1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, June 26, 2006 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge 23 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 24 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 25 ABSENT: H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 2 1 I N D E X June 26, 2006 2 PAGE --- Visitors' Input 5 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 6 4 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on approval of Hill Country Alternative Dispute 5 Resolution Center 10 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 6 approve completed "Texas Yes!" program contract for 2006 Texas Arts and Crafts Fair marketing program 19 7 1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to reaffirm Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 8 Regulations 24 1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 9 reaffirm Kerr County Water Availability Requirements 42 10 1.10 Public Hearing concerning revision of plat for Lots 13 & 14, Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I 43 11 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on TCDRS Plan Options and Plan Rate for 2007, have County 12 Judge sign same 43 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 13 implementation of Process Works, Inc.; have County Judge sign same 44 14 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for revision of Lots 13 & 14 of Cypress Springs. 15 Estates, Phase I 46 1.12 Request to amend interlocal agreement related to 16 subdivision review/approval on the ETJ to allow extension of time for City to amend its 17 subdivision regulations 48 1.5 Consider/discuss preliminary plat of Falls Ranch 18 Subdivision, Phase I 51 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set 19 public hearing to abandon, vacate and discontinue Privilege Creek Ranches 70 20 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for revision of Lots 4 & 5, Byas Springs Ranch 71 21 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for construction of roadway & drainage study for 22 Megan Manor 72 1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 23 extend preliminary plat of Waugh Acres 78 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 24 clarify Court Order # 29223 concerning illegal divisions of property in Pct. 1 & 2 86 25 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for realignment of Upper Turtle Creek Road 93 3 1 I N D E X (Continued) June 26, 2006 2 PAGE 1.15 Consider/discuss County Treasurer's notification 3 that her office will discontinue human resources functions as of August 1, 2006 95 4 1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on request of County Judge for County Treasurer to 5 provide true copies of all information exchanged between Treasurer's office and IRS and Social 6 Security Administration between 1-1-03 and present 103 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 7 authorize County Auditor and members of Commissioners Court to have access to information 8 maintained by IRS which relates to Kerr County 113 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 9 quote for sidewalk construction at Kerr County Animal Control facility 117 10 1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to accept funds remaining after disbanding of Hill 11 Country Garden Council for use in replacing/ upgrading plantings at Kerr County War Memorial 120 12 1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on contract with consulting engineer for subdivision 13 review 121 1.23 Retirement of Tax Assessor-Collector effective 14 August 31, 2006; consider/discuss, take appropriate action to appoint successor (Executive Session) --- 15 1.24 Consider/discuss Maintenance Department supervision (Executive Session) --- 16 1.25 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to make nomination for vacancy on the KCAD Board of 17 Directors 125 18 4.1 Pay Bills 129 4.2 Budget Amendments 129 19 4.3 Late Bills --- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 135 20 3.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed 21 in executive session 136 22 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments 137 23 --- Adjourned 144 24 25 4 1 On Monday, June 26, 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: Let me call to order this regular 7 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled for 8 this time and date, Monday, June the 26th, 2006, at 9 a.m. 9 It's past that time now. Commissioner Williams? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you please rise and 11 join me for a word of prayer, followed by the pledge of 12 allegiance to our flag. 13 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's 15 any member of the public or the audience that wishes to be 16 heard on any item that is not a listed agenda item, well, 17 you're free to come forward and tell us what's on your mind at 18 this time. If you wish to be heard on a listed agenda item, 19 we'd ask that you fill out a participation form. They can be 20 found at the back of the room. If there's not some there, 21 why, I think we can get some there pretty quick. Or if, for 22 some reason, when we get to that item, if you haven't filled 23 out a partition participation form, if you wish to be heard, 24 if you'll just get my attention some way, shape, form, or 25 fashion, I'll -- I'll recognize you. It helps if I do have 6-26-06 5 1 the participation form, though; helps me to be alert that 2 there's someone out there wishing to be heard. So, if there's 3 any member of the public that wishes to be heard at this time 4 on any item that is not a listed agenda item, come forward at 5 this time, if you would. Seeing no one -- excuse me. Come 6 forward and please give us your name and address and tell us 7 what's on your mind, sir. 8 MR. BRUNER: Morning, Commissioners. My name is Ken 9 Bruner. I'm president of the Bear Paw Ranch Homeowner 10 Association out on Sheppard Rees Road. I'm here with my 11 friend, Harold Smith, who represents a considerable number of 12 the residents of The Horizon Subdivision. We want to let you 13 all know that we are organizing a coalition of homeowners, 14 people who are already on the ground who have sunk their 15 retirement savings into homes here in Kerr County because of 16 its great beauty and because of its attractiveness, many of us 17 coming from places besides the San Antonio area, all around 18 Texas; indeed, around the nation. We're very concerned and 19 will be watching with great interest the progress of any 20 proceedings in public policy or decision-making bodies related 21 to the L.C.R.A.'s proposed power transmission plans. We 22 believe at the outset that they have, in fact, violated their 23 own standards by not taking into consideration the aesthetics 24 of the Hill Country. Several of their routes have been 25 proposed as planned along high points in the county to 6-26-06 6 1 interrupt both view-shed, watershed, and aviation access, some 2 of which is critical to some of our neighbors in the outlying 3 districts who are counting on that helicopter in time of need. 4 I'm sorry Commissioner Baldwin's not here. I wanted to 5 express our public thanks to him for having responded to us 6 and forwarding our concerns on to the functioning engineer, 7 project manager at L.C.R.A. We also communicated with 8 Commissioner Tinley, and have not yet heard what y'all might 9 think of this and what your participation in it as an advisory 10 to other public agencies; P.U.C., L.C.R.A., so forth. So, we 11 just want to let you know that we're out here. There is much 12 of it we don't like, and we will be hopefully working with 13 you, with other appointed and elected public officials to 14 achieve the shortest, least cost, and least intrusive 15 provision of that power to the apparent growth of our county. 16 Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there any other 18 member of the public that wishes to be heard on any item that 19 is not a listed agenda item? Anybody else that wishes to be 20 heard on anything that's not a listed agenda item? Seeing no 21 one else coming forward, we'll move on. Commissioner 22 Williams, what do you have for us this morning? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't have a lot, Judge, 24 but -- probably didn't have anything till I finished reading 25 the Express News yesterday afternoon or yesterday evening, and 6-26-06 7 1 lo and behold, in a section way back in the back of the 2 newspaper is a -- is a big feature article about the Dixie 3 Chicks. And as I read the article, I see our illustrious 4 colleague, Commissioner Baldwin, is quoted extensively. I was 5 going to have a little fun with him about that, but since he's 6 not here, I'll just save the article and give it to him on 7 another day. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, sir? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe I have anything 12 really today. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A week ago, Saturday and 15 Sunday, we got anywhere from 1 to 2 inches of rain in Precinct 16 4. Remember, it has 600 square miles, so it can have a big 17 rain one place and very little in another place. Yesterday we 18 got more rain, anywhere from just a little more than a trace 19 to up to an inch, and I have lifted the -- reluctantly lifted 20 the burn ban. I think it's still -- still hazardous. Our 21 volunteer fire departments have been taxed pretty good lately, 22 but a lot of -- some people out there standing ankle-deep in 23 mud, so I've lifted the burn ban. I'm just hoping everybody 24 will use good judgment, and that we won't have a big problem. 25 That's all. 6-26-06 8 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. I'd like to take 2 this opportunity to give some recognition to one of our County 3 employees, by virtue of some work that she is doing in 4 emergency preparedness, emergency response. As I'm sure most 5 of you know, during Katrina and Rita, there was a major 6 difficulty trying to evacuate people that had domestic animals 7 when they did not know what the fate or future of those 8 animals was going to be, particularly elderly people that had 9 companion pets and of that nature. As a result, they refused 10 to be evacuated, and exacerbated the -- the emergency service 11 requirements that had to be provided, and made things a whole 12 lot more difficult. One of the lessons learned from those 13 disasters was that what we need to include in our emergency 14 plan is some function where these domestic pets can be 15 provided for, so that these owners will have some comfort zone 16 knowing that there is some procedure in place and plan in 17 place that their pets will be adequately cared for and -- and 18 documented, and they'll be reunited with them if they're 19 evacuated to a different place. 20 Christine McIntyre with our County Attorney's 21 office -- she's an administrative assistant there; been with 22 us a pretty long time, who also heads up the local Diamond 23 Dachshund Rescue of Texas -- got ahead of the curve and has 24 established and has received training, along with a few other 25 individuals that she recruited. It's called CARRT, which 6-26-06 9 1 stands for Companion Animal Response and Rescue Team. And I 2 think at this time, she's got the only one that's certified in 3 the state of Texas. And this past weekend, they had an 4 exercise out at the Youth Exhibit facility to go through a 5 drill for a disaster to refine their procedures of how they're 6 going to do this. No one leaned on Ms. McIntyre to do this. 7 She came up with this plan, came to me, and I said, "Run with 8 it. I think it's a great thing." She has been running with 9 it. She was trained by some certified instructors, and her 10 plan is to get this team solidly on the ground, to then train 11 another team, and try and spread this throughout Texas, so I 12 think she deserves significant recognition for this work. And 13 I -- this will become, I have been told, a mandatory part of 14 every emergency plan in this country for -- for emergency 15 preparedness and response, so I think she needs that 16 recognition, and I'm happy to give it to her today. Let's 17 move on with our agenda, if we might. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, if you will, please. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had a voice message on my 21 telephone this morning -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- before we came into court 24 from the County Treasurer, who asked that -- said she was ill; 25 I believe her voice was very bad, and asked that we take care 6-26-06 10 1 of Items 3 and 4, but asked that, quote, we hold up till next 2 meeting on Items 15 and 16. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: 15 and 16? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Appreciate that heads-up. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's consider Item 1, if we might. 8 Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on an approval 9 of the Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution Center. I 10 assume that's the contractual agreement that we have, Mr. 11 Reaves? 12 MR. REAVES: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. Your 13 Honor, Commissioners, I'm here today as a representative of 14 the Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution Center. I'm 15 glad to report that the volume of activity kept up in 2005, 16 but it has just -- it's currently 150 percent of what it was 17 last year. So, through May of this year, we're -- we're 18 doing, I think, some 63 cases compared to 40-something through 19 May of last year, and we have enjoyed a pretty good success 20 rate with the volunteer mediators. We have a small enough 21 volume that we can find out a little bit about each case and 22 try and figure out who the best mediator is to try and 23 recruit, and we have people that have been very generous with 24 their time in doing so. We have done a lot of C.P.S. cases. 25 We did 22 last year; we've already done 21 this year, and that 6-26-06 11 1 is one item that we get little to no remuneration for, 2 depending on the court and whether they -- the people have any 3 money that they feel that they -- they ought to be paying. 4 So, this is one place where your allocation of A.D.R. funds to 5 the Hill Country A.D.R. center really is -- is tremendously 6 helpful. And last year, we settled 17 out of the 22 C.P.S. 7 cases we had, and according to the associate judges, they tell 8 me that's like a five-day trial for each one that they would 9 have had to have anyway. So, I'm glad to report that. 10 We were -- I think last -- in 2005, we just about 11 hit the bottom of the financial barrel, because the money that 12 had built up in A.D.R. funds in Kerr County was -- was going 13 down, and our allocations were matching that. Thanks to your 14 action in endorsing the Legislature action of permitting a 15 raising of A.D.R. fees, that has turned around. I think we -- 16 we'd probably only have collected 13,000 a year in A.D.R. fees 17 without your action, but thanks to the action that you took, 18 we're looking at about 18,000 a year or so being raised. As 19 of the 25th of May, there was some 19 and a half thousand in 20 the A.D.R. fund. Given straight-line projection, I expect 21 there's a little over 21,000 in there now, and we're 22 requesting your consideration of the 21 -- $17,000 allocation 23 with our -- our contract. Do you have any questions, sir? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: The contract which you submitted was 25 for this current fiscal year? 6-26-06 12 1 MR. REAVES: Yes, sir. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Has that contract not yet been 3 approved? 4 MR. REAVES: No, sir. No. Last year we came here 5 in April, and my understanding was that the longer we wait, 6 the better, because the funds become more clear as to exactly 7 what we have. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could come earlier next 10 year. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I was kind of surprised 12 to see it was during this fiscal year, and I thought -- you 13 guys have been crippling along over there without the benefit 14 of these funds that are dedicated by court filings for the 15 A.D.R. function. 16 MR. REAVES: Yes, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might be -- next year, to follow 18 up on that, Judge, it might be better to come earlier, and we 19 can do an adjustment late in the year to get additional funds 20 to you, or just go based on projected. I mean, we could 21 probably do something like 15,000. Then if you need 22 additional later in the year... 23 MR. REAVES: Great. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I noted in looking at your 25 financials, when you said this was kind of a bottom-out year, 6-26-06 13 1 it sure as the dickens was. All the -- y'all are really 2 bouncing off the bottom operating at a loss over there. 3 MR. REAVES: Well, keep in mind, 13,000 of the -- of 4 that -- of the loss compared with 2004 was the smaller -- 5 13,000 less allocation. We had 33,000 from the Court in '04, 6 and we had 20,000 last year. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 8 MR. REAVES: And, you know, the Court did ask me to 9 see that the other counties increase their contribution. I'm 10 glad to report that that has been done. We've got contracts 11 providing for quarterly allocations of A.D.R. funds collected 12 from Gillespie County and Kendall County and Bandera County, 13 which are, with Kerr, the four most active counties. So, 14 that's going to make a big difference. Last year, all year, 15 the total amount that we collected from the other counties was 16 11 and a half thousand, and through April of this year, we've 17 already collected 15 and a half from the other counties. Now, 18 I don't think it's going to be straight-line like that the 19 rest of the year, because there is some that had been 20 collecting for a while and had not made an allocation before, 21 but I think it's some of -- they -- all these other counties 22 also, as with this Court, approved the increase in A.D.R. 23 fees. So, you know, knock on wood, things are looking up 24 financially, particularly with our increase in volume of 25 cases. 6-26-06 14 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The new allocations that these other 2 counties are making, are they essentially tied to what their 3 revenue stream is on that portion of the court costs which is 4 mandatorily dedicated to A.D.R. functions? 5 MR. REAVES: Yes, sir. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, the 17,000 is 8 budgeted, is it not? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Auditor? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I looked before I came in here, and 11 there's -- we budgeted 12,500 for -- for this fiscal year. I 12 think, as I recall, that was based on -- on what was available 13 at the end of the year. And during the budget process, we 14 really didn't know -- we didn't know much about the change in 15 the revenue. So, I think we budgeted based on what we 16 anticipate we would collect for this year. So, I also look at 17 the cash -- it was 19,000 and change through May, so there -- 18 you know, Mr. Reaves is probably close to being correct about 19 there being at least 21 at the end of the year. We would have 20 -- we would have to do a budget amendment in order to pay them 21 more than 12,500. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think the way that it's 23 styled, I think we can do that budget amendment under this 24 agenda item. "Take appropriate action" I think would come 25 under that portion of it. 6-26-06 15 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. County Attorney, could we include 2 the budget amendment to increase that portion of the budget? 3 We've got the revenue stream for it up to 17,000, as called 4 for in the contract? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can come back and do it at 6 the next meeting as well, but, I mean, just -- 7 MR. EMERSON: I would be more comfortable if you did 8 it at the next meeting. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we approve what we 10 know is in the budget, and then come back and amend it next 11 meeting? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We might be able to get a 13 better analysis of the figures and how those are trending with 14 that new increase into the A.D.R. fee supplement. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: I might suggest going ahead and 16 paying them what we budgeted -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: -- at this point. And then in 19 waiting till October and getting a balance, that way we could 20 go ahead and budget it for -- for '06-'07, with the remainder 21 of the funds available for '05-'06, plus what we anticipate 22 collecting in '06-'07. We're happy to delay part of the 23 payment until October, so we would not have to do a budget 24 amendment. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This contract's for this fiscal 6-26-06 16 1 year, so to me, we would approve this contract and come back 2 and do a budget amendment to get them up to the 17,000, and 3 then I think do what you're talking about, maybe, for the next 4 fiscal year. I mean, 'cause if we wait till after October -- 5 MR. TOMLINSON: I think it boils town to whether or 6 not the Court wants to do a budget amendment for this year. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: I think it boils down to whether or 9 not the -- the Commissioners Court wants to do a budget 10 amendment for '05-'06. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As opposed to just doing it 12 in new budget year. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would be -- I mean, I guess it 16 doesn't make any difference, but I would rather get the money 17 to them as quickly as possible and do a budget amendment this 18 year, and then look at next year and our next year's contract. 19 And I make a motion to approve the contract as submitted. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: With what funding level? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At 17,000, with the only payment 22 to be made what's currently budgeted, until a budget amendment 23 is approved by the Court. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it. 6-26-06 17 1 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second. Any 2 question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the 3 motion, 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. Thank you, 8 Mr. Reaves. 9 MR. REAVES: Thank you, Your Honor. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Incidentally -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Excuse me, Judge. I've got 12 one question for Mr. Reaves. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First, I really appreciate 15 the A.D.R. It's a winner. 16 MR. REAVES: Thank you, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good for litigants and 18 courts and taxpayers and everybody. I can't remember what 19 program fees are, where you have here Program Fees for 20 Mediation. The participants pay a fee to use the process? 21 MR. REAVES: They do, Your Honor. And, for example, 22 in a district court or county court case, it is $175 per 23 party. Now, that's all day if necessary, and sometimes into 24 the night. And there are lesser fees for J.P.; I want to say 25 it's $60 per person. I'm hoping if we get -- do well enough 6-26-06 18 1 in the future, that we could lower the J.P. fee down to 2 something -- something really nominal, like $20 or so, to make 3 it accessible to more and more folks. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a bargain. 5 MR. REAVES: Thank you, sir. It's a pleasure. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Your C.P.S. cases, which I know are 7 very, very contentious cases, you calculated -- I believe you 8 said 17 out of the 22. That's a 77 percent-plus settlement 9 rate. As to your other cases, what's your settlement rate, if 10 you recall, roughly? 11 MR. REAVES: Well, last night I figured it out. I 12 thought you might ask me that, and I had -- we settled -- we 13 have some 71 cases as of today that we've mediated. Now, all 14 -- of that number, all but seven either settled -- most of 15 them settled on the day of mediation, and there are a couple 16 others that subsequently settled as a result of the mediation, 17 and so that's up about 90 percent. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think that's about the 19 national average of mediation of the figures that I've heard, 20 is 90 percent success rate, which is phenomenal. You sure 21 can't get those kind of odds anywhere else. And as 22 Commissioner Nicholson said, it's a -- it saves money for the 23 litigants, the taxpayers, the courts, their time. They're 24 overburdened. 25 MR. REAVES: We do a lot of family law, because 6-26-06 19 1 that's just a reflection of what's in the courts. And it -- 2 it feels great to be able to help folks reach their own 3 settlement, and know that they and their children and the rest 4 of the family are -- can go on with their lives. You know, 5 it's a great -- great feeling. Thank y'all very much. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Reaves. Appreciate 7 you being here today. Let's move on to Item 2, if we might. 8 Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve the 9 completed Texas Yes! program contract between Kerr County and 10 Texas Department of Agriculture with respect to the 2006 Texas 11 Arts and Crafts Fair Marketing Program. I placed this on the 12 agenda at the request of Mr. Bob Miller concerning some grant 13 funds that he made application to the Texas Department of 14 Agriculture under the Texas Yes! program, I believe $10,000 in 15 connection with the marketing and advertising for this 16 immediate past Texas Arts and Crafts Fair. 17 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. Good morning. I'm Bob 18 Miller with the Texas Arts and Crafts Educational Foundation. 19 We've had -- I think this is our third trip back on this 20 grant. Pardon me. Department of Agriculture has changed. 21 First thing they wanted to do was come back and have y'all 22 join. After we joined, I think we found out you had already 23 joined. But the contract had not been approved by the -- by 24 you all in the court at that point, I think based on some 25 reservations that Mr. Emerson had. I was here today to try to 6-26-06 20 1 see if we couldn't get by some of those and get that contract 2 approved. One of the things I looked at last time I talked to 3 Mr. Emerson was that y'all are an additional insured on our 4 insurance policy; have been from square one, by virtue of -- 5 that we lease the property from you all. And I think that 6 probably handles most, if not all, of the risks that were 7 detailed in the letter to Judge Tinley from Mr. Emerson back 8 in May. Mr. Emerson can probably speak to that better than I 9 can, since he -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Emerson probably 11 will speak to it. There was an issue, as you recall, with 12 another Texas Yes! application grant, and it was called to our 13 attention by the County Attorney that the requirements of the 14 grant were that the Court was to be the administrator of those 15 funds. And we sort of backed up and said no, we didn't think 16 we wanted to do that, because of the nature of that particular 17 request and how -- how the funds were going to be utilized and 18 so forth and so on, and we weren't going to be disbursing 19 those funds. There is, I think, a basic difference in that 20 request that the Court backed away from and your request. 21 Let's see if I can shed a little light on it. First of all, 22 you lease county property, and your event is on county 23 property. Your event has already taken place, and you have 24 expended the money for advertising, for which you're asking 25 reimbursement. 6-26-06 21 1 MR. MILLER: That's correct. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that correct? 3 MR. MILLER: That is correct, yes. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And as such, then, you would 5 be able to provide the Auditor with sufficient documentation 6 as to the expenditures, that they had been appropriately made 7 as per the grant requirements? 8 MR. MILLER: Right. We could actually provide him 9 with a copy of all of the things that we used as support that 10 would go to the Texas Department of Agriculture with this. 11 This is a reimbursement grant; we have to prove to them that 12 we have spent the money and that everything that -- like the 13 use of their logo and their mark has been approved ahead of 14 time. All those things have been done, and then are submitted 15 as a package to them for reimbursement. I'll be happy to 16 provide him with a copy. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I think there are some 18 signal differences between your application and the one that 19 the Court backed away from in the past. That's the point. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Miller, if the communication 21 which I got from Texas Department of Agriculture is correct, 22 this is a -- a last-ditch measure, and if we don't do 23 something with it today, you're going to have to eat that 24 $10,000 -- 25 MR. MILLER: I may have to -- 6-26-06 22 1 JUDGE TINLEY: -- you've already expended? 2 MR. MILLER: I may have to eat it anyway. You and I 3 are both on notice that they have canceled the contract. I've 4 been back in contact with them. They have agreed to 5 reconsider it based upon nothing was done in a timely manner. 6 We got the contract less than 30 days before the event, which 7 was a no-no to begin with. We worked with them for months 8 before we had a contract. So, anyway, they're taking another 9 look at it, but there is no guarantee at this point, even if 10 you approve the contract, that we will be reimbursed those 11 funds. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: At best, we're on borrowed time. 13 MR. MILLER: We're on borrowed time, and I think 14 we're laying the groundwork for next year, 'cause we'll go 15 back and make that same grant application for next year. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before I make a motion, I 17 want to turn to you, County Attorney and Judge. Is there 18 anything else about this, other than the issues regarding 19 administration and certification of the expenditures as 20 correct, anything else that we need to be aware of? 21 MR. EMERSON: Nothing -- nothing different than the 22 original memo relative to the other contracts. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval of the 24 Texas Yes! program contract between Kerr County and Texas 25 Department of Agriculture with respect to the 2006 Arts and 6-26-06 23 1 Crafts Fair marketing program, qualified by Mr. Miller 2 submitting proof to the County Auditor that the expenditures 3 are in order. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Authorization for me to sign the 5 same? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 9 indicated. Any question or discussion on the motion? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just another comment to 11 follow up a little bit on what Commissioner Williams said. 12 The other difference here is this is a -- the other one that 13 we backed away from was an individual, whose private finances 14 are private. This is a nonprofit where the finances are 15 public, and there's a big difference there on -- on the -- you 16 know, seeing how the funds are used, and to the whole public, 17 not just us. And there obviously is a relationship with this 18 facility, as we own the property. So -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments on 20 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 21 your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 6-26-06 24 1 MR. MILLER: Thank you, gentlemen. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 3 MR. MILLER: Appreciate it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move, if we might, to Item 20. 5 Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to reaffirm the 6 Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Commissioner 7 Letz? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At our last meeting, I went 9 over -- I guess two meetings ago or three meetings ago, the 10 Court approved new Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 11 Regulations, and authorized myself to make some changes. 12 "Minor" changes, I think they were referred to. Those have 13 been made. And I still think they're minor changes. Almost 14 all the changes are at the request and advice of our 15 consulting county engineer, but because there are changes, I 16 thought it was better for the Court to reaffirm the final 17 document. There may be some formatting changes and some 18 checking on pages and things of that nature, but the actual 19 document itself will not change any more. And I wanted that 20 just to go -- you know, bring it before the Court and get this 21 reaffirmed. I will point out a couple -- where some of the 22 changes are again, 'cause some of them are -- you know, I 23 think they're certainly important. I'll just go through them 24 real quick; won't hit all of them, but I will hit some of 25 them. 6-26-06 25 1 Under the definitions on Page 10, we added a 2 definition of total acreage. I think, Commissioner Williams, 3 this is -- goes back to later on into how we -- number of 4 lots, the maximum number of lots permitted in a subdivision. 5 Kind of gives a definition of what total acreage -- how it's 6 defined. On Page 12, this is some additional language that 7 our -- the county consulting engineer thought we should add. 8 This kind of strengthens a little bit about when work can be 9 started and drainage plans and things of that nature. That 10 all has to be done after preliminary plat is approved; nothing 11 can be done prior to preliminary plat approval. Also, it 12 refers -- talks a little bit about drainage plan and road plan 13 and profiles. 14 Page 13, this is a little bit, you know, of a change 15 on where the -- we currently had it set up where we increased 16 our overall subdivision fees and hoped that that would absorb 17 the cost of the engineering review. Our engineer says he 18 thinks this is a much better approach; that he'll keep track 19 of it on a subdivision-by-subdivision basis, and the developer 20 of a subdivision will pay for the engineering review fees for 21 that subdivision. And I think he'll keep an accurate total. 22 He'll give us the bill prior to final plat, and then that 23 check has to be paid before we do final plat approval. So, on 24 Page 16 and 17, a lot of highlights, but what we really did, 25 there was some discussion about community water systems; 6-26-06 26 1 modified that language, and now it says -- instead of saying 2 "community water system," it's "community, public, or shared 3 water system." Then we also added language about "No 4 individual water wells will be permitted on any lot," where 5 they're using a water system to get the lower lot size. 6 That's a plat note. That same thing is on those two pages. 7 On Page 18, this is new. It was felt that our -- we 8 were trying to create a table to quickly look at what the 9 requirements are, and this is what I came up with. And I 10 think it kind of gives the water source, sewage disposal 11 system, and the area of the county. Then go across, and you 12 can see minimum lot size, maximum number of lots in that 13 subdivision, kind of a quick reference for people to look at. 14 Then there's a -- under notes, it says you need to look at the 15 actual language in some of the specific requirements. But I 16 think this is a good addition, just to make it real clear on 17 our minimum lot size and the maximum number of lots permitted 18 in a subdivision. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the table, 20 Commissioner. It might be helpful for those who are 21 interested, though, if you just quickly step through those 22 categories. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The -- the categories, 24 subdivision type, and it lists water, water source, sewage 25 disposal system, area of the county, and other -- minimum lot 6-26-06 27 1 size, maximum number of lots in the subdivision. Individual 2 water wells using on-site or O.S.S.F. county-wide, minimum lot 3 size is 5 acres, and the total acreage in the -- or the 4 maximum number of lots is total acreage divided by five. If 5 you have individual water wells and a community sewage system 6 county-wide -- I can't imagine we'll ever have that, but I 7 didn't want to leave a hole. I can't imagine we're going to 8 have community sewage and individual wells, but if a developer 9 did want to do that, it would be a 5-acre minimum lot size, 10 and the maximum number of lots would be total acreage divided 11 by five. If you have a community water system and on-site 12 septic outside high-density development areas, minimum lot 13 size is 1 acre. Total acreage in subdivision -- I mean, the 14 maximum number of lots is total acreage divided by three. 15 If you're on a community water system and on-site 16 septic within the high-density area, minimum lot size is 1 17 acre, and the maximum number of lots is total acreage divided 18 by two. If you're on a community water system and a community 19 sewage system outside the high-density area, the minimum lot 20 size is 1 acre; maximum number of lots is total acreage in the 21 subdivision divided by three. If you're on a community water 22 system and a community sewage system within a high-density 23 development area, minimum lot size is one-quarter acre, and 24 the maximum number of lots is total acreage in the subdivision 25 divided by two. A little bit further, under 5.01.F, building 6-26-06 28 1 setbacks for road right-of-way went from 20 feet to 50 feet 2 off the lot lines, and that was at the request of our 3 consulting engineer mainly. If you have to increase 4 right-of-ways or other issues, that additional 30 foot does 5 make a big difference, and really doesn't -- isn't going to 6 impact the construction. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if you got -- if we've 8 got a residence structure that's 100 feet wide, and you have 9 to have 50 feet setback on either side, you have to have at 10 least 200 feet of lot to build on. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's coming from the 12 roads. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: From the street. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not the edges of the 16 property. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: But on the smaller lots, quarter-acre 18 lots, I can see where that might be a real challenge. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think you can always 20 give a variance. I mean, on those, when you get into those 21 high-density developments, I think we're going to have to look 22 at those almost on a case-by-case, and that's permitted 23 elsewhere in the rules. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 22 -- 6-26-06 29 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's one on 20. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's a -- I'm not going 3 to hit all of them. That's just talking about -- we added 4 what road plan and profile drawings are required. It's local 5 roads, collector roads, and arterial roads, and that's listed 6 again later as well in a table. Page 22, no change here. I 7 put this on just to make sure that everyone's in agreement 8 that, for drainage requirements -- I'll just read it. If you 9 have -- subdivisions with minimum lot size of 20 acres or 10 total number of lots less than five shall be exempt from 11 drainage requirements. I just put that in there 'cause it 12 changed from our current rule to -- or our previous rules, our 13 previous 2002. That's what -- there's a note. Page 24, I 14 just put that as a note. At the bottom, 5.06.H, we used to 15 have a standard -- I think it was a five-year for drainage 16 structures, what size of storm frequency you're looking at. 17 The engineer recommended we break that out into four 18 categories based on the size of the drainage area. The bigger 19 the drainage area, the higher the requirement is on drainage 20 structures. 21 Then, on Page 25, used to be a three-year storm 22 frequency; it went to a five -- or two-year. Used to be 23 two-year. He recommended we go to a five-year storm 24 frequency. Trying to be a little bit more consistent on what 25 we use in storm frequencies throughout. Page 26, the top part 6-26-06 30 1 is really just a wording change up there, but the bottom part 2 under 6.02.A is the specific language about the engineering 3 review being charged back to the subdivision. He goes over 4 that in some detail. And then, below that, we increased the 5 number of prints that are required to be submitted, and 6 increased the time to 28 days that the information needs to be 7 submitted. This allows for the engineer to have time to look 8 at it. Page 27 through 28, no changes in content, just 9 changes the way some of that was worded, but the content's all 10 the same. And the same on Pages 30 through 37 -- 30 through 11 32. Those are just changing the order and kind of making it a 12 little bit more consistent, using consistent language and -- 13 but no change in the content at all. 14 Page 33, it specifically says that as-built drawings 15 are required for drainage and for construction. Those are the 16 bottom two changes. This is talking about roads here, but 17 there is another section we didn't bring in about drainage. 18 We have as-built drawings; it's on the bottom. We didn't 19 require that. On Page 34, alternate plat process, I increased 20 that. Used to be four or less; it went up to five or less. 21 It's trying to make things a little bit more consistent with 22 some of the other requirements, trying to use five as the 23 breaking point for a lot of things. Then -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Earlier you said less than five, and 25 this says less than five, so we're now talking about five or 6-26-06 31 1 less? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than five. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Less than five? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I got them all to less 5 than five. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lower on that page, increased 8 the number of days to 28 days. On Page 39, again, it's 9 talking about plan and profiles, drawings required for 10 arterial, collector, and local roads. They're not requiring 11 them for country lanes. On Page 41, that's the same change we 12 made earlier about drainage; it's just reiterated again here. 13 It's almost a duplicate of the language. On Page 42, this is 14 something we discussed a lot, and -- but changed this a lot 15 again, on the type of the base material. We added a general 16 note underneath it now. It's all, you know, the types. 17 There's Type A for arterial road, Grade 2; collector roads, 18 Type A, Grade 2; local roads, Type A, Grade 2; country lanes, 19 Type C, Grade 2. But under all of it, "Equivalent base 20 material may be approved by the County Subdivision 21 Administrator if such material meets equivalent testing 22 criteria performed by a licensed testing laboratory." The key 23 word here is "may." Gives the discretion up to Leonard. 24 And this was one of the ones that really I hadn't 25 thought of this, but our consulting engineer brought this up. 6-26-06 32 1 There are situations when, if we require base to be hauled in 2 on an existing county road that's "X" miles long, we may 3 destroy our current road getting this base material out to a 4 new road when there is probably adequate material on-site. 5 So, this is a -- the reason for this is -- the criteria I 6 think Len will probably use is, what's the damage going to be 7 to county -- to existing county roads by hauling base to 8 several locations? And I thought it's a pretty good approach. 9 On Page 45, we just listed the definitions on Page 45. We 10 used to have all the criteria listed under each one. And then 11 if you go to Page 46 is a table that gives all the road 12 requirements broken out. From the last time we discussed it, 13 this is -- all the changes on this were based on 14 recommendations by Wayne Wells. He thought we were too 15 restrictive on the number of lots, where the breakdown for the 16 local road, collector road, and arterial, so we've increased 17 some of those. He thought we were also too restrictive on the 18 average daily traffic counts, so we increased those some. 19 I think the reason we got off a little bit on that 20 is, I was copying from other subdivisions and different 21 terminology. He said that we were being a little bit 22 unreasonable there. We made some other changes that he 23 recommended there as well. And, really, one of the more 24 important changes here is underneath the table, the paragraph 25 that starts with "Design speed." This gives the -- a little 6-26-06 33 1 bit more flexibility. I know there's some engineers here; I'd 2 better be careful what I say on this one. Getting on very 3 thin ice on this. But it says the -- I'll read it. Design 4 speed and alignment of vertical and horizontal components, 5 design speed, vertical curve, "K" value - crest, vertical 6 curve, "K" value - sag, and then stopping site distance and 7 minimum horizontal curve, all those items may be coordinated 8 to provide lesser figures. For example, a collector or 9 arterial road may have lowered speed limits, which must be 10 properly signed, to adopt -- to adapt -- it should say adapt; 11 its a typo -- adapt to existing topography that dictates 12 design constraints. Kerr County shall make final 13 determination on such design modifications. 14 What all that says is that these items are all 15 interrelated. If you change design speed, you change the 16 curve radius and other components, site distance and other 17 things. And it gives a -- based on our consulting engineer, 18 flexibility to work with the design engineer as to -- as long 19 as they're meeting, you know, this really is not subjective. 20 It's engineering formulas that they use, but it gives them 21 flexibility that says if you change one, the others are noted 22 to change as well. And the intent is the overall framework, 23 so if you have a fast road, you're going to have higher 24 criteria. If you put a slow speed limit or a curve on a road, 25 you can do that and change some of the criteria. All of this 6-26-06 34 1 was Mr. Wells' work. And I think, on Page 49, on (e), we 2 added some language that we really were saying if it's a 3 previously constructed road that we're accepting in the 4 system, little bit more specific, that road has to be in full 5 compliance with our current rules. And it talks a little bit 6 about that testing. And then below that, we were ambiguous 7 previously as to how long a road had to be under a maintenance 8 bond before we accepted it. It was kind of unclear, so we've 9 changed it to basically it has to be bonded for two years 10 after it's accepted. We previously had one year in areas and 11 two years in areas. And then last page, Page 53, just a note 12 about the ETJ, noting that we have an agreement with the City 13 of Kerrville, and that we are working on an agreement with the 14 City of Ingram. 15 Another thing that I'll hand out related to 16 subdivisions is the fee schedule, Appendix F. Jannett sent me 17 an e-mail after last time the Court looked at this and said 18 that I had missed a whole bunch of fees that the County Clerk 19 collects. I think I've got them all included in here now, 20 probably with the proper names. Also, we added language about 21 engineering review. Then on the second page, Environmental 22 Health, we made some -- really, changed the wording more than 23 changed the content right there, modified that a little bit as 24 well. The other appendices, there's no change to. There 25 is -- I need to get with Truby a little bit about organization 6-26-06 35 1 of those. I did -- in the text of the agreement, rather than 2 have some certifications that state this is required in the 3 body, and some in the appendix, I went ahead and put them all 4 in the appendices. We just say in the body to see the 5 appendix for certifications that are required, but that way we 6 can change the wording, as we frequently have to do on some of 7 these certifications. 8 The -- and I forgot to go over one, but I don't know 9 what it is. And I'll -- Leonard and I have talked about this, 10 and I left it in. One of the -- Voelkel Engineering -- Don 11 Voelkel brought this up about whether we should include 12 floodplain boundary lines on our final plat, because those are 13 subject to change. He thought we probably should not do that, 14 because it's confusing to the public. I think Leonard and I 15 both talked with Don. We -- I can agree with that, but I 16 think it is more -- it's better to leave it on, personally. I 17 think I would rather see that floodplain line on there. They 18 have to look at the date, because it may be -- it's probably 19 not going to get less restrictive; it may get more 20 restrictive, but I think that if I take it off the plat, it's 21 worse than having a too restrictive or not restrictive enough 22 floodplain line on the plat. I think things change, and 23 people have to have some -- I mean, they have to look at these 24 things, and that will be checked when they do -- again, when 25 they start doing septic and other permitting. So, I left that 6-26-06 36 1 language in there, even though we thought about taking it out 2 a little bit. That's it. I know it didn't sound like minor 3 changes when I went through them, but they were pretty minor. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? 5 MR. SCOTT: I have a question. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Come forward; give us your name and 7 address and any comments you have on this item. 8 MR. SCOTT: I'm Harrison Scott from Kerrville, and I 9 just had a question about the functional classification that 10 you were mentioning, the local collectors, arterials. Is that 11 compatible with the Federal Highway Administration's 12 definitions? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Compatible? I think every 14 County uses -- I might refer to Leonard, but counties have -- 15 or are required to have a minimum classification by state law. 16 MR. SCOTT: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this -- I mean, we break it 18 down further, as many counties do. 19 MR. SCOTT: Yeah. Where we're impacted right now is 20 county roads are functionally classed higher than local that 21 are inside the Kerrville urban boundary, but outside of the 22 Kerrville city limits. And further, when Kerrville hits -- or 23 Kerr County hits 100,000, it's going to be a metropolitan 24 statistical area, and federal rules will govern, so we want to 25 make sure that those functional classes are relatively the 6-26-06 37 1 same. That was just an observation I wanted to point out. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Related to the City of 3 Kerrville, we are in agreement with the City of Kerrville. We 4 realigned ours to get very, very close to the City of 5 Kerrville. 6 MR. SCOTT: Don't tell me that, 'cause they've got 7 funding entities. I've got a new functional class that I just 8 got from Federal Highway Administration. I'll make it 9 available. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the collector, arterial, and 12 local are -- we've adequately got them defined within our 13 rules so that anyone who's working towards those roads or in a 14 plat situation knows exactly what we're talking about. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure the federal 16 rules -- we did make an effort to get them as much -- almost 17 in exact line with the City of Kerrville because of the ETJ 18 issue, so we're very, very close there. We increased our 19 standards throughout. I mean, our roads are -- you know, we 20 -- how we came up with our classifications in that uses, I 21 mean, the uses or the -- we looked at other counties a lot to 22 see what they're doing around us, and every county has 23 different requirements. Ours is different from every other 24 county. 25 MR. SCOTT: It's actually signed off by the Federal 6-26-06 38 1 Highway Administration and TexDOT on every urban plat where 2 that functional class goes in, and that's -- that used to 3 be -- one of my departments is TexDOT, so that's why I'm 4 saying it's -- it's something that we would want to look at 5 and make sure that we're in that right funding entity so that 6 when we get there, and where we are already there, that we can 7 get that funding that we're needing. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say I do know -- I have 9 talked to Mike Coward at TexDOT about some of our 10 classifications and right-of-ways. I think we're pretty much 11 in the right -- we'll check it. I would suspect that we're 12 pretty close, 'cause we've -- our -- I know our right-of-way 13 widths are certainly what TexDOT's are. 14 MR. ODOM: And traffic count would be totally 15 different than -- than Highway Department; our arterial and 16 their arterial traffic counts would be phenomenally different. 17 MR. SCOTT: Right. That's covered under county 18 roads, parish roads, and city streets. They have -- they have 19 different traffic volume groups. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can look at it and make sure, 21 'cause I think it's a good point that we -- if there's some 22 kind of federal issues, we ought to be alerted, you know, 23 where we can. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me make another comment or 25 observation, Commissioner. You mentioned about keeping 6-26-06 39 1 floodplain down on the plats and continuing to require that. 2 I think that's a good idea, 'cause that may be the only source 3 of information for the average individual that goes to look at 4 a plat. I assume that all of that floodplain data is 5 basically -- that's been furnished by FEMA. What -- what are 6 your thoughts about maybe including as a plat note that the 7 floodplain data is based upon -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's on there. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- 2004 FEMA determinations, or just 10 to identify it, to put that individual on notice? 11 MR. ODOM: Well, normally, that -- I think what 12 Jonathan was trying to say was that we didn't want to come up 13 with a definitive B.F.E., because it may change. And let's 14 assume that it's very quickly. I mean, we have -- we put that 15 note on there, the plat note, July the 19th, 2000. That's the 16 most current FEMA that we have. And we try to designate on 17 the final plat that the individual that has Lot 1 or 2 or 18 whatever's in the special flood hazard area would contact the 19 Floodplain Administrator for B.F.E. -- or for floodplain 20 information. So, what we were trying to do was not to have a 21 plat that may be 10 or 15 years old -- and I've seen some of 22 those come in -- and it has a -- a prior July 19, 2000 23 floodplain, and that's probably changed some. But that's 24 where we were going. We would still show it on the final 25 plat, that line that FEMA is showing, and we would designate 6-26-06 40 1 that, and then -- then a B.F.E. would be determined, either in 2 an unstudied area or A.E. in a floodway. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The plat note -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The plat does not have a note on it 5 that -- that specifies the -- the FEMA determination date, of 6 wherever that -- 7 MR. ODOM: It does -- it does put that on there. It 8 says it's in Zone X, July the 19th, 2000, or A.E. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that solves the problem. 10 MR. ODOM: That's the most current information we 11 have. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Couple comments. I'll say 14 again how fortunate we are to have Commissioner Letz do all 15 this work on Subdivision Rules. For those who aren't close to 16 the process, he's put many, many hours into it. It's a very 17 thorough document. We appreciate it. And then on another one 18 of -- just a comment on fees. During the budget process, I 19 want to look at some of our fees, particularly those fees that 20 are charged where the user-pay concept may be applicable, like 21 O.S.S.F. and maybe some other things, and see if we can't move 22 those fees upward to where taxpayers in general don't pay for 23 services that are used by a small part of the population. So, 24 I'll bring that up in the budget process. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've adjusted these fees, but 6-26-06 41 1 the reason we do it as an appendix attachment is so that it's 2 easy to change it, so we don't have to search through the body 3 and change all those fees. We do it all on one page, so it's 4 an easy process to update fees. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I, too, want to thank 6 Commissioner Letz. This is a yeoman's service. A lot of work 7 went into this, and it's got here. He's done a really fine 8 job. Appreciate it. Hope you don't have to do it anytime 9 soon. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hope I don't have to do it 11 again in my career. 12 AUDIENCE: Give him a raise. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval -- or I'll 14 move approval to reaffirm Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 15 Regulations. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to reaffirm 18 the approval of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 19 Regulations. Any question or discussion on the motion? All 20 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move 25 to Item 21, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take 6-26-06 42 1 appropriate action to reaffirm Kerr County Water Availability 2 Requirements. Commissioner Letz again. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This one will be quicker. I 4 didn't highlight the changes. The only changes that were made 5 are on Section 1.03, and the same language change that we made 6 related to community public or shared water system are made, 7 and also the individual well language that we added on 8 Subdivision Rules were added. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page? Page 3? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's 1.03. It's on -- yeah, 11 Page 3 and 4. But it's all the same changes that we approved 12 in our Subdivision Rules. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of Kerr County 15 Water Availability Requirements. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for final 18 approval of the Kerr County Water Availability Requirements. 19 Any question or discussion? All in favor of that motion, 20 signify by raising your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We have a 25 10 o'clock timed item. At this time, I will recess the 6-26-06 43 1 Commissioners Court meeting, and I will convene a public 2 hearing concerning the revision of plat for Lots 13 and 14, 3 Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I, as set forth in Volume 7, 4 Page 12, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4. 5 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:01 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open 6 court, as follows:) 7 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public 9 that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of plat for 10 Lots 13 and 14, Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I, as set forth 11 in Volume 7, Page 12, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4? 12 Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing, 13 and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting. 14 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:01 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 15 reopened.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 JUDGE TINLEY: If we might, let's move to Item 3. 18 Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on the Texas 19 County and District Retirement System plan options and plan 20 rate for 2007, and have the County Judge sign same. This 21 matter was put on the agenda at the request of the County 22 Treasurer. I had received a request from a participant in 23 that plan specifically to have the Court consider a lump-sum 24 payment option for retirees that is not presently a part of 25 the plan, but which plan participant jurisdictions can adopt. 6-26-06 44 1 I communicated this to the County Treasurer. The Treasurer 2 said that the entire plan needed to be placed before the Court 3 for the coming year, and she was going to put that item on the 4 agenda. So, I had thought and had hoped that a member from -- 5 a representative of T.C.D.R.S. would be able to be here so 6 that we could get that explanation. Lacking that, we may want 7 to repost this for a subsequent date. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a time limit on 9 this, Judge? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Generally, we've got until 11 December the 15th, as I recall, in order to finalize our plans 12 for the coming year. These are based on calendar-year 13 adoptions, according to my recollection. Based on past 14 communications that -- that we had from T.C.D.R.S., my 15 recollection is that we've got until December the 15th; it 16 must be in their hands by that date. But I think what 17 prompted it was the -- was the request by a participant in our 18 plan to consider as one option to the plan a partial lump-sum 19 distribution to retirees, and I'd really like a member of the 20 T.C.D.R.S. to be here to explain that to us, 'cause I -- there 21 may be some ramifications that we need to consider. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We bring that back next meeting? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think we'll just bring that 24 back. Any member of the Court have anything further on that 25 item? Let's move then to Item 4, if we might. Consider, 6-26-06 45 1 discuss, and take appropriate action on implementation of 2 Process Works, Incorporated, and have the County Judge sign 3 the same. This particular issue was placed on the agenda at 4 the request of the Treasurer. It involves our -- our employee 5 health benefits programs, specifically dealing with that plan. 6 The reason it's being brought in midyear is because the 7 administrator of our health reimbursement account -- the 8 "bennie" program, as some of the employees know it as -- has 9 been changed midstream from our current provider over to an 10 administrative organization known as Process Works. This was 11 done by our third-party administrator. In reviewing the -- 12 the information that was presented on the so called 13 implementation workbook, I participated in that conference, 14 and my recollection is that -- that the allowability for HRA 15 funds to be used for payment of insurance premiums is, in 16 fact, allowed for the retiree medical premiums. The one 17 that's been presented indicates no. I'd like to have that 18 clarified -- at least that clarified before we go forward. 19 It's about the middle of Page 3, under HRA Plan Benefits, 20 Section V of the workbook that was presented to you. It's 21 checked no, but my recollection is that that was discussed 22 during that conference, and -- and earlier, it was decided 23 that retirees could use any accumulated HRA benefits up to the 24 maximum for payment of -- payment of premiums. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, has Mr. Looney looked at 6-26-06 46 1 this? I mean, that's -- it seems like there's a lot of 2 information on here, and seems that we need to make sure it's 3 consistent. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: He was involved in the conference, 5 Commissioner, and since -- since seeing this -- I was out of 6 town, as you know, at the tail end of last week, so I didn't 7 see it till this weekend. Mr. Looney wants to be here to look 8 at where we're going from a budget standpoint at one of our 9 meetings in July, and I do want to run this by him, and that's 10 another reason that I'd like to defer action on it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to leave this 13 packet -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. And if there's -- does any 15 other member of the Court have anything further on this? 16 Let's move, then, if we might, to Item 11. Consider, discuss, 17 and take appropriate action for revision of Lots 13 and 14 of 18 Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I, as set forth in Volume 7, 19 Page 12, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4. 20 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Good morning. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir. 22 MR. ODOM: This revision was done under the 23 alternate plat process. However, the information we received 24 shows that Mr. Voelkel has not furnished the clerk with the 25 tax certificates, and requesting a waiver for fees and report 6-26-06 47 1 for septic. I have Miguel here; I believe he's in the back. 2 Lee had just talked to me outside and said that those tax 3 certificates were taken over to the County Clerk, so we find 4 no problems with this revision, but leave the matter of the 5 fees to the discretion of the Court. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Related to the fees, I received 7 a memo from Miguel on this that he had no problem with waiving 8 the fees. And I think the -- the reason was, there are 9 licensed systems on both of those tracts already, and there's 10 really not going to be any change. Is that correct, Miguel? 11 MR. ARREOLA: That's correct. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see any reason to waive 13 the fees. (sic) There's no review for Environmental Health to 14 do in this situation. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No reason to charge the fee? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No reason to charge. By law, 17 they have to look at the plat, but, I mean, it's nothing -- 18 MR. ODOM: I recommend that the Court accept this 19 revision of this plat. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move -- do you have -- 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move approval. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Waive the fees? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can we waive the fees under 24 this subject description? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we can't do -- we can't -- 6-26-06 48 1 without waiving the fee, we can't approve it, because you have 2 to pay the fee before you can approve it. And I would think 3 we can, but that's up to Rex. 4 MR. EMERSON: I think y'all have done that before. 5 MR. ODOM: I think -- 6 MR. EMERSON: Same or similar descriptions. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably can do it 8 administratively, okay. I move that we approve the revision 9 of Lots 13 and 14 of Cypress Springs, Phase I, Volume 7, Page 10 12, Precinct 4. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 13 as indicated. Any question or discussion on the motion? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The motion does include a waiver 15 of the fees? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments? All 18 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to 23 Item 12; that is a timed item scheduled for hearing at 10:10. 24 It's just past that now. The item is a request to amend 25 interlocal agreement related to subdivision review and 6-26-06 49 1 approval on the ETJ to allow an extension of time for the City 2 to amend its subdivision regulations. This matter was placed 3 on the agenda at the request of Mr. Paul Menzies with the City 4 of Kerrville. Mr. Menzies? 5 MR. MENZIES: Good morning, Judge and Commissioners. 6 I hope I provided enough information to you regarding this 7 item. Y'all will recall that back in December of last year, 8 you signed an agreement with the City to allow the City to be 9 the sole review and approval authority for subdivision plats 10 within the city's ETJ. Now, part of that agreement also 11 required the City to amend its subdivision regulations, its 12 rural subdivision -- rural section of the subdivision 13 regulations to be more in line with the County's subdivision 14 regulations. One of the things that the City wanted to do in 15 reviewing this was to place that -- those proposed revisions 16 before the homebuilders association. We did that in April, 17 and we are still awaiting their recommendation. Hence, we're 18 not going to be able to amend those subdivision regulations by 19 the July 1st deadline, which is the reason for the request to 20 extend that deadline until October the 1st. I don't have a 21 copy of the revised interlocal agreement. If you all approve 22 it this morning, I'll make sure that the Judge gets it this 23 week. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Simply stated, you're just asking for 25 -- to extend the deadline for you to accomplish that from 6-26-06 50 1 June 30th to September 30th? 2 MR. MENZIES: Correct. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of this -- you know, 4 Mr. Hofmann talked to me about this briefly, and I have no 5 problem with this. They're -- we put a -- to make sure it 6 happened, we put the time certain date in the agreement, to 7 make sure -- mainly to get the City and the County's rules in 8 line in rural areas in the ETJ, or under the City's rules. 9 They're very close already. And just some minor changes need 10 to be made, and the City's trying to do that, and I think the 11 City did the right thing by going out to the public to try and 12 get input on their rules before they modify them. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This would be a resolution 14 that, likewise, goes to the City Council tomorrow night? 15 MR. MENZIES: Yes, I should have said that. The 16 City Council will consider this tomorrow night also. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're -- we don't have the 18 resolution now. 19 MR. MENZIES: No. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we 21 extend the deadline for the City to -- or the deadline under 22 the interlocal agreement related to subdivision review in the 23 ETJ from the City to make some review of its rural rules until 24 September 30th, 2006, and the City provide a resolution 25 stating same. 6-26-06 51 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 3 indicated. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the 4 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you, 9 Mr. Menzies. Let's go now to Item 5, if we might. Consider, 10 discuss, and take appropriate action for preliminary plat of 11 Falls Ranch Subdivision, Phase I, and located in Precinct 3. 12 Mr. Odom. 13 MR. ODOM: Thank you. We received the drainage 14 study and the preliminary plat which we forwarded to James 15 Wells, our consulting engineer, to review. We then forwarded 16 his findings and concerns, as well as mine, from Mr. Wells and 17 myself back to the engineering firm. They addressed all of 18 them and sent us a revised copy of both the plat and the 19 drainage study. You also notice on here the road names are 20 not on here, but they have been working with that, and working 21 with 9-1-1 to resolve that. That could be -- that will be 22 resolved at the final plat. There's a note that no 23 construction will begin until Privilege Creek Subdivision has 24 been abandoned; two, that the road profiles and flow lines 25 have been studied by our consulting engineer. Also, a note to 6-26-06 52 1 the Court that several individuals have been to our office to 2 check the development of this property. Their concerns are as 3 follows. One was the amount of traffic it would put on 4 Kendall County roads. Two, that Kendall County has not been 5 made aware of these plans in our county. Three was water 6 availability, and four, a printed copy was not available on 7 the internet. There may be people here, I don't know, that 8 are here to discuss it. They said that they would be, so I 9 tell the Court that. But as we have the rules and what we've 10 been following and drainage study, we recommend that we move 11 forward to approve the plat and the drainage study as 12 presented to you. I'm open for any questions, or I have the 13 engineering developer here, or -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any 15 questions for Mr. Odom at this point? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The preponderance of this 17 development as proposed is in Kerr County; is that correct? 18 MR. ODOM: It is all in Kerr County. There is 19 proposed in the future, but everything here is in Kerr County, 20 the Kerr County line from Kendall County all the way into Lane 21 Valley. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions by any member of the 23 Court for Mr. Odom? We have some participation forms that 24 have been filed in connection with this issue. Mr. Barsalou? 25 MR. BARSALOU: Yes, sir. 6-26-06 53 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Did I pronounce that correctly? 2 MR. BARSALOU: Barsalou. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Barsalou? That would have been the 4 first time I got anything right. I appreciate that. If you'd 5 come forward and give us your name and address, we'll -- 6 MR. BARSALOU: Okay, good. I've had a little eye 7 problems recently from -- I had some cataract surgery that was 8 very successful, and I hope you don't mind if I refer to my 9 notes throughout this. I appreciate the Commissioners Court 10 hearing me today. I am Trey Barsalou of Kendall County, and I 11 reside in the Champee Springs Ranches Subdivision at 877 12 Camino Cantera, Boerne, Texas. I am a real estate broker by 13 trade, and have been licensed in the state of Texas since the 14 late '60's. More recently, I've been involved in the 15 planning, sales, and development of large-lot subdivisions 16 located in Kendall County. I'm a resident of The Quarry at 17 Champee Springs, the developer of that subdivision, and 18 president of the homeowners' association. My home is located 19 approximately a quarter of a mile from the proposed Falls 20 Ranch Subdivision, and I use Turkey Knob Road every day. 21 I was informed recently of this proposed subdivision 22 to be located in both Kerr and Kendall Counties. This 23 subdivision would be adjacent to the Champee Springs Ranches 24 Subdivision, of which The Quarry of Champee Springs is a part. 25 I understand the developer proposes to open a major arterial 6-26-06 54 1 road from Highway 27 between Comfort and Center Point, and to 2 connect this road to Turkey Knob Road, which is located 3 entirely within the Champee Springs Ranches Subdivision in 4 Kendall County. I understand the developer did not inform the 5 appropriate officials in Kendall County of these plans. They 6 learned of this proposal -- proposed development only when 7 contacted by residents in my subdivision. I believe a 8 representative of Kendall County may be present today. 9 Several aspects of this proposed development are of 10 great concern to my -- to my neighbors and to me. The secrecy 11 in which these plans have been carried out with respect to 12 Kendall County is a concern. Another concern is whether this 13 Court has the authority to approve a subdivision plat 14 dependent on access from a road located entirely within 15 another county, and without its consent. The cul-de-sac at 16 the end of Turkey Knob Road ends approximately 40 or 50 yards 17 from the gate at the entrance to the Bowman property, the 18 present Privilege Creek Ranches -- excuse me -- Subdivision, 19 and lies wholly within the platted Champee Springs Ranches 20 Subdivision. I understand the Bowmans were informed by 21 Kendall County officials, when they platted the Privilege 22 Creek Ranches Subdivision inside of Kerr County, that Kendall 23 County was not authorizing any access to that subdivision from 24 Turkey Knob Road. Have any officials of Kerr County contacted 25 Kendall County to inquire if that is not true? 6-26-06 55 1 And then other concerns, the apparent disregard of 2 the deed restriction prohibiting ingress and egress to and 3 from Ranger Creek Road and Turkey Knob Road by and from any 4 property outside the Champee Springs Ranches Subdivision and 5 the Bowman tract, which is a part of the proposed Falls Ranch 6 Subdivision. A 1-foot non-ingress/egress easement was imposed 7 by a prior owner of these lands (see Volume 555, Page 666 in 8 the Kendall County Property Records) and exists around a 9 portion of the proposed subdivision precluding such access 10 from properties beyond the Bowman tract. I believe the 11 Bowmans purchased their land subject to that restriction, just 12 as I did mine. If you look at the language of the 13 restriction, it clearly states that the restriction was 14 established for the purpose of protecting the value, 15 attractiveness, and desirability for the properties owned by 16 my neighbors and me, and for the mutual benefit of the owners, 17 and is to run with the title of our properties. 18 We were told when we purchased our properties in the 19 Champee Springs Ranches Subdivision that there would be no 20 additional traffic on Turkey Knob and Ranger Creek Roads 21 because of these deed restrictions. Obviously, that was very 22 appealing. However, the proposed preliminary plat shows Lane 23 Valley Road to have been extended across the proposed Falls 24 Ranch Subdivision. First, I'm not aware that this has ever 25 been approved by this Court. The road across the Bowman tract 6-26-06 56 1 was approved by this Court as Privilege Lane in the prior plat 2 approved for the Privilege Creek Ranches Subdivision. Second, 3 in the concept plan presented to you on May the 8th, 4 back-to-back cul-de-sacs were shown at what appears to be the 5 approximate boundary between the Bowman and the Flach 6 properties, and which apparently recognized the restriction. 7 Now the developer in the preliminary plat obviously 8 intends to extend Lane Valley Road across the non-access 9 easement and violate the restriction, even though two -- even 10 though two separate developments were discussed with you on 11 May the 8th. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure 12 out what the object of this scheme is meant to be. For those 13 who have not been informed, the plan appears to be to create a 14 major arterial which could open up as much as 20,000 acres in 15 Kerr County to development, and whose traffic will then be 16 dumped onto Turkey Knob Road in Kendall County, which would 17 bear all of the expense of maintaining and upgrading this road 18 for the traffic generated by the Falls Ranch Subdivision and 19 later developments. My neighbors, who all live in a 20 large-tract, heavily restricted subdivision, would also have 21 to deal with the increased traffic coming from outside their 22 subdivision, and on roads not presently adequate to meet that 23 increased demand. My neighbors and I have made substantial 24 investments in the -- in the purchase and improvement of our 25 properties, and in reliance on these restrictions imposed for 6-26-06 57 1 our benefit. What are we supposed to do if these restrictions 2 are violated? 3 And I'm concerned that -- that there has been 4 meaningful water availability studies done for this proposed 5 development, and which, in this time of severe drought, would 6 seem foolhardy had they not been. Has a stormwater drainage 7 study and a traffic impact study been done, including the 8 impact on Turkey Knob and Ranger Creek Roads in Kendall 9 County? The foregoing would show what consequences of such a 10 development would be on the current residents of Kerr and 11 Kendall Counties. Have these studies, if any, been made 12 available to the public, and where can I get a copy? I know 13 my neighbors and I are concerned about how many more wells can 14 be drilled in close proximity to our own wells without 15 affecting our only source of water. Kendall County required 16 me to limit the number of wells in The Quarry at Champee 17 Springs to one per tract, and we have a minimum acreage of 18 25 acres per tract. 19 And I'm disturbed, and it is questionable to me 20 whether the concept of cluster housing as proposed by the 21 developer will be successful. You don't have to go far for an 22 example of an unsuccessful attempt to market the same concept. 23 The Gardens at Tapitio Springs is a good example of consumer 24 reluctance to move from a traditional small-lot subdivision in 25 the city to a supposedly large-lot subdivision, and yet end up 6-26-06 58 1 living close to neighbors in a cluster. What experience does 2 the developer have in such developments? Have they been 3 successful before? Has any effort been made by Kerr County to 4 check out the developer and his track record? 5 And, finally, the obvious conflict of interest for 6 Commissioner Letz and the monetary reward that will fall to 7 him and his family by virtue of the increased value of his 8 property, which is adjacent to the proposed Falls Ranch 9 Subdivision, should you approve this preliminary plat. I 10 further understand he has been responsible for the drafting of 11 the new subdivision regulations in Kerr County, which are 12 unclear to me as to whether they are -- are presently in 13 effect. Which version of the regulations on your website are 14 now in effect? These are important issues, and any haste to 15 approve this proposed plat, combined with the prior secrecy 16 with respect to Kendall County, will only make the public more 17 suspicious of these circumstances. I hope you will give what 18 I have said serious consideration. I would request that a 19 copy of my remarks be made a part of the record for this 20 hearing. Judge Tinley, can I give you a copy of these 21 remarks? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: You may, and they are in the record 23 by virtue of the verbatim record being taken by our reporter, 24 sir. Let me quickly respond to a couple of the things that 25 you mention. Thank you, sir. I think the Subdivision Rules 6-26-06 59 1 and regulations that are in effect are the ones that were 2 approved here this morning. They're in place. We have them 3 in final copy, and they are available now for distribution, 4 public view, posting, whatever. I think -- I think we've got 5 that issue solved. 6 MR. BARSALOU: Okay. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: They're in place now as a result of 8 the court order just moments ago. Thank you, sir. 9 MR. BARSALOU: Thank you. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: We have another participant that has 11 asked to be heard, Mr. Robert Eason with the Kendall County 12 Attorney's office, representing the Kendall County 13 Commissioners Court. Thank you, sir. If you'll give your 14 name and address to the reporter? 15 MR. EASON: Morning. My name is Bob Eason, and I'm 16 Assistant County Attorney for Kendall County. I live in 17 Boerne, Texas. The Kendall County Commissioners Court asked 18 me to come speak to you and let you know of their concerns 19 with this subdivision. We're certainly concerned with the 20 effects on our water, and -- but more specifically at this 21 time, with traffic concerns. It's my understanding that Lane 22 Valley Road, the plan is to extend Lane Valley Road to connect 23 with Turkey Knob, and then on down to Ranger Creek Road. 24 Turkey Knob and Ranger Creek are in Kendall County, Texas, and 25 are our main access to Interstate 10. They also -- the 6-26-06 60 1 Commissioners asked me to advise you that our current 2 subdivision regulations have a rule that requires that if a 3 subdivision is going to use access through another 4 subdivision, they must first have a traffic study done, and 5 that it be approved by the Commissioners Court. Our 6 Commissioners are somewhat concerned that they have not been 7 contacted with these plans, the plans that are going to 8 certainly affect the use, the traffic, the expense of 9 maintaining roadways, and the safety of our citizens. We'd 10 ask you to consider these things before you approve this. 11 Thank you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any other member of the 13 audience or public that wishes to be heard with respect to 14 this agenda item? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can I make one comment? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In reference to the gentleman 18 that made the comment about conflict of interest of myself, 19 I'm quite offended by that. I think if you would look at the 20 court record, I have disclosed the fact that this property is 21 going to be bordering my -- part of my ranch, and I am 22 receiving some compensation for it. I have abstained from any 23 vote and discussion related to the subdivision, and I have 24 filed an affidavit of record with the County Clerk's office as 25 required by law, so I think I'm in full compliance, and I'm 6-26-06 61 1 quite offended that a representative of Kendall County would 2 come in here and make the accusation against myself. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A couple comments, Judge. 4 My understanding of the law is that if a proposed subdivision 5 meets our subdivision standards, we must approve it. We don't 6 make value judgments about economic viability or those sorts 7 of things, so if this -- if it's determined that this project 8 meets our subdivision standards, then we approve it. That's 9 my opinion. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, Judge. 11 Is there a representative of the developer in the audience? 12 MR. BLUME: Yes, sir. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Would you address the Court, please? 14 MR. BLUME: Sure. Yes, sir. My name is Greg Blume. 15 I live in Harris County and Hays County, Texas. I'm with 16 Edward Neil Development. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is your plan for 18 advising Kendall County Commissioners Court of this 19 subdivision and its size and scope and -- and, to the extent 20 that you know, the impact on any roads that might be in 21 Kendall County? What is your plan? 22 MR. BLUME: The -- the current plan, from the 23 beginning, has been to contact Kendall County at the time that 24 we're platting within Kendall County. Kerr County, in the 25 earliest discussions with -- with Road and Bridge, already has 6-26-06 62 1 a responsibility for property that's within Kendall County -- 2 within Kerr County; that's part of the subdivision that we 3 approved the replat on back in March. So, it's not a function 4 of -- of coming up with something that, to a large degree, 5 didn't already exist. What I also know, and I haven't 6 reviewed it personally, but our engineer also participated in 7 -- in work in other projects that had access and served by 8 Ranger Creek, and that the easement size, the existing road on 9 Ranger Creek and Turkey Knob allows for a turn lane access to 10 be done, and can handle -- again, I'm not an engineer, sir, 11 but significantly more traffic than a developer could 12 logically anticipate ever being added. And so, we've not 13 directly made contact, number one. Number two, we'll make 14 contact when we are working within their jurisdiction. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of the proposed 16 subdivision that is before us is within Kerr County? 17 MR. BLUME: Yes, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing yet within Kendall 19 County? 20 MR. BLUME: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the roads, as laid out 22 in the preliminary plat, do they connect to Turkey Knob, as 23 the gentleman who spoke indicates? 24 MR. BLUME: That's correct. The southeast part of 25 the property is -- 6-26-06 63 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would connect? 2 MR. BLUME: Would touch, connect to -- that's 3 correct. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. What -- 5 MR. BLUME: As it does currently. I mean, it's not 6 a new addition; it already -- the road that's there now, 7 there's an existing County-approved road that's there now. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 9 MR. BLUME: It's just privately maintained, but it's 10 a County-dedicated, County-approved road. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And what -- what has 12 the developer done with respect to water availability and 13 assessing water availability? 14 MR. BLUME: We -- we talked with a number of the 15 drillers in the area and reviewed drilling logs, and we're 16 very encouraged by that and didn't see anything that raised an 17 issue, number one. Number two, we're asking for no variances. 18 As I understand it from the -- the conservation district and 19 the County work in conjunction, and by setting the rules that 20 you have, they're designed specifically to address the 21 priorities and, as I would see it, the duties that the County 22 has to protect the public interest. Water availability, 23 obviously, in this area being a very significant part of that. 24 So, what we are doing is, by checking that, by having a study 25 done -- Turner, Colley and Braden did a preliminary study for 6-26-06 64 1 us, and their position was that at this point, they didn't 2 recommend that we go further with a more detailed study at 3 that particular time. 4 Now, if we were doing a high-density -- the word was 5 used, "cluster homes," and I know that Mr. Barsalou used to 6 work for Friendswood Development, which is probably one of the 7 finest and largest, you know, traditional tract type 8 development companies that I was aware of. Used to buy lots 9 from them at one time when I was a builder. The term "cluster 10 homes" I'm sure means nothing at all -- it's a gross 11 exaggeration from anything that's been anticipated here, and 12 if -- if an uneducated person used that who's not in the 13 development business, it likely could be a casual mistake. 14 But for somebody who's a professional in the industry -- none 15 of us can know somebody else's motives, but it would appear on 16 the surface to be something to incite something beyond the 17 reality. So, we are working off -- there's not a lot, nor do 18 we intend in any way to ask for anything other than the 19 minimum, to exceed the minimum. Right now, as the preliminary 20 plat, I think we're close to 9 or 10 -- 21 MR. KOLACNY: Nine. 22 MR. BLUME: -- acre average. We've got a 23 significant part greenbelt areas. Let's face it, people don't 24 come to the Hill Country to be in truly defined cluster homes, 25 and more importantly, your ordinances don't even allow for it. 6-26-06 65 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My understanding of a 2 cluster home are several of them gathered together, all of 3 which are on small acreage -- small parcels of ground, and 4 they're gathered together for the purpose of making more green 5 area. That's always been my understanding. I don't know if 6 that's your understanding. 7 MR. BLUME: Mine is that it would be like patio 8 homes, small -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of the lots that you're 10 proposing in Kerr County are 5 acres or above? 11 MR. BLUME: Yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is minimum lot size. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. BLUME: If I -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any 16 questions? 17 MR. BLUME: Your Honor, may I address one other 18 thing on that point? There was a comment made about secrecy, 19 which I likewise am offended. I've met with Mr. Barsalou in 20 his own home and walked through, talking about what we were 21 doing and the potential for his son's building company to 22 possibly build there. So, if there's been any secrecy, then 23 your -- your requirements for a public and open meeting act 24 would be considered secrecy, too. I would tend to -- 'cause 25 we've had a face-to-face meeting on this. So, again, I can't 6-26-06 66 1 question somebody's motives, but I don't -- the facts don't 2 seem to stand up. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one other -- 4 MR. BLUME: Yes, sir? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- one other comment. I'm 6 going to go through you to the County Attorney. 7 MR. BLUME: Yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There was some mention of 9 deed restrictions, which is really not in our bailiwick to 10 determine. That's a civil matter; is that correct? 11 MR. EMERSON: Correct. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Any other questions 14 for this gentleman? 15 MR. EASON: May I ask a brief question? 16 MR. BLUME: Yes, sir. Do you have a question for 17 us? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir. 19 MR. EASON: Would you please say again what you did 20 about the Turkey Knob? Did you -- did I misunderstand you? 21 Did you say that it is a privately maintained county road, and 22 that it currently goes into Kerr County, or not wholly 23 contained in Kendall County? 24 MR. BLUME: Let me clarify your question, sir. Are 25 you asking me if I said that Turkey Knob is a privately 6-26-06 67 1 maintained road? No, sir, I did not. I apologize if that's 2 how it came across. The road that is in Privilege -- in Kerr 3 County, Privilege Creek Ranch, currently, as it was platted, I 4 think, what, five or six years ago, is a -- is a Kerr County 5 dedicated road, but it is being -- it is to be maintained by 6 the owners of those 11 lots. 7 MR. EASON: Does it extend into Kendall County? 8 MR. BLUME: I don't think -- I think it stops at the 9 line. 10 MR. KOLACNY: Right-of-ways touch. 11 MR. BLUME: The access back and forth definitely 12 does. But -- 13 MR. EASON: Access from? 14 MR. BLUME: But I don't know physically which road 15 structure, how -- how accurately that comes down to a survey 16 point. 17 MR. EASON: Are you saying that Turkey Knob is 18 connected somehow already to Privilege Creek Road? 19 MR. BLUME: Yes, sir. Yes. 20 MR. EASON: It is? 21 MR. BLUME: Yes, sir. 22 MR. EASON: Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 24 MR. BLUME: Okay. 25 MR. ODOM: Maybe your engineer ought to address 6-26-06 68 1 that. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else want to address these 3 issues? I thought I saw some request for recognition. Yes, 4 sir? If you'd come forward, give us your name and address, 5 and give us your input on this subject. 6 MR. SMITH: Yes. My name's Harold Smith, Kerrville, 7 Texas. I did not fill out a form, because I didn't know 8 anything about this issue. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That's fine. 10 MR. SMITH: I have no interest one way or another on 11 it, but just as you tabled other issues, it would seem to me 12 that you may want to do that with this issue. You were asked 13 specific questions in addition to these subdivision rules 14 about whether certain studies had been made or had not been 15 made. The developer gave you responses that were general. "I 16 talked to drillers who told me certain facts." I would 17 suggest that what you need is some written engineering studies 18 on these items which says for sure one way or the other. 19 That's all I have to say. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I'm going to move to 22 approve the preliminary plat of Falls Ranch Subdivision, Phase 23 I, in Precinct 3. And is the next step to set a public 24 hearing? No? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 6-26-06 69 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just approve the 2 preliminary plat? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's my motion. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it, but I have a 6 question. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion made and seconded 8 to approve the preliminary plat for Falls Ranch Subdivision, 9 Phase I, located in Precinct 3. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll address the question to 11 you, Judge, since Commissioner Letz has recused himself on 12 this. I don't want to engage him in a discussion. On water 13 availability, at final, do we require any other documentation? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of the water 15 availability is, as long as they meet the 5-acre requirement, 16 then it's a matter of them going to -- that's a presumptive 17 water availability finding from our standpoint. Then they go 18 to Headwaters as to whether it's exempt or nonexempt. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't require a document 20 with science that -- that confirms or denies? I did not think 21 so, but I think it's -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Five acres -- 5 acres is that 23 determinative factor. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Five acres. 6-26-06 70 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the point I wanted to 2 get in the record. We don't require definitive documents. 3 Thank you. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or discussion 5 on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 6 your right hand. 7 (Commissioners Williams and Nicholson voted in favor of the motion.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Emerson, with one abstention -- 12 we have three voting; two of the three have approved. Does 13 the motion carry, with one abstention? 14 MR. EMERSON: That's my understanding, Your Honor. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. The motion is approved. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is preliminary. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, preliminary plat only. Why 18 don't we take about a 15-minute recess? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a great idea. 20 (Recess taken from 10:42 a.m. to 11:03 a.m.) 21 - - - - - - - - - - 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we 23 might. We'll be in session. We'll go to Agenda Item Number 24 6; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to set a 25 public hearing to abandon, vacate, and discontinue Privilege 6-26-06 71 1 Creek Ranches as recorded in Volume 7, Page 136 and -7 of the 2 Plat Records, and located in Precinct 3. 3 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Enclosed is a letter asking 4 the Court to vacate the Privilege Creek Ranches Subdivision 5 contingent upon approval of the preliminary plat of Falls 6 Ranch, which the Court just did. Therefore, we ask to set the 7 public hearing date to abandon, vacate, and discontinue 8 Privilege Creek Ranches, as recorded in Volume 7, Page 136 and 9 137, for August the 14th, 2006, at 10 a.m. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a 13 public hearing for August the 14th, 2006, at 10 a.m., to 14 abandon, vacate, and discontinue Privilege Creek Ranches, as 15 recorded in Volume 7, Page 136 and 137. Any question or 16 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify 17 by raising your right hand. 18 (Commissioners Williams and Nicholson voted in favor of the motion. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to 23 Item 7, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate 24 action for revision of Lots 4 and 5 of Byas Springs Ranch, as 25 set forth in Volume 5, Page 250, and located in Precinct 4. 6-26-06 72 1 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. We have -- previously, we had 2 a public hearing for this revision, which was done on January 3 the 23rd, 2006. However, the owners were out of town, and I 4 believe out of state, and it took a while to get the 5 signatures that were necessary. We find no problems with the 6 revision, and ask that you approve it at this time. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve the 8 revision of Lots 4 and 5 of Byas Springs Ranch, Precinct 4. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 11 of the revision of Lots 4 and 5 of Byas Springs Ranch, as set 12 forth in Volume 5, Page 250, Plat Records, and located in 13 Precinct 4. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in 14 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to 19 Item 8; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for 20 construction of roadway and drainage study for Megan Manor, 21 and located in Precinct 4. 22 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I don't know if there's 23 anybody from Vordenbaum Engineering here or not. I don't see 24 anybody. I didn't see Kevin. I brought this to the attention 25 of the Court. Megan Manor was recorded in Volume 5, Page 231, 6-26-06 73 1 March 26th of 1986, but was never built. This is located off 2 Upper Turtle -- cutoff? Where am I at? 3 MS. HARDIN: Goat Creek Cutoff. 4 MR. ODOM: Goat Creek Cutoff, I'm sorry. Goat Creek 5 Cutoff. But it was never built. Back in September 2005, we 6 were contacted by Vordenbaum Engineering as agent for a new 7 owner about what was needed to develop it and have the County 8 maintain the road. We checked with legal -- with Rex, and 9 were told that they could build it as platted, and I believe 10 that legal -- their legal counsel had contacted Rex, I 11 believe. Therefore, I've been working with Kevin Spragin on 12 the drainage and road construction. I've been out there 13 looking at their construction of the roads, and enclosed is 14 part of the drainage study which I forwarded to Mr. Wells. 15 Once the roadway is completed, they will ask the Court to 16 accept it for maintenance. 17 Under the 1984 Subdivision Rules, 8.08.A states, 18 "Where a subdivision is traversed by a water course, drainage 19 way, natural channel, or stream, there shall be provided an 20 easement or right-of-way conforming to the limit of such water 21 course, plus additional width to accommodate future needs and 22 maintenance. A note shall be affixed to each plat advising 23 each property owner that the County will not assume vegetation 24 maintenance responsibility on the drainage easements and 25 prohibiting them from fencing or construction improvements in 6-26-06 74 1 these easements which will be detrimental to its intended 2 use." The owner on this plat's statement reads that he 3 "dedicates to Kerr County, Texas, for the use of the public 4 forever, all streets, alleys, parks, water courses, drains, 5 easements, in all of the aforesaid public places and all other 6 public places therein shown for the purpose and considerations 7 therein expressed." 8 The question becomes, who has responsibility for the 9 maintenance of the drainage structures and public easements, 10 and can the Court require the owner to establish a homeowners' 11 association or have them file approved restrictions or 12 covenants? So, the question is, I can tell you when they come 13 in, and I showed you -- you had copies of this drainage 14 structure that I showed. Who's going to maintain that? 15 Should it be in the restrictions and covenants? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is this drainage 17 structure? 18 MR. ODOM: It is a detention pond for this 19 subdivision. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's up in the top 21 left-hand corner? 22 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And they're showing 24 -- they're showing bar ditches? Is that what I'm seeing? 25 MR. ODOM: They show bar -- it's been changed some, 6-26-06 75 1 but they do show it going there, basically from the -- if you 2 take that first structure as you go down towards the 3 cul-de-sac, that first one, that's basically the design, the 4 drainage study. That's what they've done now. He originally 5 had it here. I will have Mr. Wells look at it, but as far as 6 he is concerned, he's bringing everything back down to this 7 first drainage structure and coming back into the detention 8 pond. His figures show that there's 93 prior to this 9 construction. It was 93 CFS, and I think after this 10 construction it's going to be released 90 CPS, so he's showing 11 the numbers to be less than what was originally coming off the 12 area because of this detention pond. But I wanted you to look 13 at the structure; it's right next to our road. And when it 14 gets down to it, is it going to be Lots 15, 16 and 17 of being 15 responsible for this detention pond, or is the County going to 16 be responsible? Or should the homeowners' association, as a 17 group, be responsible? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All I can tell you is, it's 19 not going to be the County. 20 MR. ODOM: That's what I wanted to know. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Right now it's the developer's 22 responsibility, as I see it. 23 MS. HARDIN: I'm sorry. Mr. Spragin called on 24 Friday, and Len hadn't talked to him. He said that it would 25 be ownership of those three lots, and that they would put 6-26-06 76 1 something on the deed of each of those lots that they were 2 responsible for the maintenance of it. 3 MR. ODOM: All right. 4 MS. HARDIN: So we don't have anything in writing. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll have to do some 6 modification of the prior one as well. The owner's statement 7 on the plat that you read to us dedicates for the use of the 8 public forever streets, alleys, parks, watercourses, drains, 9 easements, all the -- whatever, whatever. Does that not have 10 to be modified? 11 MR. ODOM: I would say the final plat would show -- 12 would reflect that. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- that language, I 14 think, is the same language that -- until we accept the 15 responsibility, that -- I mean, that's a standard plat note 16 that we have a lot of times. 17 MR. ODOM: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And people try to say that means 19 we accept it for maintenance, County roads, and that 20 doesn't -- the plat note says they may be dedicated, but until 21 we accept it, it's not dedicated to us. 22 MR. ODOM: Because I could say something, or put it 23 in writing and file it with the clerk, that does not bind this 24 Court whatsoever, unless it was a court order accepting that. 25 We do have 8.08.A that specifically states we shall not. 6-26-06 77 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I think that, you know, 4 that's a -- the plat note that's on there originally is -- 5 MR. ODOM: I think is irrelevant. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- unfortunate, but I think it 7 doesn't mean anything until we accept it. 8 MR. ODOM: But I think that if they do put it on -- 9 put it on the notes, that's fine. 15, 16, 17 can take care of 10 it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 12 MR. ODOM: As part of their property. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The more clear it is, the 14 better. 15 MR. ODOM: I'd agree. Thank y'all. That's what I 16 wanted. It's coming. It's no sense to have this complete and 17 ask for you to take -- or for us to take maintenance of it 18 without this being clarified. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we don't need action on this, 20 then. 21 MR. ODOM: No, sir, I just needed direction. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one question. 23 MR. ODOM: All right, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said this is a detention 25 basin, not a retention basin? 6-26-06 78 1 MR. ODOM: That is correct. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 3 MR. ODOM: So it means that the difference -- 4 "retention" means you're going to hold it, you're going to 5 build a dam. It is the same principle that Flat Rock Lake is; 6 that is a -- that is a detention. All it does is slow up the 7 water, and you go downstream. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 9 MR. ODOM: It releases a certain amount of water, 10 and his design is such that it will be less than what was 11 originally there before it was put in. And I think he's 12 showing 98 versus 93 after it's built, release of it. Have to 13 make -- I think I said 93/90, but looking at the figures, it's 14 98/93. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have anything 16 further on that particular agenda item? If not, let's move to 17 Item 9; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 18 extend the preliminary plat of Waugh Acres located in Precinct 19 2. 20 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. About a year ago -- let me get 21 the right item here. Well, from memory, before -- about -- 22 sometime in 2005, we had a preliminary. He went through the 23 construction. I went out and inspected all of that. We got 24 down to the point to get a final, and then it was prohibitive 25 of -- of the individual to do it on three lots. There was a 6-26-06 79 1 problem trying to get the money for three lots to finish the 2 drainage study. That time we waived -- we had come to the 3 Court back in March, I believe, and pointed this out to the 4 Court, the same time as Center Point. But under the new 5 rules, that it -- these three lots fall under that exception, 6 it is not needed to be a drainage study. There's only three 7 lots here involved instead of five, and I would ask the Court 8 that you would extend that one year extension for that 9 subdivision to allow him to finish the final plat. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. 11 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Refresh my memory. Where 13 does the water for these three lots come from, domestic water 14 supply? 15 MR. ODOM: I believe that this was a community off 16 an existing well. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You use the term "community off an 18 existing well." Is this a community well that serves the 19 entire area, or are we talking about a shared well situation? 20 MR. ODOM: Well, it's a shared well situation. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has to be a shared well. 22 MR. ODOM: It's a shared well, but it's under 15. 23 By our definition, it's under 15 lots, so therefore we call it 24 a community water system. But it is a shared well. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, there is a dwelling on 6-26-06 80 1 what would be Lot 1? 2 MR. ODOM: Lot 1. Yes, sir, on Lot 1. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a dwelling there. 4 MR. ODOM: And there's nothing on 2 and 3. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And there is a well on -- 6 MR. ODOM: Lot 1. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- Lot 1. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it's the intention of, I 10 assume -- am I correct that the owner of this tract is living 11 on Lot 1? 12 MR. ODOM: He owns the property. He lives in 13 California. That was the other -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He owns the property. 15 MR. ODOM: He owns the property. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, though, the problem I 17 have here is that the -- it can't be under one preliminary 18 plat rules and another final plat rules. I mean, I don't 19 think you -- he's either under our old rules or new rules. If 20 he wants to go under the new rules, he has to refile a 21 preliminary plat. I don't see how you can split -- Rex is 22 nodding. 23 MR. ODOM: He's nodding yes? If this had been -- if 24 he had come to back to us, which he should have -- we asked 25 him what he's going to do, and he said at this point he didn't 6-26-06 81 1 know, back in March when we came to -- to the Court to do 2 that. If he had asked for it, I would assume that we would 3 have extended it, just like we did Center Point schools. That 4 was on the same -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we extend it's, he's under 6 our old rules. 7 MR. ODOM: You're right. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what I'm saying is, if he 10 wants to try to get under our new rules, he needs to do a new 11 preliminary plat. Which, you know, means he has to pay the 12 new fee for preliminary plat. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm trying to look ahead here. I -- 14 the same notes I made to address that water issue, we ran into 15 this out there off Goat Creek Road here just a meeting or two 16 ago, and -- and Headwaters people came in and said we got a 17 real concern. If we -- if we got some sort of squabble going 18 between these three owners or four owners -- I forget how many 19 it was on that one, but we don't -- we don't want a bunch of 20 wells drilled on tracts under 5 acres. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the same issue. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly the same issue, as I see it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's the other reason to 24 make a decision to go under the old rules or new rules, 'cause 25 there are some plat restrictions that have to go on there 6-26-06 82 1 about no individual wells on these lots under our new rules. 2 So, you can't have a hybrid; he has to have one way or the 3 other. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so too. 5 MR. ODOM: I don't like to take sides. That's not 6 my job. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You don't like to what? 8 MR. ODOM: I don't like to take sides on anything. 9 Here's a man that went through -- and I know what you need. 10 This is three lots, and here's a man that's built the road to 11 our desire. It was a good road; got his drainage off of it. 12 Came up to get hit for $12,000 on the lots. You're already 13 pricing yourself out of it. Now we have a rule that gives him 14 -- and we agreed that he could do the shared well before, the 15 Court did. And now we're going to come back and make the man 16 replat something, probably not even get it done. I mean, 17 there's a lot of expense. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to cost him $20 to do 19 a new preliminary plat under our new fee structure for less 20 than five lots. 21 MR. ODOM: But what about the water? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The water is the issue. 23 MR. ODOM: Well, if -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have to treat it the same as 25 we did last time. I mean, you know, and he's going to have to 6-26-06 83 1 go through Headwaters. We're going to put a plat note that 2 says no individual water wells. If they're going to try to 3 serve water with a shared well, there's a plat note that says 4 no individual lot will have a water well. And, you know, if 5 Headwaters chooses to enforce that, that's up to Headwaters. 6 But we're going to put the plat note on there under our rules. 7 MR. ODOM: Can he or not -- can he have a shared 8 well as they envisioned before? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 11 MR. ODOM: For these three lots? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: With a plat note on it. 13 MR. ODOM: No new wells. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If he's going to be selling 15 these, that's what two of these lots are going to do when they 16 buy it. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a deed restriction, I 19 think, that's also required. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's not going to be a 21 well on Lots 2 and 3. 22 MR. ODOM: That's right. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only going to be a well that 24 exists on Lot 1. 25 AUDIENCE: Are you going to charge for that water? 6-26-06 84 1 If he does, it's a utility. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than -- 4 AUDIENCE: If he charges for the water, the other 5 two lots, it becomes a utility. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not under -- 7 AUDIENCE: Under Texas law, he has to meter those 8 lots. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not unless he gets up to 14 10 connections. 11 MR. ODOM: 15. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That's between him and P.U.C. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not an issue. 14 AUDIENCE: I've been through it already. 15 MR. ODOM: So, in other words, what I'm trying to do 16 is be fair, be ethical with an individual. So he can -- if he 17 goes to a preliminary plat -- and this gentleman lives in 18 California, okay? So it's tough to communicate, trying to 19 get -- he goes to a new preliminary plat, files that, and he 20 puts a note on here that there will be no wells on Lots 2 and 21 3. He can go with his final, right? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He just has to follow our rules. 23 I mean, you know. 24 MR. ODOM: All right. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're asking for an 6-26-06 85 1 extension under the old rules? 2 MR. ODOM: That's what I was -- extension. I 3 thought that you could -- we could waive the drainage study on 4 the thing and just let him go for with it with a final. I get 5 a no, so he has to go to preliminary. I thought that was the 6 simplest way to do it. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I doubt that the $20 bill 8 will inconvenience him too much. 9 MR. ODOM: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which number is this? 11 MR. ODOM: Thank you. Well, at least -- I 12 appreciate that, that I've got direction. I can try to help 13 him. He built a good road. It was a good road. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. I don't think there's 15 any action going to happen on this, Judge. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have anything 17 further to offer on that? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I have trouble 19 communicating with those Californians and other hostile 20 foreign governments also. 21 MR. ODOM: It is a different world. I lived out 22 there twice when I was a young man getting out of the army. 23 Sent there twice by the corporation. The second time I got 24 off an airplane stopped in San Antonio and said, "I like this 25 place." 6-26-06 86 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 13, if we might. 2 Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to clarify 3 Court Order Number 29223 concerning illegal divisions of 4 property in Precinct 1 and Precinct 2. 5 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I believe Miguel was here. 6 Still here? 7 MR. ARREOLA: Yes. 8 MR. ODOM: Okay. We recently had two requests from 9 Environmental Health for determination as to whether 10 properties in question were in violation of Kerr County 11 Subdivision Rules. Both properties' surveys were done after 12 December of 2000. We have attached surveys of those two 13 properties for you to have a better understanding of what this 14 is about. The first property in Precinct 1 was an increase of 15 .02 of an acre because a manufactured home was over a property 16 line, was the way that it was explained to me. Am I correct 17 in that, Miguel? 18 MR. ARREOLA: I'm not completely sure. 19 MR. ODOM: Well, that's what I heard. In other 20 words, they changed a line and moved it. So -- and this 21 doesn't show it, but I think it was a previous home on a piece 22 of property, so it was moved two-hundredths of an acre, which 23 is essentially around 800 square feet, okay? The second 24 property in Precinct 2 was a decrease of .05 of an acre, and 25 appears to concern a drainage ditch easement that is different 6-26-06 87 1 than the original plat. I believe that the original plat was 2 in 1986 or 1987 -- I think '86. It showed the drainage 3 easement. Under the new plat, it shows that the drainage 4 easements are deleted from that. So, there's your 5 five-hundredths of an acre deletion. Each of these was done 6 by different surveyors. And, of course, even that .02 could 7 have been different because it was manually done versus GPS 8 now, so that there's a discrepancy of 700, 800 feet is very 9 possible with that line. We felt that it would be extreme to 10 hold the septic permits for such a small amount of property, 11 as well as a costly burden for such a minuscule amount of 12 land. I talked with Commissioner Letz, and we both felt that 13 that was not the intent of Court Order 29223. We also, in 14 that aspect, talked to another Commissioner, and there was a 15 different opinion, so therefore, we thought we'd bring it to 16 the Court and ask the Court to consider this issue and give us 17 a clear understanding of how to proceed with such matters. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you've talked to two 19 Commissioners, but you haven't talked to me. Which was the 20 other one? Who was the other one? 21 MR. ODOM: The one right next to you. There was -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. 23 MR. ODOM: We have just -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. What did my colleague 25 decide about this issue in my precinct? 6-26-06 88 1 MR. ODOM: One agreed, one disagreed. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. Where's that leave 3 us? 4 MR. ODOM: I'm looking at Precinct 2. There is that 5 mobile home park that's down there that we had a discussion 6 about, you know, his drainfields and stuff like that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- a general comment -- 8 that this has come up a lot recently. And I think I talked to 9 -- and some bigger tracts. And my opinion is -- I think I've 10 talked to Rex about this -- adjusting lot lines does not -- 11 does not trigger platting. That's not the intent of Chapter 12 232. I mean, if you're -- whether it -- you know, you're not 13 dividing, you're not creating a new tract. It's not a 14 division. I mean, you're moving things a little bit. And I 15 don't think it should even be subject -- I don't think it is 16 subject to our Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would agree with that. 18 So, did I just break the tie? 19 MR. ODOM: You just broke the tie. I think that 20 that's very logical. We're not -- somebody's not benefiting 21 by going out here and doing it. We're talking about 22 correcting something in the field, and therefore, that would 23 allow them not to hold up a permit for septic. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think Miguel's 25 following what the exact court -- our court order said, and I 6-26-06 89 1 just think that in the -- of that -- 2 MR. ODOM: Strict interpretation. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have to look at it. It's 4 not too strict an interpretation; it's just that adjusting lot 5 lines I don't think is creating -- it's not a subdivision. 6 MR. ODOM: I think it's solving a problem and taking 7 the burden off the property owners for the error that's been 8 made, and it's just being corrected. It's not -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think if we need to 10 clarify that prior court order to address it in the future, I 11 think we should do that. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's changing the 13 court order. I think it's maybe -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Clarifying. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, getting a -- and if Rex 16 agrees that adjusting a lot line is not creating a 17 subdivision, and get a -- I mean, and therefore, it's -- the 18 court order is good. It's just the -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The interpretation. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- interpretation of what the 21 subdivision is. 22 MR. ODOM: And to answer your question, Commissioner 23 Williams, that I felt like I'd had two; had I gone to a third 24 one, I felt I might be in violation of some rule. By the time 25 I get a quorum of -- 6-26-06 90 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know why you didn't 2 go to the third Commissioner; then you could have told me the 3 result. 4 MR. ODOM: Well, I listened to the ying and the 5 yang -- whatever. Yin and yang, right. (Laughter.) Whatever 6 the Chinese say, whatever they call it. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: You had a comment, Mr. County 8 Attorney? 9 MR. EMERSON: I was just going to say, subject to 10 common sense application. Because I can move my lot line over 11 500 feet and say I'm just adjusting my lot line. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But even if you move it 13 500 feet, is that creating -- is that a subdivision? You're 14 not creating a tract; it's not a division. You're not 15 dividing -- there's no -- you're ending up with two tracts of 16 land from two tracts of land. I don't see how that's a 17 division. 18 MR. ODOM: I think I would look at the volume of the 19 land involved in that. And -- well, you could be over 2 20 acres. And if you had over 2 acres, at 500 feet, it wouldn't 21 take too much more to go another -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's an interesting 23 question, because we have it a lot out on ranches -- 24 MR. ODOM: We do. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- frequently, and I know 6-26-06 91 1 Voelkel Engineering has had several recently of people, either 2 on -- some of them on true ranches, and some on some large 3 tracts, and they're making adjustments to their boundaries. 4 And I just don't see those adjustments on boundaries -- on 5 property lines as subdivision. 6 MR. ODOM: I wish we had the ordinance power, you 7 know, that Kerrville's got, where you can -- property owners 8 there can adjust something. I think we should. But statutes 9 don't give me that. Anyway -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, I think that's 11 something -- maybe Rex and I can look at that a little bit, 12 clarify it. But at this point, I think Rex -- 13 MR. ODOM: Maybe Harvey Hilderbran could put 14 something in, Kerr County could do something. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The assistant's back there; 16 just go back and write it out for us. 17 MR. ODOM: I think I see his pen moving back there. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe we can take care of that. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've clarified that, right? 20 MR. ODOM: Well, let me ask this. Are you going to 21 give -- make a motion to do this? Or it's clarified? I just 22 use common sense? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not a subdivision. 24 MR. ODOM: No. Well, I'm talking about 25 two-hundredths, five-hundredths. I don't know what that may 6-26-06 92 1 be if it's greater or something, but -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Miguel, you had a question or 3 concern? 4 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. Basically, what we've been 5 doing is, whenever -- we go by metes and bounds or subdivision 6 plats, and when we find a discrepancy from the original to the 7 one we just got, what we do is just present it to Road and 8 Bridge for determination, and they're the ones telling us yes 9 or no. Are we to continue doing that? Even if it's a small 10 portion? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My view is, you're -- you should 12 probably still do that, 'cause the intent of the rule is to 13 find illegal subdivisions, I think. But I think Leonard has 14 the discretion to look at it and say, "This is not a 15 subdivision," and then just verbally tell you. Then it 16 doesn't have to come to the Court. If it's not a subdivision, 17 it's not a subdivision. 18 MR. ODOM: Not a subdivision. 19 MR. ARREOLA: Like in this case, he responds to us, 20 "No problem," and we keep going? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go on, correct. 22 MR. ARREOLA: Is that a good procedure to continue 23 doing? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 6-26-06 93 1 MR. ARREOLA: All right. That's all I have. 2 MR. ODOM: Takes care of it. Thank y'all. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that particular 4 agenda item? Let's go to Item 14; consider, discuss, and take 5 appropriate action for realignment of Upper Turtle Creek Road 6 located in Precinct 1. 7 MR. ODOM: I thought I was through. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You are, almost. 9 MR. ODOM: Commissioner Baldwin is not here. So, in 10 November of 2003, Franklin Johnston and Commissioner Baldwin 11 met with Tony Hardin concerning the realignment of Upper 12 Turtle Creek Road in order to move it away from a home. Also, 13 to move it out of pig pens and something else -- sheep farms. 14 It was really a bad, dangerous situation. Mr. Hardin was told 15 he would have to prepare the survey to dedicate the new 16 roadway, as well as construct the new road. I just wanted the 17 Court to be aware that the road is near completion, and that 18 we will be coming back with field notes and asking for 19 approval to quitclaim the old road back to the landowner and 20 move the county maintenance to the new roadway. It's just for 21 information, that it's happening. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll just exchange the new 24 right-of-way for -- 25 MR. ODOM: For the old. 6-26-06 94 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Releasing and quitclaiming back to 2 the adjacent landowner of the old road. 3 MR. ODOM: That's correct, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two landowners. Two 5 landowners now under the new alignment, whereas it was only 6 one before. Is that correct? 7 MR. ODOM: Well, right now it'll still all be on 8 Tony's. What you're seeing there was what was proposed when 9 we looked out there, but everything will be within Tony's 10 right-of-way. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 12 MR. ODOM: We made some corrections out there and 13 made it work. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 17 of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are we voting on? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The alignment. 20 MR. ODOM: Just -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reaffirming. 22 MR. ODOM: -- reaffirming that this is coming up to 23 you. I just didn't want you to be cold turkey and get hit 24 with it. I wanted you to know ahead of time. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't require approval? 6-26-06 95 1 MR. ODOM: It doesn't require approval, just 2 information. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I withdraw the motion. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, motion is withdrawn. Anything 5 further on that agenda item? Let's go to Item 15, if we 6 might. Consider, and discuss County Treasurer's notification 7 that her office will discontinue human resources function as 8 of August 1, 2006; obtain clarification from Treasurer of what 9 functions or activities comprise or fall under human resource 10 function; obtain clarification from Treasurer of the specific 11 duties or functions which are currently being performed 12 outside of her office and which she believes are required by 13 law to be performed by her office and should be returned to 14 her office; and consider and discuss adequacy of staffing and 15 resources provided to County Treasurer's office and its 16 performance. 17 As indicated by Commissioner Williams earlier, we 18 obviously cannot complete totally this particular item. My 19 concern is, we're operating under a deadline. Two weeks ago 20 the County Treasurer served notice on us that, effective 21 August 1, 2006, that her office would no longer provide human 22 resource function for Kerr County. I think the Court needs to 23 know exactly what falls under, quote, human resource function, 24 and if we don't know that, we can't figure out how we're going 25 to fill the gap and -- and provide those services that are 6-26-06 96 1 required. And we're just a little more than a month away. In 2 addition, in that same notification, the Treasurer indicated 3 that there were duties listed as constitutional duties of her 4 office being performed in other offices, and as part of the 5 realignment, she's asking that those duties be returned to the 6 Treasurer's office where they belong. I think we need to also 7 get specific delineation of what those duties are so that 8 we'll know how that's going to affect other departments and so 9 forth. And it has budgetary concerns; it has 10 ability-to-function concerns, and -- and I think we're on a 11 pretty doggone close tight time frame here. 12 I also had, as I've expressed to members of the 13 Court, some questions about the legality of -- of -- of the 14 notification and whether or not the Commissioners Court can 15 prescribe duties to elected officials or departments if those 16 duties are not mandated by law to be performed by specific 17 elected officials or officers of county government. I've 18 asked the County Attorney to look at those issues, and lacking 19 some very clear on-point authority to the questions that I 20 raised, I -- I would hope that he would be able to get an 21 Attorney General's opinion generated -- a request for Attorney 22 General's opinion. That, of course, is -- is if there is no 23 clear on-point authority. I've had periodic postings from 24 him, and at least as of the last one, he hadn't found anything 25 clearly on-point. I don't know where we are today, but I 6-26-06 97 1 think we need those answers, and I think the State of Texas 2 needs those answers to the questions that I raised. 3 MR. EMERSON: Do you want an update on that? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir, if you wouldn't mind. 5 MR. EMERSON: The -- to bring the rest of the Court 6 up to speed -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, be great. 8 MR. EMERSON: That issue was proposed and discussed. 9 I called the Texas Counties Association -- Texas Association 10 of Counties. I notified David Brooks, who's the county 11 government guru in Austin. I notified the Attorney General's 12 department and the Texas Department of District and County 13 Attorneys. To date, I've had a couple of conversations with 14 the A.G.'s office. Their Intergovernmental Affairs attorney 15 says, "Good question. Never been addressed by the A.G.'s 16 office before. Possibly, under limited circumstances, the 17 Court could do that." David Brooks says exactly the opposite. 18 "Elected officials are elected, for lack of better words, 19 parallel to each other in organizational structure, and not 20 underneath the Commissioners Court. The elected official is 21 not obligated to do anything other than what is assigned in 22 the statutory duties as designated by the Legislature. And 23 the Commissioners Court can request the elected official to 24 perform an additional duty, but they are not bound to do 25 that." 6-26-06 98 1 I have not received an answer back from TAC or the 2 T.D.C.A.A. The issue, as it was posted on the blog website 3 for T.D.C.A.A. and burned around between a number of counties, 4 seemed to consistently come down, at least on behalf of the 5 other County Attorneys, on David Brooks' side of the scenario. 6 But the short answer is, there's no -- nothing definitive out 7 there. There's some implied powers of the Court in the Texas 8 Supreme Court case of Titus County versus Agan. There's a 9 couple of inferences to Commissioners Court authority in 10 several A.G.'s opinions, but each of those is qualified in its 11 own particular way that doesn't fit entirely within the 12 elected officials scenario. So, we can go to the A.G.'s 13 office, but you're looking at six to eight months to get an 14 answer. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I have a couple 16 comments about -- about this. First comment has to do with 17 advising the Court that Commissioner Nicholson and I have 18 begun the process of trying to determine just exactly what's 19 involved in the human resource component, so that we would 20 have a -- a better idea of what would be transferred up here 21 and how it could be assimilated directly under the Court. 22 We're going to meet -- what did we say, Dave? Next week? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Wednesday, I think. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wednesday this week to begin 25 that process. Then, after -- after assessing all of that, 6-26-06 99 1 which involves human resources, all those elements of that 2 department, then I think we would probably prepare some sort 3 of a statement or a report or a recommendation to the Court 4 which would take us into hopefully the next budget year. I 5 understand your concern with respect to the deadline that was 6 set forth in the Treasurer's note to -- to the Court, but I 7 would think that a -- a reasonable discussion would be held to 8 reasonably be -- cause that date to slip, too, or to move to 9 the end of the budget year so that we can coincide with any 10 plan that we might develop as to how to handle this with stuff 11 in the future. Am I correct in that, Dave -- in that 12 assessment? 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, you are correct. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My second comment has to do 15 with a court order with regard to how the human resources 16 function got to where it is right now. If somebody knows 17 something different than what I'm about to say, they can 18 certainly correct me. My understanding is that the Court, 19 many years ago, determined that they would move that function, 20 and the Treasurer agreed to accept that function in the 21 Treasurer's office as a part of her operation. So, that being 22 the case, unless somebody knows something different than that, 23 it seems to me that a court order which would memorialize a 24 willingness of an elected official to assume additional 25 responsibilities which are not constitutionally provided for 6-26-06 100 1 is a lot different than a court order ordering something to 2 happen, if I make myself clear. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, if I -- I 4 think a lot of the discussion is interesting, but I think the 5 reality is that we either need to get -- someone has to do 6 human resources August 2nd, you know. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: One. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or August 1. And I think 9 that -- I mean, I think that -- I don't know that we have 10 enough time to do it properly, and my preference would be for 11 the Treasurer to make -- to do what Commissioner Williams 12 said, keep the function until the end of this budget year. I 13 think that needs to be asked and determined A.S.A.P. If not, 14 we need to get a very specific list from the Treasurer as to 15 what she thinks -- what she's not going to do after that date. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we have not received that. 18 She just lumped it as a human resource function. So, I think 19 we need to know that, and -- either way, we need to know that 20 answer, but if she's going to keep on doing it till the end of 21 the budget year, I think we need to get that clarified. If 22 not, we need to have a special meeting in July. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think Commissioner 24 Nicholson and I can determine both what's involved, and that 25 it can't possibly be moved in -- within the time frame as -- 6-26-06 101 1 as suggested, and that there should be an extension of that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There should be an extension, 3 maybe. We may want an extension, but we're not the ones 4 that -- that says we're not going to do the work. That's up 5 to the Treasurer. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe we can determine 7 that and cause that to happen. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Right now, we have to be concerned 10 that that's what we're looking at, is August 1. And with 11 regard to your comment about the -- the circumstances under 12 which that court order occurred, I -- I don't know the 13 circumstances. I wasn't present when it occurred. All I know 14 is there was a court order that designated that the Treasurer 15 perform specific functions under the category of personnel 16 officer, and by which she was designated as personnel officer. 17 And so we're dealing with a court order which is in existence 18 that -- that presumably is at least part of what she's giving 19 us notice of that she's not going to perform after August the 20 1st. But, as Commissioner Letz says, we need to know what 21 that void -- what that void is going to be so we can make sure 22 that it gets filled. That's an important thing. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: You had indicated that -- that there 25 had been some initial discussions, apparently, regarding 6-26-06 102 1 extending her performance of -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. No, I didn't say that. 3 I believe we can handle that. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe we can -- we can 6 take that as a request from this Court that it's just not 7 possible to do this by August 1, and that that date needs to 8 slip to September 30. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who's going to make this 10 request? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who is going to make that 13 request? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner Nicholson and 15 I. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. So, it will come back 17 soon. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if the answer is no -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If the answer is no, we'll 21 have it on the agenda next time. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we have time. If 23 the answer's no, we need to have a special meeting, I believe. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If that's what's needed. Do 25 you see it differently, Dave? 6-26-06 103 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, sir. I can't imagine 2 an elected official abandoning these duties in the middle of a 3 budget year. We've planned for and budgeted for those duties 4 to be performed there, and if she's going to abandon it 5 effective August 1, maybe or maybe not we can handle that. I 6 don't know. It's kind of critical. It's got to do with 7 whether or not people are going to get paid in August. It's 8 going to cause harm to -- to Kerr County employees and 9 taxpayers if we have to patch this thing together. And quite 10 a bit of -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the point you make 12 is valid, and one of the distinctions has to be the human 13 resource function excluding payroll. Payroll is a separate 14 animal. Payroll preparation and payroll disbursement of 15 funds, that's a separate animal. So, I think, you know, we 16 need to -- to look at all these issues and talk them out. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- but y'all -- you two are 18 going to meet with the Treasurer at some point -- or within 19 this week, it sounds like, and determine if she's going to 20 give us an extension, and you'll notify us if the answer's no? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll put that as number one 22 on our list of several. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that item? Let's 25 move to Item 16; consider, discuss, and take appropriate 6-26-06 104 1 action on request of County Judge for Commissioners Court 2 order requiring County Treasurer to provide the County Judge 3 and Commissioners Court true copies of all filings, documents, 4 letters, notices, and any and all other exchanges of 5 information, including those on electronic media, by and 6 between and to and from the Kerr County Treasurer's office and 7 the Internal Revenue Service and Social Security 8 Administration between January 1, 2003, and present date. I 9 put this on the agenda, and the Treasurer, of course, does not 10 need to be present today for us to consider this item. 11 Approximately a year ago, I had requested 12 information from the Treasurer relative to some I.R.S. issues. 13 I believe it was in July of last year, if I'm not mistaken, 14 when it first came up, possibly August. I attached some 15 things to your agenda book indicating my request. I got two 16 copies of two I.R.S. checks; got absolutely no other 17 documentation. More recently, in regard to an issue with 18 I.R.S. and Social Security or both that arose, I requested the 19 County Treasurer to provide me with certain information. I've 20 provided copies of my memorandums to her in that respect. 21 I've received nothing. I received a telephone assurance that 22 on June the 8th, I believe, which was a day after I finally 23 imposed a deadline on her of June the 7th that I hope to have 24 that material, on that date, she called and left a message 25 that she would have it to me that day. I've not seen it. I'm 6-26-06 105 1 requesting that the Court adopt an order directing the 2 Treasurer to furnish the requested I.R.S. and Social Security 3 information to me, all of that information, and that she 4 furnish it by -- today's the 26th. I would hope by the 5th of 5 July should be adequate. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are we seeking here, 7 Judge? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: The memorandums that are attached to 9 your materials indicate that I was seeking certain information 10 relative to some I.R.S. problems and some Social Security 11 problems. I think this Court needs to be in the loop and to 12 know what -- what the information is concerning those 13 problems. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the copy of these 15 I.R.S -- U.S. checks here? What is that all about? The 16 document in our backup, the checks. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's what she sent me last 18 year with regard to a request that I have copies of all 19 letters or documentation which explain or otherwise refer to 20 that refund that she -- this is all I got. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does this have to do with 22 the -- the issue that the Sheriff brought to us at one time? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir. No, sir, it doesn't. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Something different? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I think this may have something to do 6-26-06 106 1 with the levies that -- that I.R.S. -- the seizures that 2 I.R.S. made on Kerr County property. I think it may have 3 something to do with the failure of the Social Security 4 Administration to post Social Security wages for Kerr County 5 employees for 2004, which was ascertained the latter part of 6 last year or the early part of this year. She advised me 7 about additional -- as noted in the May 16, '06 memo, 8 additional new or renewed problems with Social Security or 9 I.R.S. I asked for her to provide me with information there. 10 I followed that with a memo approximately 15 days later asking 11 for copies. I've not gotten them. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What were the new problems 13 that you reference in your -- in your memo of May 16th, 14 Paragraph 1? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: She advised me verbally that she was 16 having new or renewed problems with Social Security and/or 17 I.R.S. She didn't give me specific details. At that time, I 18 suggested that she seek the assistance of the Auditor's 19 office, and offered my help in any way that she thought might 20 be helpful. I asked that she answer certain questions about 21 those issues in order that the Court might be better informed. 22 I've not received answers to those questions. I also, in that 23 same memo, alluded to the situation the previous year and what 24 the status of those were. And on my follow-up memo of May 31, 25 I asked for copies of all of those documents, both relating to 6-26-06 107 1 last year and to the more recent ones, and asked her to 2 provide me that by June 7th this year. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have no -- I mean, I -- 4 actually, I thought you probably were -- I thought you may 5 have been provided some of this information, 'cause I hadn't 6 heard about it in a while. And I have no problem requesting 7 or putting a court order to get the request done. My question 8 is, do we need to be specific enough in a court order of what 9 you want? And that's -- I mean, and when I read your memo, in 10 your memorandum of May 16th, it doesn't say -- I don't know 11 that it's specific enough for me to understand exactly what 12 you want. And I think I -- I kind of understand the drift of 13 it, and I'm wondering if -- if the approach may be to require 14 the Treasurer to be present at our next meeting, and we can at 15 that meeting discuss exactly what -- you know, if she hasn't 16 provided us with anything satisfactory to that point. I just 17 want to make sure that we know specifically what we're 18 requesting. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think -- I think the 20 nature of this request requires the Treasurer to be here to 21 discuss it with the Court. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, she hasn't indicated to me that 23 she does not understand what I was asking for. In fact, on 24 her verbal message of June the 8th, she merely said, "I will 25 have that information for you today." It's not too 6-26-06 108 1 complicated. Whatever information or documents went back and 2 forth, including those on electronic media, between the 3 Treasurer's office and I.R.S. and/or the Social Security 4 Administration. She probably maintains two separate files; 5 one Social Security, one I.R.S., and she -- you just go back 6 and look at the dates, and everything from January 1, '03 7 forward, that's what I want to see. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, it occurs to me that 9 any citizen could access information under the Open Records 10 Act, this same information, so it's incredible that the chief 11 budget officer of the county can't get the information. Have 12 you thought about doing an Open Records Act request? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I was hoping that wouldn't be 14 necessary, Commissioner. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You'd think it wouldn't be. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't know we had -- we may need 18 to do a line item in my budget for copies to pay the Treasurer 19 for Open Record request responses. Maybe that's -- maybe 20 that's what I should have done. I've been quite lenient from 21 a time standpoint. And on Open Records, I think I'm talking 22 about 10 days -- calendar days, not working days. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have -- I guess my hesitation, 24 I have no idea how much information this is. You're 25 requesting all -- I mean, as I read this, you're requesting 6-26-06 109 1 all information between Kerr County and the I.R.S. and Social 2 Security Administration since January 1, 2003. To me, that's 3 potentially a huge amount of information. And I -- I mean, 4 clearly, I think you have, as every member of this Court has, 5 a right to that information. I'm not saying you shouldn't 6 have that. I'm just trying to figure out if you put it in -- 7 I mean, I'm trying to figure out how -- I know why you want 8 it. I'm trying to figure out a way -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I would think everybody on this Court 10 would want it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Sure, I want -- I mean, 12 I have no problem with the information. I'm trying to figure 13 out -- I don't know how much we're talking about. If it's, 14 you know, enough files to fill up half of this room, I mean, I 15 think it -- I don't know that I want copies of all that. I'd 16 rather, you know, have access to it, or have them bring them 17 up. And I don't even -- we don't need to spend so much money 18 on copies. If it's a small amount, you know, yeah, I don't 19 have a problem with doing a court order and getting copies of 20 everything. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I don't think it's a 22 small amount. It may be a file that's -- that's that thick in 23 each case. The -- the filings are done on a -- probably a 24 quarterly basis. Then the information that transpired back 25 and forth, the letters, notices, things of that nature, I 6-26-06 110 1 don't think we're talking about a lot of information. If 2 there is a lot of stuff going on back and forth, I think 3 that's bad news, and that's what I'm concerned about. I don't 4 know what the news is. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, you asked for a 6 written summary. That doesn't sound like it would be 7 something that thick. A written summary would be an 8 itemization of the communications between the Treasurer's 9 office and these two entities. So, if you had that written 10 summary, or we had it, then we could decide if -- how much 11 detail is needed. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd really like to analyze the 13 documents myself, Commissioner. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The agenda item says "all 15 copies." 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it says all. You know, 18 that's what I was looking at more than the memo. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, you're right. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the two backup 21 memorandums, the Judge -- I have a problem with a couple 22 things. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but that's not -- I mean, 24 the backup's not what the Judge is requesting. What the Judge 25 is requesting here is copies of all the data. 6-26-06 111 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. I'm making 2 reference to something in the backup. I want to make a point. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Item -- Item Number 2 in the 5 May 16th memorandum from the Judge to the Treasurer, "The 6 period and/or filings involved in such problem." In your 7 subsequent memo of May 31st, "copies of all letters, notices, 8 and filings." My question is, are we talking about the 9 personal data involving every employee that is embodied in a 10 filing to the I.R.S.? Or are we talking about a specific 11 problem with respect to the timing of a filing, and what 12 that -- what problem that might create? What are we talking 13 about? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the honest answer, 15 Commissioner, is I don't know. It could be relating to 16 individuals. Because, for example, the '04 failure of 17 employees to have Social Security wages reported that was 18 discovered in late '05 or early '06, I'm -- I'm not concerned 19 about individual personal data. That, certainly, is 20 redactible. I have no problem with that. I want to see the 21 relationship to Kerr County and the I.R.S. and what 22 difficulties there may have been, what resolution, if any, has 23 occurred, what difficulties may currently exist. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about -- I mean, would this 25 be acceptable, I mean, to your -- I still have a hard time 6-26-06 112 1 putting my hands around exactly what you want, or what records 2 are down there. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: The answer is, I don't know what I 4 want without looking. I'm kind of like the Supreme Court 5 Justice; I can't define pornography, but you show it to me and 6 I'll tell you. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would it be -- how about if we 8 pass a court order requiring -- or requesting the County 9 Treasurer to be at our next meeting and provide this 10 information, and if she doesn't provide it with enough -- then 11 we do either an Open Records request or something along that 12 nature, providing that you are -- in reference to your 13 previous memo. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the simplest thing for me to 15 do is just make an Open Records request of the Treasurer, and 16 let you guys figure out how I'm going to pay her for it. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, the Open Records 18 request can be to inspect records. You don't have to ask for 19 copies of them. Once you've inspected them, you can decide 20 which copies that -- whether or not you want copies. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I was certainly trying to avoid that, 22 Commissioner, as I said. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't a simpler process 24 be to -- to have this discussion with the Treasurer present? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I thought we -- I 6-26-06 113 1 mean, require her to be at our next meeting and resolve it. 2 And if we -- and if the Treasurer does not provide everything 3 that the Judge or any other member of the Court wants -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then do a court order. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do a court order and -- you 6 know, and require it. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Does any member of the Court have a 8 motion they wish to offer in connection with this agenda item? 9 Hearing none, we'll move on to Item 17. Consider, discuss, 10 and take appropriate action to authorize County Auditor and 11 members of the Commissioners Court to have access to 12 information, documents, or records which are maintained by the 13 Internal Revenue Service and which relate to Kerr County. I 14 put this on the agenda last August, as I recall. Because of 15 difficulty exactly like the kind I just described, that the 16 Auditor and members of this Court need to have access to that 17 information. Right now, the only person authorized to have 18 access is our County Treasurer. At that time, during the 19 discussion, the assurance was given by the County Treasurer 20 that, "Oh, if you need any information like that, you just ask 21 for it and I'll get it for you." I've asked. I haven't 22 received it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with this one. I would 24 just make an addition, and I think possibly as to the members 25 of the Commissioners Court or their designee have access. And 6-26-06 114 1 I'm thinking about where we're going with the human resources 2 function. I think it's up to -- that's coming back to the 3 County. I think this type of information is part of that 4 function. And I don't know that -- you know, I'm a little 5 uncomfortable having too many people have access to that 6 information. I don't know if it's -- you know, how we control 7 it, but I think -- but I clearly do agree that more than one 8 person in the county needs to have access to that, especially 9 in the light of the Treasurer's memo. Tommy, do you have a 10 question or comment as to this? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: I was just going to add that -- that 12 the forms -- the I.R.S. forms are individual-sensitive as far 13 as an application to the I.R.S. for this purpose, so you'd 14 have to name the person that you -- that you want to give 15 authority to have access. In other words, it would have to be 16 my name or your name or your designee's name. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: So, I mean, it can't be -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: General. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: -- general. It can't be an office. 21 You have to -- you have to specify the name of the individual. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have an opinion as to who 23 -- I mean, in light of where we're going with the human 24 resource function right now and the deadline we have with the 25 -- I mean, we don't know what the Treasurer's going to do on 6-26-06 115 1 August 1st. Who should be this person? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I just have a general comment. I 3 just -- I don't think it makes good business sense -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say again? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: -- in general for there to be only 6 one official in the county have access to those records. I 7 don't care who it is. There just needs to be another person. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another person. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't care. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind -- in my opinion, I 11 think we should limit it to a degree, and I think that the -- 12 by court order, I would -- my preference would probably be the 13 County Judge and the Auditor. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that would be my 16 preference. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we take 18 the necessary steps to have Tommy Tomlinson and Judge Pat 19 Tinley authorized to have access to information, documents, 20 and records maintained by Internal Revenue Service which 21 relate to Kerr County. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And Social Security 23 Administration? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And Social Security 25 Administration. 6-26-06 116 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. 2 MR. ODOM: Commissioner? I don't have a dog in this 3 fight on this, but you said Tommy. How about the Auditor? 4 'Cause Tommy may not be Auditor. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, he's the Auditor now. 6 We'll have to give a new name later. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, he should be 8 designated the County Auditor. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we still need to name -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: We do it on the form. If you want to 11 designate the County Judge and the County Auditor, then 12 whoever that person is, from time to time, we do it by name. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the intent of my motion, 14 is to have those two positions. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I seconded that motion. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and second. 18 Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 19 signify by raising your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 24 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 25 MR. SCOTT: Can I make a comment before you close 6-26-06 117 1 for lunch? I'll make it a quick one. Harrison Scott again 2 from Kerrville. I think if there's going to be this 3 realignment and stuff, her salary is not State-mandated. I 4 think a dollar a year night be a good consideration, 'cause 5 she's been nothing but an embarrassment, and eating up your 6 time in gobs. Thank you. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be in recess for lunch. We 8 will reconvene at 1:30. 9 (Recess taken from 12:04 p.m. to 1:31 p.m.) 10 - - - - - - - - - - 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. It's 12 1:30 now. We'll go to Item 18; consider, discuss, and take 13 appropriate action on quote for sidewalk construction at Kerr 14 County Animal Control facility. I have been furnished a quote 15 by the one that's been doing the concrete work that our 16 benefactor has been paying for. I think a decision was made 17 on a policy basis earlier that we would not ask the City for a 18 waiver of its sidewalk requirement. If -- is my recollection 19 correct on that? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we asked and we were 21 denied. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We asked for a waiver of 23 the -- of the fee. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And they denied it. But 6-26-06 118 1 we -- our discussion was that they're requiring individuals 2 and churches and businesses and everybody else to build these 3 sidewalks to nowhere, and so we shouldn't ask for better 4 treatment than other people are getting. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, but they're granted 6 waivers. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They have? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me throw something else in the 10 mix. I -- in looking at the agenda for the Council tomorrow 11 night -- and I don't have it in front of me -- there is an 12 ordinance to be considered by them which includes a waiver of 13 sidewalk requirements in rural areas, I believe is what it was 14 styled as. The sidewalk out there, I think, has some 15 correlation with TexDOT, is what I'm led to believe. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, you built it in 17 TexDOT's right-of-way. I think that's the only -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, maybe that was it. So, I 19 guess -- I really wish I had better information for you. I 20 just noticed that yesterday when I was reviewing some things, 21 that the agenda item that the Council is going to deal with 22 tomorrow night deals with waiver of sidewalk requirements in 23 rural areas, or something -- I'm paraphrasing. May not be as 24 accurate as I'd like, but -- 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you'd look at anything 6-26-06 119 1 that's been built in the last few years, mainly that church 2 out there on the loop -- is that Calvary Temple? They got a 3 sidewalk there, pretty expensive. It goes to a ravine. They 4 can't use it; there's no possible use for it. If you go over 5 here at Discount Tire, they built a sidewalk from their 6 driveway over toward Walmart, and there's a sign alongside the 7 sidewalk that says, "Sidewalk ends in 150 feet." That wasn't 8 good enough; there may be people falling off in the ravine, so 9 they put an ugly barricade up there at the end of it -- the 10 City did -- to keep people from going off the end of it. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a time imperative 12 here, Commissioner? Are they putting the heat on us or 13 something? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we defer? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think they won't -- one 17 thing you can -- you might face if we don't build it is that 18 they won't grant us an occupancy permit. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We got a building permit, 21 but they have to check it and make sure we've complied with 22 all their regulations. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Silly -- I shouldn't say silly 24 question. I probably shouldn't ask it, but I will anyway. 25 The half-inch rebar, 12-inch centers, 5 inch thick, is that a 6-26-06 120 1 city requirement? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm. It's a good 3 sidewalk. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was going to say, most 5 sidewalks can be done with -- 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Better than any driveway. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- with mesh and 4-inch. I 8 didn't know that -- I mean, that's -- that is a road or a 9 driveway type, or even a house. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could drive a truck on it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I figured it probably would 12 stick, but that is a city -- 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You may recall that they 14 did decide that we didn't have to build a sidewalk to the 15 dump; that that's private property, and so that's not covered 16 by their regulations. So, that -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The road that goes down the side, on 18 the landfill road there. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to defer this until we 20 see what the City does on their -- 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would too. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- agenda. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. Anything else on 24 that item? If not, we'll move to Item 19. Consider, discuss, 25 and take appropriate action to accept funds remaining after 6-26-06 121 1 disbanding of Hill Country Garden Club for use in replacing or 2 upgrading plantings in Kerr County at Kerr County war 3 memorial. I was contacted by Ms. Ross Stone on behalf of the 4 Hill Country Garden Council, who had -- which has recently 5 disbanded, and they were the organization that was initially 6 responsible for doing the landscaping and planting out at the 7 war memorial. They have about $250 remaining in the till, and 8 they want that to come to Kerr County for use in upgrading or 9 replacing plants out there at that war memorial. I've been 10 tendered a check for the $250 from the Hill Country Garden 11 Council for that purpose, assuming that the Court accepts it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion we accept the 13 check for $250 from the Hill Country Garden Council, and 14 authorize the Maintenance Department to expend funds on the 15 memorial -- war memorial. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 18 indicated. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the 19 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Appreciate 24 their thinking of us. Next item is Item 22; consider, 25 discuss, and take appropriate action to contract with 6-26-06 122 1 consulting engineer for subdivision review. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me get to it. All right. 3 The -- in the backup, there is a very simple contract prepared 4 by Mr. Wells. Ran them through the County Attorney's office. 5 He had no problems with it; he liked the simplicity of it. He 6 says he could add three or four pages of legalese if we 7 wanted, but he didn't see any reason for it. And the only 8 thing we did think about was that we needed to add some 9 language to the end of that last paragraph related that 10 Mr. Wells is an independent contractor, not an employee of 11 Kerr County. He has this on his computer. That language will 12 be added and be brought back. I'll make a motion we accept 13 the contract to consult -- to accept the contract to contract 14 with Mr. Wayne Wells as our consulting engineer for 15 subdivision review, subject to the addition of additional 16 language in the last paragraph related to independent 17 contractor, and authorize County Judge to sign same. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 20 indicated. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the 21 motion signify by -- I'm sorry. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The compensation rate seems 23 pretty reasonable to me compared to some other -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shhh. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have anything else, 6-26-06 123 1 Judge. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't look a gift horse in 3 the mouth. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know why I brought 5 that up. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: What are you picking up your computer 7 for when that was said? 8 MR. MACCROSSAN: What? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to alert everybody about 10 how we beat people down up here. Any other questions or 11 comments? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a very good rate. 13 It's a rate that he is comfortable charging. He charges 14 Gillespie County the same, and that's why he came to us at 15 that rate. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not a rate to get the foot 17 in the door, and then it goes way up next year? I've seen 18 that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It -- he did go up $5 an hour 20 from his current -- from the last-year agreement with 21 Gillespie County. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if his rates go up too much, 24 we can find somebody else. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment? All 6-26-06 124 1 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, before you leave, on 7 that, y'all are getting along fine? 8 MR. ODOM: Yes. I like Mr. Wells. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Working together? 10 MR. ODOM: Working together. He uses common sense, 11 is pragmatic, and I think it's good so far. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is he an Aggie, Leonard? 14 MR. ODOM: No, sir, he's not. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 16 MR. ODOM: But that doesn't make him a bad person. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Not automatically, right? Okay. 18 Let's go to Item 23, if we might. Retirement of the Tax 19 Assessor/Collector effective August 31, 2006. Consider, 20 discuss, and take appropriate action to appoint successor to 21 Paula Rector as the Kerr County Tax Assessor/Collector. 22 Ms. Rector? 23 MS. RECTOR: I apologize for being a no-show when I 24 put this on the agenda the first time. I was flat on my back. 25 I had -- 6-26-06 125 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is styled as executive, 2 Judge. 3 MS. RECTOR: -- a bad back. Yeah, I had asked for 4 executive session -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 MS. RECTOR: -- on this also. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Is everything you had to present to 8 go to executive? 9 MS. RECTOR: Mm-hmm. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we defer on that for 11 right now, then. I think we may have another item that is 12 going to go into executive session, and we'll get back to both 13 of those items. 14 MS. RECTOR: Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and call the next 16 item, if I might. Consider and discuss Maintenance Department 17 supervision. Is all of that going to be in executive session? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's appropriate, 19 Judge, yes. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll defer that one and come 21 back to it. We'll go to Item 25; consider, discuss, and take 22 appropriate action to make Kerr County nomination for vacancy 23 on Kerr Central Appraisal District Board of Directors. I put 24 this on the agenda when I received notification from the 25 Appraisal District that there was a vacancy, and that there 6-26-06 126 1 was a certain timeline upon which we had to make 2 accommodations. With regard to the interplay of the action on 3 the Tax Assessor, I'm not sure whether we want to consider 4 this particular item, because there are limitations on who you 5 can appoint. You cannot appoint an employee within -- if I 6 read the requirements correctly, you cannot appoint an 7 employee or nominate an employee of the taxing agency. An 8 official representative of the county government -- as an 9 elected official, you can do that, but the way I read it, you 10 can't nominate an employee. Is that correct, Ms. Rector? 11 MS. RECTOR: That's right. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on this one, I would 13 recommend that we either fail to nominate or send a letter to 14 the District supporting the nomination of K.I.S.D. It's kind 15 of an agreement -- unwritten agreement that these -- Kerr 16 County has a slot out there and K.I.S.D. has two, I think -- 17 two or three. Two? 18 MS. RECTOR: Two. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: School district probably could 20 stack this board if they want. They have, by agreement -- 21 unwritten agreement, not chosen to do that. And this vacancy 22 is due to the death of Mr. Dozier, so I'd recommend that we 23 not -- either not act, or send a letter of support of whoever 24 K.I.S.D. chooses to nominate. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I prefer that approach, 6-26-06 127 1 because that was their position. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it keeps from ruffling 3 any feathers anywhere along the line. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have another nominee on that 5 board at the present time? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have Chuck Lewis. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the best we could hope for, is 10 one. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think so. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have a pretty good 13 one. He's trying. 14 MS. RECTOR: Yeah. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What's the Court's pleasure? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the Tax Assessor, by 17 law, is a nonvoting member of that board. 18 MS. RECTOR: That's correct, yes. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that will continue. We 21 won't lose that ex-officio position. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Then we have our one 23 nominee. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll have one nominee as a 25 voting member. 6-26-06 128 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have a motion to offer? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that Kerr 3 County send a letter to the Kerr Central Appraisal District 4 supporting the nomination of K.I.S.D. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: A nomination -- any nomination they 6 may offer? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With a copy to K.I.S.D. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize County Judge to 11 sign same. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 14 indicated. Any question or comment? All in favor of the 15 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Is it the 20 Court's pleasure to take up the approval agenda now, and then 21 go into executive session? Or go into executive session now? 22 I think we can probably go into executive now. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's do the approval so the 24 Auditor can pay the bills. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to pay the bills early? 6-26-06 129 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm ready if you are. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll go to the approval 3 agenda quickly. Payment of the bills is the first item there. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the bills. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 7 of the bills. Any question or comment? All in favor of the 8 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget amendments. 13 Budget Amendment Request Number 1. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is from the Tax 15 Assessor/Collector, and it's signed by Paula Rector to 16 transfer $3,543 from Deputy Salaries to Software Maintenance. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a question. Just one 20 quick question. Everybody else is not paying any software 21 maintenance. What's the deal here? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, this -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this something special? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Part of it is for -- this is for the 25 voter registration. 6-26-06 130 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Part of it is. And I think under -- 3 under the contract with T.S.G. for the Odyssey program, we 4 did -- the software -- the maintenance did not cease on this 5 particular -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: -- software. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? 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. Budget 14 Amendment Request Number 2. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is for the 216th District 16 Court. We need to transfer $5,828.90 from Civil 17 Court-Appointed Attorney line item, with $770 to Special Court 18 Reporter, and $5,058.90 to Court-Appointed Attorneys. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 22 the Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question or 23 comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 24 right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6-26-06 131 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment 4 Request 3. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for the 198th District 6 Court. We're requesting a transfer of $1,508.50 from Civil 7 Court-Appointed Attorney line item into Court-Appointed 8 Attorney line item. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 13 of Budget Amendment Request 3. Any question or comment? All 14 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment 19 Request 4. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is between the County Jail 21 and Commissioners Court. This is approval of the Sheriff to 22 transfer $3,835 from Software Maintenance in the jail budget 23 to Professional Services in the Commissioners Court budget. 24 It's for the purpose of paying William Beltrone for the audit. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 6-26-06 132 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 3 of Budget Amendment Request 4. Any question or comment? All 4 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment 9 Request 5. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is for the County Jail, to 11 transfer $251.64 from Software Maintenance to Vehicle 12 Maintenance. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 16 of Budget Amendment Request 5. Any question or comment? All 17 in favor 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: Motion carries. Budget Amendment 22 Request 6. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is between Juvenile 24 Detention Facility and Detention Maintenance. This was 25 approved by Kevin Stanton to transfer $3,189.17 from 6-26-06 133 1 Utilities, with $1,014.70 to Maintenance and Custodial, and 2 $2,164.47 to Detention Repairs. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 6 of Budget Amendment Request 6. Any question or comment? All 7 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. The motion 10 carries. Budget Amendment Request 7. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is a request from Linda 12 Uecker, the District Clerk, to transfer $1,000 from Telephone 13 line item to Office Supplies. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for Budget 17 Amendment Request 7. Any question or comment? All in favor 18 of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment 23 Request 8. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 8 is between the Hill Country 25 Youth Exhibition Center and Courthouse and Related Buildings. 6-26-06 134 1 We're transferring $1,128.82 from Building and Grounds 2 Maintenance in the Exhibition Center budget, with $931.97 to 3 Supplies in Courthouse and Related Buildings, and $196.85 to 4 Repairs and Maintenance in Courthouse and Related Buildings. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 8 of Budget Amendment Request 8. Any question or comment? 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: Motion carries. Budget Amendment 14 Request 9. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 9 is for Indigent Health 16 Care. We need to transfer $2,213.86 from Eligible Expenses to 17 the Third-Party Administrator line item. Along with that, I 18 have three bills from VeriClaims, Inc., which I need to treat 19 as late bills. One is for $1,563.60, one is for $415.70, and 20 the final one is for $234.56. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for Budget 24 Amendment Request Number 9 and hand checks to -- late bills 25 and hand checks to VeriClaims for $1,563.60, $415.70, and 6-26-06 135 1 $234.56. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or comments? All in 4 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do we have any 9 more budget amendments? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: That's it -- that's all. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Any late bills other than as 12 indicated? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I've been presented with monthly 15 reports for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, and Justice of 16 the Peace, Precinct 4. Do I hear a motion that those reports 17 be approved as submitted? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 21 of the reports as submitted. Any question or comment? All in 22 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 6-26-06 136 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Let us return now -- 2 we'll go out of open or public session, and we will go into 3 executive session to consider two agenda items. We'll first 4 consider Item 24; consider and discuss Maintenance Department 5 supervision. 6 (The open session was closed at 1:53 p.m., and an Executive Session was held, the transcript of which 7 is contained in a separate document.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We will go back into public or 9 open session. It is now 2:51. Does any member of the Court 10 have anything to offer with respect to any of the items that 11 we discussed in -- in closed or executive session? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, Judge. I'd like to -- 13 it's my privilege and pleasure to offer a motion for the Court 14 to appoint Diane Bolin -- let me see; I've got to do this -- 15 Isabel Diane Bolin to the position of Interim Tax 16 Assessor/Collector effective September 1st, 2006, until after 17 the canvassing of the November 7th vote. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: General election. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 22 indicated. Any question or comments? 23 MS. RECTOR: She missed it. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify 25 by raising your right hand. 6-26-06 137 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Anything else 5 to be offered as a result of matters discussed in executive 6 session? Hearing nothing else, why, we've got two more -- two 7 more items before us. One is the information agenda. The 8 other is a budget workshop. Let me go ahead and handle the 9 information agenda. Do we have any reports from any of the 10 Commissioners in their liaison or other assignments? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only -- go ahead. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got two things on my 13 mind. One, you probably know that Al Schultz has resigned 14 from the Library Board. He's our -- one of our two 15 County-appointed members, so we need to replace him. It's not 16 on the agenda. I don't particularly have a nomination in 17 mind, but I wanted to let y'all know about it, and I'll put it 18 on the agenda for next time. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. I want to -- I want to 21 give you a copy of a summary of the Animal Control report. 22 These are the reports that the Animal Control supervisor 23 collects on animals, and I've kind of condensed that data to 24 try to help us understand what kind of performance we're 25 getting out of Animal Control. And what it -- what this says 6-26-06 138 1 is that -- that the number of animals picked up is going down. 2 That's good news, and we probably attribute that to good work 3 on educating the public about their responsibilities to their 4 animals. Population is larger. And the number of animals 5 being adopted is -- is up markedly; 10 percent so far this 6 year, 7.8 percent three years ago. That's quite a significant 7 increase, and I -- I credit that to -- to Janie's efforts to 8 work with anybody that wants to work with her, but 9 particularly some of the other animal facilities around to 10 enlist their help in placing the good animals that come into 11 the Kerr County facility. 12 And the adoptions are up markedly; again, 47 percent 13 increase for the year-to-date this year versus three years 14 ago. Well, I just talked about adoptions. Euthanizations are 15 down. Again, that's a function of fewer animals coming in and 16 more of them being adopted. So, that's -- all that's all good 17 news. Now, the year-to-date data. At the end of the year, 18 the changes won't be as dramatic as they are now, because this 19 is the kitten and puppy season, and we'll be getting in -- in 20 this next three months, we'll have more activity on the 21 average than we've had the last nine months. That's all. I 22 did give a copy of the reports that I used to make this to -- 23 to Paul -- the City Manager, Paul -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Paul Hofmann. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- Hofmann. 6-26-06 139 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I noticed in that regard, there is an 2 item on their agenda to consider terminating the Animal 3 Control Services contract. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I met with him, and he 5 asked me if we thought we might be flexible in renegotiating 6 the part of the contract that -- where we don't accept the 7 duty of picking up dead animals. And I said we're flexible; 8 we'll talk about any part of any contract. So, that's a 9 formality. They put that on there so that he could have a 10 chance to try to renegotiate that. I'm not in favor of doing 11 that. Certainly, we need to -- to listen to the case and -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Communicate. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- and be reasonable. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have is related 17 to the Airport Board. I think there was an article in the 18 paper today, which I haven't read, but I think we made great 19 headway, Commissioner Williams and myself, and the rest of the 20 Airport Board on going in a direction of getting the Airport 21 Board to be in charge of the airport. Which I know we thought 22 we did that two years ago or three years ago, but the 23 management contract was rather vague, and I think we really 24 tightened up -- a lot more accountability is going to be 25 required. And both Councilman Coleman and Mayor Smith were 6-26-06 140 1 very supportive of the -- I think it's the accountability to 2 the City -- to the Airport Board. So, I think it's a -- great 3 headway was made. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It was a good article, and 5 the two of you were quoted as making really good arguments. I 6 think you made some -- according to the article, it sounded 7 like you made your case. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We tried very hard to do 9 that. There was an interesting exchange of memorandums among 10 board members. Commissioner Letz and I worked together on a 11 joint -- joint position paper, as did other -- other members 12 of the board. The only two City Council guys did not, but the 13 reality was, we're talking to them about some things they 14 needed to hear, and so I think the result is that we all 15 agreed that we have a good framework. Governance agreement's 16 a good framework. And it's sort of a matter of just getting 17 everybody to realize it's just not another department of the 18 City. It is an autonomous board, has the authority to run a 19 jointly-owned and operated facility, and we'll work toward 20 that goal. I think that's fair. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The bad news -- I don't know 22 what the paper said, but the bad news was that the -- the cost 23 of operating that airport is going to be looked at much more 24 of an actual cost versus a -- a guestimate, which has kind of 25 been used for past couple years, and that may increase the 6-26-06 141 1 County's contribution. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I would say that's 3 maybe a temporary phenomenon, Commissioner. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it goes to a point that 6 you were making earlier about other supervision of things, and 7 realignment of departments. I think Commissioner Letz and I 8 are working toward positioning the County to -- to make a 9 serious run at doing -- I would say the outside work, if you 10 will, for lack of a better definition. The outside work, and 11 probably splitting up that whole bulk of responsibility where 12 the City takes care of the function and reporting and that 13 kind of stuff, and work some of the outside work. I think 14 we're trying to get ourselves in a position to do that. It 15 won't happen in this initial upcoming budget year, but I think 16 we could be in a position to do that a year from now. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For what it's worth, I 18 applaud your efforts. You're going in the right direction, 19 and I'm pretty impressed with the progress. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had the opportunity to 22 spend three and a half days in -- in the tourist mecca of San 23 Antonio attending a National Association of Regional Councils. 24 What that is, is COG members from all over the United States 25 of America gathering together with board members, policy 6-26-06 142 1 makers, as -- as in conjunction with executive directors of 2 COGS. And we talk a lot about the regionalism and how we make 3 things happen on a regional basis and share those dollars that 4 come down from the feds and the state in a better manner, and 5 in some cases, hopefully trying to educate the feds that we 6 down here might have some input as to how things should 7 happen. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I might also add on that note 9 that, by chance, I was at the same hotel in San Antonio that 10 he was staying at, because this past Monday we finalized the 11 adoption of Gus; had to be in District Court early Monday 12 morning, and figured rather than spend time traveling, stay in 13 a hotel. But, anyway, bottom line, I was -- I was at that 14 hotel, and while Sam spent the afternoon jumping in the 15 swimming pool, we didn't see Commissioner Williams, so he had 16 to be in a meeting; he certainly wasn't at the pool. 17 (Laughter.) 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would add, too, you didn't 19 leave a voice message on my machine that you were available to 20 take me out to dinner, either. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. I was out -- we 22 flew in under the radar in San Antonio and back out. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, you did. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Does that have anything to do with a 25 German being in charge? 6-26-06 143 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I thought -- I thought we had the 5 airport situation solved 35 years ago when we created that 6 airport board. Apparently we didn't. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll keep tweaking it. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Keep working on it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I was paid a visit by the mayor of 10 the City of Ingram and the City Attorney. They wanted to 11 discuss with me the possibility of exploring having Kerr 12 County maybe do some of -- number one, handle their O.S.S.F. 13 requirements, and number two, explore the possibility of our 14 Road and Bridge Department looking at the rehabbing of some of 15 their streets, some of that street work that they've got to do 16 out there. I told both Leonard and Miguel of these 17 discussions, and if they have any concerns, I need to know 18 about them. I think the first issue that we had to get 19 resolved is for Leonard to get a better understanding of what 20 it was Ingram was wanting done, and then once he gets a handle 21 on that, he can tell us if he's -- if that's something that he 22 can realistically do in his department, and -- and what the 23 requirement's going to be if he has to do it. So, initially 24 pitched that out in the open a few months ago, I guess, when 25 we were talking about the City of Kerrville maybe looking at 6-26-06 144 1 some of their street rehabilitation requirements, but we'll 2 see where that leads. Certainly, it's open for discussion. 3 It might give us a way to better spread the cost of some of 4 this equipment that we've been buying. That gets pretty 5 expensive, and we got someone else participating, helping us 6 pay for it. Don't know -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I do have one other 8 quickie. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that is that the -- the 11 contract for -- for Kerr County with Texas Water Development 12 Board is back, signed by Water Development Board and the 13 Judge. There are a couple small tweaks I have to make on the 14 RFP scope of work, which I'll do, and we should be in a 15 position to, through Grantworks, publish that RFP very 16 quickly. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Wonderful. Anything else on the 18 Commissioners Court meeting? We'll stand adjourned from the 19 Commissioners Court meeting, and now let me convene a 20 workshop. Why don't we take a few minutes before we do that, 21 say five, ten minutes, maybe. 22 (Commissioners Court was adjourned at 3:04 p.m., and a budget workshop was held, the transcript of which 23 is contained in a separate document.) 24 - - - - - - - - - - 25 6-26-06 145 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 29th day of 9 June, 2006. 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6-26-06