25 during that -- the construction. 11-24-03 38 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that. But, 2 assuming that they don't -- 3 MR. JOHNSTON: If they still wanted to add 4 fill, they'd have to go through the same engineering study 5 as they do now if they want to add some construction or just 6 add fill. If you add fill in that area, you have to get a 7 permit, prove you're not raising the B.F.E. more than 1 8 foot. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: How would that affect the 10 calculation of what does or does not fall within the -- the 11 fringe area or not? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not sure I understand what 13 you're saying. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're going to start 15 out with some property that is in the -- below the base 16 flood elevation. 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you going to come back and 19 recalculate, for purposes of this 1-acre rule, if there's 20 fill brought in to -- to enhance the elevation for placement 21 of improvements? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I think what we're saying is 23 that, you know, there's a line somewhere on the -- that's 24 always shown on the subdivision that this is a floodplain 25 line. We're saying if there's a lot that's partially within 11-24-03 39 1 that line, that they need to have at least 1 acre outside 2 that line to build on -- put their septic on to build on. 3 So, they're actually not infringing on that floodplain area. 4 Not putting fill in that floodplain area. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're saying is, it 6 would be unlawful for someone who owns a lot like this to 7 build up the elevation in an area that would otherwise be 8 within the -- below the base flood elevation in order to 9 construct those improvements? Is that what I'm hearing? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: It wouldn't be unlawful. They 11 could still come back and go through the permitting process 12 and get a permit to do that. But I think, by doing that, we 13 would encourage them to build on the higher area. The whole 14 point of this is to keep people from being washed down the 15 river during a flood. That's keeping them out of the hazard 16 area. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- I think you 18 probably are aware that we've had a number of people that, 19 in spite of encouragement, they desire to be as close as 20 they can possibly get to the water course. And if that 21 means building up the base flood elevation by bringing in 22 fill, a lot of folks do that. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Based on engineering study. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, can I just 11-24-03 40 1 step back one notch and ask a question? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just for my 4 enlightenment, if nobody else, how is the base flood 5 elevation established? Is that established by survey, which 6 would be commissioned by somebody wishing to do the 7 development? Is it established by FEMA maps? Just how is 8 it established? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: All of those things. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of the above? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Best available information. 12 On the river, it's all been mapped and there's profiles, and 13 elevations are pretty well established. On tributaries, you 14 know, of a river, some of them are unstudied, and there are, 15 you know, individual surveys, contour maps, different ways 16 to establish the B.F.E. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, following up on 18 Judge Tinley's question, then, if some developer came in 19 with a plat, and your best available information indicated 20 that there was a B.F.E. problem there in terms of them 21 meeting 1 acre plus in his subdivision plan, and he 22 announces as part of his -- or says to the Court as a part 23 of his development and approval plan process, he would raise 24 the elevation another "X" by bringing in fill, would that 25 change it, and is that permissible? 11-24-03 41 1 MR. JOHNSTON: They can get a permit to put 2 fill in the fringe area. They can't raise it over a foot. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: That pertains back to 2; can't 5 raise it a foot after development. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A little answer -- bit in 7 answer to your question, I mean, as I understand it, FEMA 8 has their maps; that is the base flood elevation. But a lot 9 of times, and in our Subdivision Rules, the surveyor, which 10 is basically the developer, has to establish where that is. 11 I mean, if there's not a mark near there, they have to spend 12 money on the surveying to get that -- you know, for them to 13 go up the river channel or whatever and find that. Once 14 FEMA goes into an area and there's a disaster, and I've had 15 a number of -- or two of them in my precinct in the past 16 couple of years, FEMA goes in and they will then, on these 17 tributaries, like on Cherry Creek, they've established that 18 B.F.E. way up into the headwaters of Cherry Creek, Holiday 19 Creek, Cypress Creek, a lot of other creeks, because they 20 went there, they took -- basically looked at the high water 21 mark. They said, "Okay, this is how high" -- they came out 22 right after the flood. Water got up to here. That's it. 23 That's deemed to be the record flood. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That almost makes 25 sense. If -- 11-24-03 42 1 MR. JOHNSTON: They're called flood recovery 2 maps, and those establish it for those areas, so that's a 3 hodgepodge. I think on subdivisions, though, it should 4 clarify that it is up to the surveyor to establish that 5 B.F.E. and put on it each plot, or partially. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my confusion, a 7 little bit, is maybe I don't understand this exactly right. 8 If you're going to go build something in the floodway, 9 you're going to -- in the -- 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Floodplain. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, flood -- the 12 fringe. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- and you do that; 15 you get the permits to do it. Then the base flood elevation 16 right in that area goes up one foot. 17 MR. JOHNSTON: It goes up no more than. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, see, it goes 19 -- you know -- okay. And what I'm thinking of is just -- 20 just use an example that I understand, the Little League 21 field. When we built the concession stand over there, it 22 was 1 foot before these rules came in, but it was 1 foot 23 above the B.F.E. Now -- okay. Say they went in there, and 24 someone goes around there and builds something. Say Road 25 and Bridge goes and does something right upstream in the 11-24-03 43 1 floodplain and puts some fill in, and all of a sudden, the 2 B.F.E. is raised a foot because of that. Well, then, all of 3 a sudden, the concession stand is -- is in the flood -- in 4 the -- below or equal to the base flood elevation point, 5 then. 6 MR. JOHNSTON: That's exactly my point number 7 2. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a problem? I 9 mean, it seems if you do -- three or four things happen, it 10 seems like, slowly. If we allow any construction in a -- 11 you know, in a fringe area, you know, over five or six 12 years, you wouldn't -- you'd maybe raise the elevation 13 5 feet. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Well -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause it's cumulative, I 16 would think. And that's -- 17 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think you can raise it 18 over 12 inches from the -- wherever it was originally 19 established. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But each time -- 21 first person does a little bit of something; it goes up a 22 foot. Then someone else goes up in Hunt and raises it. I 23 mean, does it go all the way down the river? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think it keeps going 25 from where it was before. I think it's still going by that 11-24-03 44 1 same -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The first one. So, we're 3 not raising the B.F.E. every time we do something in the 4 river -- in the fringe? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: But, however, people that 6 base -- base their construction on -- at the B.F.E., what it 7 is now, and then people raise it, you know, they're 8 eventually going to be a foot underwater. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, potentially. If 10 it's truly a displacement of, I mean, a foot. If it's going 11 to cause a true foot rise in the elevation. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is pretty doubtful, 14 really. 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Somewhat similar to predicting 16 the weather; you don't know exactly what's going to happen, 17 but that's the theory behind it. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: What presently is the theory 19 of people bringing in fill to increase elevations on a 20 particular tract, assuming they come to you and get a 21 permit? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: They have to have an 23 engineering study and show that it will not raise the 24 established B.F.E. more than 12 inches. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11-24-03 45 1 MR. JOHNSTON: In order to get the permit. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See how much you've 3 learned already? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Only been a couple weeks. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hasn't even been to 6 school yet. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, seems to me that 8 Item 1 and 2 we can do today. Item 3, I think, really ought 9 to be done at the same time we do the Subdivision Rules, 10 just so there's not a conflict. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Absolutely. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 15 Items 1 and 2 of the recommended changes in the Flood Damage 16 Prevention Order Number 26463, as proposed by the County 17 Engineer, be approved. Any further question or discussion? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. Judge, I want 19 to be on the record as being an owner of a lot that's in the 20 floodplain, and I'll be guided by the County Attorney as to 21 whether or not I should limit my participation in this 22 discussion. You don't have to do that now. 23 MR. FEARY: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good, 'cause I am 25 too. If we have too many more, we're not going to be able 11-24-03 46 1 to vote. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wait a minute. You 3 already got an established residence. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a building 5 site. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Potentially. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks like you're 9 going to save insurance money if we approve this. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 11 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 12 your right hand. 13 (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) 14 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Let the record reflect that 18 Commissioner Nicholson abstained from voting on that item. 19 Next item on the agenda is consider allowing Road and Bridge 20 to go out for their annual bids on equipment by the hour, 21 paving aggregate, asphalt emulsion, corrugated metal pipe, 22 black base Type AA, cold mix Type CC, and road base 23 materials. Mr. Odom. 24 MR. ODOM: Good morning, Judge. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir. 11-24-03 47 1 MR. ODOM: I just want to let the Court know 2 that I'm not involved in the airport whatsoever. (Laughter.) 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yet. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What about Christmas 5 lights? 6 MR. ODOM: Not Christmas lights. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, are these 8 seven items here exactly the same as last year? 9 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or is there any new 11 things that we're bidding on, or anything that's been 12 deleted from last year? 13 MR. ODOM: The only thing that's -- base is, 14 this last paragraph here. Everything else is the same that 15 we've had over the years that -- when I go out to bid, so 16 there's not anything new; it's all the same. We had -- last 17 year, the Court had allowed us to go ahead and keep the same 18 bids. The law allows us to keep the same bids. And we kept 19 those bids for this last -- for this year time, so we're -- 20 we're proposing to go out in January for the new bids. 21 Given enough time, we think that oil -- well, I'm 22 speculating. I think the potential prices will come below 23 $28 a barrel, and that's what I'm hoping for. It's too high 24 right now. And I believe if the president will give them a 25 little time, I think it'll come down. That's reflected in 11-24-03 48 1 my budget; I calculated on doing that with the budget. So, 2 what we're asking is that we have permission on January the 3 12th, I believe, 2004, at 10:30, to bring in a bid package 4 to be opened. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 8 approval of agenda item. Any further question or 9 discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 10 hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you, 15 Mr. Odom. 16 MR. ODOM: Thank you. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is going to be Item 18 10 -- no. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10:30. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Item Number 12, consider 21 privately maintained road name changes in accordance with 22 the 9-1-1 guidelines. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You really are trying 24 to get out of it. 25 MS. HARDIN: I tried. Today we have 14 more 11-24-03 49 1 private road streets -- road names. I believe there's five 2 in Commissioner Baldwin's, one in Williams', and all the 3 rest of them are in Nicholson's. I'm assuming that we have 4 two more court dates this year, and you'll have some more on 5 both those court dates. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question. 7 I'm probably going to sit here and embarrass myself, but I'm 8 getting kind of accustomed to that. Eric Drive South is in 9 the county? 10 MS. HARDIN: That's what 9-1-1 tells me. It 11 runs right beside -- I think there's a Texas Avenue that 12 goes up to the State Hospital, and it's towards the mall 13 from that, but they tell me it's within the county and not 14 the city limits. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great. That's the 16 only question I have on the whole package. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One question, Truby. 18 This one that I have on the agenda, that's off of Elm Pass 19 II? 20 MS. HARDIN: No, it's off of Elm Pass. 21 Just -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Off of Elm Pass 23 itself? 24 MS. HARDIN: Yeah, just right after Verde 25 Park Boulevard. 11-24-03 50 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. No 2 problem. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Truby, what's our 4 level of confidence that -- that people are not going to be 5 dismayed by these changes? 6 MS. HARDIN: I have -- I have no level of 7 confidence. All of these were submitted to me from 9-1-1 by 8 the property owners. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know, to 10 follow up on Dave's comment -- I'm only bringing this up 11 because I had one of my constituents make a comment -- was 12 that these names will be their address. And I know -- and I 13 had one of my constituents in the same situation; you know, 14 we named his road going to his house and several others, and 15 he thinks he lives on Cypress Creek Road, and he now lives 16 on Sauer Lane or something like that. But, anyway, I just 17 -- I mean, I hope 9-1-1 is letting these people understand 18 that, you know, we're changing the names, but also that it 19 does change their address. Their address will be on Padre 20 Pio, as opposed to whatever road they were on, which is 21 fine. And I think 9-1-1 -- it helps 9-1-1 find them, but I 22 think that -- you know, I'm not positive that every -- that 23 the residents understand that's part of this process. I'm 24 not sure I understood it until fairly recently, but it's -- 25 just for what it's worth. 11-24-03 51 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure 9-1-1 2 does it. I know Truby does it. I've had two illustrations 3 of the same thing where she called me back and said, you 4 know, if you change this to so-and-so, or you allow it to 5 happen, that's going to become their address. Whoa, time 6 out, 'cause they don't want their address changed. So, I 7 knew about it. 8 MS. HARDIN: I believe 9-1-1 is explaining 9 that to everyone who calls in and wants their private 10 driveway named. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think it does 12 help find it. I think in time, it'll be beneficial. 13 MS. HARDIN: If they want to continue to be 14 off of Cypress Creek, then they would tell -- then they 15 would tell them just don't name the driveway. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they didn't 17 particularly care one way or the other. They were surprised 18 when they were notified what their addresses were. 19 MS. HARDIN: In most of the cases, even if 20 the road name is not changed, their numbers are still going 21 to change, so they will have a change of address. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move for 24 approval. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 11-24-03 52 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 2 the agenda item be approved. Any further question or 3 discussion? 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One of my 5 constituents, the one that lives at my house, asked me 6 yesterday if our address was going to change, and I told her 7 it was. And she pointed out that we live on 1340 and our 8 property fronts on 1340 and our mailbox is on 1340, but 9 we're going to be living on Bluff Hill Drive. I mean, that 10 will be our new address. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you could decline 12 that. You could not have it approved, and still be living 13 on 1340. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: How many other citizens do you 16 have living on Bluff Hill Drive? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One other. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ever think about two 20 addresses? Yours on 1340 and hers on... 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 22 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 23 your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11-24-03 53 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item 3 on the agenda is discuss and consider singular review for 4 subdivision in ETJ, and possible proposed committee in 5 connection with the same. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. As you 7 gentlemen know, that anytime today, under today's rules, 8 anytime someone needs to do a subdivision on a property 9 change in the city ETJ, he has to go to both government 10 entities. And, if you remember, there's a gentlemen from my 11 precinct that was in here last year that did that, and it 12 took him almost -- and he wanted to buy the property next to 13 him to add to his property, and it took him almost one year 14 and several thousand dollars to go through this process, 15 which just -- 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He went through it 17 twice. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He went through it 19 twice. You know, we made him jump through hoops, which is a 20 horrible and terrible thing. And what, to me, is more 21 terrible than that is we haven't done anything about it. 22 We're sitting here rocking along, and if somebody else comes 23 through with that same situation, they're going to go 24 through the same thing, and we -- we should be -- have a 25 good spanking for allowing this thing to happen. So, the 11-24-03 54 1 new law, as we all heard and talked about, is coming down 2 the pike, and I want to read just a short paragraph here so 3 that everyone can understand, and it's out of this material 4 that I've made copies for you. 5 "Legislation passed during the 78th Texas 6 Legislature has County under the gun to complete interlocal 7 agreements with municipalities regarding the regulation of 8 extraterritorial jurisdictions, unincorporated areas 9 contiguous to city limits. If they can't, a new law 10 requires them to take the matter to arbitration and set a 11 timeline for that to take place." In other words, we're 12 supposed to get with the City and work out a set of rules, 13 and the way I understand it, it can either be our rules, 14 their rules, or a combination of the two. If we cannot come 15 to any kind of agreement, if we don't by a deadline, then it 16 will go to arbitration, and some third party, the way I 17 understand it, will make the decision for us. Again, that 18 would be a horrible thing. House Bill 1204 is a follow-up 19 to House Bill 1445, passed during the 77th session. That 20 called for the development of a singular set of regulations 21 and a singular party to approve the permits and collect 22 application fees. 23 Let's see. In areas with ETJ's that extend 24 3.5 miles or more from the city's boundaries, agreements 25 must be completed by January 2004. If the ETJ extends less 11-24-03 55 1 than 3.5, then we have till January 1, 2006. All I'm saying 2 is -- is that we need to get this thing on the table and -- 3 and working. If you -- I don't know how much of the 4 article -- I guess the whole article hit, but they 5 interviewed several different counties across the state, and 6 some of them are fairly large. Tom Green County, I spoke 7 with the other day. Comal County down here, Hays County, 8 Tarrant County, and Parker County, they have -- they're 9 having a hard time meeting -- meeting both the City and the 10 County's needs. They're beginning to struggle a little bit. 11 Comal County made an agreement with the City of New 12 Braunfels, and now, after seeing what it's -- it's caused in 13 that county, they're backing out of it and trying to build 14 their own set of rules. 15 So, with all that said, what I would like to 16 do is for the Commissioners Court to authorize the Kerr 17 County Attorney to get to work on this thing. And I -- and 18 what I would like to see is actually a -- a small committee, 19 two-person committee from the Commissioners Court, and a 20 two-person committee from the City Council, and their two 21 attorneys sit down and start -- start putting the program 22 together. Maybe list those areas that we think maybe we're 23 going to be far apart on, those kinds of things, and just to 24 get -- just to get it in motion. I would -- I would hate to 25 think we'd be sitting here some December realizing the 11-24-03 56 1 following month we need to put it together, and we're not 2 there. So, that's all I'm doing, is just trying to get it 3 in motion, get it going. And do you agree with that? 4 MR. FEARY: Yes, absolutely. As he said, 5 Commissioner Baldwin showed me a copy of this article 6 probably -- over a week ago, for sure, and started calling 7 some of these counties. And there -- there's kind of a 8 widespread panic among the state, "What are we going to do, 9 now that we have to do it?" And some of -- of them are 10 coming in pretty quick. So, I agree that it's something to 11 get moving on. I've requested copies of some of these 12 agreements, so we'll at least have a starting point of what 13 they look like and get some input as to what -- what kind of 14 problems that they've had. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I 16 thought the Court was aware of it, but if not, I mean, this 17 is -- it has been working. I've met with the City Manager 18 several times and City Attorney several times on this, 19 and -- and it's -- the biggest holdup right now has been, 20 for probably the last six months -- I think, Commissioner 21 Baldwin, this is probably the second or third time we've put 22 this on the agenda, or we've discussed it, anyway -- is that 23 the City -- and I don't know if they've finalized their new 24 ordinances, passed them or not. They've been working on 25 that for a long time, and we are revising our Subdivision 11-24-03 57 1 Rules right now. It's going to have some pretty significant 2 impact on some of the drainage issues. And I think the 3 thought has been that we need to get, you know, those two 4 rules -- need to have the rules from both entities done 5 before you can go too far. 6 But, based on my -- and I still agree with 7 that, but based on the discussions I've had with the City, I 8 think it would be very useful if the Court -- and a 9 committee's probably the best way to do this -- comes up 10 with what it wants and what its view is, and present 11 something to the City. Because the City does not agree with 12 me anyway, and I doubt that they agree with the Court 13 entirely. And that doesn't mean there's something -- and I 14 think that the other thing that would be very helpful -- 15 probably the most helpful thing is really get the County 16 Attorney involved, like Commissioner Baldwin said, and find 17 out, you know, if we don't go with the city rules, don't go 18 with our rules, and come up with some hybrid, what that 19 means. Now, I am going to be extremely adamant that areas 20 in my precinct that are in the ETJ that are clearly never 21 going to be developed in my lifetime do not need to go by 22 city rules, period. But I also do acknowledge that if you 23 get up, you know, just beyond the city dump and out 534 24 right up there, right off Cypress Creek Road right there, I 25 think the City needs to have a say in those areas. 11-24-03 58 1 So, I don't know -- you know, I'd like to 2 know more about what the flexibility on the hybrid set of 3 rules can be, and if we can, you know, kind of draw 4 boundaries around -- okay, the City has this area, the 5 County has this area, and you have one -- I mean, it's 6 only -- they're submitted to one person and then split based 7 on the rules, or how we can do that. That's the area that I 8 am unclear on, because I think it is going to be a -- not an 9 easy -- if we have to come up with one set of rules for the 10 whole area, it's going to be real difficult. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think what you 12 said, Commissioner, focuses attention on what Commissioner 13 Baldwin said. I think there is a need, probably, for us to 14 have a study group that gets together, after having 15 identified the issues that are important to us, to talk with 16 the City about it. Whether it's one set of rules or two, I 17 don't know at this point, but I have the same concerns you 18 do. And I think ETJ and the development therein is going to 19 affect my precinct probably to a higher and greater extent 20 than any of us here, and so I do have some major concerns 21 about it, deep down. And that article that Commissioner 22 Baldwin presented talked about some of the things that 23 Parker County had to say about it, their county judge and 24 others. Creating a one-stop shop is not all that good, 25 because counties still have to sign off on ETJ applications, 11-24-03 59 1 as -- as that county judge sees it. And the agreements in 2 the county call for the county to control the ETJ approval. 3 I like that, but I think down in there also, it talks about 4 the issue that, "In many cases, unlike Parker County, cities 5 are given the power to regulate ETJ's." But, however, under 6 that scenario, development of roads is becoming an issue. 7 Stormwater takeoff, as you talk about it, is an issue, and 8 there's probably half a dozen others that we just have not 9 identified today. So, I think the Commissioner's suggestion 10 is a good suggestion, and I think you ought to be one of 11 them that's in there because of your knowledge of 12 Subdivision Rules and so forth and so on. Whoever else is 13 on there is up to the Court. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know why I always 15 need to be on the committee. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're an expert on 17 too many things. This is a high priority for me also 18 because of the law, but even more importantly, to prevent 19 any more people like Commissioner Baldwin's constituents 20 having to jump through all these hoops. I have one 21 question. Is the City of Ingram an issue here? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has its own ETJ. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they use our rules, I 24 believe. I believe they've adopted a -- they just adopted 25 our Subdivision Rules. 11-24-03 60 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't know that? 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, they have. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's really not -- 5 well, I think it's an issue from the standpoint that we need 6 to -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They need to be 8 involved in the process. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They need to be involved 10 in the process. We need to have an interlocal agreement 11 with them. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have conflicting 13 ETJ's with City of Kerrville. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, this -- this 16 committee, besides the Kerrville City Council members, needs 17 to -- Ingram needs to be invited to join the process. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, to me, the -- 19 you know, I think by the -- I don't know what the City's 20 timetable is on their ordinance rules and all that stuff. 21 I'm -- you know, they may have already done them, for all I 22 know, but I think that we will have our Subdivision Rules 23 pretty much finalized by January, sometime in January. By 24 the end of January, say. And I think if -- you know, kind 25 of between now and then, I don't see a whole lot of point in 11-24-03 61 1 meeting with the City. I'd like to get, really, our ducks 2 in a row first so we have something we can go talk to 3 them -- so we know the law backwards and forwards -- or 4 actually not that we know; the County Attorney knows that 5 law backwards and forwards. I think I just would much 6 prefer to be in a -- I won't say -- "upper hand" is probably 7 not the right word, but, you know -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Prepared. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Prepared. I want us to 10 be prepared before we go meet with the City. And then I 11 think, you know, we need to, once we get prepared, bring the 12 City Council on board as well. But I think that if we're 13 not in the driver's seat going in, it could be difficult. 14 Could be a bad situation. But I think that the timeliness 15 is very important; I agree with you and Commissioner Baldwin 16 that, you know, the law is fine, that we have to do it for 17 the law, but we need to be doing it for the citizens, and 18 it's the right thing to do, and that would have the ability 19 to do something that is beneficial to the citizens. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what I'd like 21 to see is -- and I'll make a motion in just a second, but 22 what I'd like to see -- I'm not sure you need to include all 23 this in a court order, but to ask our attorney to contact 24 the City Attorney and ask them to do what -- what we're 25 saying to do. Now, does that need to be in a court order, 11-24-03 62 1 or does the court order actually -- just simply needs to be 2 the appointment of our committee? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I suppose as a formal 4 action, you could recommend the creation of a committee to 5 include these various players, and that our -- our players, 6 or the committee from our Court consist of whomever. We 7 certainly have no authority to mandate what they do, but 8 I -- I feel certain that -- that they'd be responsive to it. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection is, on the 11 rewrite of their Code of Ordinances, I believe the last time 12 they indicated that they were shooting at March or April, if 13 I recall correctly, but I'll defer to your motion. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we appoint 15 Commissioner Letz and Commissioner Baldwin to be our 16 committee, and ask our County Attorney to contact the City 17 Attorney and to tell them what we're doing and what our 18 desires are, and ask them to appoint two members from the 19 City Council to meet with us at a future time. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. 21 Should we also include in our -- in this directive an 22 inclusion of -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: City of Ingram, I'm 24 sorry. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that, plus 11-24-03 63 1 administrative people on our side. Because you know they're 2 going to bring not only the City Attorney; they're going to 3 bring the planner. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we will -- we'll 5 drag along who we want to. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I don't think they 8 need to be specifically named, 'cause they could -- it could 9 change. But I definitely want to include the City of Ingram 10 in that. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And their attorney. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And their attorney. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second the motion. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good point. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a suggestion as 16 well, and the suggestion is that we put a time there for 17 them to make their appointment, and I would say 18 February 1st, March 1st. I mean, sometime so that they 19 don't just have it, so there's -- they have a date they're 20 supposed to have something back. Maybe, say, January 31st. 21 I think that's a reasonable time period for -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that acceptable? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, it's 25 just -- 11-24-03 64 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's just not a big 2 issue with me. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just think it's not 4 going to happen if we don't. May not happen with it. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the way I see it 6 is that, you know, we form our committee and then we sit 7 down and make our list, and let them know when we want to 8 meet. If they're not ready to go, they're not ready to go. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right, that's fine. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Any -- any -- we got a motion 11 and a second. Any further question or discussion about the 12 -- about the motion? Franklin Johnston? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: I think the City of Ingram has 14 been working on this for a couple years, and they went 15 through two -- two cycles already. I've seen drafts. I 16 don't think -- we still don't have an agreement with them. 17 I think the first draft, they took our rules and changed 18 "Kerr County" to "Ingram," and then they found out many of 19 the laws that apply to the county don't apply to the city 20 and vice-versa, and so then they tried to write their own 21 rules and summarize our rules in a couple paragraphs, and I 22 think that's very confusing. So, I don't think they have it 23 quite yet. They've been working on it. And number two is 24 that very soon the City of Kerrville's ETJ will more than 25 double in area. It'll actually go to 2 miles, area-wise, 11-24-03 65 1 and be more than it is now, so that will affect a lot more 2 people. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a question for 4 more enlightenment. Is the city -- small cities like 5 Kerrville under the same legislative gun that the counties 6 are under? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're aware of it. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because if they're 11 not, then there's no reason on their part to want to do 12 anything. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're very much aware 14 of it. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: City/county is 17 written -- actually written in the law. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think that 20 they're both under it, and I'm -- I'm sure, with the 21 development work that's been done by the County Attorney's 22 office, as you mentioned, Commissioner Baldwin, it would be 23 very helpful to bring in the representatives from City of 24 Ingram that have already done a lot of this work. The more 25 information we get, the better. 11-24-03 66 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we -- we don't 2 want to wait until the City of Kerrville and the City of 3 Ingram gets down to the end of theirs, and then we step in 4 and say, "Oh, well, we don't like that." 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, let's kind of -- 7 if we're not too late now, let's get in, work it with them 8 so there will be a plan and everybody will be happy and 9 become one with the earth. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I think another one of the 11 open questions is, Mr. Johnston mentioned that soon the ETJ 12 will go from 1 mile to 2 miles. That's a break of 25,000. 13 I don't think -- I'm not aware if anybody has the answer to 14 the question whether or not you can use interim estimates 15 between the -- the official census that's taken every 10 16 years. I think that question is still on the table. But, 17 certainly, probably by the 2010 census, that'll put them 18 over, but whether or not it can be done earlier than that, I 19 don't think anybody knows the answer just yet. 20 (Discussion off the record.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what that 22 procedure is. I've not been furnished with a definitive 23 answer on that. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good 25 point. That should be part of the County Attorney's charge, 11-24-03 67 1 to give us an answer to that, because it does have an impact 2 as to, you know -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: If he can give us an answer to 4 that. I'm not -- I'm not sure that answer is out there, 5 very frankly. But -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe the answer is to go 7 to the Attorney General and ask for an answer. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I want to point 9 out some -- the brilliance of our Legislature here. There 10 are 60 counties that are exempted from this law. Those 11 counties with a population of 1.9 million or more, which is 12 Harris County, city of Houston, and those counties that are 13 within 50 miles of an international border. I don't get it. 14 What difference are they from everybody else? I don't 15 understand that. And, you know, I just -- I know there's 16 nothing we can do about that, but I just wanted to point out 17 that that's very brilliant, I think. If you live 50 miles 18 from something, you don't have to play by the rules that 19 everybody else does. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the Harris County, I 21 think, is obvious. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Houston covers all of Harris 24 County. But I think the 50-mile probably has to do with 25 special colonia legislative acts that have been on the books 11-24-03 68 1 for some time, and they've been stacking on from session to 2 session, where they're imposing all sorts of various 3 requirements for colonias which are all outside the cities. 4 I'm only assuming -- surmising. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure you're 6 exactly right. I may not be the guy to be on this 7 committee, 'cause I think that is just -- borders on nuts. 8 And, I mean, I think -- I think ETJ's are crazy to begin 9 with, so I don't know if I need to be the guy on this thing 10 or not. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you've got 12 the right qualifications. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I'll be a good 15 county representative? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what the 17 Legislature's done, they have created three sets of 18 subdivision rules in the state; one for counties like Kerr 19 County, just kind of regular, old counties -- actually, four 20 sets. Then they have one set for Harris County. They have 21 one set for 50 miles to the border, and one set for 22 economically distressed, which I have never figured out. 23 And -- you know, and they're totally different rules for 24 all. So, there's four different sets of subdivision rules, 25 and the further they perpetuate this idiocy, the worse it 11-24-03 69 1 gets. But -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we quote you? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Just did. Any further 5 question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 6 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 does carry. The next 11 item on the agenda is consideration and discussion and take 12 appropriate action on a Resolution of Thanks to Riverhill 13 Country Club for its cooperation and assistance in 14 permitting the Rolling Green Lift Station sewer bypass to be 15 constructed across the Riverhill Golf Course for the benefit 16 of Kerrville South Wastewater Project. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I tried to 18 bring the Court up-to-date, basically, on where the project 19 is in the backup information, and we are about 85 percent 20 complete with the first phase. They should be out of the 21 Riverhill Country Club with that bypass probably by the end 22 of this week, and most lines are laid in Phase I, and 23 hookups can begin very shortly. I thought it would be 24 appropriate for the Court to express its thanks and 25 appreciation to Riverhill Country Club for giving us the 11-24-03 70 1 easement and negotiating an easement and allowing -- working 2 with us to facilitate the construction work to run across 3 the golf course, and so I tried to embody all those thoughts 4 into both the backup and the resolution, and that's kind of 5 the sense of it. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move adoption of 8 the resolution as presented. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 12 approval of the agenda item and the resolution. Any further 13 questions or discussion? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Were there any injuries 15 due to golf balls during the construction? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If there were, 17 Commissioner, I'm unaware of it, or I would have reported it 18 to the Court. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my question is, 20 are you sure you don't want to hold off on this until your 21 election cycle? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll remind them of 23 it. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 11-24-03 71 1 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 2 your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is it 10:30 yet? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty close. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Knocking on the door. Let 11 me -- let me have us go back to -- do we have anybody here 12 on 1.2 yet, on the second item? On that Adoption Month 13 thing? It doesn't appear so. Let me go back to Item 1.8, 14 and I will now recess the Commissioners Court meeting. 15 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:30 a.m., and a public hearing 16 was held in open court, as follows:) 17 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 18 JUDGE TINLEY: And I will convene a public 19 hearing for alternate plat revisions -- public hearings, as 20 it were, for alternate plat revisions as follows: Falling 21 Water, Lots 138A and 139A, Volume 7, Pages 75 and 76, which 22 is a combination of lots. Next one is Falling Water, Lots 23 12A and 125 in Volume 7, Page 52, also a combination of 24 lots. Third one is Greenwood Forest, Lots 8 in Block 6, 25 Volume 3, Page 123, and Lots 16 and 17 in block 6, Volume 5, 11-24-03 72 1 Page 92, those being a combination of lots. And the last 2 one is Riverpark Estates, Lot 37, Volume 4, Page 42, and 3 that's a variance for lot size. Do we have any member of 4 the public hearing with us today that wishes to be heard or 5 address any of those alternate plat revisions as just 6 indicated? Any members of the public? We have the County 7 Engineer, Mr. Franklin Johnston. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: I have one item to bring to 9 your attention, which is Item B. On Lot 12A, that should be 10 124A. Apparently, the "4" was dropped in the newspaper 11 publication, so I don't know if we have to -- you know, if 12 we have to redo that, or if we can accept it with the 13 change -- you know, with this announcement. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My feeling would be we 15 can proceed. I think it's a typographical error, and -- 16 MR. JOHNSTON: If I might bring one more 17 item, there is no 12A in the subdivision, so it should not 18 be confusing. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's go ahead. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Proceed. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you pointing that 22 out. You indicated there is no Lot 12A? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: No, sir. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And the lot immediately 25 adjacent to 125 is 124A? 11-24-03 73 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, sir. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: And, of course, the -- the 3 publication -- did it clearly indicate that it was a 4 combination of lots? On the Commissioners Court order, it 5 indicated that, so that would seem to at least cause a 6 question in someone's mind, if they were looking at it, and 7 probably come to the conclusion that it was a typo, wouldn't 8 you think, Mr. Johnston? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: I would think so. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anyone else wishing to 11 -- any other members of the public wishing to speak on these 12 alternate plat revisions, as covered by the public hearing? 13 If not, I will close the public hearing, and I will 14 reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting. 15 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:32 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 16 meeting was reopened.) 17 - - - - - - - - - - 18 JUDGE TINLEY: And the next item is Item 9, 19 consider alternate plat revisions for Falling Water, Lots 20 138A and 139A in Volume 7, Page 75 and 76, for combination 21 of lots. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 25 approval of the agenda item. Any further -- 11-24-03 74 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A, B, C, D? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A, B, C, D? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just A. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: No, just A. Just A. Any 6 further question or discussion? All in favor, signify by 7 raising your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item is 12 consider the alternate plat revision for Falling Water, Lots 13 -- that's going to be 124A and 125, Volume 7, Page 52, that 14 also being a combination of lots. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 124A. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Yes, 124A and 125. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 20 approval of the agenda item, as corrected, being Lots 124A 21 and Lots 125. Any further question or discussion? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a quick comment, 23 that I just want to show my thanks to the developer on this, 24 Mr. Crenwelge, for going back and forth so many times, 25 providing jobs and work to people in our community. You 11-24-03 75 1 know, we split and divide and split and divide. Every time 2 he goes through the process, we're providing jobs. I just 3 want to thank Dale. (Laughter.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have others in the 5 audience that wish to come forward and express their thanks? 6 MR. VOELKEL: I do have -- I'm Don Voelkel. 7 A few years ago, when the Court was talking about these type 8 of replats where we were combining lots, the Court -- and I 9 think it was Glenn Holekamp who was behind it. You may have 10 been on there too, Buster. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. Is it 12 good or bad? 13 MR. VOELKEL: It's good. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, I'm there. 15 MR. VOELKEL: We were trying to make it -- 16 the Court was trying to make it easy for people to do this, 17 make it simple and inexpensive, because it does away with 18 another building site, another septic tank, another water 19 well. And at the time, they tried to make it -- I think we 20 made it where it was just a flat $50 filing fee. There may 21 be some extra fees for -- you know, for recording fees and 22 stuff. But on these two items, I had to -- they -- the 23 owners had to pay almost $300 in fees just to combine these, 24 like the U.G.R.A., which now -- now it's not a factor any 25 more, since the County -- and I just didn't know if it's 11-24-03 76 1 still something that y'all would be interested in trying to 2 figure out a way to streamline that, make it simpler for 3 people to -- to combine them, because, for the community, 4 for the public health, I think it's better if they do that. 5 But it's up to y'all. I mean, that's something that, in 6 y'all's next workshop for subdivisions, I'd be interested in 7 trying to figure out a way to make it -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get it drafted, give us a 9 comment in a hurry. 10 MR. VOELKEL: Okay. That's what -- I'll get 11 back with you and we'll talk about it. Thank y'all, though. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Any further 13 questions or comments? All in favor of the motion, signify 14 by raising your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item 19 is consider the alternate plat revision for Greenwood 20 Forest, Lots 8, Block 6, Volume 3, Page 123, and Lots 16 and 21 17, Block 6, Volume 5, Page 92, that also being a 22 combination. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve 24 the alternate plat revisions in Greenwood Forest. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 11-24-03 77 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 2 approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? 3 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 4 hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: As a matter of curiosity, 9 gentlemen, I note that there's no agenda item for Riverpark 10 Estates. Am I to conclude that that matter was previously 11 approved, but it was only subject to a public hearing, but 12 otherwise requires no approval? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: We have -- we went through the 14 public hearing, I think -- 15 MR. DIGGES: She was just here. 16 MR. JOHNSTON: There's one thing on the -- 17 the plat that needs to be worked out. Had to do with septic 18 systems. 19 MR. DIGGES: Yes. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: O.S.S.F., and they're working 21 on that. Probably be coming up next meeting or so. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, that item will be 23 submitted now that the public hearing has been concluded? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: That's right. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Very good. We'll stand in 11-24-03 78 1 recess until 5 till 11:00. 2 (Recess taken from 10:37 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) 3 - - - - - - - - - - 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'll call us back to 5 order. We will reconvene. The next item on the agenda is 6 Item 15, consideration, discussion, and appropriate action 7 on revision to the Kerr County Parks and Recreation Master 8 Plan for 2003-2008, authorize any plan adopted to be 9 forwarded to Texas Parks and Wildlife for record and future 10 use and support of possible grant applications, and 11 extension of our thanks and appreciation by letter to the 12 Kerrville Convention and Visitors Bureau for its assistance 13 in preparing the plan. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That kind of sums it 15 up, Judge. What you have before you is a -- is a revised 16 document. The changes that are -- although modest, are 17 identified for the Court in the background information. 18 None of them are substantial. I hope you had a chance to 19 check them all out. And if you have questions about them, 20 I'll be happy to review each one with you. And, finally, I 21 would -- I would like to -- the court order to authorize a 22 letter of thanks to the Convention and Visitors Bureau, 23 because without its help and assistance, we would not have a 24 final plan this good to be able to send off to Texas Parks 25 and Wildlife. 11-24-03 79 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I 2 really appreciate the way this report's presented. With the 3 highlighting, it makes it real easy to see what's happening. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've only got one 6 question on Page 12. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 12, okay. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just about the 9 middle of page, under Objectives, third dot. Question is, 10 what is a festival grounds facility? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is the intended 12 facility that Texas State Arts and Crafts -- Texas Arts and 13 Crafts Fair people intend to build on the property that was 14 leased to them by Kerr County. It was shuffled around in 15 the -- in the objectives there. I think we very first had 16 it as a goal, and that's where Mr. Scallon of L.C.R.A. comes 17 into play. He suggested, rather than it being a goal, it 18 would be better to be included among objectives. And I do 19 appreciate his input, because he's the guy, for L.C.R.A. 20 purposes, that reviews plans such as this as the basis for 21 grant application approval, so -- or considerations. So, 22 that's -- that is it. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 25 discussion with respect to the proposed document? 11-24-03 80 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would offer 2 a motion for approval -- 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- as per the agenda 5 item, to do the things -- record and send it to Texas Parks 6 and Wildlife, as well as a letter to C.V.B. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 8 seconded. I, too, want to thank Commissioner Williams for 9 his work. We did some work on this several months ago, as I 10 recall, and then I think he's been doing some work with 11 L.C.R.A., those people, and they have a very, very 12 significant grant program going on specifically for parks. 13 They've been -- been very beneficial to us in the past at 14 helping us, and hopefully with specific needs, maybe we can 15 get their assistance in the future. So, I suspect 16 Mr. Roland Pená possibly had some input also. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yes, he did. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Local community service 19 representative that has moved to Kerrville recently. He 20 serves, if I recall, 23, 24, 26 counties, and has been of 21 invaluable assistance to a number of city projects here in 22 the area, and I'm sure he was of considerable assistance. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He really was, Judge. 24 He's the one that brought Paul Scallon down here to help 25 with the review; he made that appointment for us. 11-24-03 81 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or 2 discussion? Comments? All in favor of the motion, signify 3 by raising your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item 8 is Number 16, consideration and discussion of legal 9 restrictions to the Commissioners Court plan to rule on 10 proposals made by elected officials for the purpose of 11 granting merit pay increases to County employees. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This was a 13 carry-over item from the last meeting, and we've asked the 14 County Attorney to research a legal issue, and the question 15 posed to the County attorney is, does the Commissioners 16 Court have the legal authority to rule on proposals made by 17 elected officials to grant merit pay increases to employees? 18 MR. MOTLEY: I'm going to tell you that I've 19 done quite a bit of reading of the authority that Ms. Uecker 20 had provided last meeting. I'm actually going to need to do 21 some more research before I give you an opinion. What I can 22 say so far is that the cases and A.G. opinions and such that 23 I've read mostly speak to the limit of the Commissioners 24 Court to influence the name of the particular individual to 25 fill a county office, or a position in an elected official's 11-24-03 82 1 office. These opinions are talking basically about the 2 restrictions in that way. They do not talk about 3 restrictions -- the County Commission -- I mean, the County 4 Commissioners have the authority to create new offices, even 5 mid-budget year, and can accomplish that at times using the 6 transfer provisions under the budgetary guidelines. These 7 cases talk about certain emergency situations and what's to 8 be done in that situation. But, so far, I'm not seeing 9 anything that says that this plan, per se, is not legal, but 10 I would like to do more work on that before I give y'all an 11 opinion. 12 And I've read most of what all Linda had 13 submitted, but I haven't gone out and done any independent 14 research in the area. I know that the State of Texas has a 15 plan where they do give merit pay, and I've not looked into 16 the Administrative Code provisions to see what they base it 17 on and how they do it, but I know generally that the state 18 has a similar plan, and so I'd like to look into that and 19 see how they're doing it. I think they call it -- they have 20 enhanced compensation awards, incentive bonuses, and 21 retention bonuses, and I believe those are given at times 22 other than employment anniversary date and -- and annual 23 budget commencement date. So, I think I need just a little 24 bit more time on that. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, on that, I'd be 11-24-03 83 1 very interested in what the state -- I mean, if the state 2 already has the things you just mentioned, the bonus and 3 retention awards, very interested in seeing what those -- 4 MR. MOTLEY: Are based on? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, just what their 6 policy is. 7 MR. MOTLEY: Yes. That's what -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean. It's 9 something that if -- you know -- 10 MR. MOTLEY: Well, something else I'd like to 11 do, and I have not done it, would be to talk to other 12 counties in the state and see if anybody else -- of course, 13 you usually start out with the big counties, because 14 they are most likely to have dealt with something like that, 15 but to confer with other counties and see what they might be 16 doing along these lines with the -- with this type -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My specific question 18 to that would be, does the -- is there an elected board, 19 like the Commissioners Court? 20 MR. MOTLEY: How do they do it? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they make the final 22 decision? That's where my hangup is. 23 MR. MOTLEY: Well, maybe I'm 24 misunderstanding, but I was thinking that procedure was 25 proposed. And I realize the procedure can -- the policy 11-24-03 84 1 could be amended, perhaps, but the idea of the procedure is 2 to allow county elected officials, and I suppose department 3 heads, to bring forth, through nomination -- a written 4 nomination, the name of a person or persons who have done a 5 job -- an outstanding job, something above and beyond their 6 ordinary duties which has resulted in a better job 7 performance on that person's behalf, or on behalf of the 8 office, or done something which would save county time, 9 county money and such. Just to -- to allow employees to 10 work more efficiently. And that's the goal to be rewarded, 11 and that those applications be submitted to the Court. The 12 Court would look at the entire submission of these names and 13 say that they feel like this one and this one are most 14 meritorious, contact those department heads or public 15 officials, and say we approve of probably a one-step raise, 16 and transfer that amount of money from this new budget item 17 into their account, let them ultimately add the pay. 18 So it might be that, by doing it that way, 19 that the Commissioners Court is insulated from actually 20 making the decision as to which named person gets the raise. 21 In other words, just give the money to the elected 22 officials, and should they decide to go ahead and do it, 23 they go ahead and do it. If the money's not spent in that 24 manner, I would assume it would go back in the general fund 25 for use next year. But I think that provision -- that's 11-24-03 85 1 somewhat different from some of these A.G. opinions that we 2 were looking at. They were -- commissioners courts were 3 trying to -- there was one, for example, very recently where 4 the Commissioners Court wanted to establish an Office of 5 Homeland Security on a county level. I think Denton County 6 wanted to do that, and they did that. They transferred the 7 funds over to do it, put it in the Sheriff's Office, and 8 then the question was, could they then -- how much influence 9 could they exert on naming the individual to run that office 10 or to be that person? And they said they can create the 11 office, they can transfer the funds, they can put it under 12 the Sheriff's authority, but that's it. They cannot -- and 13 it's just a zero. There's no authority of Commissioners 14 Court to influence the naming of the person who would fill 15 that office or to suggest the name or anything. 16 So, once it's under the Sheriff's authority, 17 its the Sheriff's job in that case. And I know we're not 18 talking about the Sheriff's Office here, but that's one of 19 the ones that I had referred to, which is Isaacs -- I don't 20 remember -- I don't remember the number, but one of the 21 opinions that Linda had given me to look over. I just 22 haven't finished looking through those. I've got most of 23 them done, but I want to also do some other independent 24 research, like Jonathan was suggesting; go see what the 25 state is doing. Look at -- maybe find other counties doing 11-24-03 86 1 this and, you how, see how they are justifying it under the 2 laws and the Constitution. And that's it. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for 4 Mr. Motley? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any 6 questions of Mr. Motley, but I want to say some things here. 7 Fund Number 117? 8 MS. UECKER: Could we ask the County Attorney 9 to do -- request a specific opinion on that issue itself? 10 'Cause, evidently, there's not one that -- did you look at 11 JM-430? 12 MR. MOTLEY: 430 or 439? 13 MS. UECKER: 430. Here's a copy. 14 MR. MOTLEY: I've got it. I've got them all, 15 yeah. I just have to look at it. That's one of the three 16 that I have left to go through that I have not read. 17 MS. UECKER: Read Page 2 of that one. 18 MR. MOTLEY: I looked at it. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have anything to offer 20 in connection with Agenda Item Number 16? 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I suggest that we 22 defer 16 till our next Commissioners Court meeting, and I 23 think there's probably no real reason to talk about 17 24 either, because if we don't have the authority to approve 25 their increase -- merit increases, then we don't need to 11-24-03 87 1 have a policy. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With all due respect, 3 Commissioner, I think we ought to talk about it. I do want 4 to share with the Court some thoughts, so I'd like the Judge 5 to call it. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on 7 Item 16? If not, we'll move on to Item 17, consideration 8 and discussion and establishment of merit pay policies and 9 procedures. You have nothing further to offer on that, 10 Commissioner Nicholson? 11 (Commissioner Nicholson shook his head.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to thank 14 Commissioner Nicholson for what he's done in bringing this 15 topic to the Court. I appreciate the work he's done, but at 16 that point, he and I kind of go on a different path. So, 17 I'd like to put this into play. I'm a strong advocate for 18 the establishment of a Kerr County Commissioners Court 19 policy that awards merit increases to deserving Kerr County 20 employees. Such a policy, if properly constructed, can 21 create strong incentives for employees to improve their job 22 performance. I believe merit increases should be awarded 23 for extraordinary job performance within the individual 24 employee's department, notwithstanding possible cost 25 reductions or future positive budget impact. Having said 11-24-03 88 1 that, I believe Commissioners Court should review for merit 2 increases only those employees who work directly for 3 Commissioners Court. All other employees should be reviewed 4 for merit increases only by their elected official or 5 department head. 6 To accomplish a merit policy of this nature, 7 each year Commissioners Court must determine the amount of 8 funding to be allocated for a merit increase pool. By a 9 formula that takes into consideration the number of 10 employees in each department, payroll, or maybe some other 11 considerations, the -- the department -- each department, 12 elected officials and department heads, will be advised 13 their proportionate share of the merit increase pool 14 available to them. This applies, likewise, for employees 15 who report directly to Commissioners Court. I'd like to 16 emphasize that any policy we adopt, nothing in this policy 17 should convey to an elected official or a department head 18 that their proportionate share must be awarded if, in truth, 19 after evaluation, they honestly believe no one -- no 20 employees merit consideration. I say that because it would 21 be all too easy for department heads to put everybody's name 22 in, thinking that everybody did a good job, and that, of 23 course, is not the intent or the purpose of the merit 24 increase. But the ultimate decision would be the decision 25 of the elected official or the department head solely, not 11-24-03 89 1 Commissioners Court. Finally, a merit policy designed in 2 this fashion will eliminate needless contention between 3 elected officials and department heads and Commissioners 4 Court, and I would hope would satisfy the intent of the law 5 and the Attorney General's opinions regarding this matter, 6 which would save the County Attorney additional research. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else to be offered in 8 connection with Item Number 17? Any motion to be offered in 9 connection with Item 17? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like for us to 11 study it, Judge. I'm not going to make a motion today, but 12 come back -- perhaps Commissioner Nicholson and I can get 13 together, see if we can fashion a proposal or a policy from 14 the bones of the two different thoughts. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good idea. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? We'll move 17 on to Item 18, consider, discuss, and set a date for a 18 Commissioners Court workshop for strategic planning. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I frequently find 20 that -- that I have a need to -- to discuss issues with 21 other Commissioners, and I'm pretty restricted and limited 22 in my ability to do that because of the Open Meetings 23 requirement. And I saw today -- in today's meeting a couple 24 of examples of issues that we might be dealing with if we 25 had an opportunity to sit down and -- and enumerate the 11-24-03 90 1 issues that are important to each one of us, assign some 2 priority to those issues, and -- and come up with some sort 3 of a plan about how we're going to deal with them. Probably 4 in every Commissioners Court meeting, there's some issue 5 that we might have moved along a little faster, a little 6 better, if we had the opportunity to spend some time 7 together and address the issues. So, what I'm proposing is 8 simply that we -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pipe break or what? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He spilled his 11 coffee. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That 5-gallon jug he 13 carries. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm proposing that 16 we set a time, and I'm suggesting maybe late January, to sit 17 down in a workshop and spend a few hours -- two or three 18 hours or however long it takes, get out on the table the 19 kinds of issues that we think we ought to deal with next 20 year, and developing some plans for doing that. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree 100 percent. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would recommend we do 23 it earlier rather than later, because I see that there are 24 several things I know that we've talked about, some we 25 already talked about during the budget process, and we 11-24-03 91 1 have -- and we keep a pretty full plate, it seems. But I 2 think there are some things -- we definitely need to get 3 really some good discussion on some items, really, prior to 4 May, when everyone's working -- starts getting involved with 5 budget process. And most of our decisions do affect budget, 6 so I think that will be a good time, sometime in the -- you 7 know, maybe in between the first and second meeting in 8 January. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A great example would 10 be the singular review of the E.T.J. That would be a 11 perfect -- perfect place for it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just brainstorming, going 13 around, and bring -- have it set up so we can bring things 14 back to a following agenda. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I would think that we would 16 not want to do it any later than January, because what I've 17 observed is, as we get focused on the budget process, if we 18 haven't already thought about it and kind of had it in the 19 pipeline for budget, it ends up being shoved into the 20 following -- following year. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: So, it would seem January or 23 before. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think it would 25 be good, you know, if we think -- all think about it, and 11-24-03 92 1 maybe at the next meeting, set it, and set the topics we're 2 going to discuss. We could have a general discussion as 3 well, but if each of us bring things that we'd like to 4 discuss, that way at least we'd be thinking -- you know, 5 kind of get an agenda set up so we just don't -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, 7 Judge, but before I ask my question, Ms. Uecker had her hand 8 up. 9 MS. UECKER: Oh, I just wanted to tell you 10 about something that takes place in Williamson County, and 11 I've asked about it several times, and their County Attorney 12 has researched it and has found it all legal, but they do an 13 elected official retreat and strategic planning workshop 14 that lasts two days, and they kind of -- they go off-site 15 where everybody can just sit and, you know, do a lot of 16 strategic planning and discussing. I don't know how they do 17 it, but -- and I questioned it several times, and they say 18 it's legal, and they've found a way -- the proper way to pay 19 for it out of some fund. I don't know. But, you know, if 20 you wanted to check, that's one county that does it that 21 way. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dave, I guess my 23 question has to do with identifying and prioritizing issues. 24 If you want to work on Number 4, I don't have any problem 25 with long-range planning at all. In fact, I think it's an 11-24-03 93 1 appropriate way to go. But are we talking about just 2 identifying and prioritizing issues? Or are we talking 3 about developing a long-range plan? 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's probably the 5 start of a -- I don't know about a long-range plan. I know 6 it would be the start of a plan for what we're going to 7 pursue in 2004. I would see us, for example, as having a 8 flip chart here and each of us indicating what issues we 9 think need to be dealt with, what's important to us, and 10 then a process of sorting that out and getting some 11 consensus; for the amount of energy and time we've got, 12 we're going to work on these 6 or these 12 or whatever, 13 and -- and some others that drop by the wayside due to a 14 lack -- lack of consensus that they were important. But we 15 would leave there with some framework for follow-through and 16 working on those issues. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reason I asked is 18 because about, I guess, three years ago now, I introduced a 19 fellow to the Court who assists courts and municipalities in 20 developing long-range plans, and the Court didn't show any 21 particular interest in doing that. Not -- and, again, I 22 think long-range planning makes some sense. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Since we'll be doing it on a 24 workshop basis, we would not be restricted, I would think, 25 from identifying up front -- I mean, we could bring those to 11-24-03 94 1 the table at the time, any of them that any of us had, and 2 it wouldn't be necessary to -- to identify them up front in 3 the agenda item, for example. Might be helpful, but I don't 4 think we'd be limited to those, would we? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know a pretty 6 simple process that's probably the same process that the 7 consultants you were talking about would use, where it's 8 just a matter of brainstorming, listing the various 9 opportunities, and then going back through those 10 opportunities and seeing if there's any -- how much energy 11 there is for them, and wind up with a prioritized list. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One of the things we 13 may -- kind of, from your last two comments -- may want to 14 do is bring someone in to help facilitate. I don't mean a 15 paid person; there are a lot of people I know in the -- out 16 of the corporate world that are very, very -- have done this 17 many, many times, and if you've been to -- any kind of a 18 vice president or higher of any major corporation, you will 19 have gone through this hundreds of times. And I think it 20 would probably -- it may be beneficial to -- you know, to 21 keep it from being dominated by one commissioner, and that 22 -- you know, 'cause it tends to be whoever leads the 23 discussion tends to have a whole lot of input in it. 24 There's also people like Bill Blackburn's done it 25 frequently; he may be able to do it. Dennis -- he does it 11-24-03 95 1 more for a fee, I think. There's lots of people in the 2 community. So, that may be an option, to bring someone in. 3 I prefer a volunteer. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a good 5 suggestion. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And have them facilitate. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I dare say, we've got a number 8 of people that are retired or semi-retired here that have an 9 abundance of those skills, and that would be -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: -- happy to lend their 12 services, and I'd be most appreciative of any of that. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: L.C.R.A. may have 15 somebody to help us. And you and I have attended committee 16 meetings where we've had outside facilitators to help us get 17 the job done in an efficient way. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: L.C.R.A.'s a good option. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could find out 20 from Roland who on their staff will do this. They'll do it 21 for you; they'll come on down, I've seen them. They've led 22 discussions like that innumerable times. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would be -- 24 we'd get a lot more out of it if we brought in a third 25 person. 11-24-03 96 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you might want to 3 consider TAC as well. I don't know that -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: TAC also, yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that they have 6 long-term planning or -- I know they do some planning. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: They probably have a real good 8 handle on the kind of projects, priorities, problems, 9 various aspects of things that face county governments and 10 policymakers. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But getting to 12 Mr. William's question about short-term versus long-term, I 13 can guarantee you that once you get into it, you're going to 14 have both. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As an example, our 17 talk about the road on the south side of the river going to 18 Hunt. That is, obviously, a long-range that, as we recently 19 saw, that is becoming a reality. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm. That's a 21 good example. Maybe something we need to do in 2004. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. There are a 23 lot of them; there really are. And the point the Judge 24 makes about a professional or semi-professional person to 25 help us, perhaps without fee for service, the point you make 11-24-03 97 1 about TAC knowing county law, county government, so forth, 2 as opposed to a lay person whose intentions may be good and 3 well -- well-positioned, but not quite as familiar with the 4 nuances of county government as we would like, I agree. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can have both, have 6 TAC come in and have a -- you know, as an adviser as to -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or L.C.R.A. Either 8 of those two could probably guide us through the works. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like -- I think we 10 ought to either work at setting a date today or at our next 11 meeting. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to be trying to 13 scout out some professionals, I think the earlier that we 14 can try and get a date nailed down, we -- that may be 15 beneficial to try and secure those people. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See this? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Or even do a tentative date at 18 this point. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: And try and ascertain the 21 availability of these kinds of people. And, from the 22 standpoint of TAC, I have found those people to just be 23 extraordinarily available. They make themselves available, 24 and always come over here, sometimes when we didn't know 25 that they were coming. And other times that we've 11-24-03 98 1 requested, they've always been -- been here and made 2 themselves available in some way, shape, form, or fashion. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They should. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As much money as we 6 send over there. The -- this is a form of planning right 7 here. I mean, I think we ought to go ahead and set our 8 meeting in January, and then our next meeting actually come 9 up with some topics and then have a report on going with TAC 10 or L.C.R.A., and I couldn't care less which. TAC is just 11 more county government-geared. Next meeting, make that 12 decision of who we -- who's available and who we'd like to 13 use, but go ahead and set that meeting in January now. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with setting 15 a meeting and see if we can find who's going to help us. 16 I'd like to defer on putting the list together till a little 17 bit later, give us all enough time to think about it and 18 have it ready. Have it ready maybe the meeting before the 19 actual workshop for presentation to the Court. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we ought to try 21 to have the list ready at our next meeting. I just think 22 our next meeting -- I mean, that -- the second meeting in 23 December is a bad meeting because of Christmas, and that 24 week is the week of Christmas. And we always -- we seem -- 25 we always have last-minute things that we have to get done 11-24-03 99 1 before the end of the year. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Think about it. 3 Between now and the second -- and the first meeting in 4 December is Thanksgiving. We got -- you got one day before 5 the agenda or two days before the agenda, because it's 6 crowded around the holiday. I'd really like to push it a 7 little further back. You have plenty of time to think about 8 it. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to get my 10 calendar. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like we've about got a 12 consensus that we're going to try to zero in on a date. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, you know, we 14 could do both. Next meeting, we could come up with some 15 topics. Following meeting, come up with some. The first 16 meeting in January, come up with some topics. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, just so long as 18 we're not forced, you know, into making a narrow window that 19 excludes things. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I don't want to exclude 21 anything. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: And from the facilitator's 24 standpoint, I -- I think it would be beneficial if we had 25 somebody from TAC that could give us the input from the 11-24-03 100 1 county government -- the legality, the problem areas and so 2 forth, and then possibly another facilitator, or maybe two. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can I offer a 4 suggestion, Judge? Going along with what you're talking 5 about, Buster. Could we -- could we attempt to identify 6 either or both, have somebody invite that person down to our 7 next meeting, and give us a little sense of how they would 8 guide us, and what -- for us to put together in anticipation 9 of a meeting? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Put an item on the next agenda 11 for plan -- for strategic planning session. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Plan the planning. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that would be 15 good, because if you -- you know, I think someone from TAC 16 and someone from L.C.R.A., if we can get them down here, 17 would be real helpful. We could also, you know, visit with 18 others in the community as well. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they can tell us 20 what they'd like for us to do to prepare to make the meeting 21 more successful. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Got that, 24 Judge? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll do them both. I'll get 11-24-03 101 1 it rolling. Give us a date, Commissioner. What's the 2 middle -- middle of January? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have my 4 January calendar. I don't even buy green bananas; I don't 5 know if I'm going to last till January. (Laughter.) 6 MS. SOVIL: January 12th is the meeting date. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 12th and 26th is meeting 8 date. Week of the 19th? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute, Jon. 10 That was a classic statement there. Man, we need to honor 11 that. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was good. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I heard something about 15 green bananas, and I just kind of -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that is so funny. 17 I'm going to use that rascal. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be the 12th, would it 19 not? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: No, we got a meeting the 12th. 21 Be the 19th. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 19th or the 20th. 19th 23 is a Monday. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: What about an alternate date, 25 other than Monday? 11-24-03 102 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, your schedule -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Could we go to Wednesday? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 21st? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I've got a docket on the -- 5 unless we're going to do it in the afternoon. I could do it 6 the 13th in the afternoon. Well, I've got -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's go to the 8 following week. I think I've got -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: 26th? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah -- no, 19th. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Other than the 12 court date. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the week we're working 14 on. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 19th or 20th or 22nd -- 16 19th or 21st? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to do it on the 18 19th, we need to start early, 'cause I have a juvenile 19 docket mid-afternoon. 21st, I've got all day available. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's go with the 21 21st. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that a regular 23 court date? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that's a Wednesday. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we want to shoot for 1/21? 11-24-03 103 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I won't be surprised 2 if we don't want to spend all day doing this. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Maybe all day. 4 You could have lunch. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Commencing at what? 10:00? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:00? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 9:00. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could we discuss 10 Mrs. Uecker's thought just for a moment, about going to a 11 neutral site with the elected officials at some point? I'm 12 not talking about on this day or any particular day. Just 13 the -- just the thought of having a "think tank" type thing. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the idea. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could we ask the 17 County Attorney -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Get the benefit of a lot more 19 thinking. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Get the benefit of a lot more 22 thinking. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just can't see how 24 you can do that. I mean, we wouldn't be making decisions, 25 but we'd certainly be discussing county business with more 11-24-03 104 1 than two of us. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Workshop. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The City does it. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I know. 5 Everybody does it but us. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: U.G.R.A. does it. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I even got a 9 suggestion for a good spot. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe we got the same 12 one. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's in my precinct. 14 I mean, here in Kerr County. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My precinct -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably get a free 17 meal out it. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got one right here 19 in Kerr County in my precinct. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I said it first. Is 21 -- my question would be, is it legal to do it? 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 MR. MOTLEY: I certainly haven't looked into 24 that particular question. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But everybody does it. 11-24-03 105 1 MR. MOTLEY: You know, it may be that other 2 governmental entities have more authority in that area than 3 the counties do. I think it's a good idea. I think maybe 4 -- I don't know if was Buster that maybe said the idea about 5 having the TAC people come and discuss in general how 6 something like that ought to proceed and how they could 7 facilitate the meeting. I think that would be a good idea. 8 I'm sure that's something that they do. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're saying we can 10 do it, or can't do it? 11 MR. MOTLEY: I'm saying it's a question of 12 first impression on me right here in the courtroom today, 13 and I would -- I know that other people do it, but I've not 14 specifically researched whether or not it's okay for the 15 County to do that, because I didn't have any, you know, 16 prior advance notice. That's something that just came up in 17 the body of the meeting. So, I'd have to look into it, and 18 if you want a specific authority for it, I'd have to 19 research it. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking about 21 the Commissioners Court being able to go off campus and 22 huddle under an oak tree. 23 MR. MOTLEY: We had talked about, at one time 24 in the past, having the Commissioners Court meet for a 25 legitimate meeting in other places, and if it's not a county 11-24-03 106 1 annex building or the county courthouse, I believe the 2 opinion was that it was not legal to do so -- not lawful to 3 do so. But this is not a regular, convened meeting of the 4 Commissioners Court. In other words, it's just planning, 5 and there's no action to be taken or no real, you know, 6 deliberation to be had. I think that's a different 7 situation. You're not taking votes, and just going to be 8 tossing around ideas about things such as this road you were 9 talking about south of the river, and -- and those ideas of 10 things that all the Commissioners think would be wise to 11 have on the radar screen for the future. I think that's 12 going to be one of the critical issues, is how the meeting 13 itself is conducted. And -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It would be a 15 workshop. A workshop situation. 16 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. But, you know, I'm going 17 to check it out. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correct me if I'm 19 wrong. I seem to recall, when you did that research, it had 20 to do with whether or not we could conduct this meeting at a 21 location in Kerr County other than this courtroom. 22 MR. MOTLEY: That's right. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And your conclusion 24 was we could not do a regular term outside of this room. We 25 could do a special, and we were talking about -- the venue 11-24-03 107 1 was the Union Church. Now we're talking about a workshop at 2 which no action would be taken, just brainstorming. 3 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, I think that's exactly 4 what I said. I believe that's exactly -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we -- when you 6 talk to TAC, to save David from doing a whole lot of 7 research, see if they can give us the authority. 8 MR. MOTLEY: I feel like it's okay, but, 9 again, I've not, you know, done any research on this prior 10 to this. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need a motion for 12 that date? Or are we just going to -- by consensus? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you need a 14 motion for that date. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we 16 have a tentative date of January 21st at 10 a.m. -- I mean, 17 excuse me, 9 a.m. for a strategic planning workshop. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At a location to be 19 determined? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 23 further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 24 signify by raising your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11-24-03 108 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Item 19 is 4 consider and discuss approval and award of bid for county 5 insurance coverage to Texas Association of Counties. 6 Mr. Auditor? As most of you know, we -- we received only 7 one bid with a couple of alternates, but only one bid for 8 our insurance package, that being all of the insurance with 9 the exception of the employee health insurance package, 10 which is being separately bid and is due back in the first 11 part of December. These particular -- this particular bid 12 covers all of the other insurance coverage. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: I think all of you have two 14 pages that -- that I call Analysis of the TAC Insurance 15 Proposal. Everybody have that? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I did this to try to 19 determine the options that -- you know, that we wanted to 20 consider. And what I did, I went back to -- to the year 21 2000 and looked at the -- the loss specs for each one of 22 those years, for -- for 2003, this year, to see what would 23 happen if -- if we chose one deductible or the other. And I 24 guess we can start with the auto liability, and it shows 25 that the current deductible is zero, and then it shows 11-24-03 109 1 the -- what's proposed, with the zero deductible. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy -- 3 MR. TOMLINSON: For $1,000 deductible -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you go any 5 further, would you just help me with -- what is in Column 2, 6 the numbers in Column 2? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Column 2 is the zero -- is 8 the same as what's current. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Current deductible. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Current deductible. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: There are three proposal 12 columns. The last -- 2, 3, and 4 are proposals. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. Okay. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: They propose the same -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: They propose the same 17 deductible as we currently have. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. And all I wanted to do 20 is show you what the -- you know, the premium was now, on 21 the current policy. Under Auto Liability, really, I think 22 it boils down to the number of claims that we have, and in 23 2000-2002, we had a substantial amount of claims. You can 24 see that if we -- if we use the $1,000 deductible, we 25 will -- we would have had a net loss of $2,384. With a 11-24-03 110 1 $5,000 deductible, we'd have had a net loss of $11,614. And 2 in 2003, we had -- only had, as I remember, three losses. 3 So, under the $1,000 deductible, we'd have a net loss of 4 $132, and a gain -- net gain, with a $5,000 deductible, of 5 $1,871. So, you know, I think that's the issue today, is to 6 try -- try and decide which deductible we want to go with. 7 It appears to me that under -- under this coverage, you 8 know, as many -- as many vehicles as we have, I mean, the 9 chances of having three or more accidents with a third party 10 is pretty great. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This includes the 12 Sheriff? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Definitely. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: And as -- and, I mean, 16 even -- even with a $1,000 deductible, we would have lost 17 $132. So, I mean, it's personal opinion, but I -- I think 18 that, for auto liability, that zero deductible makes -- is 19 the best option. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be paying an additional 21 approximately $3,700 in premium? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: But, based upon our loss 24 experience, what we'd have to absorb in the deductible you 25 think would be in excess of that? 11-24-03 111 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I think so. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Just based upon the actuarial 3 data that you have? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Auto physical damage. For 7 2000 -- I didn't go back further than 2000 on auto physical 8 damage. But we had -- we had losses paid of $7,125 under 9 the current deductible, which is $250 for comprehensive and 10 $500 for collision. In all cases, I mean, if we go to the 11 $1,000, we would have had a net gain of $5,539. I think 12 that might be an option that we'd want to try. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Let's see. For general 15 liability, in the year 2000, we had no losses at all. In 16 '01, we had total losses of $3,296. In 2002, we only had 17 losses of $275. And none of those were -- were over -- over 18 the proposed limits. So, that indicates to me, with as few 19 losses as we have, that -- that the $10,000 option would be 20 what we should do. I mean, again, this is my take of it. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Based on actuarial data. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: On the data that we have to 23 look at. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What comes under this 25 category? 11-24-03 112 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Slip and fall, road damage. 2 If a -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rock falls off -- 4 MR. TOMLINSON: -- rock falls off a truck and 5 hits the pavement and crashes into a -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Windshield. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: -- windshield. Those are the 8 typical losses that we've had. And, you know, that's -- 9 they've just been very few, and really, we have not had -- 10 we have not paid actual losses. Most of this is attorney's 11 fees, and attorney's fees come out of the deductible. So, 12 of all the payments that we make, it's almost totally 13 attorney's fees. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we had a $10,000 15 deductible, how much -- how much -- I mean, if they're 16 claiming, like, $6,000 in damages or something like that, 17 does the insurance company still handle it? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yes. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: They handle anything that we 21 send to them. And -- and they negotiate, and they're -- my 22 experience with the people that -- that do the adjustments 23 for TAC, which is a company called Barron's, claims 24 adjusters, they -- they do a thorough job. And, I mean, 25 they just don't -- they're not free with our money; I'll put 11-24-03 113 1 that it way. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Each claim we might 4 have under this category would be subject to $10,000 -- 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would we not be 7 better served to stay at five, based on the amount of 8 savings? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: We have zero now. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, that's why we're 12 here. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just thought -- 14 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm basing my opinion on what 15 I see as what the -- you know, what the data shows. I mean, 16 you know, we all know that -- that risk assessments are -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is risky business. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: -- are risky, yes. So -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, one -- you lose 20 the savings several times over with one occurrence. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: You could. Yeah, you really 22 could. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess that's my 24 point. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Historically, we haven't 11-24-03 114 1 had the occurrences. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Williams' 3 point is that, to get the benefit of $5,000 less deductible 4 on each claim, it costs us 1,700 bucks a year more, roughly. 5 I think that's your point, isn't it, Commissioner? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my point. Or 7 the savings that we might have are just a little bit less, 8 but we still are not laying out five grand every time you 9 have a claim, and you never know when it's going to be a bad 10 year. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. And with attorney's 12 fees being includable in -- against your deductible, you can 13 have a pretty -- you can have an absolutely worthless claim, 14 but you can chew up five grand or ten grand in attorney's 15 fees sometimes, depending on the bent of the claimant's 16 lawyer, I suppose. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: I did visit with -- with the 18 TAC representative, Victor, our -- TAC's representative. He 19 didn't actually tell me this, but from our conversation, I 20 gathered that not many counties have a deductible on their 21 general liability. But, you know, you don't always know 22 what their experience is, either. But that's kind of what I 23 heard him say. He didn't actually tell me that, but ... 24 Okay. Do you want to go on to property? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm. 11-24-03 115 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Our current deductible 2 is $1,000. In 2000, we had $8,567 in losses. We would have 3 had a net loss of $1,752 with a $5,000 deductible. In '01, 4 we only had $724 in losses, so, under that scenario, we 5 would have gained $5,091. And in 2000, we had $11,000 in 6 losses, and we would have only had a gain of $91. These 7 losses are -- typically arise from, like, lightning strikes 8 with radio equipment. We had a loss with water damage out 9 at the Extension Office in the Ag Barn. We do -- we do have 10 an addition to our property coverage for -- for equipment 11 breakdown that -- that we took advantage of two times. 12 That's the only damage -- you know, property damage that -- 13 that I -- in the last three years that I can recall. Now, 14 there is -- there is potential savings in premium to go to 15 the $5,000 under -- you know, depending on the number of 16 losses, of course. So -- so, again, I mean, that's -- 17 that's $6,800 savings in premium to go from $1,000 to 18 $5,000. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Depends if we're going to 20 have a good year or bad year. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One year you come out 23 ahead; two you don't, or not much. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Never know. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Go on? 11-24-03 116 1 JUDGE TINLEY: You -- did you have any 2 suggestion on the property damage? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, no, I -- I think we 4 just need to stay where we are. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stay where we are? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's about a toss-up, 7 looks like to me. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: It could go either way, so I 9 don't see a lot of advantage of changing that. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: About $1,300 more. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Public officials. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What does this 14 cover? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Wrongful employee 16 terminations, discrimination. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the Sheriff, 18 usually. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, wait a minute. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it is. That's 21 usually where they come, is out of the jail. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Huh? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They usually come out of 24 the jail. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't believe I've had 11-24-03 117 1 any. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: We have had some -- some 3 controversial claims under this coverage. We had -- from 4 '00 to this year, we had -- we had five incidents. We 5 actually had no losses in any of those. Our -- TAC's 6 attorneys have -- have done a great job for us. And, you 7 know, we only -- you know, if we're going to $15,000, we 8 only have a $2,200 savings. Our current deductible is 9 $10,000. Their only other proposal is 15. I think, you 10 know, those kinds of cases are -- or claims could be severe. 11 The legal representation, again, for that one claim could -- 12 could eat that $2,200. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Twice. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, almost any claim 16 will eat that. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just because of the -- I 19 mean, the nature of them. You get into lawsuits, and most 20 -- I'm not talking about Rusty -- most of them come out of 21 the jail for things that happen out there with the inmates. 22 And -- and we've never -- I mean, over the past few years, 23 we haven't had any losses, but we still have to defend these 24 things. And with the jail population remaining high, I 25 think we ought to leave it where it is. 11-24-03 118 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you're 2 recommending staying at 10? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- yes, I think so. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: And, of course, then we get to 5 the -- 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Go to law enforcement. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- liability. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: The law enforcement 9 liability, I mean, we've had -- since '99, we've had 15 10 claims. Eleven of those have been settled. We had three 11 claims over the deductible. Our total claims paid for in 12 that period of time is $148,384, so I don't think there's 13 a -- I mean, any reason to go to 15. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the Sheriff has assured 15 me that, notwithstanding that, that those claims are 16 plummeting, that his operation out there is such that -- 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will address a little 18 bit of that. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that those claims are 20 really coming down, and -- and I think -- I think the 21 numbers are showing that they are coming down, in fact. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, in reality -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I say a part of that in jest, 24 but those numbers are coming down, and I think it's 25 basically a testimonial to how well that operation is run 11-24-03 119 1 out there. I think it's directly reflective of that. And I 2 think the numbers statewide will reflect that he's -- he's 3 got good people on board, and they've got some good policies 4 in place. And, just like that last inspection that was 5 done, absolutely stellar marks, and I think that bears on 6 the number of claims that we're going to get. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, in reality, out 8 there we have had a couple that we felt there could be a 9 claim made, or somebody could file something on, so we went 10 ahead and notified the insurance company and let them be 11 aware of it, sent them the paperwork, but nothing ever came 12 of it. Other than those two, there has not been a claim 13 filed against that jail since April of 2000. Every one of 14 these are prior to April of 2000 that have been taken care 15 of, and that this money has been paid out, so there have 16 been no claims made against the jail or the Sheriff's Office 17 since April of 2000, which I am very proud of. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, the lawsuits that 19 arise out of the jail, do they go under public officials or 20 under the law enforcement? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Law enforcement. This -- 22 this also covers the detention facility. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under the public 24 officials, what -- where do those claims come from? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Mostly it's employee 11-24-03 120 1 discrimination. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Employee discrimination. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: E.E.O.C. claims, 5 something like that? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Or it could be, you 7 know, wrong -- claims for -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Termination. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: -- wrongful acts against 10 citizens, as far as their, you know, property. Maybe 11 infringement on -- you know, county road on their -- their 12 private property or, you know, something similar to that. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think most of those 14 are going to be, like, E.E.O.C., where we terminate 15 somebody. And I've had one, I think, that the County didn't 16 have a loss on, but where they were terminated, and then 17 they immediately filed an E.E.O.C. claim claiming 18 discrimination or something like that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 20 MR. MOTLEY: Tommy, would that last one, the 21 public officials, would that cover, say, for example, the 22 members of Commissioners Court if somebody came in and filed 23 some sort of lawsuit about them granting a variance under a 24 subdivision or something? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 11-24-03 121 1 MR. MOTLEY: Would it protect them from 2 whatever ministerial decisions they made and such? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. That's 4 correct. 5 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's two issues that 7 I would like to bring up in the overall. On the first part, 8 on auto physical damage, to be honest, especially in our 9 department, with deer and things like that and these newer 10 cars, we can't hit a deer that you're not going to be over 11 that $1,000. And we've had several of those in the last 12 month, unfortunately. A lot of guys don't like my policy on 13 that, but they do get judged on whether it's preventable or 14 not. But I think staying at the $500 on that would be 15 beneficial, and not going to the $1,000, because every one 16 of them we hit's going to be over $1,000 pretty well, with 17 these newer cars now, because the whole body's part of it 18 and you replace everything. The only -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Liability? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Physical damage. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On physical damage -- 22 MR. TOMLINSON: We had a gain. We made 23 money. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- I know we've had 25 about four in the last month. 11-24-03 122 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. That's kind of -- 2 it's almost $10,000 -- $9,000 cheaper to go with $1,000. 3 So, it just depends on how many deer you hit. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the last one we 5 hit -- and this is not at a high rate of speed or anything 6 else, but it is in one of the newer cars -- happened about 7 two weeks ago; an officer on the way to the jail with an 8 inmate in the car on 534, and that one did $1,800 damage to 9 that one car. One deer. And then we had an officer back 10 into a car there by KPUB, and didn't do anything to the car 11 that was backed into, and did $2,300 damage to the County 12 car, because that whole body shifts, you know, and they have 13 to replace -- it's just the -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the difference in cost 15 to us is $500 per, and you're looking at 16 different 16 occurrences, in essence, in order to make up that $8,000. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just something -- and 18 y'all can decide. The second one that I have is on the law 19 enforcement liability. And maybe we can get some assistance 20 from the Commissioners Court with TAC or -- or whatever, but 21 we had not lost a law enforcement claim, even all those old 22 ones prior to my taking office. We haven't had any new 23 ones. But we've had -- with the company that we've been 24 insured with, the attorney that represents us is on -- is 25 doing a remarkable job for the county, okay? Those losses 11-24-03 123 1 and those total costs are, of course, attorney's fees, as we 2 all know, but there has not been a claim successfully filed 3 against the County, against law enforcement. And the only 4 problem with that is the new insurance company, whether it's 5 through TAC or whatever -- I understand there's a lot of 6 other benefits to it, but unless we maybe get TAC to absorb 7 that attorney as one of the attorneys that they hire to 8 represent or whatever, we're going to lose the benefit of an 9 attorney that knows this county, knows what our record is, 10 knows what our policies are, and has done an outstanding job 11 of representing this county and does nothing but represent 12 law enforcement on claims made against the counties. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think all we can do 14 there is recommend -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They didn't submit a bid, 17 so we can just recommend that fact. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, they didn't bid it. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All we can do is 20 recommend to TAC that they contact this law enforcement -- 21 law office. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: TAC has their own -- the 23 attorneys that -- not their own attorneys, but they assign 24 cases to an attorney. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: We don't have any authority to 11-24-03 124 1 direct who they use in their claims defense processes, but 2 we can certainly give the benefit of our thinking, and they 3 may want to take a look at this guy, and -- 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I would 5 recommend. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: -- look at his experience, 7 and -- you know, a lot of their stuff is in different -- 8 different court areas and different districts, and it may 9 well be that they want to take a look at him. But that's 10 all we can do, is recommend at this point. In either case, 11 I would note that our law enforcement liability coverage, 12 even remaining the same, is going to go down over $4,400. 13 And with a bit higher deductible -- you know, that's over 14 4 percent right there, and if we go with a higher 15 deductible, it'll come down even more, approximately -- 16 what? 8 percent? 9 percent? So, I think that's moving in 17 the right direction. What is your recommendation on the law 18 enforcement? To keep the deductible at $10,000? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I thought it would be. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion, 22 Judge, that we award the insurance coverage to TAC, and set 23 the deductible limits as follows: Auto liability, zero; 24 auto physical damage, $1,000; general liability, $5,000; 25 property damage, $1,000; public officials, $10,000; law 11-24-03 125 1 enforcement, $10,000. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Does this become 4 effective January 1? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it would. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause with the auto 8 liability going up, it could definitely have an effect on my 9 budgeted amount for automobile repairs, with the deductible 10 going up. 'Cause the rest of that comes out of my -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Auto liability didn't go 12 up; it stayed at zero. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Or damage. Okay, I'm 14 talking about the auto physical damage. Is it -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take it out of your 16 salary, Sheriff. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not my salary. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, that premium's going 19 to come down. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That premium -- 21 MR. TOMLINSON: We're going to gain $8,000. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I'm talking about 23 when the deductible goes from $500 to $1,000, that extra 24 $500 comes out of my automobile repair budget. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You got 16; you leave it 11-24-03 126 1 at 16. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I come back for a 3 budget amendment, please understand. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second that 6 motion. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 8 approve and accept and award the bid for county insurance 9 coverage for the categories indicated to Texas Association 10 of Counties, with deductibles as follows: Automobile 11 liability, zero deductible. Automobile physical damage, 12 $1,000 deductible. General liability coverage, $5,000 13 deductible. Property damage, $1,000 deductible. Public 14 official's liability, $10,000 deductible. And law 15 enforcement liability, $10,000 deductible. Any questions? 16 Comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 17 your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do you 22 want to forge forward, gentlemen? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No -- yes. 11-24-03 127 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not going to be 3 finished, because we have comments, we have budget 4 amendments, we have -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bills. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- bills. We got at 7 least 30 minutes to go. I mean, I'll go through it, but I 8 just -- I don't know how long Kathy -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Item 20, consider and discuss 10 approving mutual aid agreement with AACOG to continue 11 accessing regional assistance. This item was a requirement 12 under that recent grant funds that we got for the trailer 13 and these other emergency -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Homeland security. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Homeland security related type 16 items. And it's on the agenda because I think it's 17 something we've got to do, 'cause we've already taken the 18 money. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to 20 have the honor of making the motion for approval. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 24 we approve mutual aid agreement with AACOG to continue 25 accessing regional assistance. Any question or discussion? 11-24-03 128 1 All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 6 consider and discuss approval of a resolution opposing 7 unfunded mandates, and authorizing a referendum concerning 8 same to be placed on the March 2004 primary election ballot. 9 Those don't necessarily have to be included all as one. 10 They can be subjects of separate action by the Court, if 11 any. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we should do 13 it. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we should do 15 it at some point. I mean, I understand what an unfunded 16 mandate is, but I'm not real clear of what specific laws -- 17 I mean, who's going to make the decision on what -- which 18 law is an unfunded mandate? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my concern. 20 'Cause I see -- I mean, and one of them -- Region J is a 21 good example. I mean, part of that -- it's all state- 22 funded, except administrative costs have to be borne by 23 local entities, of which Kerr County contributes to that, so 24 I think -- you know, but I bet -- I don't think they see 25 that as an unfunded mandate, 'cause they don't say we have 11-24-03 129 1 to do it. But if you're going to -- I mean, but you kind of 2 do have to do it, too, so it's kind of -- you know, it's -- 3 and I don't know the -- I think Senator Fraser and 4 Representative Hilderbran have both said they didn't have 5 any unfunded mandates, but I -- seems to me I've seen a few 6 over the last legislative session. So, you know, I think 7 it's a good idea. I'm in favor of -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- doing this. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I think this whole thing 11 springs from -- they were preparing before this last 12 Legislature to have a constitutional amendment on the ballot 13 to -- that would direct that the Legislature not pass any 14 legislation requiring local governments to take any action 15 without appropriating the necessary funds with which they 16 could take that action, in essence. And that, of course, 17 didn't pass, 'cause it didn't get on the ballot, but I think 18 that's where it sprang from. "Mandate," to me, means you've 19 got to do it; you don't have any choice. What you're 20 talking about, technically, you got a choice. Now, how 21 realistic that is may be another question. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: But you do have a choice. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I expect that the 25 authors of the bill, if there were one, would -- would, in 11-24-03 130 1 their definitions, define what "mandate" is. I don't expect 2 that it would cover -- it can't -- everything that really 3 winds up costing us money that we don't have any choice 4 about. Given a choice, I'd like to eliminate all of it, the 5 actions of the legislation that winds up costing us money. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I recall a discussion 7 about -- wasn't it representative -- the representative, 8 Buster, out of Fort Worth? And some of us heard his 9 presentation at -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I think this is 12 necessary to move the -- to move the boulder down the road a 13 little bit. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it probably 15 won't get everything done that needs to get done, but it's a 16 start. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move adoption 18 of the resolution as presented. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 21 adoption of the resolution. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And is that all we're 23 looking for, opposing unfunded mandates? I'm sorry, and 24 authorizing -- are we saying here, Judge, authorizing 25 referendum or authorizing inclusion of this topic on the 11-24-03 131 1 forthcoming referendum? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Authorizing the -- a 3 referendum requesting the voters as to whether or not to 4 approve a resolution, as it were, that the Legislature not 5 pass unfunded mandates. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But, in actuality, we 7 would be authorizing the inclusion of that question on an 8 already scheduled referendum. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's not scheduled, 'cause 10 it didn't pass. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're scheduling one. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're scheduling one 13 in March in the primary. That's what I'm talking about. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're not asking 16 for a separate referendum? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Authorizing inclusion 19 of this item on the ballot in March, which is already 20 scheduled. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Already -- it would be added 22 to the ballot. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the motion. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what I 11-24-03 132 1 seconded. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or 3 discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 4 hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item, 9 consideration and discussion -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, Judge. Wait 11 just a second. In this packet is a -- looks like a press 12 release in here that you could take and put your -- the 13 County Judge's name in the slots for release. Would you be 14 interested in using this document as well to release to the 15 press? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Cause it's one -- 18 this is one of those things that we need to start banging to 19 let the public know what this is all about. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would recommend we 21 give the press release, filled in, to the reporter sitting 22 out there right now. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With the Judge's name? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it would be 25 Kerr County Commissioners Court. 11-24-03 133 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there's quotes 2 in here that you need to add the -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Attribute the quotes 4 to the Judge. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, there you go. 6 That's where I'm going. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got that, Glenda? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Kind of flies in the face of 9 the old adage, "not trying to put words in your mouth." 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we just did, 11 Judge. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anyway, there's a 14 press release there if you wanted to use it. I apologize 15 for the interruption. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, consider and 17 discussion approving contract between Kerr County and 18 volunteer fire departments and authorize County Judge to 19 sign the same. Following departments: Comfort Volunteer 20 Fire Department, Castle Lake Volunteer Fire Department, and 21 Hunt Volunteer Fire Department. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 25 approval of the noted contracts, and authorize County Judge 11-24-03 134 1 to sign same. Any further -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One quickie question. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: -- further question or 4 discussion? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jonathan, is Castle 6 Lake that one that serves down there in the tip of the 7 county? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, out of Bandera 9 County. Actually located in Bandera County. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second question. 11 This says we got a contract for Hunt, but the contract 12 that's included is for Ingram. Are we approving Hunt or are 13 we approving Ingram's? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Ingram's already been 15 approved. Or is it -- no. 16 MS. SOVIL: It's Ingram. I picked up the 17 wrong one. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So we're approving 19 Comfort, Castle Lake, and Ingram? 20 MS. SOVIL: Yes, sir. I think we're 21 approving Comfort and Castle Lake. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think that's all we 23 can approve. We're going to have to add that other one back 24 on the agenda. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question was, I 11-24-03 135 1 thought we'd already approved Hunt a month ago or two. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we did. 3 MS. SOVIL: We did, but it was in the last 4 budget year. They haven't signed the new one yet. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: They can't. The money's not 6 eligible to be drawn till after January 1 anyway, is it? 7 MS. SOVIL: Not with the fire departments. 8 That only was county-sponsored contracts. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Hunt got theirs in 11 late. I don't think we approved it yet. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what are we -- 14 we're scratching Hunt and approving the Castle Lake and 15 Comfort? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That's my understanding. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to third that 18 motion. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and 20 seconded that we approve contracts between Kerr County and 21 Comfort Volunteer Fire Department and Castle Lake Volunteer 22 Fire Department, and authorize the Judge to sign the same. 23 Any further question or discussion? All in favor, signify 24 by raising your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11-24-03 136 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to -- I'm 5 assuming by our discussion here that Ingram will be back on 6 the next agenda with the proper posting? Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Moving right along. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We don't have anything 9 to go into executive or closed session, do we, gentlemen? 10 If we do, speak up now. Okay, looks like we get to the 11 payment of the bills. Mr. Auditor. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Any questions? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. 409, 14 Nondepartmental. Lowe's Companies, Inc., $76.01, computer 15 supplies. Who would be charging computer supplies to 16 Nondepartmental? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: It would be for the -- for 18 the system. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't that be 20 under Information Technology, 408? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: No, the maintenance for the 22 system -- big system is in 409. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is -- 25 really, it's just more of a comment, you know, to see what 11-24-03 137 1 happened to it. And I notice under Nondepartmental, there 2 are three charges to the Travis County Medical Examiner, and 3 I had remembered, during the budget process, that the J.P.'s 4 were going to organize and have the Travis County Medical 5 Examiner come down and give a workshop on how much -- I just 6 wondered if that has happened. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thanks. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 665, Ag Extension. 10 Walmart. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: What page is that? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Roaster ovens? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What page? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, Page 8. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: 8. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's getting 17 roasted? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: That's for -- for the kitchen 19 out at the Extension Office. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do their -- in the 21 Ag Extension office, they do cooking seminar things up 22 there. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably also in connection 24 with the concession stand, isn't it? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this is 11-24-03 138 1 different. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That comes out of -- 3 MR. TOMLINSON: That comes out of the Ag 4 Barn. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess we can go by 7 for a free meal when they roast a turkey. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's don't be talking 9 about food right now. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the 11 bills. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded we 14 pay the bills. Any further question or discussion? All in 15 favor, 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. Budget 20 amendments. Request Number 1. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 1 is for 22 contractual obligation fund, sinking -- sinking fund. We 23 budgeted $500 for administrative service fees for this debt, 24 for the debt service. When we got our bill, it was $1,000. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Who'd we get a bill from? 11-24-03 139 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Bank of New York. They're -- 2 they're the trustee or the paying agent on those bonds. And 3 we -- I gave -- actually gave them a call to see if they 4 didn't make a mistake, and they said no, that's not a 5 mistake. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: You talked to somebody with a 7 Jersey accent and they said no way, huh? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Things are tight in 9 lower Manhattan, huh? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: So, anyway, that -- I don't 11 see any choice but to -- if we want our debts paid, to -- to 12 do a budget amendment of $500 from Surplus from that sinking 13 fund. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 17 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1. That doesn't 18 include a hand check, does it? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or 21 discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 22 hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 11-24-03 140 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Notion carried. Budget 2 Amendment Request Number 2. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is for Justice of 4 the Peace, Precinct 2, in Nondepartmental. We -- we've 5 installed the software for -- for J.P. 2's office, and in 6 the process, we discovered that the printers that she had in 7 place would not do the job. So, to get that up and running, 8 we -- it was necessary to purchase a printer that would do 9 the job, and so I'm -- I'm asking for a budget amendment to 10 move $749.56 from Contingency in Nondepartmental, and $980 11 from Computer Software in J.P. 2's budget, and increase the 12 Capital Outlay by $1,729.56. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any hand check on that? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 18 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any further 19 question or discussion? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what the 21 contingency money's for, isn't it? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor, signify by 24 raising your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11-24-03 141 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 4 MS. SOVIL: Sir? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late -- 6 MS. SOVIL: You took the $500 out of Surplus. 7 Don't you need to declare an emergency on that Number 1? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, you do. That's right. 9 You're right. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who moved it? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Jonathan did. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My motion includes -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go back to Budget 15 Amendment Request Number 1. Commissioner Letz, would you 16 restate your motion, please? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To declare an emergency 18 and take $500 out of Fund 59, Surplus Reserve. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 21 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1, and in doing so, 22 to declare an emergency and take $500 from Fund 59, Surplus 23 Reserve. All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 24 your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11-24-03 142 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Apparently 4 we don't have any late bills. Okay. Don't have any minutes 5 today. I have before me monthly reports from Justice of the 6 Peace Precinct 1, Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, and 7 District Clerk. Do I hear a motion that these reports be 8 approved as presented? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion moved -- made and 12 seconded that monthly reports, as presented by Justice of 13 the Peace Precinct 1, Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, and 14 District Clerk be approved. Any further question or 15 discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 16 hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do we have 21 any reports from any of the Commissioners? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have one report 23 briefly on -- related to Region J. I had a meeting last 24 week with our consultant, Mr. Ashworth, and then the -- Ron 25 Patterson and some of his staff, Ron Langley from 11-24-03 143 1 Headwaters, Greg Etter from U.G.R.A., and myself, and kind 2 of just plotted out really how all of the entities -- 3 governmental entities in Kerr County can work together and 4 get some real meaning -- meaningful research and study done 5 on the Trinity Aquifer, and also the spring flow. Region J 6 has some money budgeted for that. U.G.R.A. is looking at 7 it, and so is Headwaters. So, anyway, I just -- really good 8 meeting, and I think that out of that will come a -- a plan 9 for the entities to put in some additional funding, probably 10 next budget year, to try to -- because it's clear that the 11 State's not going to do all of it by themselves. And -- but 12 there seemed a real willingness from all the heads of all 13 those entities to try to get some meaningful science on the 14 Trinity Aquifer so we can do some real water planning in the 15 future as we -- we've been trying to do it, but the State 16 has just a limited amount of funding they're going to give 17 to that purpose. So, it was a good meeting. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, the next time -- 19 Ashworth? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: John Ashworth. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: John Ashworth. The 22 next time he is around and doing some kind of presentation, 23 will you let us know? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's one of the most 11-24-03 144 1 fascinating, intelligent guys that I've ever seen when it 2 comes to that aquifer. He -- he may be the only guy 3 breathing that understands that thing, and he has a 4 fantastic, fantastic presentation on it. Very good. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Worth going to see 7 him. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He is good. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the only comment I 10 have. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And Ashworth is with T.W.D.B.? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, Ashworth is -- he was 13 formerly with T.W.D.B. He's now with LBG-Guyton and 14 Associates, and he's the -- because of his knowledge of the 15 Trinity Aquifer, Region J hired him as our lead consultant, 16 and then he works very closely with Frees and Nichols for 17 their surface water issues. But it was a good meeting. It 18 was kind of -- I wanted to give everybody a little time to 19 let all the new heads of all these different entities in 20 Kerr County get their feet on the ground, and I think we'll 21 be able to really come out with a -- hopefully a plan 22 sometime in the spring as to a study that I think Ashworth 23 might be very involved with the designing. That will help 24 the City of Kerrville, all the county residents, Headwaters 25 and U.G.R.A., because it'll finally be some definitive work 11-24-03 145 1 on the Trinity and talking about recharge and getting some 2 additional wells put in, and it won't be done by ourselves. 3 Water Development Board will clearly be involved with it, 4 but it'll be a way to hopefully greatly enhance the Trinity 5 model that the Water Development Board had previously that 6 leaves a lot to be desired. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Perhaps do the study 8 of the model of the lower, which they did not do the last 9 time. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's being included. A 11 lot of it's spring flow and recharge. So, there's some -- 12 two critical components as to where the City goes in the 13 future, long-term. They're looking at a well field in 14 probably the western part of the county, but it's critical 15 that we know as a county, if they put a well field out in 16 the plateau, is that going to just drain the water out of 17 the springs? And if it is, there's no point in doing it; 18 it's a waste of money. So, just things like that, and 19 there's no science on that, so it's kind of going in that 20 direction. But I was really happy to have all the entities 21 working together and come up with a new approach, and 22 everyone now seems willing to, you know, conceptually agree 23 to putting money up to help get this study done. And it 24 obviously is cheaper to do one good study than a bunch of 25 little piecemeal studies. 11-24-03 146 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there is one item. 3 We have never acted on Item 1.2. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That's right, the Adoption 6 Month. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's one of those 8 things -- certainly, I'm in favor of the -- the concept, but 9 I really don't know that, without a -- I don't know 10 the great importance, other than saying that we're in favor 11 of it. Certainly, I am, as a Commissioner, and I think the 12 Court probably is, recognizing people that adopt. But I 13 don't see any point in really acting on it if we don't have 14 anything -- something to act on. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which item? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1.2. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: 1.2. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Adoption Month. 19 Designating November as Adoption Month. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? If not, we'll 21 stand adjourned. 22 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:24 p.m.) 23 - - - - - - - - - - 24 25 11-24-03 147 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 1st day of December, 8 2003. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11-24-03