1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, January 23, 2006 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X January 23, 2006 2 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments 5 3 4 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to acquire software and equipment necessary to 5 program and print ballots from Hart Intercivic 9 6 1.2 Interim Report from the County EMS Committee 27 7 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to accept offer of Attorney General to redirect 8 and process child support payments on orders established prior to January 1, 1994, from local 9 registry to State Disbursement Unit 38 10 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to revise preliminary Plat of Cypress Springs Estates, 11 Phase 2, Section Two 40 12 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set public hearing for revision of plat for Lots 4 and 13 5, Byas Springs Ranch, Vol. 5, Page 250, Pct. 4 62 14 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for concept plan on division of property on Bass & 15 Wagner Road, Pct. 4 63 16 1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set a public hearing for regulatory signs in various 17 locations in Kerr County 70 18 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to deal with misappropriation of $94,001 of Kerr County 19 funds to the Public Library 80 20 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on reducing registration fees to $1.00 during the 21 Rabies Drive on February 4, 2006 thru February 18, 2006 95 22 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 23 final revision of plat of Tract 152-A of Spicer Ranch No. Three 97 24 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for road 25 name changes on privately maintained roads, Pct. 4, in accordance with 9-1-1 Guidelines 98 3 1 I N D E X (Continued) January 23, 2006 2 PAGE 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding 3 narcotics enforcement in Kerr County 99 4 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to confirm Commissioners Court liaison assignments 121 5 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 6 Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations, set public hearing on same 124 7 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 8 Kerr County Water Availability Requirements, set public hearing on same 129 9 1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 10 adopt proclamation declaring May 5 & 6 as the fourth annual Relay for Life Days in Kerr County 139 11 12 4.1 Pay Bills 140 4.2 Budget Amendments 141 13 4.3 Late Bills --- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 144 14 5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 145 15 --- Adjourned 146 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 On Monday, January 23, 2006, 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: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 7 Let me call to order this meeting of the -- regularly 8 scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court 9 scheduled for this time and date, Monday, January the 23rd, 10 2006, at 9 a.m. It is that time now. Commissioner Baldwin? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. If you'd rise and 12 join me in a word of prayer, and then we'll do the pledge of 13 allegiance, please. 14 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's 16 any member of the audience or public that wishes to be heard 17 on a matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to 18 come forward at this time and talk to us about whatever's on 19 your mind. If you wish to be heard on a listed agenda item, 20 we prefer that you fill out a participation form. They're at 21 the back of the room. If we're out, we'll try and get some 22 more there quickly, but we would ask that you do that. It's 23 not essential. It's not required. It just helps me when we 24 get to that item, that I don't miss you. But if there's any 25 member of the public that wishes to come forward and be heard 1-23-06 5 1 about any matter that is not a listed agenda item, why, come 2 on up and tell us what's on your mind. Seeing no one coming 3 forward, it appears that we can move on. Commissioner 4 Baldwin, what do you have for us this morning? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just want to remind everyone 6 that Thursday is Kerr County's 150th birthday. We will have 7 an open house type thing here at the courthouse from 4:00 to 8 6:00 Thursday afternoon; coffee, cookies, and some 9 entertainment. And hopefully that -- like to see all the city 10 officials here and -- and former city officials, if we could, 11 just some of the old-timers. I'll do my best today to call 12 the old commissioner down in the Comfort way. There's not a 13 whole lot of them left. But, anyway, I want -- we're going to 14 try to call some of the old-timers and invite them to the 15 function, and I want to remind you of that. 150 years only 16 comes one time, and I think it will be a great celebration. 17 Judge, I have a special presentation I'd like to make, if -- 18 if you'd allow me to do so. Gerard? Would you come up here, 19 please? 20 MR. MACCROSSAN: My timing's impeccable. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I know. Don't get too 22 close to me. I have a certificate here I'd like to present to 23 you. 24 MR. MACCROSSAN: I'm going to stand right beside 25 you. 1-23-06 6 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, that'd be fine. It's 2 the side of my wallet, now. (Laughter.) The title of 3 Honorary Redneck of Kerr County is hereby bestowed upon Gerard 4 MacCrossan in recognition of being named Champion Sheep Milker 5 of 2006. (Laughter.) 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Congratulations. 7 (Applause.) 8 MR. MACCROSSAN: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's "honorary" redneck, 10 now. That doesn't make you the real thing. 11 MR. MACCROSSAN: Oh, okay. I'll remember. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I might add, Commissioner, he didn't 13 do too badly at the cow chip tossing, either. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He couldn't win that. 16 MR. MACCROSSAN: Couldn't beat the Sheriff. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all I have. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Congratulations to the stock 20 show people, the board of directors, all the participants, and 21 particularly all the volunteers. And a special thank you goes 22 from me to Commissioner Nicholson for breathing two-thirds of 23 the dust on -- on Friday, after he and I had sucked up a good 24 bit of it the day before. But it appears that it was a great 25 show, and it's always a pleasure, seriously, to see the young 1-23-06 7 1 people grow up from year to year, and some of those same kids 2 that started out where they could -- just about that tall are 3 now twice that big, and they're still winning, because they're 4 doing the right thing with their animals. It's really a 5 pleasure to see that happen. Thank you, Judge. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ditto everything Commissioner 8 Williams said, with a -- he may have said it, but if he 9 didn't, I'd like to thank all the buyers. A lot of people 10 spent a bunch of money on Saturday, and that goes to help 11 those youth and keeps the whole program going. I'm glad 12 Commissioner Baldwin was thankful for the rain, but he must 13 have received more than I did if he was very thankful, because 14 we didn't get much other than some clouds. But maybe the 15 weather pattern will change and we'll get some later this 16 week, hopefully. That's all I have. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just ditto the sentiments 19 about the junior livestock show. It's really good to see so 20 many young people doing things so well. That is all I've got. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. The -- the sale was even 22 into the late hours Saturday evening. The spectators, there 23 was -- there were still a large number of them. There was a 24 lot of enthusiasm among the spectators, and buyers were -- 25 were staying there and staying in strong. The prices were 1-23-06 8 1 holding good. We haven't heard a report yet about the 2 numbers, but I'm -- I'm going to predict that they were 3 significantly better than -- than previous years. I think the 4 thing that we probably need to recognize more than anything 5 about that show, in addition to the -- to the young people who 6 come up through the program, are these volunteers from our 7 community and our county that spend all this time with these 8 youth year after year after year. If we didn't have those 9 volunteers out there to help keep this thing rolling along, 10 and it takes a bunch of them, that thing would not be able 11 to -- to be the success that it has been. So, when you -- 12 when you see these folks that have spent their time out there 13 in furtherance of that program, be sure and thank them for 14 their efforts, because they deserve at least that. They 15 deserve much, much more, but give them your thanks and tell 16 them -- tell them you're really proud of what they're doing to 17 help our area youth. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, the morning newspaper 19 reported that the proceeds may have topped $100,000 over last 20 year. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I asked some of the folks that 22 were there on the ground this morning, and they couldn't give 23 me a number, but I know even late into the evening the prices 24 were holding very, very strong. And, like I say, the 25 enthusiasm amongst the buyers and all the spectators was 1-23-06 9 1 holding. There wasn't any waning as it got late in the 2 evening; it was still going strong, and it really looked like 3 a great event. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, can I have one more 5 minute? I noticed there was a boy scout just came in the 6 room. Are y'all in here to observe a government body? Young 7 man, would you stand up and tell us your name and what troop 8 you're with? 9 MR. HINTON: My name is Jacob Hinton, and I'm with 10 Troop 311. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 311? 12 MR. HINTON: Yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Welcome to the Commissioners 14 Court. Glad to see you. 15 MR. HINTON: Thank you. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, young man. We appreciate 17 you being here. Okay, let's get on with the business at hand, 18 if we might. The first item on the agenda is consider, 19 discuss, and take appropriate action to acquire the software 20 equipment necessary to program and print ballots from Hart 21 InterCivic. 22 MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, here is the quotes that I 23 received. As you can see, I was off on what I thought the 24 software was going to be. I do have my Hart rep here, Charles 25 Scott, for any questions that you may have. 1-23-06 10 1 MR. SCOTT: Good morning to the Court. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good morning, sir. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you, sir, if I might, in 4 order for us to be totally self-contained and self-sufficient 5 on these ongoing elections, to be able to program these 6 machines for various ballots from various jurisdictions, tell 7 us what the bottom line is that we need to be looking at in 8 terms of cost, both as to software and ongoing maintenance on 9 an annual basis. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before -- and if I could add to 11 that, can you also give us the other side? If we continue to 12 have -- I guess, let Hart Graphics do it, what's that going to 13 cost us on a per-election basis, or however you calculate it? 14 I need both of those numbers, is what we need to find out. 15 MR. SCOTT: Yeah. The -- the programming part of 16 what we're talking about is approximately $2,500 per election. 17 And I say "approximately" because we have a scale, a pricing 18 scale. Up to 10 races per election is $950, and up to 20 is 19 $1,250. Up to 40 races is $1,550. And, of course, because we 20 also have audio cards, then that -- that programming doubles. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the $2,500? What is 23 that? 24 MR. SCOTT: That would be -- that would be 25 programming. That's $1,250 times two. 1-23-06 11 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- that's an average, I 2 think. But can you go back to number of races? For example, 3 let's get some of it -- I know the City Clerk's here. City of 4 Kerrville, when they run, they have approximately -- you know, 5 maybe -- 6 MS. CRAIG: Three. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three spots on the ballot, and 8 there are maybe -- who knows how many candidates, so you're 9 saying that's $950? 10 MR. SCOTT: That's correct. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's not an issue as to 12 number of candidates; it's number of -- you call them races? 13 MR. SCOTT: No, it's races, right. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- 15 MR. SCOTT: And that $950 is doubled because of the 16 audio cards. That's -- that allows the ballot to be read to a 17 blind voter or a handicapped voter. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Double -- I don't understand -- 19 okay, I'm lost now. 20 MR. SCOTT: You're programming the ballot and you're 21 programming the audio cards. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's $950 and $950, so it's 23 $1,800 -- or $1,900 is the minimum cost per election? 24 MR. SCOTT: That's correct. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you just help us through 1-23-06 12 1 one thing here, maybe -- maybe get our understanding level up 2 equivalent to yours? Would you tell the Court again what you 3 mean when you say upgrade from a service bureau to full 4 implementation? I think I understand what full implementation 5 is, but -- 6 MR. SCOTT: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- I want to hear it from 8 you. 9 MR. SCOTT: Right now, because you're dependent on 10 us -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 12 MR. SCOTT: -- we're operating a service bureau. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. You're doing it 14 for us. 15 MR. SCOTT: That's correct, through our service 16 bureau. And what you're attempting to do here with this -- 17 with this BOSS and Ballot Now upgrade is to be stand-alone, so 18 you would be separate and apart from the service bureau. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are your fees one-time fees 20 for our -- your giving us that ability? Or is there -- is it 21 an ongoing fee, or is it subject to programmatic changes at 22 the end of a time period or what? 23 MR. SCOTT: There's an ongoing cost that you see 24 here. It's Item Number 18. That's licensing and support. 25 That continues. 1-23-06 13 1 JUDGE TINLEY: That's an annual cost? 2 MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir. 3 MS. PIEPER: This -- this cost on there is prorated, 4 though. What is the cost per year? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: So what we've got is seven-twelfths 6 listed there? 7 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, Judge, say it again? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: So what we have listed here is 9 seven-twelfths; is that correct? 10 MR. SCOTT: That's correct. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Y'all have lost me. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm going to give it to you 13 here in just a second. So the -- 14 MR. SCOTT: The Judge is looking for an ongoing 15 cost. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: It's 6,400, I think, annually. 17 Mm-hmm, I show 6,400 -- 18 MR. SCOTT: Right at. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- annual. 20 MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're at 6,400 plus the 22 programming, are you telling me? 23 MR. SCOTT: No. What we're talking about on this 24 sheet right here is purchase price and ongoing costs. Your 25 purchase prices are in Item 10. 1-23-06 14 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 2 MR. SCOTT: And you have a purchase price on the new 3 item; that's for a high-output, high-speed laser printer. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's 5,000? 5 MR. SCOTT: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 MR. SCOTT: And then you have one-time costs, Items 8 16 and 17. That's for training. And then you have annual 9 costs in Item 18. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. This says 3,733, and the 11 Judge was telling me it was 6,400. 12 MR. SCOTT: Right. This is prorated. The 3,733 is 13 prorated, so the Judge is figuring about 6,400, 6,500. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That's an annual -- ongoing annual 15 cost over the term of use. 16 MR. SCOTT: That's correct. So, what that tells you 17 is you're going to have to charge your entities -- to make 18 your money back, you're going to have to charge at least, 19 annually, 6,400, 6,500. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. 21 MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got a whole basement 23 full of equipment right now. Can I assume that we already 24 have in place a first-year license to use that equipment? 25 MS. PIEPER: To use the equipment, we do. 1-23-06 15 1 MR. SCOTT: To use what you have purchased already, 2 yes. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 4 MR. SCOTT: You have a first-year license in that. 5 So, this is in addition to, if that's what you're thinking 6 about. This is in addition to what you already have in 7 first-year license. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a county-wide 9 election coming up in March of this year. 10 MR. SCOTT: Mm-hmm. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Followed by a city election 12 in May, I believe. 13 MS. PIEPER: And schools. 14 MR. SCOTT: City and schools, water districts, 15 et cetera, in May. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. If we were to remain 17 as a service bureau this year, what would our fee be? 18 MR. SCOTT: What you've already contracted for. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What we have already 20 contracted for? 21 MR. SCOTT: Correct. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you would program this 23 equipment now to take care of the upcoming March primary and 24 the subsequent elections in May, correct? 25 MR. SCOTT: At a fee. 1-23-06 16 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would that fee be? 2 MR. SCOTT: What we've already talked about. That 3 would be approximately $950 for your cities and schools. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 5 MR. SCOTT: Each. Times two for the audio cards. 6 MS. PIEPER: Plus the cost of printing the ballots 7 at $300 per thousand, I believe. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A little louder, please. 9 MS. PIEPER: Plus the cost of printing the ballots, 10 which I believe is $300 per thousand. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Anything else? 12 MR. SCOTT: That's everything I can think of. 13 MS. PIEPER: I think that's it. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will get us past this 15 election, and if we wanted to change our status from service 16 bureau to full implementation, we would be looking for a total 17 price tag of $51,000 plus a renewal annual charge of 6,400; is 18 that correct? 19 MR. SCOTT: Correct. Of course, if you wait -- if 20 you wait and do this later in the year, then this prorated 21 amount for -- for license and software, that will change. 22 That will go down. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Goes down? 24 MR. SCOTT: Sure. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jannett, is there a Headwaters 1-23-06 17 1 election this May? 2 MS. PIEPER: Sorry, what? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a Headwaters election? 4 MS. PIEPER: No. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's not? 6 MS. PIEPER: No. That will be on the November -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the primary has probably -- 8 I suspect it will be in the 20 to 40 race range? 9 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's how much? 11 MR. SCOTT: Well, at 20 to 40, it would be 1,250. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1,250. Times two? 13 MR. SCOTT: Times two. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2,500. 15 MR. SCOTT: Of course, those are paid by the State, 16 too. That's not your expense. 17 MS. PIEPER: By the parties. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have to worry about 19 that one. What -- what about the general election? 20 MR. SCOTT: That's yours. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that's 2,500 there. 22 MR. SCOTT: You won't have any -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a new budget year. 24 MR. SCOTT: -- program charges until November that 25 you're responsible for. 1-23-06 18 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about runoff elections? 2 MR. SCOTT: Same. You have -- 3 MS. PIEPER: The parties will be responsible for 4 that. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Parties are responsible for 6 that? 7 MS. PIEPER: The only thing the County is 8 responsible for are the early voting workers. 9 MR. SCOTT: You're conducting early voting. That's 10 your responsibility. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm trying to get at is as 12 to how much the County -- I don't -- I'm not talking just the 13 County. The County and other entities in the county are only 14 going to have to pay $4,000 on programming through this budget 15 year. That's -- that's 2,000 -- 2,000, plus or minus, for the 16 school and 2,000 for the City. Is that -- am I right? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Give or take maybe 5,000. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Give or take. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to make sure we're not -- 21 by deferring buying this stuff, if we do choose to buy it, 22 it's not going to cost -- like, if it was $10,000, we might as 23 well go ahead and buy it. If it's going to be this much, I 24 think it might be better to see how it goes for the first run. 25 MR. SCOTT: If you're -- if you're interested in 1-23-06 19 1 being a stand-alone Hart account, then I would suggest that 2 you -- that you buy now, with the idea of not using until May, 3 because we're getting really close now to the primary. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think -- I mean, 5 I'm not -- well, I'm not ready to make a decision on that 6 right now. I think I need to look at, I guess, a projection 7 as to -- based on the number of elections that we know we're 8 going to hold in the next five years, what that's going to 9 cost to let Hart do it on programming versus us spending 10 $55,000. You know, I think it'd be cheaper for Hart to do it. 11 MS. PIEPER: That's what I'm thinking. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I need to look at that 13 specifically, you know, so we can make a, you know, real 14 accurate decision. But if it's $4,000 this year, next year's 15 not going to be -- I don't believe we have any elections next 16 year, the following year. 17 MS. PIEPER: We have elections every year, either 18 the general or constitutional amendment election. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think a rush to 21 judgment on $51,000 versus programming costs for this year 22 is -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to look at -- 24 that's what I'm saying; we need to lock at exactly what it's 25 going to cost each year projected out the next five years. We 1-23-06 20 1 know when elections are going to be held, and we know -- we 2 have a pretty good ideas of the number of races that are going 3 to be on each of those ballots. We can calculate the 4 programming costs pretty exact for the next five years. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Also, the costs that we're 6 charging other entities to conduct elections doesn't really 7 have any of this built into it, I don't believe, and that 8 needs to be relooked at as well. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Now, the -- I guess I 10 have a question. This is to Jannett, but maybe you may know. 11 What if the City decides not to use this -- you know, our 12 equipment or programming? 13 MS. PIEPER: They'll have to rent it from someplace 14 or some entity. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is -- 16 MR. SCOTT: They'll have to rent or buy from 17 someplace, you know, at least -- at least on the DRE side, 18 because -- because they have to use something that's 19 compatible with the handicapped. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I'm asking is, does 21 the HAVA law say that everyone has to use the equipment now? 22 MR. SCOTT: They have to use at least the DRE. They 23 don't have to use the eScans. They could hand-count a paper 24 ballot, but they must use some kind of device for the 25 handicapped, and that would be eSlate. 1-23-06 21 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we have acquired one of 2 those voting -- electronic voting stations for each of our 3 voting precincts; is that correct? 4 MS. PIEPER: That is correct. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 21 or -- 21 pieces of 6 equipment. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Other than the ongoing license and 8 annual licensing and maintenance costs, is there any way that 9 we can spread this up-front cost out over any period of time? 10 MR. SCOTT: We can try to finance if you wanted to. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we need to do what you were 12 suggesting; take a look at what we're going to likely be 13 having in the way of elections over a period of time, and put 14 the pencil to it. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the expected life of this 16 equipment? I mean, I just -- you know, 5, 10 years, something 17 like that? 20 years? 18 MR. SCOTT: 25. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 25-year life. 20 MR. SCOTT: At least on the eSlate side. Might be 21 about 20 years on eScan. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Assuming the federal government 23 doesn't change the rules again. 24 MR. SCOTT: Our guess is -- our guess is that the 25 State of Texas -- the federal government will change rules on 1-23-06 22 1 us long before the equipment wears out. The equipment is 2 built to last. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In which event, if we were 4 the owner of this software to do it ourselves, we'd still have 5 to acquire the upgrades to accommodate any changes in the 6 election laws; is that correct? 7 MR. SCOTT: Licensing and support covers the 8 upgrades. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the annual 6,400? 11 MR. SCOTT: That's correct. If the federal 12 government says, "We want you to change your software," that's 13 covered in licensing and support. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 15 MR. SCOTT: Or if the State of Texas says, "Make 16 this change," you're covered there. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do all school districts have 18 elections this year? 19 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they all do. So, I 21 guess -- I mean, going back, I'm thinking of Divide. How do 22 they do elections if they can't afford it, if they don't have 23 money? I mean -- 24 MR. SCOTT: It's not the first time that's come up. 25 Because this thing has -- this HAVA has -- has completely 1-23-06 23 1 changed the way people budget and the way we handle elections, 2 and the way people are trained for elections. This is 3 completely different than anything we've ever done, either -- 4 either in Texas or any other county in the country. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many -- I've got to go back 6 to my -- I made a big error in my calculating when I was 7 calculating the cost this year. How many school districts do 8 we have? 9 MS. PIEPER: Right off the top of my head -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kerrville, Ingram, Center Point. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Hunt. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hunt, Divide. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Five. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're looking at -- that's 15 $10,000, plus the city. We're looking at a $12,000 16 expenditure this year. That makes the purchase make a lot 17 more sense. How long -- what's the -- if we buy this stuff, 18 the software, is the expected life of that the same as the -- 19 assuming upgrades? 20 MR. SCOTT: Both systems, eScan and eSlate, are 21 built to be flexible. They're -- they're based on firmware. 22 When firmware changes -- which is a combination of software 23 and hardware. When those things change, we simply change the 24 way the firmware acts. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are -- are we covered for 1-23-06 24 1 programming for this upcoming election? 2 MR. SCOTT: No. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to do that for 4 us? 5 MR. SCOTT: We are going to do that for you. If 6 that's what you mean by covered, we are going to do that for 7 you through the service bureau. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: However, we will -- we'll be paying, 9 for example, in the primary, the $1,250 times two, but that -- 10 MR. SCOTT: You will not be paying it. 11 MS. PIEPER: The parties will. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: It will be charged by your 13 organization, and somebody's going to pay it. 14 MR. SCOTT: That's correct. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we -- or can you and Jannett 17 or -- get Jannett's people trained by May for the school 18 primaries to do this if we choose to buy the equipment? 19 MR. SCOTT: Yes. 20 MS. PIEPER: No. 21 (Laughter.) 22 MR. SCOTT: Well, what we have here is a failure to 23 communicate. 24 MS. PIEPER: We can -- we can train Brenda for the 25 City. We can train the city secretaries for the school -- I 1-23-06 25 1 mean the school secretaries for the school, because I have 2 contracted to do the -- the primary parties. I don't think 3 I'll have time to be trained and to literally program each 4 entity's ballots. I mean, it's not that I'm unwilling or -- 5 you know, I just don't feel I have time. And -- and I don't 6 mind the city secretary or the school secretaries coming over 7 and using our equipment. I have no problem with that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem with 9 them being required to do it anyway. 10 MR. SCOTT: In answer to the question, technically, 11 we have the time to get someone trained. Who you decide to 12 train or who Jannett decides to have trained -- 13 MS. PIEPER: Rosa lavender has also volunteered to 14 be trained on this, to do their ballots on a contract basis 15 with the different entities. You'd have to talk with her on 16 that. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, based on that, I 18 mean, I think that -- can you give us a financing option by 19 our next meeting? 20 MR. SCOTT: We can try that, mm-hmm. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, Jannett, can you give us 22 a -- a next five or ten-year projection, whichever you choose, 23 projection of cost, which I suppose is going to be well over 24 the cost of this equipment. 25 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 1-23-06 26 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because 12,000 this year and 2 pretty much 12,000 in two years and 12,000 in two more years, 3 plus a little bit in the off years. We can get an idea and 4 look at the two numbers next meeting, and then -- 'cause, I 5 mean, it appears right now that it's going to make more sense 6 for us to buy the equipment, and until we get it paid for, you 7 know, bill it out to the other entities, you know, at half of 8 what Hart's going to charge, something like that, at least to 9 help get our money back. I mean, that way we're somewhat -- 10 and maybe we need to go to the other entities and get a 11 commitment that they're going to -- if we buy it, that they're 12 going to use it and use our programming and use our fee 13 schedule. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Brenda, you may get with the -- 16 MS. CRAIG: I can't speak for the City Council; I 17 don't know if I'll even have a job next year if I did. But I 18 do believe I could sell to the City Council that we would pay 19 the County 1,000 versus Hart 2,000. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 MS. CRAIG: I think that's an easy sell. 22 MR. SCOTT: I would certainly think that would be an 23 easy sell, if -- as long as you keep your schedule below ours, 24 why not? Sure. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to probably -- 1-23-06 27 1 you know, we need to get a commitment from the City and the 2 schools -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: School districts. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that we -- if, you know, we 5 do that. All right. So, I guess we'll look at this again 6 next meeting. 7 MS. PIEPER: Thank you. 8 MR. SCOTT: Thank you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any other questions 10 of this gentleman? Thank you, sir. We appreciate you being 11 with us today. Let's move to the next item on the agenda 12 scheduled for 9:15. We're not running too far behind. 13 Interim report from the County EMS Committee. Commissioner 14 Baldwin? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. This is -- you've 16 been holding your breath waiting on this one, and I've asked 17 the chair, General Schellhase, to come, and he has come. 18 General Schellhase? 19 MR. SCHELLHASE: Walter Schellhase, 529 Water 20 Street. Commissioners and Judge, just a quick recap of where 21 we stand at this time. We've been in the information 22 collection process. We've met with the committee on numerous 23 occasions and we've made numerous contacts. With regards to 24 this project, what we're doing is we're doing personal 25 interviews with those involved with EMS, ESD's, collection 1-23-06 28 1 data, and then trying to evaluate that data as we see how it 2 applies to the challenge that the Court gave us. We've met 3 with ESD representatives. We met with Medicare reps from the 4 hospital. We've met with the Interim City Manager. We've met 5 with the City Manager. We've met with the Fire Chief and 6 Assistant Fire Chief, who has EMS under their direction. 7 We've met with the EMS Director. We've met with the EMS 8 financial clerk. We've met with the City's financial officer 9 as to how they come about this data, and we spent a great deal 10 of time with the Assistant Manager, Brian Brooks, who actually 11 puts together the data that comes to the Court. 12 The information we've obtained has been thorough. 13 We have not had any obstacles anywhere where in regards to the 14 City; they've been very, very helpful in providing all the 15 data that we've asked for. Sometimes we don't know exactly 16 what to ask for, but we're finding out as we go along. We've 17 established a paperwork trail as to how it goes from the time 18 a call is initiated until the time an invoice is sent out and 19 the collection procedure takes place. We understand the 20 billing process, how it's being done by the City at this time. 21 We understand the collections process of how it's going. 22 We're not for sure we totally understand the budget process at 23 this time, and we still have some additional questions to ask 24 with regards to that. We also are not for sure about the 25 actual data that is provided the Court at the time the budget 1-23-06 29 1 process takes place. There seems to be some discrepancies 2 with the paperwork that's actually here in the courthouse and 3 the paperwork the City says they have provided you, so we'll 4 continue to look into that. We've looked into the formation 5 of ESD's, the formation of how it's done, the law that op -- 6 that covers it, and some of the pitfalls and things that take 7 place with regards to that. Our final steps are on the way. 8 I'd like for Gordon to come up and talk to you about the final 9 steps that we'll be taking and his summation of where we stand 10 at this time. 11 MR. MORGAN: Gordon Morgan, Scenic Valley Drive. 12 When Walter says "final steps," I'm not sure exactly what that 13 means. We've had some thoughts in relation to what those 14 final steps might be. I'd like to first emphasize a couple of 15 things. First, this is an overview, and that's what we've 16 tried to do, look at it enough so that we get an idea, a 17 feeling of how it's all handled, so at least we could ask good 18 questions, and I think we're to that point. We still have a 19 little bit of information to gather from them yet. Once that 20 is done, then -- then we can even ask better questions. As 21 Walter said, we'll analyze it. We will come up with some 22 conclusions. We hope we will have some observations that will 23 bring us to the point of suggestions and options for the 24 Court. Budgeting seems to be probably the biggest concern for 25 everybody, and we've had some thoughts about that. Don't hold 1-23-06 30 1 us to them. I'm sure they'll change, but some of those 2 thoughts are basically a process of budgeting the fixed 3 expenses each year; for instance, that being on a percentage 4 basis, whatever the percentage that each -- the County, 5 Ingram, and the City of Kerrville, their participation in the 6 percentage basis on fixed assets. And then, at the end of the 7 year, a deficit or a, quote, profit, which doesn't seem real 8 feasible, but if those are available, then share in that on 9 the same percentage basis. 10 The biggest problems are the variables. Those are 11 how many calls will be made. That's going to be dependent 12 relative to hospital usage; that's going to be dependent upon 13 whether you have flu epidemics or a lot of sickness, and all 14 of those things affect the income and the operational factors. 15 Those are hard to predict, and that's why that one might look 16 at a final figure, and that is that that be thrown into one 17 area -- one situation where everybody would just share in that 18 shortfall funding. That you'll never know till the end of the 19 year. The problem is, the end of the year never comes until 20 after you've budgeted, so therefore, if you set up a fund to 21 take care of those shortages, and then just to carry that over 22 into your -- a fund that you can pull out of for your next 23 year's budget, 'cause you will be budgeting before they get 24 their final figures for the year. 25 Anyway, one other thought, and that is if you have 1-23-06 31 1 any questions, please let us know. As we go through this and 2 we, as a committee, talk about it, we have questions that we 3 didn't realize we didn't know the answer to before we started 4 talking about it, and so if you all have questions that you 5 would like more specific answers to, please let us know and we 6 can ask those questions. Yes, sir? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple right now, 8 Dr. Morgan. On a couple occasions where we talked about some 9 of the issues involved in this to help us frame out what the 10 County's obligation is, we talked about claims and the coding 11 of claims, and whether or not there is a problem there or 12 something that needs to be looked at. We talked about 13 disallowables. Are you satisfied that both of those issues 14 are where they need to be? 15 MR. MORGAN: Probably, within -- within reason at 16 this time. Those are some of the things that we're going to 17 get into detail. Basically, the -- the billing or the 18 origination of the claims that are going to be processed come 19 from the site where the emergency's occurring, and that is 20 done by -- by computer, most of it. That goes into the system 21 and comes out eventually as a hard copy at the office. But 22 you have the importance of that going in at the site of 23 everything being included that's being done, because the 24 charges are based on a call basis, services-rendered basis, 25 and mileage that is traveled, so those things are all 1-23-06 32 1 important at the very start. And then, of course, following 2 through on that. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gordon, you mean, like, those 4 things -- bandaids, neck braces, those kind? Is that what 5 you're -- 6 MR. MORGAN: Oxygen. They have several levels of 7 care when they make the call. You know, what's the condition? 8 What's the diagnosis? What's the problem that's occurring, 9 and then what do they need to do to correct that problem? And 10 in order to do that, there -- there are two or three levels of 11 care, and there is a charge based on that level of care. It's 12 a big yellow sheet in hard copy that they fill out, basically. 13 But, as I said, most of that's done by computer from the site. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And there would be no 15 subsequent intervention of coding or changing of a coding 16 before the claim is filed? 17 MR. MORGAN: Well, that's gone over -- you know, 18 that's looked at and -- and gone over at the office. 19 Sometimes additional things may be added that was left off or 20 something like that. But, you know, most of these are pretty 21 well -- have a form; they have a whole list of charges like 22 this, and there are different amounts for each thing that they 23 do. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I'd like to make, 1-23-06 33 1 I'd like to, of course, thank you and the rest of the 2 committee for all the work you've done. I'd also like to 3 thank the City -- I see Mark Beavers here and the mayor -- 4 thank the City and the rest of their staff for -- for helping 5 and being, from what I've been told, very open to the 6 committee and providing all the information that they 7 requested, which I think is going to ultimately give the 8 County -- myself a much better understanding of how the EMS 9 process is working. And I think that was -- that lack of 10 understanding and lack of knowledge, lack of information flow 11 from the City, was probably one of the biggest reasons we had 12 such an impasse last summer. And I think this is going to go 13 a long ways to prevent that from happening, 'cause I think now 14 we're going to understand the process in the city for the 15 first time. I think it'll be very good. 16 MR. MORGAN: I think this probably will be one of 17 the number one recommendations, that they turn out a monthly 18 report each month. They do their own reporting, summaries of 19 all the activities, and hopefully they would be willing to 20 send that over to you each month so that the Court could be 21 aware as -- month by month of what's going on. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that not going on at the present 23 time, the monthly? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We are not receiving it at 25 this time, but they are willing to do that. And -- 1-23-06 34 1 MR. MORGAN: I think your contract calls for 2 quarterly, but -- you know. And, you know, that's a decision 3 that you all should express to -- you know, to those involved, 4 whether you want it monthly, quarterly, or -- and to whom it 5 would be sent, who would be responsible. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that the reporting was 7 the same frequency by which it is furnished to City management 8 and the Council. I believe is -- that was the agreement that 9 was struck, was it not, Commissioner Baldwin? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They agreed to send it over 11 here on a monthly basis, and my thinking was to do that for a 12 particular period of time so that we could -- we could see it 13 and get to understand it as we go along, and then move it back 14 to the quarterly. That's the way I saw it, anyway. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have probably -- I 16 think the agreement says quarterly, but in our discussions, it 17 was monthly. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. And they're willing 19 to do that. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It sounds like -- sounds 22 like your committee is heading to a recommendation of 23 proportionate cost allocations based on -- or allocations 24 based on a proportionate use of the system; is that correct? 25 MR. MORGAN: That's what we're looking at, 1-23-06 35 1 certainly, yes. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm cool with that. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Dr. Morgan, is the 4 committee considering the merits of a user-pay strategy? 5 MR. MORGAN: I think from the standpoint we're not 6 looking at anything other than what the expenses are as they 7 presently are, and what the income has been relative to fund 8 that. Now, of course, you have two choices in a -- a 9 difference between income and expenses, and to balance that, 10 you have several choices, actually. Number one, you can 11 increase your revenue basis to try to meet the expenditures. 12 That's one choice. But that has -- in this system, with 13 Medicare and with set charges, that sort of limits what you 14 can do. And there is a noncollection percentage that's 15 involved in all of this, and that's fairly large, so if you 16 get your fees up too high, of course, then you're going to 17 actually just end up with more noncollectibles. I will say 18 that they have recently made some changes in their collection 19 system, with those that provide the collections for them for 20 the -- for the -- especially the debts, noncollectible bad 21 debts, and they are getting less cost to the City for doing 22 the service, plus the fact the percentages are -- by 23 experience, because the company's experienced in this alone, 24 and so they're -- they are getting a better percentage back. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is a medical service, 1-23-06 36 1 and other providers of medical service -- individual doctors, 2 clinics, hospitals -- are operating under the same economics 3 that this service is. Medicare doesn't pay enough. 4 MR. MORGAN: Right. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A certain number of 6 deadbeats that won't pay. Insurance is another issue. But 7 those organizations -- you're more familiar with that than I 8 am, Dr. Morgan. They charge enough that -- that they at least 9 cover the costs, if not make a profit on that. And I -- I 10 don't see that the rationale for charging -- not charging 11 enough to pay for this service has any merit to it. 12 MR. MORGAN: I'm sure that the committee will 13 have -- in their options will be some ways in which the 14 expenses and the incomes can come out closer. They're set up 15 basically right now pretty close to a break-even deal. The 16 factors that keep it from being a break-even is -- is because 17 of the bad debts and those things that they actually make a 18 run and make charges for, but they're really not billable. 19 They're not charges that are accepted; not even percentage of 20 payment, but just not accepted. And so there are many, many 21 factors involved. But, certainly, I'm sure that the committee 22 will have some ideas of how you can see whether or not that's 23 feasible. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good. Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Couple of -- 1-23-06 37 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And thanks for your work. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Couple of questions. Is the 3 City of Ingram participating in the program today? 4 MR. MORGAN: We have not seen the exact figures, 5 other than looking at the budgets that we have; there are some 6 figures in there. In conversations with them, we understand 7 that the City has been more or less subsidizing Ingram's 8 participation. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, we'll carry that 10 conversation on at a later time. Now, we had asked you all 11 to -- and your final report was sometime in April? Was that 12 correct? 13 MR. SCHELLHASE: March. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: March. Are you comfortable 15 with that? 16 MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. You want the 1st of 18 March or the middle of March? 19 MR. SCHELLHASE: End of March. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: End of March. 21 MR. MORGAN: But not the 1st of April. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 23 MR. MORGAN: Anything else? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Dr. Morgan? 25 MR. MORGAN: Thank you. 1-23-06 38 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Jim Murphy, I see you're here 3 with us today. We appreciate you being here. Do you have 4 anything you wish to add on this? 5 MR. MURPHY: I just want to say this. I was -- I 6 was -- had a medical problem, and I have not been active with 7 these two, but I want to guarantee that what they've done is 8 excellent as far as I'm concerned, and I'm very well satisfied 9 with what they've given to me and shown me. Thank you. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your participation. 11 Glad to see you up and around. 12 MR. MURPHY: Thank you. Glad to be here. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on this particular 14 agenda item, gentlemen? Let's move on to the next agenda 15 item; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to accept 16 offer of the Attorney General to redirect and process child 17 support payments on orders established prior to January 1, 18 1994, from the local registry to the State Disbursement Unit. 19 I put this on the agenda at the request of the District Clerk. 20 Ms. Uecker? 21 MS. UECKER: Morning. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning. 23 MS. UECKER: We're under a contract right now with 24 the Attorney General's office to process and do state case 25 registry entry on all cases that are post-1994. What that 1-23-06 39 1 means is all of those cases where there's child support after 2 1994, those get ordered, then are redirected. Instead of 3 coming to our office, they went directly to the S.D.U. in San 4 Antonio. We still have to do state case registry entry data, 5 customer service on those cases. The good news is, we get 6 paid a little bit for it. You know, we're still -- but they 7 said at the time, we don't want to do pre-1994 cases. That 8 means we still have to receive and disburse pre-1994 child 9 support, which there's not that much of that any more. We've 10 gone from processing over 100 child support payments a day to 11 about seven. So, now they've come along and they've said, 12 okay, we're going to offer you a deal. We want to -- we're 13 going to offer to process your -- or "redirect" is what they 14 call it, pre-'94 cases as well. We'll still have to do state 15 case registry entry on them, which means we have to do data 16 input, address changes on their software system, which is 17 totally separate from The Software Group case management that 18 we have. But what it means is we'll all be doing the same 19 thing on all cases, rather than receiving child support on 20 pre-'94, and not on post-'94. So, they've made this offer to 21 amend our contract to include that, so I think that's probably 22 a good idea. And we'll get -- we'll, you know, get some 23 payments for customer service on those cases as well. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anything we need to do? 25 MS. UECKER: Just sign the dang thing. (Laughter.) 1-23-06 40 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make a motion that we accept the 2 offer of the Attorney General to redirect and process child 3 support payments on orders established prior to January 1, 4 1994. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 8 of the agenda item. Any further question or discussion? All 9 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you, 14 Ms. Uecker, for being here. 15 MS. UECKER: Just have -- once you get that signed, 16 just have them return it to me, and I'll -- 'cause I'm going 17 to keep a copy of it and send it. I'll send it on. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to the next agenda item, 19 if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 20 revise preliminary plat of Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 2, 21 Section 2. Mr. Odom? 22 MR. ODOM: Thank you, Judge. What you have before 23 you is a letter from Mr. Voelkel, and -- and I believe there's 24 two options the Court needs to look at and consider. 25 Basically, will the Court accept the preliminary plat done on 1-23-06 41 1 May the 1st of 2001 and give the variance for the length of 2 time that -- these are the three variances, whether you will 3 do that. Or -- or have Mr. Voelkel come back with a new 4 preliminary with these changes on it. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does the rules say about 6 that? 7 MR. ODOM: The rule says that -- the current rules 8 say that it is one year's time, and then they're to come back 9 to the Court. This is almost five years old coming this May. 10 So, it's not that we haven't looked at it and haven't 11 discussed it in the concept-type thing, but I told them to 12 come to the Court if they wished to see if the Court would 13 accept it. You need to give a variance on time. My 14 understanding is that what was proposed before with the 15 changes was three years, and we're beyond the proposed 16 changes. So, is that -- I'm open for any questions, but -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I have one. 18 MR. ODOM: All right. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In Mr. Voelkel's letter, Item 20 Number 2, what does that do, or how does that fit in with our 21 rules? I mean, it appears, just glancing at it, the number of 22 lots changed from 74 to 75. It appears that we had -- we had 23 a subdivision at one time, and now suddenly we're coming along 24 and changing the number of lots in that subdivision? 25 MR. ODOM: Correct, sir. 1-23-06 42 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you do that? 2 MR. ODOM: You can do that. I'll go back on that 3 point. That -- basically, what was proposed before, I 4 believe, was 74. My understanding, the reason they want to go 5 to 75 was because of Section 2, Phase 1. The phase before had 6 -- they did not build one lot in there, so they were trying to 7 make this change. The rule says that there's a 20 percent 8 change in there, if it's not over 20 percent. So, 15 -- one 9 versus 15 is certainly within those regulations to do that. 10 Then the probability is -- is that the road between Spring 11 Lakes Parkway and Spring Lakes Cove will probably change 12 because of the degree of angle. I had a concern with that; 13 it's over the 12 percent, so there'll probably be a 14 realignment. With that realignment -- and Mr. Voelkel can 15 correct me if I'm wrong, but the probability is that they will 16 probably lose a lot or so in there. So, there won't be any 17 more than 75, and the probability is it will probably be less 18 than 75 with that change of that angle, which would -- of that 19 road. So -- which will change some sizes of some lots right 20 there. The -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cypress Estates Parkway? Is 22 that what we're talking about? 23 MR. ODOM: Yes -- or Spring Lakes Parkway and Spring 24 Lakes Cove. That's where it goes up the hill there. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, Leonard, I don't 1-23-06 43 1 understand why we don't just start over on the -- I mean, the 2 preliminary plat is so old, why can't we do a new preliminary 3 plat? 4 MR. ODOM: I'm -- that's the question I had. I have 5 not ever done a revision of a preliminary. And talking to 6 you, you had not either, so I told them that I would assume 7 that the best thing is -- is probably -- efficiency for the 8 developer, is to see if it will be accepted. To me, we're one 9 year over. You're outside the three years. I would say the 10 probability is, if the changes are acceptable to the Court, 11 you come back with a new preliminary. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- I mean, the only 13 issue that I can see, as I recall, the subdivision has a -- a 14 special court order, because it was revised and the number of 15 lots allowed in a subdivision is less than our current minimum 16 because of the averaging. 17 MR. ODOM: The average is 3.37 acres on that 253 18 acres and 75 lots. Fits in the new -- it doesn't fit the 19 current rules of 5-acre average, but it does fit under the 20 3 acres. So, the number of lots are acceptable in that 21 aspect, if the Court would accept that -- what's proposed. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it were -- if it were done 23 when it was supposed to be done. 24 MR. ODOM: If it was done five years ago. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, this is why -- I 1-23-06 44 1 can't remember -- maybe Don remembers. I see Dale's here; he 2 may remember, or Kash or somebody. They're scattered 3 throughout here so they can hit us from every direction. I 4 know there was a separate court order, and I don't know if 5 that court order was ever tied to a plat. We did that, right 6 or wrong, at the time. I just know we did a separate court 7 order on that because of the over -- it was an overall whole 8 subdivision scheme. 9 MR. ODOM: Yes, it was a master plan. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Master plan as to the lot size. 11 MR. ODOM: We had Section 1 and Section 2, and this 12 had three phases in it. And Phase 1 was complete. Phase 2 13 was done on May 14th, '01. Court Order Number 27029 was the 14 court order that -- that accepted that preliminary. The 15 question is, is this still valid? And if it is, the changes 16 they proposed, will they be acceptable if you're not going to 17 -- if you accept this as a preliminary? Otherwise, start 18 over. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are the disadvantages 20 of just going ahead and accepting -- waiving the -- the time 21 requirements and going ahead? Is anything going to change if 22 we start back over again and require another preliminary plat? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it -- it may do one 24 thing. Depends on when they do that. It would change, 25 potentially, the drainage work, 'cause right now they're under 1-23-06 45 1 the old set of drainage work. And the reason I know this is 2 I've talked to -- I believe he was, and I presume still is the 3 engineer for Mr. Crenwelge -- Les Harvey, about it. This is 4 where the whole issue of the way we calculate drainage was -- 5 for a subdivision; it was specifically for Lot 127, about 6 that. You know, and there was, I think, a desire, as I 7 understood it -- Dale can answer this -- to get under our new 8 drainage rules, 'cause otherwise he probably has to get a 9 waiver on drainage under our old rules. 10 MR. ODOM: Under the old rules. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think there's that issue. 12 Then, on the lot size issue, I think that, you know, we kind 13 of -- I don't know. Is the 3.37 the average in Phase 2, or 14 average throughout? 15 MR. ODOM: Average for Phase 2. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, obviously, I think I'd 17 like to see a higher average, but it's kind of in there. I 18 just think that it's -- we're going -- I don't know that I 19 like the precedent of resurrecting a preliminary plat that's 20 this old, that we haven't been continually working on. And I 21 don't think it -- I don't -- you know, that's just my personal 22 feeling. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Don Voelkel? 24 MR. VOELKEL: Don Voelkel, Kerrville, Texas. I 25 don't want y'all to think we're trying to circumvent the 1-23-06 46 1 preliminary plat phase. That -- this plat was submitted 2 originally when Dale bought the remainder, and that's when 3 y'all worked out that court order for the whole Phase 2. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 5 MR. VOELKEL: The one that was platted in 2001. And 6 the reason that we're bringing back a revised preliminary on 7 Phase 2 -- Section 2, Phase 2, the -- and I've never done a 8 revised preliminary. This was approved originally back then 9 for the whole master plan, and -- and part of that court 10 order. That's what we were under the -- working under that 11 assumption, that that was the way it was going to be. And 12 I've been talking with Len and we met, and met with the 13 Commissioner, Commissioner Nicholson, back a month or so ago, 14 and we just resubmitted this as a revised preliminary, because 15 there were just a couple of changes. Dale sold some land to 16 the west that he doesn't own and is not going to be taking a 17 road into; we made a minor change there. And, like Leonard 18 told you, the -- the overall lot count, they -- they revised 19 some of the stuff there and lost a lot in the first phase, so 20 we put that into this one. 21 And we've already been discussing with Kash that 22 we're probably going to not have 75 lots, but that's what 23 we're approved for, so we want to submit the preliminary as 24 the worst case. The road on that east side, because -- and 25 everything we'll be doing from here on, we'll be working with 1-23-06 47 1 Leonard and Dave if we need to. That roadway going up that 2 east side to loop this -- the road system and the water system 3 and all may have to be adjusted when we get out there and 4 start doing the -- you know, the actual road construction and 5 design. And Les Harvey will be involved in that, plus the 6 drainage. It's not like we're trying to not do any drainage. 7 I think he's already looked at several sites going to have 8 some detention for the major drainage plan. But the only 9 reason we submitted it this way was it was already -- the 10 preliminary plat was already approved for this court order 11 that Dale got, and we're not throwing that out, coming back in 12 with half-acre tracts. We're -- basically, it's the same 13 layout, with just a couple of minor changes that we talked 14 with Leonard and also Commissioner Nicholson about. 15 So, that's kind of where -- if we'd have been coming 16 in for a final plat today, I can see where you'd say, "They're 17 trying to use a preliminary that's four years old or five 18 years old." That's not exactly the case. We're resubmitting 19 the preliminary that was approved already, with some 20 revisions, to allow y'all to say, "Yeah, we don't have a 21 problem with that." Now, I don't know about the time factor 22 on the -- you know, what Dale got approved for his lot count 23 before, but I'm assuming that that's still the way it is. So, 24 that's why we wanted to resubmit this as a revised 25 preliminary; not come in with a final plat saying we're ready 1-23-06 48 1 to go, and y'all get it for the first time and say, "Wait, 2 this is four, five years old." 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's -- Don, what's the 4 negative from doing a -- letting this go because it never got 5 anything done, and do a new preliminary plat on -- 6 MR. VOELKEL: I think because of the fact that Dale 7 got the court order. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, assuming that that court 9 order can still be valid. 10 MR. VOELKEL: Right. And if that court order's 11 still valid, then the basic layout that we already have 12 approved, to me, in my professional opinion, that still holds. 13 It's just that they didn't come in and -- for his final plat. 14 You can come in for a final plat within a year and not have to 15 have this -- this type of meeting right now. But that year's 16 passed. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the problem is that the -- 18 the plat -- according to our rules, this plat is dead. It 19 doesn't even exist any more. 20 MR. VOELKEL: And I think, by virtue of the fact 21 that when he got that court order for the lot count that he 22 had, I think that's why we're coming back with the revised 23 preliminary, saying we want to resubmit this. Here's the way 24 it is; nothing's really changed, except a couple of minor 25 things, so we want to come back in and bring that before 1-23-06 49 1 y'all. We're not coming back for final, where it would be -- 2 I see what you're saying on the final plat. We couldn't come 3 in, because it's over a year. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I just -- I still don't 5 understand the negative of doing a new preliminary. 6 MR. VOELKEL: What's the -- I mean, this isn't -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the issue is that it's 8 going to be the drainage you're going to be under. You are -- 9 currently, this plat, if we do a revision, is going to be 10 under our old rules, and the drainage is going to have to be 11 done with -- with 100 percent retention, retention everywhere, 12 with no allowance. And that was something that, you know -- 13 and, you know, I think it was a good thing for the County that 14 Les brought it to my attention. But y'all are under the old 15 rules, and the new rules are going to -- this type of 16 development with real steep grades are better. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question before 18 y'all get a little heated there. This court order that we're 19 talking about is -- is the master plan for this large piece of 20 property. 21 MR. VOELKEL: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct? 23 MR. VOELKEL: Correct. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, in our wisdom, we kind of 25 approved that several years ago. What has changed in this 1-23-06 50 1 particular section from then till today? What am I looking at 2 different today than I was, what, 12 years ago? No, several 3 years ago. What's the difference? 4 MR. VOELKEL: There were two differences in -- and 5 one of which was the 74 lots. Originally, there was 74 lots 6 back in this phase, and I forget the number in the front. How 7 many did you have approved, 120 lots, Dale? 8 MR. CRENWELGE: 120 lots. 9 MR. VOELKEL: There were 120 lots approved for this 10 acreage, and we had a layout that had 120 lots. Well, in the 11 first phase, the way the final plats got approved, Dale lost a 12 lot. So, effectively, we put that into this second phase, the 13 75 lots instead of 74. This wasn't final platted for 75 lots; 14 it was preliminary platted and approved with the layout that 15 Jonathan and I were talking about for 74 lots. So, we've -- 16 we've still -- within the guise of all of the 200 foots and 17 all the acreages and all, we've got 75 lots back there, 18 which -- and if y'all need to, you can talk to Kash Morrow; 19 he's already looking at abandoning some of these lots. It's 20 probably not -- more than likely not going to be 75 lots. I'd 21 say a greater percentage of chance it's not going to be 75 22 lots; it's going to be less. So, that's -- that's one thing 23 that changed. We've added one lot. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I stop you? 25 MR. VOELKEL: Certainly. 1-23-06 51 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. You know, because 2 we did this a couple of years ago, and the -- saw the concept 3 of it and the number of lots, and we have basically kind of 4 gave a nod that it was okay, that makes me feel good about 5 what we're doing about this today, except for the fact that 6 Commissioner Letz keeps bringing up drainage, which is a big 7 issue. And some things have changed since we first addressed 8 this, and I think the drainage issue needs to be addressed 9 under today's thinking. So, if you're telling that we need to 10 redo it because of drainage, I agree with you. But if it's 11 not that, I -- I'm willing to approve what they're in here 12 today -- 13 MR. VOELKEL: Can you approve it with the variance 14 that we use today's drainage, since it's submitted today, 15 although it's a revision of an original plat that was done 16 four or five years ago? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- no, I don't think 18 that will work. 'Cause, I mean, one, we don't have -- we 19 haven't approved the new drainage yet. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know what it is. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- and then we're -- and you 22 either have to be under our new rules, which are going to 23 be -- are probably six weeks away from being final, or you're 24 under the rules when this was done, and you can't pick and 25 choose. 1-23-06 52 1 MR. VOELKEL: Well, I think -- wasn't Les using the 2 old rules when he was talking about putting the detention in? 3 MR. MORROW: I don't know if they were the old rules 4 or new rules. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: New. 6 MR. CRENWELGE: New rules. 7 MR. MORROW: Separate drainage or detention 8 structures. 9 MR. CRENWELGE: It was going to be the new rules, 10 Don. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I think -- that's 12 why, to me, it makes a lot more sense to do a new one, because 13 we can't keep this old one alive. 14 MR. VOELKEL: But you're saying do a new one after 15 those new rules get adopted, so you're talking about six weeks 16 before they adopt it? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 18 MR. MORROW: I would prefer not to wait six weeks. 19 I don't have a problem going with -- I don't have a problem -- 20 MR. VOELKEL: This is Kash Morrow. 21 MR. MORROW: Kash Morrow, Kerrville. I don't have a 22 problem going with new drainage rules at all, but I prefer to 23 get it approved today. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of course, you haven't seen the 25 new drainage rules, either. 1-23-06 53 1 MR. MORROW: Good point. (Laughter.) Very good 2 point. But assuming that these are -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean -- 4 MR. MORROW: I'd rather get approval today than wait 5 the six weeks and then come back to you. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Problem is, even -- even 7 with their willingness to abide by an unapproved-yet set of 8 drainage calculations on our stormwater takeoff rules, how do 9 we do that? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying. I don't 11 think we can do it until they get approved. We can -- you 12 know, you either have to wait or you go under the old rules. 13 MR. MORROW: What are the old rules? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Zero tolerance for drainage or 15 runoff. 16 MR. MORROW: Okay. No, it's not -- 17 MR. VOELKEL: That's why -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all want to come back in 19 two weeks? 20 MR. VOELKEL: I don't think that's going to -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me weigh in here, if I might. 22 Leonard, the rules -- when the preliminary plat was filed, 23 what, if any, rules were in place regarding revising a 24 preliminary plat? Not carrying a preliminary to a final, but 25 revising a preliminary. 1-23-06 54 1 MR. ODOM: To my knowledge, there was nothing in the 2 rules that said that we could do that, other than if the Court 3 chose to give a variance on that. If you came to the Court on 4 the timeline, it says that you had one year, and then the 5 Court could extend that time over. What length of time that 6 would be would be at the discretion of the Court. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: But there was no limitation on 8 asking, in terms of within a specified time, you had to appear 9 to ask for a revision of a preliminary plat? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our rules are silent on 11 revision. We don't mention revision of preliminary. 12 MR. ODOM: Just the plat itself. They would come 13 back and say, "I need more time to do this; something's 14 happened." 15 JUDGE TINLEY: If I understand what these gentleman 16 are asking here today, they're presenting a revision of a 17 preliminary plat, and they merely want a consensus from the 18 Court that they've got the blessing of the Court to proceed, 19 and it's going to be within -- within the new drainage 20 requirements to be adopted probably shortly when a final plat 21 is adopted, but they want to be able to know that they can be 22 going forward on the basis that they've laid out before us 23 now. Is that correct? 24 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I believe that that's what 25 they're -- more than anything, other than a revision, is 1-23-06 55 1 guidance; the fact that would the Court be receptive to the 2 new drain -- if they change -- these three changes, which was 3 putting in a cul-de-sac instead of a -- into Phase 3, which 4 was just part of the master plan. There was no design on it. 5 That has been sold. The other is one additional lot, which in 6 all probability will probably be -- will not be any more than 7 75, probably less than 75 because of the realignment. What is 8 not shown on the old preliminary are the detention ponds. 9 That -- and so, basically, I think Mr. -- Kash needs a 10 direction. Would this be acceptable to the Court? Whether 11 it's four weeks or six weeks or whatever it may be. I think 12 that's guidance. Am I correct in that assumption? 13 MR. MORROW: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- I don't see 15 how -- how is this styled? Is this -- revise preliminary. 16 You're still a ways off from getting to final plat. And 17 you're going to have to do the lot. 18 MR. ODOM: Oh, yes. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're a long ways -- 20 MR. ODOM: Long way from a final. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Long way from a final. So, I 22 just don't understand -- as long as the Court is willing to go 23 along with the original concept on number of lots, I don't -- 24 and which I don't have any problem with that, 'cause this was 25 a very large development, and our rules really don't 1-23-06 56 1 contemplate getting something like that done within a year. I 2 don't see why it's not easier to wait until our new rules are 3 in place, which y'all would rather be under the new rules, 4 which are in many areas more stringent, but y'all -- but they 5 also allow for some -- 6 MR. ODOM: Flexibility. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- flexibility. If y'all are 8 willing to do that, to me, it seems better to wait and do a 9 preliminary after our new rules are through. Or we can 10 continue on this one, and then this -- do a court order and 11 say, "You're going to be under our new rules." I mean, but I 12 don't see how that -- we're changing anything on either one of 13 those. Final plat's still months away. What's the rush? 14 MR. VOELKEL: Are you saying you could approve it 15 and just, once we get to that point, adopt it? It's going to 16 be under the new rules for drainage? Or are we stuck with the 17 old rules if you approve it today? I think that's the main 18 question. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess we have the ability to 20 be working along on a plat and then, all of a sudden, say, 21 "We're going to put this under a new set of rules." 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that might be 23 problematic, don't you? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's awkward, but we can 25 do it. 1-23-06 57 1 MR. ODOM: Awkward. That's a good description. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we don't act today, 3 what -- what kind of an inconvenience is that to the 4 developer? What could you be doing if we acted today that you 5 won't be able to do if we don't? 6 MR. MORROW: It's a financial inconvenience, but I 7 don't know that that really matters to y'all. It matters to 8 me. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It matters to me, too. 10 MR. MORROW: Well, my interest meter starts, 11 hopefully -- probably next Monday. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, you could be selling 13 lots? 14 MR. MORROW: No. No, not necessarily on that. I'm 15 borrowing the money and paying for the use of that money, and 16 I'm not able to use it, to spend it. I want to start on our 17 planning, our surveying, our roughing in the roads, you know, 18 cleanup, that sort of stuff. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why can't that be done? As long 20 as you're working with Road and Bridge, I don't know why that 21 can't be done, you know. 22 MR. ODOM: As we go along. Drainage -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do a court order today, I 24 think, that would allow, you know, you to be working on the 25 roads, knowing that we have new rules coming along, and you're 1-23-06 58 1 going to be under the new rules. You can't start construction 2 until thee new rules come into place. 3 MR. MORROW: Possibly, Mr. Crenwelge would be more 4 comfortable with me out there working on his property -- I 5 don't know. Maybe -- I'd like to get Dale's opinion on this. 6 MR. CRENWELGE: I didn't understand -- I was kind of 7 out of the loop last week. I didn't understand that we were 8 going in for this revision of a preliminary. I don't know 9 that it matters what we call it, but the primary goal is to 10 kind of just get the Court's blessing that, well, we had the 11 court order before, and went to a special effort to get a 12 court order when Mr. Griffin was still there, just to make 13 sure that I was still able to do the 120 lots on the 400 14 acres. And I did 44; I thought I did 45. But Kash wants kind 15 of assurance that, you know, this court order for the lot 16 numbers, this is still in place. And I -- every indication is 17 it's still in place, but I just always want to make 110 18 percent sure. And then, you know, the -- the drainage is an 19 issue. Met with Les quite a few times on the drainage, and 20 now I want to go forward on that. Just want to kind of just 21 start moving forward, you know, rather than wait around; just 22 kind of want to start getting something going. That's the 23 primary issue. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds like all you really need 25 from us today is that we're going to follow our -- the court 1-23-06 59 1 order that was previously passed on the number of lots in this 2 development as the master plan development. 3 MR. ODOM: And, basically, this is a concept plan. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Concept plan. 5 MR. ODOM: Change it to a concept. If the Court was 6 in agreement with this concept, that would give people 7 guidance of where they're going. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then a new preliminary will 9 be done, and it will be under our new rules. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we still need to grant a 11 variance on the time frame issue? 12 MR. ODOM: No. Do it as a concept plan. Is that 13 acceptable? 14 MR. CRENWELGE: Yeah, that will be fine. But I 15 think the preliminary plat fees were paid on this one, I 16 think, also. The original -- since last week on this, they've 17 been paid twice already. They were paid before, and when they 18 expired, you know, they were paid last week on the preliminary 19 plat fees on the routing slip. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Am I hearing they don't want 21 to pay the fees again? 22 MR. CRENWELGE: I know if I pay it twice, I'm going 23 to pay it three times. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I would think that the 25 -- the fees paid to get it on the agenda today would apply to 1-23-06 60 1 the new -- to the -- for the preliminary plat when it's 2 refiled. 3 MR. ODOM: And if the concept's acceptable to the 4 Court, then they could proceed forward and Kash could go ahead 5 with the deal, and everybody sort of knows where we're going. 6 But there will be a new preliminary. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 MR. VOELKEL: In six weeks. 9 MR. ODOM: Whatever. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will show detention or 11 retention basins, if necessary. 12 MR. ODOM: And retention basins will be in there, at 13 least three that I've been assured. We've discussed that. 14 They're just not shown, because there's -- this revision 15 doesn't show the detention, because drainage is something 16 that's in the final. But we wanted some working document to 17 look at so Les Harvey could be working toward that. We -- you 18 need a design before you start on where you're putting this 19 water, and that's been done, basically. 20 MR. VOELKEL: And from what I hear you saying, y'all 21 kind of approve what we're doing, but since the -- since six 22 weeks from now, when the new rules are going to be adopted, 23 that we -- after that date, we resubmit our preliminary and 24 get it approved under the new rules. But in the meantime, 25 anything we do, as long as we do it with Len's approval and 1-23-06 61 1 guidance along the way, that we can -- and I'm saying that for 2 Kash's benefit, because if he gets online with the money and 3 he wants to make sure that everything's going to go smoothly 4 and not have to pay his fees again. But start it with -- and 5 everything he does, make sure Len and Les Harvey and I and 6 Kash are all on the same page; that y'all are agreeing that 7 that concept and everything is okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. And I think -- I mean, 9 we're not doing anything out of the ordinary here. You can't 10 get to a true preliminary; you have to do some dirt work out 11 there to get to the point that you can do anything. 12 MR. ODOM: Do the surveying. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you do the surveying. 14 MR. VOELKEL: We'll go ahead in that direction in 15 the next six weeks, so when we come back with a preliminary, 16 we may be closer to the final anyway. But at least that way, 17 Kash isn't just waiting for that date before he can do 18 anything. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I don't see any problem 20 with that. 21 MR. VOELKEL: Okay. That okay with you? 22 MR. MORROW: Sure. Thank y'all. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we need a court order? 24 MR. ODOM: Do we need a court order? Basically, 25 it's a concept plan; just give them a direction. 1-23-06 62 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing -- you know, and at 2 our next meeting -- we can't act today. If they would -- Kash 3 or Dale or whoever would like, you can put it on our next 4 agenda that we're going to follow through; that we're going to 5 follow the acreage -- you know, number of lots and acreage 6 average and all that that we agreed to under that previous 7 court order. We could reaffirm that court order at our next 8 meeting. But, other than that, everything's going under 9 stricter rules anyway, and everyone is agreeable to that. 10 MR. MORROW: I have one more question. Do you think 11 that your drainage -- new drainage rules will be approved in 12 six weeks? Is that a firm -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, they're going to be put out 14 to the public today. Well, that's my recommendation to the 15 Court, to put them out today for a 30-day period. And there 16 will be some -- I don't see any major changes in Subdivision 17 Rules after, really -- you know, after I put it out today. 18 MR. MORROW: Thank you. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: You gentlemen comfortable with where 20 we are now? Okay. Anything further on that item, gentlemen? 21 Thank you for being here. 22 MR. MORROW: Thank y'all. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it. Let's move to the 24 next item, Number 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate 25 action to set a public hearing for revision of plat for Lots 4 1-23-06 63 1 and 5, Byas Springs Ranch, as set forth in Volume 5, Page 250, 2 Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4. 3 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This revision of plat meets 4 all the requirements of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 5 Regulations, and we request the public hearing be set for 6 March 13th, 2006, at 10:10 a.m. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to set a public 8 hearing for revision of plat for Lots 4 and 5, Byas Springs 9 Ranch, Volume 5, Page 250, Precinct 4, for March 13th, at 10 10:10 a.m. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a 13 public hearing on the agenda item as indicated. Any question 14 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 15 your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to 20 Item 6; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for a 21 concept plan on division of property on Bass and Wagner Road, 22 and located in Precinct 4. 23 MR. ODOM: Becky Key with Limestone Properties has a 24 property consisting of 9.83 acres. The parties involved want 25 to divide the property into two parcels. One lot would be 1-23-06 64 1 approximately 1.83 acres, and the other 8 acres. The 1.83 2 would have the existing house, septic, and water well, and 3 they propose to have a shared water well agreement, which will 4 make it community water. This division does not meet the 5 current Subdivision Rules of 5 acres average; however, there 6 is a County-maintained road. It's -- I think Buster knows 7 where it's at, and Dave probably knows where it's at going up 8 that hill, and it's only a 20-foot easement. We go back to 9 this property, and what they're proposing on this concept plan 10 is that they basically end at our -- at that gate. There's a 11 gate there; comes up on top and flattens out, and there's a 12 gate that -- where our maintenance ends right there. So, 13 they're proposing to take that area that's fenced in here, as 14 it's shown to -- that's that 1.83 acres. The other 8 acres 15 basically fronts that -- that road to that easement right 16 there. I don't see a problem, other than it would be a 17 variance from that. If you go to the proposed rules, it could 18 be divisible by three, which would be three lots. However, 19 the problem arises that they're trying to not do any more work 20 to build a road, because of the way that 8 acres -- where our 21 easement's at. So, to me, the two lots is the maximum that 22 they could get out of it. It would be 4.915 acres, so that's 23 a little bit under the 5, but it's close, and probably a 24 variance of some kind from the Court for the size of lot. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You lost me when you got to the 1-23-06 65 1 three lots -- or three -- 2 MR. ODOM: Pardon me? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said something about three 4 lots. 5 MR. ODOM: Well, that would be if you went on the 6 current rules, that 9 acres is divisible by three, three 7 times. However, the current rules are 5 acres, and that's 8 only twice. But it's a little bit -- 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's viewing the shared 10 well -- 11 MR. ODOM: They're doing the shared well. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- as a -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah, it meets the minimum 14 lot size, but it doesn't meet the average, is what the problem 15 is. Correct? 16 MR. ODOM: That's right. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's very close. 18 MR. ODOM: 4.9-something, so you're very close. And 19 you would need a variance from that from the Court for that 20 size of 5 acres under the current rules. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is one of those that -- 22 that I don't have a problem with doing it. The problem comes 23 down as to how you enforce this down the road. And since we 24 have a Headwaters board member in the room, I might throw this 25 question his way. 1-23-06 66 1 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Jonathan. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we put a plat restriction, 3 say, on 1 point -- or the 4.9, on the small tract, that no 4 water well is allowed on that plat -- or, I mean, on that lot, 5 would that plat restriction -- would y'all enforce that plat 6 restriction if they came to you to get a permit for later on? 7 MR. MORGAN: I would hope that we'd go on whatever 8 the General Manager suggested to us. It would certainly be 9 something that would be brought to the board. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 MR. MORGAN: By a member. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, Rex, I guess I should 13 maybe rephrase it to you. When we put something like that 14 kind of a plat restriction on there, which is all based on 15 water availability, which we do have authority for, is that 16 enforceable? We'll never see that again. Is that enforceable 17 by another governmental entity? I mean, can Headwaters look 18 to our rules and what we have done in enforcing their rules? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that they can do that. 20 MS. HARDIN: The well already exists. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not worried about that right 22 now. I'm worried about if someone wants to drill a second 23 well; if they don't like the shared well and they, all of a 24 sudden, drill two wells. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't -- 1-23-06 67 1 MS. HARDIN: But the lot is 4 point -- 2 (Several people speaking at the same time. Court reporter interrupted and asked Commissioner Williams 3 to repeat his statement.) 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was just asking the 5 Commissioner, wouldn't it -- wouldn't Headwaters be looking at 6 well spacing as -- as a criteria? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a criteria, but I think we 8 put Headwaters in a real difficult situation when we create 9 lots when they can't do the spacing very well. I mean, or -- 10 it doesn't always work out just right, and here we're going to 11 have a lot that is, you know, below our -- our minimum lot 12 size, or on the average standpoint. 13 MS. KEY: I'm Becky Key from Hunt, Texas. And the 14 purpose of subdividing the property was to have as large of -- 15 the buyers are wanting as large a piece of property that they 16 can have. And the seller wanted to keep the well on his 17 property and do a shared well agreement, so the buyer is going 18 to wind up with an 8-plus-acre tract. And if it would help to 19 put a -- oh, something on there saying they can't subdivide 20 that again, I don't think that would be a problem. They 21 actually wanted more land than was available there, so if -- I 22 don't know if that would make a difference. And if another 23 well was drilled at any time in the future, it would have to 24 be on the 8-acre lot, not on the 1-acre tract, because they 25 have, like, 8,000 gallons of water storage there right now. 1-23-06 68 1 And I did call Headwaters before I came here to see what they 2 said. T. Sandlin was the man I talked to. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just looking -- you know, I 4 don't have a real problem; I'm not trying to really stop it. 5 I'm trying to think through how our rules are going to work on 6 this. Down the road, I see really nothing to prevent a second 7 well from being drilled. I don't see how; I mean, they're 8 going to have an 8-acre tract. And so we're -- I mean, I know 9 you have a shared well agreement to get this done, but I don't 10 see how there's anyone going to stop a second well from being 11 drilled. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I agree 100 percent. 13 They could go in there, but that's a -- Headwaters better go 14 out there and set up camp and catch them, every day. That's 15 their deal. That's the way I see it, anyway. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Leonard, what needs to be 18 done here? Do we -- you talked about the road. In addition 19 to approving this concept plan, do we need to take some action 20 on the road? Are we proposing to abandon part of it? 21 MR. ODOM: No, just -- we maintain that portion 22 that's county, and this division is right at -- at the end of 23 our road, which gives access to the 8 acres as well as -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We should abandon it. It's 25 nothing more than a driveway. 1-23-06 69 1 MR. ODOM: I have a comment that says -- it's 2 from -- I think from Mr. Menafee, that said it should not be 3 County-maintained. I said too bad it doesn't say "shall" not, 4 but it said "should" not. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We just resurfaced it. 6 MR. ODOM: We just resurfaced it with trap rock, so 7 it's a safer road. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not an issue today. 9 MR. ODOM: That's not an issue today. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, the issue today is to 11 get -- 12 MR. ODOM: Can they divide this into the 1.83 and 13 the 8, and with the knowledge that -- that they would have a 14 problem -- they would have to build a county road after that 15 if they subdivided that 8 acres. That is laying out a road or 16 a street, and to -- just to get to the other portion of it, so 17 it would be -- for everybody's information, it would be 18 expensive. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not sure they could get 20 approval to subdivide the 8 acres. I don't think they could. 21 MR. ODOM: I don't think you could, so you'd have to 22 build a county road just to get that other portion. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, what we need here is a 24 court order to accept the concept plan. 25 MR. ODOM: Yes. And then from there, I guess you 1-23-06 70 1 would plat it out, and -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Concept plan and grant a waiver 3 of our 5-acre average -- averaging. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I make that motion 5 to accept the concept plan and grant a waiver on the 5-acre 6 average rule. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that include a plat note 8 that no well can be drilled on the -- 9 MR. ODOM: 8-acre. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 8-acre tract? 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can do that. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: For what it's worth. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, for what it's worth. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 16 indicated. Any further question or discussion? All in favor 17 of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move, 22 if we might, to Item 9; consider, discuss, and take 23 appropriate action to set a public hearing for regulatory 24 signs in various locations in Kerr County. Mr. Odom? 25 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Thank you. Let's see if I can 1-23-06 71 1 find the right one here. What you had before, we have two 2 recommendations that were put before us. The note that you 3 see right here tells you exactly how much it costs us every 4 time we do it -- we, as a department, do it. It -- the 5 minimum is one time to two times a year, so the next time we 6 would do a change, to be cost-effective, would probably be the 7 last meeting of July to catch anything that's there. 8 Mr. Harris out off on Klein Branch requested that we would 9 change the 30 mile-an-hour speed limit to a more reasonable 10 mileage of -- his suggestion -- I think there was a petition 11 at 45 miles an hour. The day that they called me, they said 12 there were several tickets given, so we went out and did a 13 survey of that and took a look at that speed to see where 14 we're at, and basically I ran a 51 and a 56 miles an hour, 15 which is way too fast for that road in there. 16 I am not opposed to the 45 miles-an-hour zone, 17 because that would do the same thing like Peterson Farm. The 18 county -- Gillespie County has 45 at their county line, which 19 we pick up, and we would be adjacent to that. The only 20 problem that we would have is back toward the end, as you 21 approach that county road, and then I had 31 miles an hour; 22 it's so curvy. But I can take care of that with some advisory 23 signs there at 30 miles an hour, so that's not a problem. But 24 there is a problem as far as funding is concerned, and that's 25 why, on this particular item, Mr. Harris said he would be 1-23-06 72 1 willing to pay for it. Road and Bridge has got a policy. I 2 stated the policy; been that way for 15 years. And I would 3 ask the Court to give me a direction on which -- which way to 4 go, whether you charge Mr. Harris or whether the Court pays 5 for it or directs me to pay. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Harris thinks this is 7 urgent enough that he and/or his neighbors are willing to pay 8 the $200 cost of advertising. And on one point, I think 45 9 miles an hour is a reasonable speed limit there, and I support 10 that. I'm willing to support approving it now, conditioned 11 upon Mr. Harris paying the $200 it costs to run the ad. If 12 he's not willing to do that, we'll put it in the hopper with 13 the other issues we have, and it'll -- it'll probably come up 14 in a month or two. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Harris, did you want to be heard, 17 please, sir? 18 MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir, I do. First off, I looked 19 into the exact cost of what it -- what it costs to run that 20 ad. It runs between $18.50 to $46 to run your ad. I actually 21 went to the people that handle the accounting of it. Be more 22 than glad to pay for the ad. In fact, we want to pay for it, 23 because we don't want any more -- any kind of delay on this. 24 And I -- I appreciate what you guys have said. We just want a 25 reasonable and prudent speed, and we feel that 45 is a 1-23-06 73 1 reasonable and prudent speed. I have a petition in front of 2 you guys that I've worked on extensively. I went to all the 3 neighbors that I could possibly find, and it actually was -- 4 it was a really nice trip. I got to meet some really nice 5 neighbors, and I had no idea who my neighbors were. When you 6 live way out in the country, that's -- that happens. So, it 7 was -- it was a real good deal. And I have a number of people 8 here. We had a death in our community, which is a gentleman 9 was run over by a maintainer, and some other folks would like 10 to have been here. The funeral's at Grimes at 11 o'clock, so 11 these folks are probably not going to be here. But we do want 12 to pay for it. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. We've got another 14 item on this same -- 15 MR. HARRIS: If somebody wants to run -- 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you want separate 17 motions? 18 MR. HARRIS: If somebody wants to run another street 19 on our petition, the difference to run another street is so 20 minuscule, I would be more than glad to pay for that. I mean, 21 it -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate that offer, Mr. Harris. 23 We really do. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have one motion on both of 25 these issues? 1-23-06 74 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I think this one is all. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When we get to that, I'm 3 going to recommend that we approve the 45 mile-an-hour speed 4 limit conditioned upon the -- Mr. Harris paying the actual 5 costs of the reimbursing us for the actual costs of the ad. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I ask the County Attorney a 7 question? Can we do that? 8 MR. EMERSON: You mean pass an order contingent upon 9 a private citizen paying the bill? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know in the Subdivision Rules, 11 I mean, we -- 12 MR. HARRIS: Just to pay an advertising -- or notice 13 in the newspaper. We're not trying to do a bribery or 14 anything. We're just -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand what you're trying 16 to do, sir. It's just a matter -- I want to make sure we 17 don't do something illegal. It might be easier if you want to 18 just give the County a donation and we put it in our general 19 fund. 20 MR. HARRIS: I can do that, whatever you say. My 21 folks here all told me that -- everybody out here, we'd be 22 more than tickled to help the County if they have a -- a 23 budget problem with this. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't include anything 25 about the cost of advertising. We'll just trust Mr. Harris to 1-23-06 75 1 do the right thing. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, however. 3 MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of either Ms. Hardin or 5 Mr. Odom. Is the requirement just a one-time advertisement, 6 or more than once? 7 MS. HARDIN: Three times. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three times. And the cost 9 for three times typically is? 10 MS. HARDIN: $200. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh? 12 MS. HARDIN: $200. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 15 MS. HARDIN: I'll be glad to give you the invoice 16 when it comes in. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 18 MR. HARRIS: That's fine. 19 MR. ODOM: It will be our actual cost on it. That's 20 all. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Y'all can work that out. I 23 think we're probably obligated to pay the public hearing 24 costs. 25 MR. ODOM: May I address -- if Mr. Harris is 1-23-06 76 1 through, I'll address this other issue. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you a question while it's 3 on my mind here, Mr. Odom. The -- of course, the adjacent -- 4 as that road continues into Gillespie County, the limit there 5 is 45, posted limit. 6 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: How would you characterize the 8 condition and topography of the -- this same road in Kerr 9 County, as opposed to that in Gillespie County? 10 MR. ODOM: Ours is more straight and open. Theirs 11 is real curvy. I drove the whole thing myself personally at 12 30 miles an hour all the way up to 55 on cruise control. Let 13 me tell you, there was a couple of times I met some of his 14 neighbors out there, and I don't mean to be facetious; I had 15 to go -- really, 50 miles an hour is scary. 45 pushes because 16 of that, because the road's out about as far as it can get. I 17 did drive 45 and tried to maintain 45 in Gillespie County all 18 the way to Harper Road. Concern on that road. But ours, I 19 believe, is in better shape and not as -- as curvy as theirs, 20 more severe curves. So, ours is more straight, and so -- and 21 30 miles an hour is too slow. It's not in the 85 percentile. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The speed limit we post, that 23 doesn't mean the whole road's at that speed limit. Obviously, 24 you have to slow down at curves along the way. 25 MR. ODOM: To Harper Valley, it's almost a straight 1-23-06 77 1 shot. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm saying, I mean, the 3 fact that we have 45, the fact that you can't slow down to go 4 around a corner or so, doesn't mean the speed limit -- we 5 wouldn't post a 45. 6 MR. ODOM: Any curves like that, toward the -- back 7 behind Harper, I'm going to post from the county line to 8 Harper at 30, somewhere in that neighborhood. I'll look at 9 the slope meter on that, and we'll come up with something. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 11 MR. ODOM: That's the realistic speed limit, 45. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 13 MR. ODOM: 51 and 36 was not. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Roy? 15 MR. ODOM: Roy, I have the notes here. A three-way 16 stop at Roy and Thurman Streets was requested by a citizen to 17 slow traffic. We explained to them the purpose of a stop sign 18 is not to slow traffic, control speed, but to facilitate the 19 movement of traffic. Commissioner Letz did request that we do 20 a traffic study. We did do that. We did that over the 21 holiday period, which would give us a better count to look at 22 that. We attached the totals of the traffic study that shows 23 no excessive speed over a holiday weekend. Therefore, I 24 recommend -- recommendation would be not to install a 25 three-way stop sign. Normally, what happens on Roy is that, 1-23-06 78 1 by the manual, the minor yields to the major, and that we 2 already have a stop sign at Thurman at Roy. So, we stop the 3 minor to the major, which is straight through. The other 4 corollary to it is that just this side of Thurman, that's 5 where the city limit comes up to, so anything on -- on the -- 6 between Thurman and Sidney Baker is in the jurisdiction of 7 Kerrville. 8 So -- and when we looked at putting this out -- and 9 you have a diagram of where we did this traffic count, up 10 around -- in that area that's flat, as they get around Jonas 11 and they start picking up speed, and then there's a little 12 hill drop. We put one on the other side of that, and then at 13 Thurman there -- before you get to Thurman. And, basically, 14 what we looked at, the percentile at Location 5 was 35 miles 15 an hour. Location 3 was 33 miles an hour, and Location 2, 16 which is up before you get to Jonas, you're still in that flat 17 area, that it was 25 miles an hour, so we don't see that 18 excessive speed. It's not to say that -- remember, this is 85 19 percentile, and it doesn't mean that somebody's not going down 20 through there, but the preponderance of the traffic is doing 21 this average of about 34 miles an hour. I don't know if 22 that's enough to warrant a ticket as far as being speeding. 23 So, I don't see it as a problem, other than maybe if 24 there is some excessive time, we can take a look at it and 25 say -- either the city police on one side, or our -- I don't 1-23-06 79 1 volunteer for the Sheriff; he's got enough to do. But, you 2 know, traffic control is -- we don't control that. We can 3 help. But the road's in good shape. The vegetation is cut 4 back. And I can understand the speed limit being a little bit 5 faster coming down a hill, and it reflects that. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we ought to delete the 7 stop sign at this time, see what goes out there. Just ask the 8 Sheriff's Department and the constable to kind of patrol that 9 road a little bit. One of the issues, there's a -- I get 10 probably more calls on Thurman and Roy for speeding and 11 traffic problems than any other road in my precinct, for some 12 reason. I don't know. Continuous. But the test results show 13 that there's not that much speeding going on out there, so I 14 think you have to go by the facts, not what we're being told. 15 Monitor it, and maybe if you have time someday, Leonard, just 16 run another traffic count out there. 17 MR. ODOM: I'll do that. Let's see what it does, 18 and we'll relook at it in the July posting. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion? 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we set a public 24 hearing for March 6, 2006, at 10 a.m., for the purpose of 25 increasing the speed limit on Klein Branch Road from 30 miles 1-23-06 80 1 an hour to 45 miles an hour. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that emotion. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 4 of the change of speed limit on Klein Branch Road as indicated 5 in the motion. Any question or discussion? All in favor of 6 the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's give 11 our court reporter a break here. Why don't we take about a 12 15-minute recess. 13 (Recess taken from 10:40 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) 14 - - - - - - - - - - 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order, if we 16 might. We had a timed item for 10:30, Item Number 8, so let's 17 take that item up now. And I would note that we have some 18 speakers who have asked to be heard on that particular item. 19 Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to deal with 20 the misappropriation of $94,001 of Kerr County funds to the 21 public library. Commissioner Nicholson? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In an earlier Commissioners 23 Court meeting, you all asked me to look into the circumstances 24 surrounding the -- the issue of $94,001 that was supposed to 25 have been paid to Kerr County by the City on October 15th of 1-23-06 81 1 last year -- last year? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two years ago. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Two years ago. I've done 4 that, and haven't -- haven't been able to learn very much. 5 And part of that can be attributed to turnover, I suppose, in 6 the City government and on the City Council. So, I'm not 7 going to learn any more, and I'm here to report to you that I 8 think you have -- have four options, and I'll comment on each 9 one of those. First option would be to forgive the debt. 10 That would be a generous thing to do, and it would put the 11 issue behind us. The second one would be to demand payment, 12 and if that sort of action could possibly lead to litigation, 13 then I don't have any interest in recommending that. I don't 14 think it's -- I think it's one of the most foolish things that 15 politicians can do, is to use public funds to sue each other, 16 and my constituents who live in Kerrville will be paying 17 twice. They'd be paying to prosecute the demand, and paying 18 to defend it, so I don't want to do that. Third option would 19 be to reduce contributions to the library fund in this year's 20 budget, and I note that we're being billed -- well, we 21 budgeted 300 -- we signed a contract to pay a minimum of 22 $300,000 for the library this year, and we budgeted $355,000, 23 and we're being billed under the contract rate of $25,000 a 24 month, which comes up to $300,000. So, one option that you 25 can consider is to just pay that minimum rate, and you'd 1-23-06 82 1 recover $55,000 of the $94,000. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, before you leave that 3 point. So, what you're telling me is the City is so flush 4 with funds that they're not billing us the amount that we 5 agreed to try to pay them? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Mayor's here; he might 7 be able to speak to that. I can't. (Laughter.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Mayor's going to speak here in a 9 little bit. 10 MAYOR SMITH: I'll say something in a minute. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the fourth option would 12 be to -- well, let me finish up on Item 3, to reduce the 13 library fund in this year's budget. I would favor reducing it 14 by that 55,000. I would not favor taking the whole $94,000 15 out of it, because that would be a breach of our contract. We 16 were critical of the City a year ago for breaching the library 17 contract, and so it would be unseemly for us to do that. And 18 then the fourth one would be to wait till this budget period 19 ends and recover the $94,000 from the future budget. So, 20 that's -- that's the four options as I see them. I -- I can't 21 support Option 2, demand payment, or Option 3, to reduce this 22 year's budget by any more than $55,000. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to make a couple of 24 comments. And, you know, I probably won't make a definite 25 decision until after I hear from the -- the comments of the 1-23-06 83 1 public and the mayor, but I look at this -- I'm inclined to do 2 Option 1, which is to forgive the debt, for a couple reasons. 3 One is that the -- the money was used at the library. It was 4 not -- it was used where it was intended to be used. It was 5 not used when the County wanted, or probably in the manner the 6 County wanted, but, you know, it wasn't -- what was done was 7 done then. The other reason I probably favor that option is 8 that that was done, and I think it was done in a borderline 9 unethical manner by the former City Manager. I don't know if 10 he was in -- working with the former City Council or not. If 11 they were, they were equally unethical, in my mind, for doing 12 that. But the bottom line is that that City Manager is no 13 longer around, and that City Council is no longer around. And 14 the current City Manager and the current Council has done 15 everything they can, in my mind, to work with the County. The 16 money went into the library, and I think we need to move 17 forward, and I'm comfortable forgiving that debt. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple comments 19 about it, too, Commissioner. I'm troubled by the assertion of 20 a misappropriation of Kerr County funds. I just don't see 21 that. I -- I recall a letter that Mr. Patterson wrote, and I 22 recall that he, in effect, said the check's in the mail. I 23 understand that. And I -- and I also understand the -- the 24 fact that the current City Manager is trying to grapple with a 25 whole pile of problems, and he -- to go back and find the work 1-23-06 84 1 papers that have caused Mr. Patterson to write the letter that 2 he wrote is asking a whole lot on a very short notice, and so 3 I'm -- I'm not on the same page with an assertion of 4 misappropriation. There obviously is some reason to find out 5 exactly what took place, if -- if the Court wants that to be 6 done. But I'm also not of a mind to demand any payment. I'm 7 not of a mind to -- to short the current budget of the library 8 operations. And if subsequent investigation, if necessary, 9 finds that -- where, in fact, an error was committed, took 10 place, then we can always take credit for it in a subsequent 11 budget. So, that's kind of where I am right now. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kind of agree with almost 13 everything I've heard. Except, in my mind, $94,000 is a lot 14 of money, and if I had -- if I had a clear explanation of 15 where that money went and what happened to it, then I might be 16 able to -- be able to focus on forgiving the debt. I doubt 17 that, though. But I also would not demand payment or reduce 18 this year's budget. But I would like to take a look at 19 reducing next year's budget by the 94,000, but -- but, 20 primarily, I -- I'd really like to know what happened to the 21 money. That is -- this is -- we need to know. We need to 22 know what happened to the $94,000. And I'm sure there's a 23 reasonable explanation, and I think we're due that 24 explanation. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we -- I think we know 1-23-06 85 1 what happened to it. The money was -- was transferred -- 2 instead of giving the check back to the County, the money went 3 into the fund to operate the library last year. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, maybe -- maybe I 5 mis-said that. That we know what happened to it, but why did 6 it happen that way? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I think I might be able to speak to 8 that, Commissioner. When you look at the numbers, and you 9 look at the number that we budgeted for the library, and you 10 add the $94,000 to it that we were assured was going to be 11 return of equity to us, the addition of those two numbers 12 comes, coincidentally, very, very close to the requested 13 amount of contribution that we had from the City. Based upon 14 that, I can understand how some at the City may have made an 15 assumption that we had elected to net out, just because of how 16 the numbers fell. They, coincidentally, came up to about the 17 same total, within a few hundred dollars, or maybe even less 18 than that. But I think what -- what is important is that, 19 number one, the money did go to the library function, and 20 secondly, it points up the problem that I think has been the 21 basis for the difficulties that we've had during the past two 22 years, and that is failure to communicate. And there has been 23 an expression of interest to have good communication going 24 forward. Everyone from this Court, I know, and also from the 25 current City administration and the current Council that I've 1-23-06 86 1 talked to, and it's been virtually every one of them, have 2 indicated that we certainly need to do better on our 3 communication, and they've committed themselves to that. So, 4 I think that's the important -- the lesson to be learned, is 5 we must communicate on all of these projects and not make 6 assumptions, not do things that appear to be so, but maybe 7 aren't necessarily so. And let's keep the communication lines 8 open, and I think on an ongoing basis, we'll not have these 9 problems in the future. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just basing my thoughts 11 on the letter we'd gotten from the City. This says that, you 12 know, we will send you a check on such-and-such time. And, 13 you know, that makes me think that -- that they would -- they 14 owed us 94,000; they're going to send it to us. I mean, I 15 don't -- I don't call that bad communication, or being evil or 16 anything. That's just simply what it said. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I agree with you 18 totally, and I think that the -- that's why my comments were 19 predicated on a -- a change in the City in the management and 20 the Council; that we have a different group now, and I think 21 what was done was done very intentionally by the former City 22 Manager. I don't see any way you cannot come to that 23 conclusion, 'cause he knew very well what the County's 24 position was, and he chose to handle it differently. I 25 wouldn't necessarily call it misappropriation of funds. I 1-23-06 87 1 think he just didn't do what he was supposed to do. But he's 2 no longer here, so -- you know, so it -- the money went to the 3 library. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's move on. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Mayor Smith? 6 MAYOR SMITH: Yes, sir. I hope I can clarify this a 7 little bit. The -- you know, when you -- my name's Gene 8 Smith. I reside in Kerr County and Kerrville; I'm a taxpayer 9 in both entities. I want to make that clear, that Kerrville 10 is part of Kerr County. This communication problem, as long 11 as I'm mayor of this town, I'm going to make sure that we have 12 communication. In business, when you miscommunicate, you 13 cause a lot of hard feelings. And when I had a partner that I 14 miscommunicated with, I'd say, "Where are you going to be in a 15 couple hours?" Most of my people I did business with are over 16 in Houston. I'd get on an airplane and go over there and sit 17 down face-to-face and resolve it. But, unfortunately, some of 18 the people involved in this are no longer here. 19 But let's go back to the budget. The budget was 20 about $416,000. Well, less the 94,000 was something like 323. 21 Now, if you're doing business with a -- with a store and you 22 overpay your bill or you have a credit, they don't give you 23 money back. Accountants like to hold onto that money, and I 24 think that was what happened here. When the City Manager said 25 he was going to issue a check, the financial people gave you a 1-23-06 88 1 credit instead of issuing a check. Now, if you wanted to 2 resolve this thing correctly, we should cut a check for 400 -- 3 for $94,001, and y'all should cut a check for $94,001. We 4 will give you the money and take the money, and then it will 5 be even. Because the budget was -- was the $416,000. It 6 was -- when somebody writes something in a letter, they ought 7 to adhere to what they put in a letter. He should have sent 8 the check, and -- and the budget would have been $416,000. 9 That wasn't done, and we can't correct that. Actually, some 10 of the people involved in it are no longer here. But it'll be 11 the policy of Kerrville and the Kerrville City Manager that we 12 will have a detailed budget. We will have meetings with 13 the -- with the -- with the County, as well as Headwaters and 14 -- and Guadalupe. The four entities -- governmental entities 15 here should communicate without any disagreement. If we have 16 disagreements, go to the meeting and lay it on the table and 17 get it over with, not let it fester. How long's this thing 18 been festering? It's almost ridiculous. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Too long. 20 MAYOR SMITH: And there's no reason that we should 21 be arguing between the City and the County in the newspaper. 22 I mean, they have -- they report what they hear; I'm not 23 fussing with them, but it should have been resolved. But as 24 best I can determine, the budget was 416,000. In lieu of a 25 check, they credited the budget that amount. If y'all want a 1-23-06 89 1 check, I'm sure the City will cut a check for $94,001. They 2 will hold it until y'all cut a check, and we'll -- we will 3 swap them back and forth, and that'll resolve it. But it 4 needs to be resolved. But I was discussing with the City 5 Manager how we're going to handle budgets. Now, we have some 6 internal problems, too. The budget is prepared by the City 7 Manager, and then it's submitted to the City Council. Well, 8 our new City Manager said he's going to -- he's going to work 9 on the budget and -- and constantly communicate with the 10 Council so we won't go to the meeting and have to approve 35 11 or 36 million dollars just like that. He will communicate, 12 and we will have it well organized. And he will communicate 13 with y'all, and as soon as the information is available. It 14 won't be officially the budget until the City Council approves 15 it in August, but we can surely submit the information to you, 16 and you can -- you can work on it. 17 Now, on the library, the library has been 18 reorganized into -- not an advisory board, but it has a 19 function; they will prepare the budget. And the budget is 20 made -- made up of 100 percent people that live in Kerr 21 County. Some of them come from Kerrville, and some of them 22 come from the county, and so they'll prepare the budget and 23 submit it to the City Manager, just like the other 24 departments. And then -- then the City Manager will look at 25 it. Now, I'm not -- don't have the data to say that we're 1-23-06 90 1 spending too much money or not spending enough money, but I 2 know the library is an important part of -- of this area, and 3 I -- I would hope that we will finance it adequately, but not 4 overfinance it. And that's what we intend to look -- look at 5 when we do get the budget -- or when the City Manager gets the 6 budget. And I will guarantee you, we have a gem of a City 7 Manager, and his -- his thoughts are communication, 8 communication, communication. And -- and I know I didn't live 9 up to the deal of meeting with each of you individually for 10 lunch, but I've met with a couple of you for lunch. I need to 11 carry on that thing so we can iron out these problems before 12 they become problems. Thank you very much. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate you 14 being here today. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Mayor, I've got a 16 question for you, though. 17 MAYOR SMITH: Surely. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This lunch thing. What about 19 this breakfast thing that you guys were going to do? 20 MAYOR SMITH: Well, it's -- I think it's in a couple 21 of weeks. February 3rd, I believe, or something. I don't -- 22 I don't remember exactly. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You didn't forget? 24 MAYOR SMITH: Oh, no, we didn't forget it. But I 25 tell you how shrewd the City is. Always pick up the breakfast 1-23-06 91 1 tab, because that's -- that's a heck of a lot lower than the 2 dinner tab. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very wise. Very wise. 4 MAYOR SMITH: Thank you. Any further questions? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Far as I'm concerned, the 6 issue is over. I think it's time to move on. 7 MAYOR SMITH: I agree with you, Commissioner. Thank 8 you very much. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate you 10 being here today. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is very refreshing to -- 12 to communicate. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's exactly the reason I'm in 14 favor of moving on on this. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Joe Benham? 16 MR. BENHAM: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate 17 the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Friends of the 18 Library. I am not an accountant. I have no -- make no 19 pretension whatsoever of being able to tell you how this 20 problem came about or how it can best be resolved. You have 21 expertise that I don't, and you have expertise available to 22 you that I'm sure you will utilize to the fullest. What I am 23 going to urge you to do is to resolve this in such a way that 24 you will not hurt the library. The library has been squeezed 25 financially ever since I got here. I was recruited for the 1-23-06 92 1 board of the Friends of the Library the day I arrived. They 2 discovered I'd been on the board of a similar group in the 3 Houston area, and they pounced on me before I caught my 4 breath, or -- which was fine. It's been a -- it's been one of 5 the more satisfying things and worthwhile things I think that 6 I've ever been involved in. But my point is, I have been 7 involved very closely with the Friends of the Library and with 8 the series of directors since the day I got here, and the 9 library has been in a financial squeeze all during that time. 10 That has not been a fat operation. I don't want to take a lot 11 of your time, but I want to give you three quick examples of 12 important things that the library didn't have the money for. 13 When we needed to do a comprehensive study of the 14 computer system, which was described as somewhere between 15 horse-and-buggy and Model T -- some of those computers are so 16 old they can't get parts -- couldn't get parts for them any 17 more. There wasn't any money available to the library from 18 you gentlemen or from the City Council. The Friends paid it. 19 We had -- fortunately, had the resources to pay it, $9,000. 20 When the opportunity to protect the possibility to expand the 21 library and its services came up, when the building next door, 22 where -- where the travel agency and the Cypress Grill used to 23 be, the -- there was a total -- it was unanimous recognition 24 that, boy, we need to get that property, 'cause we had the 25 feeling General Schellhase wouldn't be too excited about 1-23-06 93 1 selling us his house on the other side of the library. 2 Seriously, there was recognition that that was a one-time 3 opportunity; it needed to be seized. But, again, there wasn't 4 any money. 5 The Friends raised $361,000 -- and I want to -- I 6 want to acknowledge the fact that the foundations very 7 generously -- the Butts and the Petersons and the Caillouxs 8 very generously put up a good bit of that money. We raised 9 $361,000 to buy that property, and it's been turned over to 10 the City for future use. So far, the only thing that's been 11 done is that part of the land is being used for parking, but 12 it's definitely dedicated for future use by the library. The 13 third thing, and most recent, there was, again, unanimous 14 recognition that we needed to have some long-range planning 15 for this library instead of operating on a year-to-year basis. 16 No money in the budget; no county money, no city money. The 17 Friends paid to hire the firm that we were told was the best 18 library consulting information technology group in the 19 country. And they have issued two reports, and we expect to 20 get a third one this year that will tell us what they see as 21 the best way to go for the library. 22 My point is, the library has been operating on a 23 tight rein since the day I got here. We've never had any 24 spare cash. Every nickel has -- has been needed and has been 25 spent, I think, wisely. And I would just plead with you, 1-23-06 94 1 resolve this -- certainly, you need to resolve it in the 2 interests of the County. That's what you gentlemen were 3 elected to do. I recognize that. I've served on some school 4 boards and so forth myself. I know what your obligation -- 5 fiduciary obligations are. But, please, within the context of 6 living up to your fiduciary responsibilities, don't do 7 anything that will hurt the library. The library has suffered 8 enough. Morale over there has suffered enough. Couple of 9 weeks ago, as I was leaving, I told one of the librarians, I 10 said, "Well, I'll see you tomorrow." She said, "Yeah, I'll be 11 here tomorrow. We don't know about next week, of course, but 12 I'll be here tomorrow." We got a lot of good people over 13 there who work very hard. We got a lot of volunteers who work 14 very hard, and please don't do anything that would -- that 15 would hurt the library. It's too important to this community. 16 It's too important to the county. Not just the city; it's too 17 important to this county. And I would plead with you to live 18 up to your obligations, but also take care of the library. 19 And I'm grateful for your time. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Benham. Anybody have 21 any questions for Mr. Benham? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate you 24 being here today. 25 MR. BENHAM: Thank you. 1-23-06 95 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Does any member of the Court have 2 anything to offer in connection with Item 8 that we've been 3 discussing? 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we don't need to do 5 anything if we're -- I think there's general consensus, what 6 I'm hearing, that forgiving the debt's the right thing to do, 7 and that doesn't -- inaction will do that. So, I don't -- I 8 don't have a motion to offer. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you, sir. We had a 10 timed item for 11 o'clock. Let's take that up, since it's 11 past that time now. Item 13, consider, discuss, and take 12 appropriate action on reducing registration fees to $1 during 13 the Rabies Drive on February the 4th, 2006, through February 14 the 18th, 2006. 15 MS. ROMAN: Good morning. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. 17 MS. ROMAN: As you know, the county-wide Rabies 18 Drive is quickly approaching. I am requesting that the Court 19 reduce the registration fees to $1 between February 4th 20 through February 18th. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 24 of the agenda item as indicated. Any question or discussion? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. During that period, 1-23-06 96 1 is it -- is that fee lowered if you do it only at these -- 2 MS. ROMAN: Only between those dates. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- locations? But you can do it 4 at the doctor's office? 5 MS. ROMAN: Correct. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or at this -- the three or four 7 locations? 8 MS. ROMAN: Anywhere between -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just the dates that are -- 10 MS. ROMAN: Correct. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Good clarification. I appreciate you 13 pointing that out, Commissioner. Anything further? 14 MS. ROMAN: That should be on the flyer that y'all 15 got, if y'all did receive one. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It does say -- it does. Thank 17 you, Janie. 18 MS. ROMAN: Thank you. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or comments? 20 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 21 hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's 1-23-06 97 1 return, if we might, to Item 7; consider, discuss, and take 2 appropriate action for final revision of plat of Tract 152-A 3 of Spicer Ranch, Number Three, as set forth in Volume 5, Page 4 176, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 1. 5 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This revision of plat meets 6 all the requirements of our Subdivision Rules, and public 7 hearing was done on January the 9th, 2006. Therefore, I 8 suggest the Court approve the revision of plat for Tract 9 152-A, Three. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to make a comment, 11 that this is -- this is a family issue, and I think that 12 there's -- some things are waived because of that. But 13 Mr. Scottow and his family have decided to plat it and do it 14 the right way, and I really would like to see more of that, 15 even though he didn't have to. He now has a record of exactly 16 where his properties and family properties are, and with that, 17 I move for approval. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 21 of final revision of plat of Tract 152-A of Spicer Ranch 22 Number Three as set forth in Volume 5, Page 176, Plat Records, 23 located in Precinct 1. Any question or discussion? All in 24 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 1-23-06 98 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion the carry. Let's move to 4 Item 10, if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate 5 action for road name changes on privately maintained roads 6 located in Precinct 4 in accordance with 9-1-1 guidelines. 7 Ms. Hardin? 8 MS. HARDIN: Hello. We have eight road names on 9 this list. However, I would like to remove the first road 10 name. There was some discussion by other members that -- 11 family members that live on the road, so until we get that, I 12 would like to remove that one. And then there is a 13 misspelling on the last one. It should be P-a-i-s-n-o. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Paisano? 15 MR. ODOM: P-a-i-s-a-n-o. 16 MS. HARDIN: Okay, that's correct. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the little bird thing, 18 right? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Roadrunner. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Roadrunner. 21 MS. HARDIN: Oh, okay. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Also a -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paisano Pete. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Also a restaurant in San 25 Antonio. 1-23-06 99 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's also an Italian 2 term of affection to a friend. Paisano. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll bet it's the bird. 4 (Laughter.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Didn't know that we had an Italian 6 romantic here with us, did you? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve the list 8 of road names changes that are proposed, with the exception of 9 the first one, Pfeister to Lavender; we delete that one, and 10 change the spelling on the seventh one to Paisano. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second that motion. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 13 of the agenda item as modified. Any question or discussion? 14 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 15 hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to 20 Item 11, if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate 21 action regarding narcotics enforcement in Kerr County. 22 Sheriff, what do you have for us today? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it's not absolutely good 24 news for y'all, but it's also not bad news. As we all know 25 and we've been hearing and everything, the grant that has -- 1-23-06 100 1 federal and state grant that has kept our 216th Judicial 2 District Narcotics Task Force in place for over 17 years has 3 finally come to an end. It will end officially on the night 4 of December -- March the 31st. So, starting April 1st, we 5 will not have a narcotics task force in this county. A lot of 6 things go into making a lot of this up. Also is the fact 7 that, at one time, we had anywhere from 15 to 17 officers 8 working narcotics in Kerr and the immediate surrounding 9 counties. There was about 10 to 12, depending on -- 10 to 11 10 sometimes; the Sheriff's Office had one or two also, but 11 normally about 10 that made up the 216th Judicial District 12 Narcotics Task Force, and five that made up the D.P.S. 13 narcotics section here. And I'm aware of that, 'cause my dad 14 was the first D.P.S. narcotics one stationed here in 1975, and 15 then it grew all the way up to about five to six people, 16 including a lieutenant. 17 Well, unfortunately, the State's, I think, also 18 redirected a lot of their stuff into intelligence for Homeland 19 Security. We now have two D.P.S. narcotics agents stationed 20 here. They are not going to change that. In fact, there's a 21 possibility their secretary will even end up moving to San 22 Antonio, or having to commute back and forth. So, we've lost 23 a lot here for that, so we're down to two D.P.S. narcotics 24 agents, which a lot of times get called to other areas to 25 work -- work narcotics, and we're going to lose all of our 1-23-06 101 1 narcotics enforcement as far as 216th. The Sheriff's Office 2 has been very fortunate with the 216th. I've had two officers 3 always assigned to it. But we have referred -- been able to 4 refer all of our narcotics enforcement to the 216th Narcotics 5 Task Force. 6 I know you remember the deal with the organized 7 crime that started out as something different, so we stayed 8 involved in it, but it ended up in a number of lab seizures 9 and 23 or so indictments on organized crime cases for the 10 conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine. What I'm getting 11 to is -- is we -- and I will say this from the bottom of my 12 heart. We honestly have to have narcotics enforcement in Kerr 13 County. I don't think any of y'all disagree with that. If 14 you look at my jail populations and the inmates and the cases 15 we work, I would say -- if I said 85 percent, I would be 16 speaking very low in terms of percentage of people that end up 17 going through our system that did not have some type of 18 narcotic problem to begin with. Either the burglaries were 19 because of a narcotics habit, or the thefts were or whatever, 20 but it's going to be related to narcotics. And this could be 21 a very expensive venture to do. 22 Now, last budget, the Court looked at me, and I 23 believe Nicholson was the first one that came up with it right 24 at the last minute, was -- and Letz, was to cut me four patrol 25 officers. And I fought that strongly, because I have six 1-23-06 102 1 officers per shift right now, which is desperately needed. 2 It's hard to work 1,100 square miles with even six officers 3 per shift, especially when you figure in training time, 4 vacation time, sick leave time, and trying to keep our 5 overtime down. Now, the Court did give me up a little bit in 6 overtime, from 25,000 or 20,000 to 30,000 this year in my 7 overtime budget, and I'm looking at this. And to give you an 8 idea how this works -- I think it may change at the City now. 9 Before -- before this last year, the City's overtime budget 10 for their officers was over 100,000, but we've been able to 11 always stay within ours of 20,000 to 30,000 this year. I 12 cannot create a narcotics unit without having to access into 13 my patrol unit. I understand it's a hard fiscal year for the 14 County, and adding a five-man unit or something like that 15 would be just almost impossible for the County and us 16 taxpayers, including myself, to absorb. 17 So, I have a recommendation. We always have had two 18 people assigned to the narcotics task force. Right now, 19 because I did have an opening on patrol, and because we did 20 know it was -- was fixing to go away, I offered them -- one of 21 them to come back immediately and fill that position as 22 patrolman, or else I couldn't guarantee them a job, 'cause 23 that was part of the agreement back when the task force was 24 created. So, he took that. He took a several thousand dollar 25 pay cut, because the task force officers were paid more, but 1-23-06 103 1 he is now back on patrol. So, that leaves me one person that 2 is a Kerr County employee that's at the task force, and that 3 is -- that's their commander, Bill Hill. What I would propose 4 to the County to do, and to allow me to do, is to budget me 5 another $25,000 for the remainder of this year -- or this 6 budget year. What that will do is allow me to fund half of 7 Bill Hill's salary as a commander, and bring him back to -- to 8 the Kerr County Sheriff's Office as a lieutenant, because he 9 would be over the entire Narcotics Division that we would 10 create. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, so we give you 25,000 12 for one-half of Bill Hill. Are you telling me that he's -- as 13 a lieutenant with Kerr County Sheriff's Office, he's going to 14 be making 50 grand? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. As a lieutenant with Kerr 16 County Sheriff's Office, he is -- because of his education, 17 okay, and his time with the County already, Bill will be 18 making -- it's about 7,000 less than what he's making today as 19 a commander for the Narcotics Task Force. But he will be -- 20 currently, it's 52,5, and he will be making -- starting at 21 45,7 a year. Okay? So, it's about a $7,000 pay cut that he 22 will have to take. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's the commander, and 24 you're going to have a second-in-command -- 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 1-23-06 104 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- thing? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. Just like we have our 3 structure set up now, okay? My criminal investigators have a 4 lieutenant, and then after that, it's the Chief Deputy or 5 myself that's in charge. And this division would be set up 6 the same way. What I am proposing is that we take -- and this 7 is hard to do, 'cause I'm just saying my prayers that it all 8 works. I take one person off each patrol shift and assign 9 them to this narcotics unit. That will drop my patrol shifts 10 to five, which will be very difficult to do and keep our 11 overtime down, but I promise you, we will try and stay within 12 that ability. It will give Kerr County Sheriff's Office a 13 five-man primarily narcotics unit, Bill being the lieutenant, 14 and four investigators under him. And that way, this year, 15 okay, the County will not have any other funding, other than 16 half -- half of Bill's salary, and there's a little bit of 17 incidentals in there, and that's why it comes up to the 25. I 18 think 22-something would actually be half of his salary. 19 And -- but I'm going to have to also count on this 20 unit. This unit will supplement patrol in a number of -- of 21 areas, and we'll have to have somebody in this unit on call 22 constantly, because the only way to help our patrol from 23 getting overdone and over-stretched is that if they have any 24 type of narcotics seizure traffic stop, anything like that, 25 you know, while they're working patrol, they're going to have 1-23-06 105 1 to be able to immediately call one of the unit -- one of the 2 members of this unit out to take that case over so that they 3 can stay on patrol. Or if we have a large number of 4 burglaries or rash of burglaries or something, I'm going to 5 need to call this unit out, all of them, to work the 6 surveillance to solve those burglaries and not use patrol 7 where we have in the past. So, I'm going to have to give and 8 take. It's going to be 95 percent narcotics, but it will have 9 to be some of the other to help us out and be able to maintain 10 our -- our stats and our call ratios and our clearance rates 11 that I think we have now that are -- that are fabulous. 12 The problem -- the impact in next year's budget -- 13 this year, of course, Bill's -- and when I say half, it's 14 really -- actually, it's a little less than half. In that 15 grant that we've been operating off of, the benefits are the 16 only thing that the County's been paying. So, the benefits -- 17 Bill's benefits are paid through this budget year, okay? 18 'Cause that's what the County budgeted. So, you're not making 19 benefit payments; you're just making the half salary, which 20 would really be a little bit less. The problem that I have 21 is, all of my investigators, you have -- the way the structure 22 is and the chain of command is, you have the lieutenant who is 23 in charge of that division, and then all the investigators are 24 considered sergeants. That's the way D.P.S. works. That's 25 the way the City works. That's the way we work. Because they 1-23-06 106 1 are above a patrol person, okay? When I put this out to allow 2 my patrolmen and that to apply for this position -- and there 3 will be a total interview process on who we pick. It will end 4 up being -- I very well may have two of my investigators -- 5 current investigators apply to be moved into the narcotics 6 unit, and I very well may have two or three of the patrolmen 7 apply, however it works. 8 So, starting out right now, I may have two current 9 investigators that are paid under a sergeant's salary move 10 into the narcotics, which should be sergeants also. These 11 people have a lot of dangerous activities, and -- not any less 12 than patrolmen, but, I mean, that's what they do. And I may 13 end up with a couple patrolmen in there. The salary 14 difference for the remainder of the six months -- remainder of 15 this budget year, I don't have a problem with, and they're 16 just going to have to understand that. But come next year, it 17 really needs to be equalized to where all these people are 18 going to be sergeants, and that could be the difference 19 between a patrolman and a sergeant. Plus, right now, why I 20 put the 25,000 in there, Buster, instead of just leaving it 21 the 22, is that if I lose two investigators now into that 22 unit, then I've got to replace those two investigators, and 23 that is already set at that sergeant's pay, so theirs would go 24 up. 25 It wouldn't -- the 3,000 wouldn't quite cover that, 1-23-06 107 1 but, you know, by the end of each year, we normally -- not so 2 much in the Sheriff's Office any more, but in the -- in the 3 jail, in salary line items -- and I've already had some, 4 'cause, like, right now I have a nurse that is budgeted for 5 that we haven't had in three months, or two months. So, 6 there's always a little bit in there, and at the end of the 7 year, I may have to make some minor budget amendments to 8 finish out covering this year. But next year I would request 9 that they all be sergeants, and the lieutenant stay at the 10 salary he will be at. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me say something right 12 quick about next year. And I hear exactly what you're saying. 13 We are going to have -- I think it was February or March, and 14 I can't remember which one, we're going to have an 15 off-season -- off-season meeting about things like this, and I 16 would hope that during our off-season meeting, that you would 17 bring a plan for next year. Real numbers of what you're each 18 proposing. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't wait till September to 20 talk about this. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. And the difference 22 right now, total, okay, would be about 12,000. I can tell you 23 that. Total for an entire year. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For next year? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, besides the lieutenant's 1-23-06 108 1 salary of 42. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, did I understand, the 3 25,000 you need this year, is that money coming from line 4 items within your control now, or that's going to have to come 5 out of reserves? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Going to have to come out of 7 reserves. I have no place to draw that. We did cut our 8 budget. Now -- now, at the end of the year, I may have that 9 much in jailers' salaries, 'cause you always have jail 10 openings. That could cover that, but I can't say that right 11 now. I need it to be budgeted starting April 1st, that -- the 12 amount so that we can add Bill in. Now, one thing -- and we 13 still have meetings pertaining to this, but as you well know, 14 starting up a full narcotics enforcement unit also takes a lot 15 of equipment. We have to have different cars. We have to 16 have body bugs. We have to have recorders. We have to have 17 secure radio channels. We have to have a whole lot of things 18 that go along with this. And there have been meetings with a 19 private individual that wants to very well -- the final 20 meetings will be within a week or two, okay, that has -- and I 21 will keep that private individual private right now; they want 22 to remain anonymous -- that has offered that, as long as us 23 and the City work together on all this, I think we will get 24 all our equipment funded from a private individual, and it 25 won't cost the County. 1-23-06 109 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty, what happens to the 2 equipment that's in the possession of the 216th now? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Technically, by the grant 4 guidelines, they have some money in a bank account, and then 5 they have some equipment, like their desks or their cars or 6 things like that, you know, some of -- some of that type of 7 stuff. Now, by grant guidelines, the State of Texas can keep 8 any money they have in their bank account, any of their 9 seizure money. Which may happen; we don't know. And by other 10 grant guidelines, if the State doesn't, then it actually goes 11 to the City of Kerrville. The City of Kerrville is the 12 grantee agency for that task force, so everything would go to 13 them. The Chief and I have talked about dividing it all up 14 amongst all the agencies that participated in the task force 15 for the 17 years. I don't think he has a problem with that, 16 but we also -- we don't know -- we don't know what the City 17 Council is going to want to do. 18 The other problem with most of that, except for the 19 money -- the State will come in and take the money. Most of 20 the equipment that is in that and that they have, except for a 21 few computers right now, is not very good equipment. The 22 State has gradually cut some of the task force funding over 23 the last number of years, and gradually they have not been 24 able to replace a lot of the equipment they have, okay? Most 25 of their body bugs now end up being pocket tape recorders, 1-23-06 110 1 'cause they don't have that equipment, and that's the way it's 2 gone. So, a lot of the equipment has pretty well outlived its 3 real usefulness. But, as I stated, I think for this one time 4 to start up, this -- this private donation and what we're 5 working with them will work. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the -- most of the 7 vehicles y'all had over there, Clay, was seized vehicles 8 anyway. I mean, they're putt-putts. 9 MR. BARTON: No, we have purchased vehicles that we 10 had purchased over the years. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 12 MR. BARTON: They're -- a lot of them have 100-plus 13 thousand miles on them. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not the best looking 15 fleet that I've ever seen. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, and the other part -- I 17 won't argue that point. The other thing is, if -- some of 18 these advantages I don't like, but if I use four patrolmen to 19 make up this unit, then that will free up four patrol cars, 20 okay? 'Cause each one -- what I will do with those and what 21 we will have to do is, the oldest cars, and I do have several, 22 since we bought with our seizure funds some cars last year, 23 and cut down the number the year before, so now I do have cars 24 with over 100,000 miles on them. So, we'll have to look at 25 that. But the oldest four I will take out of patrol, take the 1-23-06 111 1 markings off of them, and assign them to my regular Criminal 2 Investigation unit. The guys that have them that are driving 3 the different-colored cars now, and we will take those cars 4 that they have right now and assign them to the narcotics 5 officers. But there -- we're still going to need some that -- 6 you know, there is -- this is going to be undercover work. 7 There's going to be a lot of different type of work this year 8 on incidentals; you know, buy money type stuff where you do 9 need that kind of stuff. I can probably survive on that out 10 of my seizure fund that I have already currently, so I'm not 11 asking for that this year. Next year, we may ask for a little 12 bit to help to get into the buy money; I don't know. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, what's the City of 14 Kerrville doing? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: City of Kerrville, the Chief 16 and I have talked. We're both very strong that we have to 17 have something. They've gone through a lot of transition at 18 this time, anyhow, and they've had a number of options. Not 19 -- not anything bad against the City. They have two officers 20 assigned to the task force right now. Those two officers will 21 be offered positions back at the city, as long as the Chief 22 has his way of doing it, and he does have the option to put 23 them in. Then he wants to very likely temporarily assign two 24 officers for the remainder of the budget year to work with the 25 County's narcotics unit, so that will make our unit go from a 1-23-06 112 1 -- a five-man unit to a seven-man unit, which is a lot less 2 than what we've been used to, but I think we're going to work 3 narcotics a little bit different, which -- and I think we're 4 going to be very good. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're going to have -- the 6 City and the County are working together on this overall? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: City and County. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Chief and I get along, and we 10 have to work together. Part of the stuff with the private 11 donation of equipment and the -- and Clay and the current task 12 force commander and the new captain that's over all that with 13 the City sat down last Friday and went over, you know, kind of 14 the wish list or kind of the equipment they needed. And they 15 have been coming up with a list for me and the Chief to meet 16 with this private person and give that kind of information, to 17 where we can -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about other counties? What 19 are they doing? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have a problem. I don't 21 know what they're going to do, okay? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Boerne -- or Kendall County? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, there's a problem in -- 24 in not -- in us not wanting to. Some of that grant stuff and 25 the way the new stuff's -- to even try and keep your own 1-23-06 113 1 seized stuff, all right, the State -- this is another one of 2 those State of Texas deals. In the legislation they passed, 3 if you have a multi-jurisdictional -- being outside of Kerr 4 County -- task force, and it is not blessed and sanctioned by 5 the Department of Public Safety, which I'm just not sure I 6 want to get into all that at this point, then any of your 7 seized proceeds go to the State of Texas and do not stay 8 locally, and I'm not ready for that to happen. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we don't want that. Okay. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, I think -- and I'm not 12 knocking the state. I think, unfortunately, because of the 13 Homeland Security and all the rest of that, I think we're at 14 the point that I wouldn't doubt if you don't see D.P.S. 15 narcotics end up going more and more like the Texas Rangers. 16 There's about 130 Texas Rangers across the state. They're an 17 assisting agency. You know, if we need help, we need direct 18 access to labs, we need them to come in and work a case or 19 help us work, they're there to do it. You know, fabulous 20 cooperation, but they don't have enough of them to go around 21 and do their own investigations. The locals are going to be 22 stuck doing that. But I want this all in place. I would like 23 to have it approved and ready, because the problem we face -- 24 and I don't think it'll happen. There is very few members 25 left of our Narcotics Task Force today, because most of them 1-23-06 114 1 that could get -- like the one I pulled back, if they -- they 2 were looking at either no job at all or going back to their 3 agencies when openings came up, and we have pretty well lost 4 most of our task force, okay? I know of one member that 5 probably won't have a job when it -- when it folds, because he 6 was just sponsored by an agency, and they just -- that's going 7 to be the end. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, do I understand 9 correctly that this is not just unique to the 216th? These 10 funds are drying up statewide? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is statewide. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I didn't quite 13 understand what you said about the commander. Is he rejoining 14 Kerr County Sheriff's Office? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He is a member of the Kerr 16 County Sheriff's Office. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's going to remain with -- 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I want him to remain a 19 member. We have the commander -- and Clay and I have sat 20 down; we have rewritten all our policies on how we deal with 21 things and narcotics unit and money and buy moneys and keeping 22 the records, 'cause this can get very tedious. It can also 23 get -- we have to have the right agreements in place, 24 especially if we run across meth labs and that, because of the 25 -- the dismantling and the environmental hazards of a 1-23-06 115 1 methamphetamine lab can get extremely expensive on hazardous 2 waste disposal, and there's a lot of that kind of stuff. Bill 3 is, by far, the best one around. You know, I think it would 4 be an extreme benefit to keep Bill. I feel sorry for him, 5 that he's going to have to take $7,000 a year cut, but there's 6 nothing I can do about that. That's where it fits in with our 7 pay scale the County has adopted, and where I think it should 8 stay. So, what I'm asking for is an emergency funding out of 9 the general fund for $25,000 to go into the salary line item 10 to help me set up the -- the Narcotics Task Force. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with everything that 12 you've said, except I question the -- you know, in order to go 13 into the reserves, we're talking about declaring an emergency, 14 and I don't know that -- I don't know that you can classify 15 this as an emergency. I don't -- in my mind, you cannot. But 16 we have an attorney that is in the room, and I bet he could 17 tell us if it is or not. But I definitely am in favor of 18 everything that you've said. You know, at first glance at 19 this thing, it makes -- it would make you wonder, does the 20 State -- do they realize or do they not care that we have a 21 drug problem? And the same thing with the federales. You 22 know, where -- what are they thinking? And I'm -- I know that 23 Homeland Security is driving that thing, but, again, to me, 24 that's -- that's a goofy way to do things. But maybe it is a 25 local issue, period. And whatever it is, we need to do it and 1-23-06 116 1 we need to fix it, and I'm all for it. And I think one of the 2 interesting things about it is these three -- these two guys 3 and the commander over there have been together for how long? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Twenty-five years, I've been 5 here. They haven't quite been here that long, but right at 25 6 years. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A long time. And I think 8 it's just a good little -- neat little family, good fit, and 9 it's time for us to move forward with it. Can we do that? 10 MR. EMERSON: Declare an emergency? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. It'd be rough to do, 12 wouldn't it? 13 MR. EMERSON: Yeah, it's pretty gray. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Let me ask you this. Since I 15 do need guidance and I do need the authority, can I have a 16 motion, or is it possible that you can approve the plan that I 17 have to do a narcotics unit, taking four off patrol, which 18 lowers my patrol, and having Bill as the -- the commander or 19 the lieutenant at a salary of the 45,000? I can give you 20 exactly what it is, okay? And then if, at the end of the 21 budget year, I -- I honestly think, gentlemen, that I can 22 probably, because of the openings in the jail -- you know, I 23 have a nurse that's been there -- or that's been open ever 24 since the budget year started. I've got a couple jail 25 positions that I just now got filled, so there probably will 1-23-06 117 1 be funding there. And then, as we run low on funding, at that 2 point I will come back for a budget amendment to complete out 3 the funding for the year. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I think is the 5 appropriate way to do it. I'll make a motion that we approve 6 the narcotics unit as outlined by the Sheriff, with $25,000 7 funding to come from Jailers Salaries line item. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If needed at that time. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Transfer it now, then go back to 10 jailers. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right now, as of the end of 12 December, my -- my percentage in jailers' salaries that I 13 should have, okay, is 75 percent left right now, and as -- or 14 end of December. And the way it was sitting in jailers, okay, 15 was 76 percent, and that's about almost an $800,000 deal. 16 Now, the -- the nurse is -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me modify my -- or amend my 18 motion to say, and the Sheriff will approve the plan. The 19 Sheriff will, at our next meeting, have -- present budget 20 amendments to place funding in the appropriate line items 21 within his budgets. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And in that plan, this is 24 creating a -- not a commander, but what? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lieutenant. 1-23-06 118 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a lieutenant. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Lieutenant -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In the Sheriff's Office. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- position. And we're not 5 going to name him here, so -- 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe that's for me to name 7 the lieutenant. We will go through an interview process on 8 who the investigators will be. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second it. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to 11 approve the Sheriff's plan to create a narcotics unit, that 12 unit to be headed up by a new -- newly created lieutenant's 13 position, with funding to come from sources as provided by the 14 Sheriff at our next meeting, and with appropriate budget 15 amendments -- 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Correct. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: -- out of his current budgets. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, it also does need to -- I 19 don't know how you want to do this, if you need to take away 20 four positions off my patrol and add them as new 21 sergeant/investigator positions. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's part of your plan. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not in the order. Not in 24 this. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, you mentioned that 1-23-06 119 1 in this year's budget, you have four fewer positions? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I don't have four fewer 3 now, okay? 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did I misunderstand? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You misunderstood. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What did you say? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. If you remember, during 8 our budget process, y'all attempted to make me have four fewer 9 positions, but we got those back, except for the two clerks 10 and the one unfunded position that was on reserve. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He just wants to say ugly 12 things. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I wouldn't ever say ugly things 14 about y'all. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sometimes I hear talk about 16 the County having layoffs. I don't think we've had any 17 layoffs. Has anybody been involuntarily terminated because -- 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, I believe that -- not in 19 my department, but I believe there was a couple departments 20 during the budgeting that did lose -- that some people had to 21 leave employment. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not relevant to this 24 issue. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. Thank you, gentlemen. 1-23-06 120 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Rusty. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, not as a part of this 3 order, but a comment on the side, and I think it may be the 4 most important thing we do, is this off-season conversation 5 about next year's budget. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Definitely. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When was it? Do you 8 remember? This was your idea. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It was Jonathan's idea; I 10 just named it. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six-months review. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was your idea. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's my idea to have a lot 14 of things. I think March was the timetable we were going to 15 do that. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: March, to have an off-season 17 meeting? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Look at organization and 19 staffing. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Organization and staffing of 21 all -- many departments. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you'll let me know the date, 23 I'll definitely -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can expand that to any. 25 If we're having a six-months review, we can discuss any aspect 1-23-06 121 1 of it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we ought to plan on a 3 full-day workshop close to that date. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on 5 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 6 your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to 11 Item 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 12 confirm Commissioners Court appointments/liaison assignments. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's in front of you, 14 Judge, is -- is the order that was in effect through the 31st. 15 This would give us a new court order with the same 16 assignments, unless there are members of the Court who wish to 17 do differently. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I have one question, Commissioner, on 19 KEDF. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: It was my understanding that -- and I 22 may have this confused with the executive committee 23 participation that you and I have on that KEDF organization. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I was unaware that Commissioner 1-23-06 122 1 Nicholson was the alternate on the KEDF. Maybe -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I think -- I think 3 the Court set that up because I've never been a participant in 4 KEDF as a member of this Court. My -- my appointment to KEDF 5 and subsequent involvement has always come -- it originated in 6 the business community, and has just continued as a business 7 appointment. It was never an appointment from the Court. 8 That's why the Court decided to have an alternate. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the list as 11 submitted. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But -- wait. Hold on just a 13 minute there, cowboy. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The last one, Juvenile 16 Detention Facility, my name is on there. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we put my name on there 19 because I was an agin'er; that I opposed a lot of things that 20 were going on out there. And I remember Commissioner 21 Nicholson commenting on that, that it would be good to have a 22 -- have a dissenting voice or a debater there, and I agreed to 23 do that. However, once that started, then the Juvenile 24 Detention Facility Director chose not to even deal with me. I 25 mean, why would she want to deal with somebody that disagreed 1-23-06 123 1 with her? So, she simply bypassed me and went to the Judge, 2 and -- and visited with Bill and the Judge. And I will not 3 have my name on something that I'm -- that I'm not able to 4 participate in. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that would be one 6 amendment. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Count me out. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We will amend the 9 current list by removing Commissioner Baldwin from JDF. Any 10 other suggested changes? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we going to add someone there on 12 the Juvenile Facility in lieu of Commissioner Baldwin? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If the Court so desires. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm probably the one with the most 15 direct -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's what 17 Commissioner Baldwin alluded to. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to use common sense 19 and logic, that would seem to be the appropriate thing to do. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we'll pen in County 21 Judge in place of Commissioner Baldwin; is that correct? Move 22 approval as amended. Let's see if that flies. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 25 of the Commissioners Court appointments-slash-liaison 1-23-06 124 1 assignments as per the list furnished, as amended. Any 2 question or discussion on that? All in favor of the motion, 3 signify 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: The motion does carry. Let's move to 8 Item 14, if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate 9 action on Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations and 10 set public hearing on same. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, it's three 12 minutes before 12:00. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a hint? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm just telling you I'm 15 fixing to get up and walk out if you get off into one of those 16 long things. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unfortunately, I don't have 18 copies for everybody on the Court or the public of the newest 19 revised version, because Kathy isn't here today. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be red-line or 21 otherwise? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there are no red lines. 23 I'll just -- my recommendation is that we -- you know, I don't 24 like doing -- y'all probably don't like it either. If we 25 approve these, set a public hearing date, that gives us 30 1-23-06 125 1 days to get them out. There are some -- quite a few changes. 2 I have met, since our last meeting, with Bruce Motheral, 3 incorporated some of his. His, you know, ideas, I think, were 4 incorporated. Now, he's not here, I don't believe. I also 5 met with Les Harvey, another engineer, and I met with Rex, and 6 we've incorporated all the comments and things from those 7 individuals. The areas that really changed -- and I don't -- 8 you can look at them later -- is in the road area. Added some 9 plan and profiles of roads which we never added before, which 10 does drive the cost up a little bit. 11 We've also added some more specific data on speed 12 limits and stopping data and traffic counts, and more clearly 13 defining the types -- road categories are the same, but it's 14 more clear as to what an arterial road and what a collector 15 is, based on the number of lots served and traffic counts 16 that's attributed to those lots. So, I think it's that type 17 of thing. Not a huge substantive change, but there is some 18 more engineering on roads, is the bottom line. I'd like to 19 see what -- Leonard has not looked at this, to get his input. 20 I think he probably will like what we've done. Most of these 21 came out of our meeting with these two engineers. Other than 22 that, it's pretty much like we had looked at before. There's 23 no real big change anywhere. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not -- looking at the 25 styling of the agenda item, you're not talking about us -- all 1-23-06 126 1 you're talking about here is setting a -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm talking about -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- public hearing date? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- approving this as the final 5 draft version to set for public hearing. And then, in 30 6 days, we will have a public hearing, and during that period we 7 can either receive written or other comment. After that, all 8 that will be incorporated in the final version. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For official adoption -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- by the Court. Okay, 12 that's fine. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And during that period, the 14 biggest discrepancy at the moment -- and the new version has, 15 in big letters across the front, "Appendices not included." 16 During this 30-day period, I will also -- probably during the 17 next two weeks, I will go through and really -- you know, 18 these are -- fee structures and certification wording exactly, 19 things of that nature, will all be worked out and added, and 20 will all be combined in the final version. That's where we 21 are, but it's a little bit unusual, I know, to approve 22 something that y'all don't have in front of you. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Or approve something 24 before you have the public hearing. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you got to approve a draft 1-23-06 127 1 for the public hearing. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. I agree with it. 3 Let's go. Let's do it. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to approve 5 Draft 012306, -- believe me, there's lots of them; I better 6 number them -- the draft version of Kerr County Subdivision 7 Rules and Regulations, and set public hearing -- when is our 8 second meeting in February? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have a calendar in the 10 front of your booklet. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, yeah. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, indeed. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: 27th. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Public hearing at -- how about 16 1 o'clock February 27th? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or 1:30. 1:30. And copies will 19 be made available at Road and Bridge, a number of copies out 20 there, and Kathy. They'll be available after Wednesday this 21 week to the public. And there will also be a locked version 22 on the county web site. The reason I emphasize "locked" is 23 that some have asked that we get an unlocked version, which 24 I'm not -- really don't want to do, 'cause then they change 25 things that I don't want to be changed. 1-23-06 128 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 2 MS. HARDIN: Does that mean we get an electronic 3 copy? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seconded it. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we have a second. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to have some 8 comments -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second for 10 approval of the draft of this date of the Kerr County 11 Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and set a public hearing 12 for 1:30 p.m. on February the 27th, '06. Any questions or 13 comments? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to have some 15 comments about minimum lot sizes, but I think we probably can 16 talk about that under Water Availability. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments on the 19 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 20 right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a -- a comment, just 1-23-06 129 1 in general. People, read this, 'cause there are some changes. 2 I made these as strict as I think we possibly are going to go, 3 with the idea -- knowing that caliche roads are out now, with 4 the idea that it's easier -- I would rather add things back in 5 after we receive public comment, and that is the way to spur 6 public comment. You know, if they don't have a problem with 7 us getting -- making this a little bit stronger in some areas, 8 maybe we should do it. But, anyway, so there -- that's the 9 way I wrote this final version. All right. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 15; consider, 11 discuss, and take appropriate action on Kerr County Water 12 Availability Requirements, and set a public hearing on same. 13 Commissioner Letz? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Y'all would die if I gave you 15 the new version of it. There is a new version out, 16 slightly -- but it really doesn't change much. I simplified 17 one point. In Kerr County Water Availability, a couple -- the 18 area that we changed this last time is monitor well 19 requirements. We've deleted the requirements for a monitor 20 well completely, with the funding or all that stuff, and it 21 has been replaced with this paragraph: "All subdivisions 22 where total acreage in the subdivision is more than 20 acres 23 shall be required to provide a monitor well location within 24 the central portion of the subdivision. Such well location 25 shall be a minimum of 50 feet by 50 feet in size and shall be 1-23-06 130 1 located between the road right-of-way and an area that's 2 suitable for drawing a monitor well. Headwaters Groundwater 3 Conservation District shall be granted access to such 4 location. Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District may 5 waive this requirement by providing the developer with a 6 letter stating that the monitor well location is not required 7 for septic subdivision." 8 So, all we're saying is that in 20 acres or larger, 9 they have to provide a small location. They can go to 10 Headwaters. If Headwaters doesn't want one in that location, 11 for whatever reason, they can waive that requirement. The 12 other change is on the minimum lot size and the high density 13 development areas, down to one quarter-acre lot sizes. That 14 was the recommendation. I think Mr. Motheral said that, you 15 know, he feels that it's more appropriate to get that higher 16 density development to help the economics. I did not change 17 the average. So, what it means is you can do a little bit 18 higher -- you still have the 2-acre average, but you're going 19 down to one-quarter acre minimum, so -- which means you have 20 to have a fair amount of green space in those subdivisions 21 that are in high-density development. Those are the -- I 22 believe the only two changes. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's a very smart 24 move, in my opinion. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 1-23-06 131 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the average on the other 2 is still 5 acres? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The average is still 5 acre. If 4 you're using groundwater, it's 5 acres, outside of 5 high-density development areas. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Paul Siemers? 7 MR. SIEMERS: Yes, sir. Thank you. Been a long 8 time since I've been here. Still as fun as ever. I have 9 written what I'm going to say, basically. I'm just going to 10 hand it out to y'all, so you can either listen or you can 11 read, or neither. As you -- those of you who were here five 12 years ago, when I was so busily involved in the petition to 13 stop a golf course that I thought -- that the group of us 14 thought were going to create a water hazard -- more than just 15 a water hazard, a problem for the community water, I'm here to 16 talk about water. That's the reason I'm here, because I have 17 a concern relative to the proposed county water availability 18 requirements that allows lots less than 5 acres. Such 19 allowances are not compatible with sustaining the aquifers in 20 Kerr County for the future. Averaging is fine, but less than 21 5 acres per person -- per family is -- is not good for the 22 aquifer. 23 It's important to note that the aquifers in this 24 county, under this county, provide the water for everybody; 25 not just the county personnel, but the -- residents, but those 1-23-06 132 1 that live in the city also are dependent on aquifer water to a 2 certain extent. And while I recognize the need for the 3 important -- and the importance of affordable housing and land 4 and economic development, they will not be the defining issues 5 for the future of Kerr County. The defining issue will be the 6 availability of water, water for the public consumption and 7 the river sustainability. It's, therefore, necessary that 8 water be managed as a sustainable resource in a manner that 9 will make sure that it's here in 15 years or 50 years or 10 however long. 11 There is a wealth of science data. The state water 12 plan, and -- the existing state water plan, the proposed plan, 13 and lessons of history clearly show that aquifer water under 14 at least 2 acres of land is required to support one person -- 15 one person -- in a sustainable manner at the -- at the demand 16 rate proposed in the order, the 200 gallons per person, per 17 day. This fact was most clearly demonstrated in the '70's 18 when the aquifer under the city of Kerrville declined, 19 resulting in the aquifer being replaced by the river as the 20 primary source of water for the city. The city -- this 21 decline occurred during normal conditions, not drought 22 conditions. Annual supply and demand data since that period 23 of time have confirmed that without the river and without the 24 ASR, the aquifer under Kerrville will be -- would decline and 25 eventually be depleted. I'm available for a detailed 1-23-06 133 1 discussion of any of these issues, but I'm trying to be quick, 2 because Buster's watching the clock. 3 I am concerned about two main issues. That's 4 basically what I have, the allowing the number of lots, as 5 defined in Paragraph 1.03.A.2 and 1.03.A.3, in a subdivision 6 being more than the number of acres divided by five, 7 regardless of whether the water is extracted by individual 8 wells or a community well. The aquifer knows no difference 9 between one well and two wells in the long term. Water out is 10 water out, and if recharge doesn't equal water in, you have a 11 water deficiency eventually. I am very concerned about the 12 high-density areas, quarter-acre lots, half-acre lots, 1-acre 13 lots, 2-acre lots. If it takes a 2-acre lot -- 2 acres to 14 support a single person, how are you going to support a family 15 of three, four, or five or more on the equivalent of 2 acres? 16 A quarter-acre lot, a half-acre lot, on average -- at an 17 average of 2 acres, is one -- at least the half -- twice the 18 demand that the aquifer can sustain. 19 Such development is particularly of concern to me in 20 the fact that it's in the area near -- surrounding the city of 21 Kerrville that had a problem 30 years ago, and only has 22 survived because of the steps that were taken then. And in 23 the east county, as you go to Center Point, there is a known 24 depletion of the aquifer along the river corridor already, and 25 to exacerbate that by allowing high-density development there 1-23-06 134 1 is the wrong way to go. I want to make a point here; that, 2 you know, the argument to me has always been there's plenty of 3 water in Kerr County. There is a lot of water in Kerr County. 4 The problem with it is, it's all out there, and we all live 5 here; 85 percent of the population of the county lives on 6 about 10 percent of the land in the river corridor between 7 Ingram and Center Point, with a big bubble right at Kerrville. 8 So, you can't -- you have to manage your water where the 9 people are. 10 And that is the problem I see here with this -- this 11 rule allowing this high-density development to -- encouraging 12 high-density development, actually, in -- in the region where 13 there are known deficiencies and depletion has already been 14 demonstrated to have occurred. The City has -- the city, as a 15 matter of fact, according to the Headwaters permit and the 16 regional state water plan, would already be operating in a 17 deficit during a drought of record. We would have -- if we 18 have a -- when we have that drought of record, as we continue 19 to grow, we will have an evacuation sort of like New Orleans, 20 except for a different reason; we won't have any water. I'm a 21 prophet of doom. I'm sorry, but that's the way -- (Laughter.) 22 That's what science says. I am an engineer. I am a 23 scientist. I have dealt with fluid dynamics for a long, long 24 time, and that's what fluid dynamic science tells you. You 25 can't allow development and growth to continue in an area 1-23-06 135 1 where there's already been a demonstrated problem. 2 There are two questions -- and I'm being short here. 3 There's two questions that I hope that the Commissioners would 4 answer, because this is what the order that is written allows; 5 it allows demand to exceed the supply. When that happens, 6 where is the water going to come from, and who's going to pay 7 the price? The people who bought the land that don't have any 8 water any more, who have to lower their well 50 feet? Who is 9 going to pay the price for the problem that occurs because you 10 allow high-density development and development on lots smaller 11 than are capable of supporting a family? Therefore, I am 12 recommending that the Court reconsider this proposed -- this 13 proposal and any Water Availability Requirements document that 14 allows water demand to exceed supply. Thank you. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Siemers. Anybody have 16 any questions for Mr. Siemers? Thank you, sir. 17 MR. SIEMERS: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be glad to visit with him 19 later, on a full stomach. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: He indicated he was willing to get 21 into an in-depth discussion with anybody with regard to these 22 issues, and I appreciate that. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I am concerned also about 24 making the change and allowing higher density development. I 25 think the -- the rules that we have now have served us pretty 1-23-06 136 1 well in terms of protecting water. I'm guessing. I have to 2 look to Paul Siemers and Jonathan Letz, who are experts on 3 that. They've also served to manage growth -- population 4 growth, so I'm reluctant to give up that -- those 5 restrictions. On the other hand, I read a really good article 6 by Bill Blackburn about some of the issues facing Kerr County 7 and affordable housing. I think everybody agrees that that's 8 an issue. So, I know restrictive land use drives up the price 9 of land. That drives up the price of housing. So I don't 10 know what the balancing act is here, but I just want to let 11 you know that in the next 30 days, I'm going to be thinking 12 about and talking to people about the wisdom of relaxing the 13 rules on development. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think your final point is 15 exactly the point that I want to get out, is that we need to 16 have a good public dialogue on it. We've been talking about 17 it a lot, but we -- obviously, I've wrestled with this for 18 months trying to come up with the wording that I'm comfortable 19 with. I had to meet with a lot of people. I think that's 20 exactly it; we need to put it out to the public and get input. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Things can be changed, and I 23 think everyone knows that I'm, you know, very open to -- I'm 24 trying to make the best rules for Kerr County, and that's been 25 my intent all along. And that being said, I'll make a motion 1-23-06 137 1 that we approve the Draft 012306A of the Kerr County Water 2 Availability Requirements as a draft version for public 3 comment, and set a public hearing -- Judge, can we do the 4 public hearing at the same time and have both of them back and 5 forth? Or do we have to set two different times? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Your rationale is that -- that the 7 two are really interdependent and are intertwined? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference would be to do it 9 at 1 o'clock as well. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: 1:30, you set the other one. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1:30. I'm sorry, 1:30. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a problem with that? Do 13 you have any problem with that, Rex? 14 MR. EMERSON: Not offhand. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We can call -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do both of them at 1:30? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason is that -- you 21 know, my logic is -- and if we have to do one first and one 22 second, do this one first. But the reason is that they're -- 23 they are very interrelated. And -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're two different 25 documents, though. 1-23-06 138 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, that's why I 2 asked the question, if it's a problem. We can do it either 3 way. If we -- we can do this at 1:30 and the other at 2:00, 4 but then we may have a dead period between for a few minutes, 5 which is fine as well. It's whatever is -- works the best for 6 the public. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Two separate documents. You're going 8 to act on them separately, irrespective of what the public 9 hearings are. I'm thinking that, to avoid repetitive comments 10 in two different public hearings, and for efficiency, it might 11 be best to kind of run them together, 'cause there's so much 12 overlap between the two. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I just -- I mean, 14 you had opened up a public hearing to listen to both issues. 15 Well, I see a storm in that, but, I mean, I'm not going to 16 argue with you. Let's do it. Let's just do something. I 17 hear a catfish calling. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think someone's -- I made a 19 motion. I think it needs to be seconded. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's for 1:30 also? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve 24 the draft of the Water Availability Requirements 012306A, and 25 set a public hearing on same for February the 27th, '06, at 1-23-06 139 1 1:30 p.m. I have a motion and a second to that effect. Any 2 question or discussion? 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: The motion carries. Let's move to 8 Item 16; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 9 adopt a proclamation declaring May 5th and 6th as the Fourth 10 Annual Relay for Life Days in Kerr County. Commissioner 11 Williams? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This says, Judge, we would 13 be setting aside May 5 and 6 and urging people to participate 14 in the Relay for Life, the proceeds of which go for cancer 15 research. I so move. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. A fun, fun, 17 function. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. If -- by 19 the second, is that -- are we to conclude from that that 20 you're going to be in the long -- the long-distance run in 21 that event? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He will be, yes. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll be out there wandering 24 around. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Any question or discussion on 1-23-06 140 1 the motion? 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: Do we have any items to be considered 7 in closed or executive session? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess we're not going to eat 9 catfish. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Section 4, bills. 11 Probably need to get the Auditor in here, if we could. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the 15 bills. Any question or discussion? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got one question on 17 Page 9. 18 MR. BARTON: You need the Auditor? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do you want to hear a real 21 quick status report while -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question on this first. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- while he's getting the 24 Auditor? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sorry. 1-23-06 141 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Page 9, at the top 3 of the page there, Alternate Housing. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're -- how does it happen 6 that we're paying other counties to take care of juveniles? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Boot camp. We don't have those 8 programs or facilities here. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. That's all. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- when the Department makes a 11 recommendation to include certain components of an out-of-home 12 placement, sometimes it includes a specific recommendation for 13 boot camp, and we just don't have that available here. 14 MR. BARTON: She apparently has already gone to 15 lunch. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any other questions 17 concerning the bills? All in favor of the motion, signify by 18 raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's get to 23 budget amendments. We have Budget Amendment Request Number 1. 24 This was one that the County Auditor furnished as a result of 25 a request from us at the last meeting to do the shuffle around 1-23-06 142 1 for moving items to a contract service to take care of the 2 County Auditor, and move the balance of what was available in 3 his salary line item over to the official salary, or the 4 Auditor -- her line item as acting Interim Auditor, and the 5 various rollup charges with that. She's furnished us with 6 that budget amendment, indicating the creation of an account 7 for contract services. And then there are -- there's one page 8 showing all of the machinations of the -- of how she arrived 9 at these various changes, as well as a copy of the District 10 Judge's order designating her as the Interim County Auditor. 11 Essentially, what she's done is give us what we asked her to 12 give us last time. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Can you tell me, 14 or tell the general public what the bottom line cost is here? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 546.74? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there's also that 11,000 17 number right up here. Where's the money coming from? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: If your question is, is there any 19 additional funds added to the budget, no, there are not. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: This is merely a shifting around -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: -- within the Auditor's budget. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, that would be -- we're 25 taking 22,000 out of Contract Services -- no. 1-23-06 143 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Adding. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's adding to Contract 3 Services. That's for Tommy? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 22,000. And then 11,000 for 6 the actual Auditor. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we're -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: We're eliminating the balance of her 10 salary of 33,103.84. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. And there was the 12 FICA issue, and then we're adding 546 to the retirement. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like a dadgum good 15 deal to me. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a plus situation all 17 around. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 21 of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any 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. 1-23-06 144 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not aware of any late bills. 3 I've been presented with monthly reports from Justice of the 4 Peace, Precinct 2; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; County 5 Clerk, both general and trust funds; District Clerk; County 6 Attorney; and Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1. Do I hear a 7 motion that these reports be approved as submitted? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second for 12 approval of the designated reports as submitted. Any question 13 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 14 your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have 19 any reports from any of the Commissioners in connection with 20 their liaison or other assignments? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Neither does he. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Nor does he? Any reports from 25 elected officials? 1-23-06 145 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, you -- you better be 2 quick. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll be quick. It's really a 4 little bit of good news. Overall crime stats for last year, 5 for 2005, when we ran them, in all offense codes -- in other 6 words, in all offenses combined, dropped in Kerr County by 5 7 percent. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Crime dropped in Kerr County 9 by 5 percent? 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Overall crime dropped. We had 11 -- and that's actual offenses. Now, we did have this last 12 year 11,397 calls that we responded to, compared to 2004, we 13 had 11,985 calls, so it dropped almost by 800 calls. 14 Bookings, the -- this is where it gets a little bit confusing, 15 but not too bad. The bookings for 2004, total number of 16 people booked into our adult jail was 3,424 people booked into 17 the jail. In 2005, it dropped to 3,352. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three thousand what? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 352. Now, the bad part is, our 20 average daily population in 2004 was 158 in the jail. Our 21 average daily population in 2005 was 161. And, again, 22 remember, we're just getting closer and closer. We're down 23 right now. It hasn't been bad; they've got some through 24 court, but the 80 percent that we should stay at with the Jail 25 Commission and that is 153, okay? So, we're still going to 1-23-06 146 1 have to do something. It's 146 today. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't you see if you can 3 run them through the court system a little faster? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can't do any more than your 5 judges will do. And -- but those are the -- I thought it was 6 good overall, that we have -- we have just a flat rate of 5 7 percent less crime rate in the county, and calls and jail 8 inmates, everything going down. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Sheriff. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good law enforcement. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Sheriff. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports? Any other 13 business to come before the Court? We stand adjourned. 14 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:25 p.m.) 15 - - - - - - - - - - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1-23-06 147 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 5 capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court 6 of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place 7 heretofore set forth. 8 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 27th day of 9 January, 2006. 10 11 12 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 13 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 14 Certified Shorthand Reporter 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1-23-06