1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 ABSENT: DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X October 10, 2006 2 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments 5 3 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on request 4 for resolution in support of Texas Brush Control Program in the Guadalupe River Basin 13 5 1.1 Consider/discuss advertising of proposals on 6 electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest control 20 7 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on allocating storage space to County Treasurer 21 8 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on any 9 matters that may arise from progress report on Kerrville South Wastewater Project; approve 10 filing new Colonias application for $500,000 to fund Phase IV, Kerrville South Wastewater Project 22 11 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 12 software problems causing delays in payroll tax submissions 43 13 1.7 Public Hearing concerning Revision of Plat for 14 Lots 13A & 13B of Riverside Park, Precinct 4 55 15 1.9 Public Hearing concerning vacating, abandoning, and discontinuing Live Springs Ranch, Precinct 4 56 16 1.6 Consider/discuss, approve new cellular phone 17 service contract for Environmental Health Dept. 56 18 1.12 Public Hearing for revision of Lot 5 of Creekwood IV, Precinct 2 61 19 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 20 approve revision of plat for Lots 13A & 13B of Riverside Park, Precinct 4 62 21 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 22 abandon, vacate, and discontinue old plat of Live Springs Ranch, Precinct 4 63 23 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 24 approval of new final plat of Live Springs Ranch 65 25 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for revision of Lot 5 of Creekwood IV, Pct. 2 68 3 1 I N D E X October 10, 2006 2 PAGE 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 3 road name changes and regulatory signs in various locations, set public hearing for same 69 4 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 5 concept of an alternate revision of plat for Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I; set public 6 hearing for same, Precinct 4 73 7 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for concept of alternate revision of plat for Wood 8 Trails Ranch, set public hearing for same, Pct. 4 73 9 1.16 Presentation by representative of Texas Association of Counties of liability insurance; renewal credit 10 from TAC Risk Management Pool 76 11 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for revision of Lots 16, 17 & 18 of Riverside Park, 12 Precinct 4 79 13 1.19 Consider/discuss take appropriate action to name a private road in Precinct 4 82 14 1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve 15 resolution to participate in Indigent Defense Formula Grant Program 83 16 1.20 Interview four finalists for position of Facilities 17 Maintenance Director, take appropriate action to extend an offer of employment (Executive Session) 83 18 1.22 Reports from the following Departments: 19 Animal Control -- Extension Office -- 20 Environmental Health 84 21 4.1 Pay Bills 91 4.2 Budget Amendments 91 22 4.3 Late Bills 95 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 97 23 1.23 Workshop-Review on minor modifications to Kerr 24 County Subdivision Rules & Regulations 99 25 --- Adjourned 141 4 1 On Tuesday, October 10, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a regular 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: Okay, let me call to order this 7 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court regularly 8 scheduled for this date and time, Tuesday, October the 10th, 9 2006, at 9 a.m. It's a bit past that now. Our normal meeting 10 would have occurred yesterday, but yesterday being a holiday, 11 it threw it forward to today. Commissioner Letz? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Please stand and join me in a 13 moment of prayer, please. 14 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's 16 any member of the audience or the public that wishes to be 17 heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel 18 free to come forward at this time. If you wish to be heard on 19 an agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a participation 20 form. They can be found at the back of the room. It's not 21 absolutely essential that you do that, but it helps me to know 22 that we have a public member wishing to participate in an 23 agenda item. But at this time, if there's any member of the 24 audience or the public that wishes to be heard on any matter 25 that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at 10-10-06 5 1 this time. I thought our Collections manager was coming 2 forward. 3 MR. ALFORD: No, computer issues. Thank you, 4 gentlemen. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Okay. Seeing no one coming 6 forward, we will move on. Commissioner Letz, do you have 7 anything for us this morning? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have made some 9 interesting observations for the past few weeks. Water is 10 always an interesting topic, and it's really interesting to 11 watch what other counties do around us, most notably recently 12 Kendall County. They've had a lot of discussion over there 13 about what to do on -- on density. And the Commissioners 14 Court came out, and a split decision 3/2 vote came down that 15 there will be no exceptions anywhere in the county; there will 16 be a 5 -- or 6-acre average for lot size whether you're in 17 downtown Comfort or Tapatillo Springs, which is another 18 high-density area. And they've really taken action to -- and 19 not only have they done that, and I find that some of their 20 actions are pretty interesting, but also the Cow Creek over 21 there has assumed, based on what Headwaters thinks, a huge 22 amount of authority on lot sizes, regulation of underground 23 water that I think, from Rex's and my discussions, and 24 discussions that the Headwaters Board has had with their 25 attorney, they don't have that authority. 10-10-06 6 1 But, anyway, it's just real interesting what other 2 counties are doing. And there's a lot -- and I'm bringing it 3 up, really, as a -- I think it's really important that we 4 follow the law. I know it's not -- doesn't sound like a real 5 novel idea, but I think we, as the Court, have looked to our 6 legal counsel on these issues and have pulled in the reins a 7 lot on things that people in the public want us to do, whether 8 it be regulating signs and billboards, regulating lot sizes 9 and wells and all this stuff. I mean, I think it's really 10 important that we do what's right and do what the law says, 11 and not try to grab all kinds of authority that I don't think 12 counties have. Okay. It's an interesting observation from 13 other counties. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baldwin? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I want to 18 piggy-back just a little bit on county authorities. This 19 L.C.R.A. issue is ruffling some feathers. And the travesty of 20 the whole thing, I believe, is that there is a small group of 21 citizens that are misleading other citizens. And, you know, 22 it's to -- we all saw our names in the newspaper. I saw a big 23 ad there, and I understand there was two of them, actually; I 24 only saw one. People are actually believing now that we are 25 in charge of L.C.R.A. We probably -- I mean, I've got -- I 10-10-06 7 1 got an e-mail this last week from a lady in Llano, Texas -- I 2 assume that y'all did -- that is a former resident of 3 Kerrville, and she just kind of stuck it to me as if I were in 4 charge, like many, many others are. I think -- I think that 5 this Court needs to make a response to that. It's gone long 6 enough and hard enough to where our citizens are believing 7 something that is not true, and I think that Commissioners 8 Court needs to come out with a strong statement, and we can 9 always ask the County Attorney to do it for us. (Laughter.) 10 I said "ask." 11 I really believe that. I mean, it's gotten -- I 12 think we're all big boys and we're strong and tough, and we're 13 elected to handle the -- you know, the -- stand in the face of 14 the storm for the people, and don't mind that at all. But 15 when there's -- but when there is untruths told, I think that 16 we need to stand up and -- and take a stand against that, too. 17 And, personally, I believe that it's a small group driving 18 this thing that got mad at this Court because we didn't take a 19 stand in the beginning. Remember, we -- we had an issue on 20 the table and we did not vote on it, and I think that that 21 angered some folks, and now they're taking it out on us. And 22 that's -- that makes me want to throw up, actually. I'm just 23 -- we need to take a stand on this thing, and it will -- I 24 will probably bring it to the Court at some point in the very 25 near future to do something. I don't know exactly what to do 10-10-06 8 1 yet, but something needs to be done. 2 The second issue is, I've gotten a call over the 3 weekend from the hospice -- local hospice group that they're 4 caring for a former TexDOT local engineer, and the family's 5 wishes is that a road would be named after him before he 6 passes away. And I made some phone calls and started digging 7 around a little bit, and the likely road to name after him is 8 Loop 534, which I'm assuming that's all in the city, or at 9 least city ETJ. And he is the guy that designed it and 10 oversaw the construction of it and the whole thing, so I just 11 think that's a likely road to name after him. I will -- I'm 12 going to call the City today and just see where all that is. 13 And, again, if this Court needs to take a stand and -- and do 14 a resolution or something, authorize the Judge to write a 15 letter or something like that for that cause, I think it would 16 be very wise and the right thing to do. That's all. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I find Commissioner 19 Baldwin's comments interesting about L.C.R.A. It's pretty 20 obvious that whatever's taking place in terms of campaigning 21 out there is being engineered by a group of folks who have -- 22 have a solution in mind. What I find interesting is that the 23 protests come in batches. You get a batch of e-mails, 10 or 24 12 at a time, and they all say the same thing. You get a 25 batch of phone messages, if you're not in the office, at the 10-10-06 9 1 same time, and they all say the same thing. And the last 2 batch had to do with "underground is the answer." And one 3 fellow was so enlightened about the whole thing that he said 4 in his message to me, "Underground is the answer. Bury the 5 towers." (Laughter.) I find that interesting. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then one was, "Stop 7 U.G.R.A." 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. So, yeah, I don't 9 know the answer. The answer's certainly not here. The 10 answer's in the Public Utilities Commission when L.C.R.A. 11 makes their recommendation or series of recommendations or 12 whatever they're going to do. But I think the -- what I find 13 troubling about this -- and I agree with Commissioner Baldwin 14 and his assessment of it -- is that so much enlighten -- 15 disenlightenment or unenlightenment just spreads like 16 wildfire, and now it is the popular theory that underground is 17 cheaper than -- than surface and on top. I don't know if it 18 is or not, but if you're going to put that theory out, at 19 least put some supporting evidence out that backs up your 20 contention, and that hasn't happened. Other than that, this 21 was a pretty good weekend -- holiday weekend. Remember, this 22 is the weekend that Columbus sailed up the Guadalupe to 23 discover Kerrville. You do remember that? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do remember; I was here. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why we had that 10-10-06 10 1 holiday this past Monday. And the University of Texas won. 2 The Bears won. Poor old Cowboys just couldn't quite get it. 3 MR. ODOM: A & M won. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, that's right. A & M 5 won. Oh, my goodness. How could I have forgotten that? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I may go back, there's 7 one other comment, before I forget, on the same basic issue of 8 county authority. The City sent over a -- a draft of the new 9 ETJ rules that they're proposing, and I would just 10 encourage -- I don't know if everyone got it; I know I got a 11 copy of it. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll give to it Kathy to get 14 copies out to everybody. We're heading for a head-on 15 collision with the City over this, I think. Their rules for 16 their roads for ETJ are not acceptable, and I think we need to 17 look at -- I bring it up -- may have to ask Rex to do a little 18 research. My -- I recall -- my recollection is that if we 19 can't come to an agreement with the City over these rules -- 20 you know, hopefully we can. They're hopefully logical people 21 over there on this. There's an option, I think. It's not 22 mediation, but it's something like that almost, and it goes to 23 a third entity to come up with these rules. And I think that 24 the -- we need to be prepared for that, be able to discuss 25 that, because the rules -- the draft that I got out of P & Z 10-10-06 11 1 is pretty onerous in my opinion. The good news is there are 2 one -- I think two members of the City Council that are 3 concerned about the rules as well, so it may not ever get 4 through City Council, much less over to us. But they're -- it 5 is -- the rules they're proposing is nothing like Commissioner 6 Baldwin and I met with them and talked about. Nothing. So, I 7 think that's real important. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you mentioned that, 9 because I had a forewarning from a member of the P & Z that 10 they were going to -- going over a whole bunch of issues that 11 were counter to our long-established subdivision rules and 12 regulations, so I'm glad you're on top of it. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Commissioner? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- on the issue of L.C.R.A., 16 it -- the advertisements that Commissioner Baldwin was 17 referring to, while they do not say that your elected members 18 of Commissioners Court and your elected members of the City 19 Council have any authority, it clearly implies that by 20 directing the reader of the -- of the advertisement to contact 21 these elected officials, with the apparent thought in mind 22 that if you bring enough pressure to bear there, things can 23 change. Well, obviously, things can't change. With regard to 24 your suggestion that maybe we need to adopt some sort of 25 official statement of position, if the -- if the County 10-10-06 12 1 Attorney doesn't honor the request, now that we've already 2 passed by him, maybe we can get our resident wordsmith to work 3 on that, just as another option. But what I've been doing 4 when I get specific written communications from citizens, I 5 respond to them and tell them, you know, I appreciate their 6 interest; however, this Court has no authority or jurisdiction 7 over that issue, and the P.U.C. does, and they should direct 8 their -- their thoughts towards that agency in that regard. 9 So, I've been trying to respond to any written communications 10 I get. Obviously, if I get voicemail messages, there's -- 11 there's not an address to which I can respond, but I'm -- I'm 12 trying to keep the fire put out. But I think they're -- 13 they're pouring more fuel on it on the outside than I'm 14 putting out on the inside. So -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm doing the same thing. 16 You know, I respond to all those people too, and I have 17 actually met with one of those leaders that -- that financed 18 the ads in the paper, and on several occasions, and it's like 19 that I've never met with them. So, that's why I say the 20 travesty in this thing is that they're purposely misleading 21 the public, and I believe that. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: A lot of these people are not going 23 to be heard because they're given to understand that we're the 24 ones that need to hear them, as opposed to the P.U.C., who 25 really are the folks that need to hear what they have to say. 10-10-06 13 1 So, from that standpoint, it is a travesty. Let's move on 2 with the agenda that we've got before us. We have a timed 3 item for 9:15, so let's take that. Consider, discuss, and 4 take appropriate action on request for Resolution of the Kerr 5 County Commissioners Court in support of the Texas Brush 6 Control Program in the Guadalupe River Basin in Kendall, Kerr, 7 and Comal Counties. Mr. Bartel's here with us. Mr. Bartel, 8 if you'd be kind enough to give your name and address for the 9 reporter for the record, and then tell us -- 10 MR. BARTEL: I'm Fred Bartel, 101 Waring-Welfare 11 Road, Boerne, 78006. I have to admit, I'm from Kendall 12 County. Thanks for the flowers. Kendall County's done an 13 awful lot on trying to control density, and this drought has 14 helped a lot. People begin to realize that if we don't 15 provide some open-space land to recharge this aquifer, we're 16 not going to have enough water. And that 4-acre, 6-acre 17 density is becoming very popular. We've -- a lot of folks in 18 the past have said, "Well, we can't do anything about it 19 anyhow." Well, they can. So, we've had standing-room-only 20 crowds coming in there to Commissioners Court to discuss 21 people's feelings on -- and it's a battle between property 22 rights, for the developer and the people that are trying to 23 protect the aquifer, and that battle will go on. And I'll get 24 off my soapbox, but thanks again. 25 It's been a little over two years since I briefed 10-10-06 14 1 you last on the Texas Brush Control project. You helped me 2 originate correspondence not only from Kerr, but from Comal 3 and Kendall, to the various boards -- soil conservation boards 4 and so forth to try to get financing for this program. In the 5 2005 Legislature, we were not successful, but Mr. Bill West, 6 General Manager of G.B.R.A., has briefed the Legislative 7 Finance Committee in the last month or so, and he said it 8 looks very good this time. He said it's one of the 9 high-priority items, and so we're going to try to help put the 10 pressure on to focus attention on this thing. All three 11 County Commissioners are working on resolutions. Some of them 12 have already forwarded -- one's already forward; the other 13 one's in the mail, I think, to help us on this thing. It's a 14 matter of review. 15 As I told you several years ago, I learned that 16 A & M was doing research on rainfall interception, and I went 17 to one of their labs. They have ten labs in seven counties 18 that are studying interception of rainfall, and the one that I 19 visited was in Waring on the Seidensticker Ranch. And out 20 here in these big cedar trees are sensors up in the top, in 21 the middle, down at the bottom, even some under the litter 22 under the trees. That's transmitting data to Uvalde to a 23 central computer that measures rainfall interception. And, 24 for example, at Waring, since the year 2000, 151 inches of 25 rain had fallen on that particular area. 61 percent of the 10-10-06 15 1 rain that fell on those cedar trees did not reach the ground. 2 A large majority of our rainfall comes in half-inch or less 3 increments, and a mature cedar tree can retain about a 4 half-inch of rain, and so it just evaporates. It's gone. 5 This test has been repeated over and over, and, of course, the 6 more half-inch or less incidents of rain you have, the better 7 it is. So, here I am talking to you about conserving water; I 8 come up here in the middle of a cloudburst, but that's all 9 right. (Laughter.) 10 But the other side of this thing is, how do you 11 clear cedar? How do you do anything about this when -- when 12 it costs $200 an acre to clear heavy cedar? Then I learned 13 through Farm Bureau newspapers that there was a thing called 14 the Texas Brush Control Program, where the State has been 15 paying for 70 percent of the cost of clearing cedar. I found 16 that this has been going on in seven river basins. I found 17 that up through last year, for example, they had paid to clear 18 56,000 acres of cedar just in Gillespie and Blanco County on 19 the Pedernales River. And the sad part of this is, not one 20 dollar was ever contributed to the Guadalupe River Basin. And 21 so I started this effort on those three counties because of 22 the Trinity Aquifer, the fact that it's a priority groundwater 23 management area, and a lot of development going on out there, 24 plus the Canyon Lake. And so I think that this time, we stand 25 a much better chance. 10-10-06 16 1 This program helps everybody. A lot of people 2 think, well, this is to help the ranchers. Well, just look at 3 what it's doing, how many thousands of acre-feet of water that 4 would be available for recharge if we cleared the cedar. Of 5 course, there's got to be some follow-up -- and, Commissioner 6 Letz, you know this too. Cutting the cedar tree down is the 7 beginning of your problem. First off, you're a landowner and 8 you're going to have to put $50, $60 an acre into that program 9 to pay your share. And if you're going to get any 10 amortization on this, you're going to have to defer that 11 ground. You're going to have to control second-growth cedar, 12 forever. And we have a federal program; people do 13 participate. We had 26 people sign up for the federal program 14 last year, and only enough money for six. So, people want to 15 participate. And I really appreciate your help in this thing 16 and allowing me to come to speak with you today. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Bartel? I got a question 18 for you. I don't understand why there's a fight between 19 private property rights and developers and aquifer people. I 20 don't understand that. Everybody should be in the same boat 21 on this thing. But if -- are you saying that if this program 22 goes through and we get what we ask for, that a property owner 23 is required to participate? 24 MR. BARTEL: Are you talking about the Brush Control 25 Program? 10-10-06 17 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 2 MR. BARTEL: No, it's strictly voluntary. And if 3 you decide that you want to participate, a technician comes 4 out -- it's just like EQIP. A technician comes out, walks 5 through the property with you and looks for areas that might 6 be critical. If you've got a golden-cheeked warbler or 7 black-capped vireo habitat in there, they might recommend that 8 you try to keep some motts in there for that. They're going 9 to recommend that you do this on your best land, because 10 you're trying to get some return on your investment, and you 11 don't want to be clearing cedar on a 30-degree slope. So, 12 it's voluntary. But what surprises me is the participation. 13 I was on a bus tour last year in Gillespie and Blanco County. 14 There are places along farm-to-market roads where we drove 15 seven miles, and it was a continuous sign up; one rancher 16 after another participated in this program. They're very 17 excited about it. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a -- it's purely 19 voluntarily, like Mr. Bartel says, and it is -- the landowners 20 are standing in line to do it. It's basically the same as the 21 EQIP program under the Soil Conservation Service. And there 22 is a -- I know in this county, those that deal with Soil 23 Conservation folks quite a bit, there is far more demand than 24 dollars. So, I think it's -- I make a motion that we approve 25 the resolution. I think it's a real good program, and I think 10-10-06 18 1 that the Guadalupe Basin has been left out, which is shameful 2 in my mind, that our legislators haven't funded us like the 3 other river basins. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it, but I'd like 5 to amend just one part in the "Whereas." It talks about, 6 "Therefore, be it resolved that the Commissioners Court of 7 Kerr County, Texas, recommends..." I think we need to state, 8 "recommends to the Texas Legislature that sufficient funds be 9 provided." 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I'll accept that 11 amendment. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any 13 question or discussion on the motion? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a -- not on the 15 motion. But, Mr. Bartel, are you related to the former 16 Commissioner Bartel? 17 MR. BARTEL: Cousin. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're cousin to him? What a 19 great man. Good man. And I believe that cedars -- God made 20 cedars to cut down. That's what they're for. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fenceposts. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's why he created them, 23 to cut them rascals down, so I'm certainly in favor of this. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other question. I don't 25 know if you've talked to someone -- I really don't like to 10-10-06 19 1 bring up a whole lot the Edwards Aquifer authorities. You 2 might get them on board as well, 'cause they are providing 3 funds into Kerr County and Bandera County for their own 4 program. They're doing it through Soil Conservation Service. 5 MR. BARTEL: I talked with them, and especially down 6 in Comal County, where the watershed recharge area is. Now, 7 they have their own program. They pay, like, 20 percent or 8 something like that, I think. But Danny Scheel and I have 9 talked about that thing, and, in fact, discussed about whether 10 we should include them in this thing. There's been some 11 preliminary studies right now that shows that this area we're 12 talking about -- Kendall, Comal, and Kerr -- is the best 13 payoff for the dollar that we could come across because of the 14 high density of -- of development in this critical aquifer. 15 We're in a heap of trouble with this Trinity Aquifer, and 16 everything we can do to put some more water in there, I think, 17 is going to be helpful. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other side of that is, 20 it's not just the Trinity which benefits. Clearing the cedar 21 has a direct relationship to the increase in spring flow, 22 which increases river flow, and the more water we can take out 23 of the river, the less is coming out of the aquifer, any 24 aquifer. 25 MR. BARTEL: Thank you. 10-10-06 20 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments on the 2 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 3 right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to 8 Item 1. Consider/discuss authorization for advertising of 9 proposals on electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest control. I 10 think this is basically an annual -- 11 MS. DAVIDSON: Annual thing. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that we've put out for bids for 13 these outsource functions. 14 MS. DAVIDSON: Correct. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any 18 question or discussion on the motion? 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. 24 MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's move to Item 3 10-10-06 21 1 quickly. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on 2 allocating storage space to County Treasurer. This relates to 3 one of those two closets that are in that little hallway there 4 by the Parole and the Historical Commission -- 5 MS. NEMEC: Actually, both of them. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 MS. NEMEC: I went from 1,178 square feet to 221 in 8 the office that I'm in now, and I have a lot of files that 9 didn't fit in there. And I've put them in there; I had no 10 choice. And, so, I'm here to get permission to use both of 11 those closets. One of them locks. The other one, there's 12 files in there that are unsecure, because it doesn't lock. 13 And if I get permission today to use both of those closets, 14 I'll have Maintenance put a lock on the other one, because 15 there's files in there that are -- files that really should be 16 under lock and key, and I'll have to tell Maintenance to get a 17 lock for that closet. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's in the closets now? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Nothing. 20 MS. NEMEC: Well, there wasn't anything in there, 21 but now I have my files in there, 'cause I had no choice, and 22 I just put them in there 'cause I didn't have anywhere to put 23 them. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Prior -- prior to her 25 utilizing them, they weren't being utilized for anything. 10-10-06 22 1 So... 2 MS. NEMEC: And it was either that or leave them out 3 in that little hallway out there where -- you know, nothing's 4 in there. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have no problem with it. 6 You need a court order? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: No. I had -- I was down there the 8 other day when I noticed this was on the agenda, and I 9 mentioned, I think, to Debbie -- I think you were off running 10 an errand or something -- that, you know, if you need that 11 space, for goodness sake, use it. That's why it's there. 12 Nobody else is using it, and, you know, use what you need. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can do it. Do you want a 14 court order? 15 MS. NEMEC: I just want to make sure it's okay. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. 17 MS. NEMEC: Okay, thank you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to a 9:30 timed item. 19 Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on any matters 20 that may arise from progress report on Kerrville South 21 Wastewater Project; also approve filing a new Colonias 22 application for $500,000 to fund remaining Phase IV of 23 Kerrville South Wastewater Project. Commissioner Williams? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. This is 25 the agenda item that I had put on two weeks ago. And the 10-10-06 23 1 Grantworks folks, our friends Eric Hartzell and Reagan 2 Lenehan -- Regan's new to the scene, incidentally, Judge and 3 Court. Regan took Dave Tucker's place. And I got to tell 4 you, Regan, you make a better appearance standing before us 5 than Dave Tucker did. 6 MS. LENEHAN: Thank you very much. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, I would have made 8 a better appearance than Mr. Tucker. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But Eric is an old friend; 10 he's been here many times before. What we want to do today is 11 give the Court an update on Phases II and III of the Kerrville 12 South Wastewater Project, tell you exactly where we stand. We 13 are nearing -- rounding the corner, would you say? 14 MS. LENEHAN: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rounding the corner. And I 16 want these folks to give us that report. It is not, however, 17 an issue that we need to talk about, and hopefully find a 18 basis for a resolve. And then we need to talk about moving 19 forward and secure funding for the remainder of the project, 20 which is Phase IV, which will come down the Bandera -- I mean 21 the Ranchero Road. So, whoever wants to lead the discussion. 22 Regan, is that going to be you or Eric? Whoever. 23 MR. HARTZELL: Probably Regan will start off. She's 24 the person who's in charge of managing the current Phase II 25 and III grant, and so I'll let her start. 10-10-06 24 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could we start by going over 2 Phase I, so I can remember? 3 MR. HARTZELL: Okay, I'll do that. Eric Hartzell 4 with Grantworks. Phase I was the Wood Mobile Home Park, which 5 connected about 57 households to the City's municipal sewer 6 system. And that was completed -- oh my goodness, probably 7 about two years ago now. And this -- this new Phase III and 8 IV are the Loyal Valley Subdivision, which are around 100 9 homes that are mostly mobile homes in this area, and that's -- 10 that's Phases II and III, sorry. And Phase IV, then, would be 11 taking Ranchero Road from the Bandera Highway down to Loyal 12 Valley and hook up the duplexes and homes that are along that 13 street. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One important element of 16 Phase I that you didn't mention, Eric, and that was the part 17 that took us across the Riverhill Country Club, bypassed the 18 Rolling Green Lift Station, which was a major piece of Phase 19 I, and which took a lot of work to get done, and was delayed 20 immeasurably by the flooding in the year 2002. 21 MR. HARTZELL: That's true. That was something the 22 City had required that we do for the project, was to reroute 23 that flow around their lift station. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was a condition the 25 City set in return for giving us the authority to hook these 10-10-06 25 1 up to the city system. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the -- is the City happy 3 with all we've done for them? I mean -- I mean, we're kind of 4 handing them 150 customers so far; we're going to hand them 5 more, which is a revenue source for them. They're getting it 6 at no cost. So, I mean -- 7 MR. HARTZELL: I think there -- I think there have 8 been different administrations in place throughout the last 9 few years, and both U.G.R.A. and the City -- actually, 10 U.G.R.A. is sort of who initially spearheaded -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 12 MR. HARTZELL: -- this, and they were kind of going 13 to own the system and then work with the City as a kind of a 14 wholesaler. And -- and so there have been some sort of 15 different arrangements discussed throughout the years as it's 16 moved along. I think the City appears to recognize this is a 17 valuable asset to them, and we haven't had any real issues 18 with -- dealing with the City. They've been cooperative with 19 these projects. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think part of the answer 21 to your question, Commissioner, is it goes to the interlocal 22 agreement that was negotiated between U.G.R.A. and the City of 23 Kerrville to take on the administrative role with the 24 maintenance role of the system. And in that interlocal 25 agreement, the previous U.G.R.A. manager, not the current 10-10-06 26 1 one -- or not Mr. Brown, but the one in the middle, negotiated 2 a clause in there that gave the City an option -- or U.G.R.A. 3 an option, I forgot who -- to purchase it for peanuts. And 4 that's kind of a bone of contention out there. I'm not sure 5 the City wants to acquire it. And in our minds, since we gave 6 it to U.G.R.A., and there will be close to $2 million 7 invested, they probably ought to hold onto it, and take the 8 rest of it as well, which is this two phases. And, so, that's 9 kind of up in the air, and it's up to them to negotiate their 10 way through that and either renew their administrative 11 contract or something. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there just -- you know -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't mean to complicate 14 it, but it's -- that's in there. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why wouldn't the City want it? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why would they want it? 17 They probably wouldn't. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, they're getting 19 users who are going to pay a monthly service charge, and 20 they're going to pay for that sewage then to be treated. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they're getting money to 22 maintain it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're getting money to 24 maintain it. Why wouldn't they want that? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why would they want to take 10-10-06 27 1 over the responsibilities of ownership? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 3 MR. HARTZELL: Why wouldn't they. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why wouldn't they? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because it -- because it is 6 then an official extension of their services beyond their -- 7 their corporate limits. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have, by policy, said 10 they won't go beyond their corporate limits, except in 11 situations like this with interlocal agreement. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Changes the dynamics of it. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got a nod of consent back 18 there from Stuart. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Just trying to get the 20 whole big picture before we get on to where we go next. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that's not our issue. 22 MS. LENEHAN: Well, then, good morning, 23 Commissioners. Nice to meet all of you. The updates on the 24 Phase II and the Phase III portion of the project, which, as 25 Eric mentioned, is the Loyal Valley area, is that we are -- 10-10-06 28 1 we've been under construction for months, and the work in the 2 public right-of-way is complete. And we have hooked up about 3 80 houses to the system, and all of those homes have set up 4 accounts with the city to receive service. And at this point, 5 we feel like we have -- we have enough funding, through three 6 grant projects, to -- to pay for all of the costs associated 7 with hooking up those homes. And the next step in the process 8 is the septic mitigation, and we are -- our budget is very 9 tight at this point, and so we are discussing different 10 options for the septic mitigation portion of the project. And 11 Commissioner Williams and I have been discussing the Loyal 12 Valley -- the areas that are in closest proximity to the 13 creek, and basically prioritizing those -- the septic 14 mitigation for all homes on Loyal Valley, and then basically 15 keeping -- running through all the homes in the project area 16 until we run out of funds in the grant. So, our -- our goal 17 would be to do -- of the 80 homes that we have in the area, 18 we're hoping to do, you know, at least 60 of those, and then 19 just kind of moving along and along and along until our grant 20 funds run down -- run out. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then? 22 MS. LENEHAN: Then? 23 MR. HARTZELL: Well, then we'll move to Phase IV -- 24 Phase IV funding to complete the septic mitigation in that 25 area. 10-10-06 29 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's consistent with 2 what we've had to do in the past, wasn't it? We've had to 3 kind of slope over into the future funding pool to do some 4 things where expenses rose beyond control. 5 MR. HARTZELL: That's right. And I think it's a 6 reflection of the statewide increase in construction costs in 7 the last two years, where our budgets that we applied for 8 these grants were created back in, I think, 2002 and '3. And 9 since then, we've had a 40 percent increase in PVC, and so the 10 engineers are just trying to squeeze what they can out of what 11 we have available. But there have almost always been some 12 overruns in terms of our -- what we've been able to secure in 13 our bidding, and so we've had to defer some of the project 14 costs to a future -- to future grants. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it's your assessment 16 that we can probably mitigate about 60 homes on funds that 17 remain in the grant pool; is that right? Grant and match 18 pool? 19 MS. LENEHAN: That's exactly what it's looking like 20 right now. The -- the one caveat is just that we -- I just 21 received an invoice from the construction contractor. Hasn't 22 even been approved or signed off on by the engineer at this 23 point, so this is my most recent estimate, and -- and based on 24 the costs that -- you know, the invoice that he's showing and 25 the amount remaining, it's looking like we'll definitely be 10-10-06 30 1 able to do 60, and then we'll hope to just kind of maybe 2 squeeze a few more out of -- out of our budget. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Our environmental officer is 4 here. Miguel? The thought was that we would mitigate the 5 septics that are in the closest proximity to the watercourse, 6 Camp Meeting Creek and so forth and so on, which essentially 7 would be all of Loyal Valley as it loops around, and to the 8 extent that we have funds remaining, then we would take 9 whatever you identify as the most needy of those and mitigate 10 until we run out of funds. Do you see anything inherently 11 wrong with that plan? 12 MR. ARREOLA: No, sir, looks good. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many additional homes will 14 be hooked up in Phase IV? 15 MR. HARTZELL: Phase IV, we'll have to actually 16 resurvey. This area was surveyed about four years ago. It 17 needs to be resurveyed. At the time, there were about 20, 25 18 additional homes. This grant's actually a little larger than 19 the amount we had applied for previously for Ranchero; it's a 20 half a million dollar grant, so maybe it will squeeze a few 21 more into it by going further down Ranchero. But the engineer 22 will have to do a budget for us. And today, what we're -- 23 we're asking the Court to consider is allowing us to -- we'll 24 have to actually come back for a formal resolution, but we'd 25 like to go ahead and initiate conversations with U.G.R.A., the 10-10-06 31 1 City, and the engineering firm to get the ball rolling, and 2 then come back to you with a resolution to apply formally in 3 the next couple court meetings. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you mentioned that 5 part of it, Eric, 'cause I think we definitely want to try to 6 hook up some other things on Ranchero, not least -- not the 7 least of which are the mobile home park, where they had agreed 8 with us that when the line got there, they would hook it up. 9 And also, in my mind, if it's possible, even though many of 10 the homeowners might not qualify on the threshold of -- income 11 threshold, Quail Valley also is an area that could be 12 legitimately hooked up as well, or a line extended there, and 13 that goes directly down to the lift station. 14 MR. HARTZELL: Okay, yes. The -- the key there, as 15 you mentioned, would be the incomes, because these programs 16 are designated for low to moderate income homeowners -- or, 17 I'm sorry, residents. And so we would have to make sure we 18 have that mix of lower-income folks in the equation, so we -- 19 that would be done by a door-to-door survey. And we will need 20 to conduct another door-to-door survey for this Ranchero 21 phase, and if we can squeeze those Quail Valley folks into the 22 budget and into the beneficiary count to keep -- to maintain 23 our low-income focus, then we certainly will do that. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: What percentage of low income is 25 required in order to -- to remain within the parameters of the 10-10-06 32 1 grant? 2 MR. HARTZELL: Okay. This is a state and federal 3 program, so it's not as simple as a number, but to qualify the 4 projects, we need to have 51 percent of the beneficiaries. 5 However, to score high enough to actually get it funded, we 6 need to have 80 percent. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 MR. HARTZELL: 80 percent is what we're looking for, 9 which is easy in Loyal Valley and less easy along Ranchero. 10 But the mobile home park that you mentioned, which is north -- 11 I believe north of Ranchero -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: West. 13 MR. HARTZELL: It's sort of northwest, on the 14 northwest side, that area. If we can incorporate that, it 15 probably will bring the numbers up, 'cause I believe it's a 16 lower income community for the most part. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so. 18 MR. HARTZELL: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's always been my 20 understanding that that used to be called Blue Ridge Mobile 21 Home Park. I've always understood that that would be a part 22 of Phase IV. So -- 23 MR. HARTZELL: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- keep knocking on that 25 door, my good friends. 10-10-06 33 1 MR. HARTZELL: I know that the Court had -- I 2 remember -- I think I was here when you guys had the agreement 3 with the folks who were buying that property. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 5 MR. HARTZELL: About the septic tanks. I remember 6 that. So, it's in our minds and in our plans. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Regan, help me understand 8 this. Your e-mail to Commissioner Williams says that the -- 9 that you have sufficient funds to hook up the homes and 10 mitigate all septic tanks on Loyal Valley. And then on 11 another one, on a memorandum to Bill, it says the same thing; 12 you do have enough budget -- budget funds will cover septic 13 mitigation. And then at the bottom, it says you don't. And 14 then you stand before us today and say you don't. So -- 15 MS. LENEHAN: Well, part of -- part of that probably 16 has a lot to do with the fact that I'm new working on the 17 project, so -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ah, I see. 19 MS. LENEHAN: Getting through the -- sorting through 20 the notes on the projects and kind of getting myself caught 21 up, there was probably a little bit of a learning curve in 22 there. But it also has to do with the fact that the project 23 has been stopped and started a number of times, or at least 24 once or twice, it's my understanding. And part of that is 25 'cause, as Eric mentioned, the initial surveys on this project 10-10-06 34 1 were done, I think, back in 2002. 2 MR. HARTZELL: 2000. 3 MS. LENEHAN: Or 2000. And so there were -- you 4 know, since that time, a number of people have moved into or 5 moved out of the area. And it became apparent, once the 6 contractor started hooking up -- or started construction on 7 the project, that we really needed to stop and resurvey the 8 area and make sure that we were including all of the eligible 9 homeowners that we could, and also make sure we weren't 10 hooking up a vacant house, or if a mobile home had -- you 11 know, trailer had moved off-site, that we weren't, you know, 12 putting a tap in where there was nothing. And so the numbers 13 have fluctuated a little bit, and -- and that's -- because of 14 that, and because of the fact that we are now getting our 15 first invoice from the contractor since the end of July, you 16 know, we've -- there have been some changes with the budget. 17 And I think there also have been some -- the impact fees or 18 the city fees were originally not part of the grant. 19 MR. HARTZELL: Right. Originally, the impact fees 20 hadn't been budgeted, so we had to make room for those as well 21 in the grant. 22 MS. LENEHAN: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a $300 tab, right? 24 MR. HARTZELL: It's a big hit. 25 MS. LENEHAN: $500 a home, when you're looking at 80 10-10-06 35 1 homes, that's a big chunk of our budget. 2 MR. HARTZELL: So that had to be accommodated, yeah. 3 And what Regan -- what she's explaining is that it's kind of a 4 moving target with low-income beneficiaries, especially in an 5 area like Loyal Valley, where there's a lot of transients. 6 We're supposed to try to hook up as many or all of the low 7 incomes, though, that we can identify, but it is a moving 8 target. The -- the people -- a house that had somebody in it 9 two months ago will be vacant now. And technically, then, 10 we're not supposed to hook it up, but when you have a 11 contractor out there, it's very -- it's very hard to pin down 12 exactly which houses we're supposed to hook up and which ones 13 we're not, and so that was kind of the issue with some of the 14 fluctuating. What we ended up doing is setting a deadline. I 15 think the Court had actually approved a deadline for getting 16 folks to set up their accounts. That way, we could have a 17 fixed number that we said, okay, no more after this point. 18 We've had calls since then from folks who have moved in, or -- 19 you know, they're saying, "Oh, well, can I hook up now?" And 20 we had to draw a line, because the contractor was trying to 21 get finished and out of there -- or with his work, and we 22 could trickle in connections over the next, you know -- 23 MS. LENEHAN: Ad infinitum. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're still getting calls. 25 MR. HARTZELL: We're still getting calls. 10-10-06 36 1 MS. LENEHAN: Another thing is that the grant 2 deadlines are now coming up -- two of the grants -- soon. 3 Because of that, you know, it just doesn't make sense for us 4 to leave a contractor out there and keep extending and 5 extending these projects. So -- so that has -- that's why the 6 numbers have fluctuated a little bit. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. You did well. I just 8 want to say one more thing. Everything that we've done so far 9 is in Commissioner Williams' precinct. Across the road is my 10 precinct. 11 MS. LENEHAN: Oh. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we probably need to get 13 kind of serious about that pretty soon. 'Cause I'm just one 14 vote here, but I can twist arms. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have room in your 16 office for all those sewer files I'm going to bring over to 17 you? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, I don't. But Rusty 19 does. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mean to pick on the 22 City, but they're charging $500 per -- thing? Has anyone 23 thought of asking the City to waive that fee so we can do more 24 septic mitigation? Which helps the City, 'cause it cleans up 25 the creek that goes through the city. 10-10-06 37 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good. 2 MR. HARTZELL: We've been told that that is not 3 possible to waive that impact fee. Impact fees -- I think 4 it's something to do with the legality of how they're 5 structured in the first place, that it makes it difficult for 6 cities to waive. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've explored that, 8 Commissioner Letz, and they can't waive an impact fee. They 9 waive it through the county, I believe. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if we bought them a new 11 ambulance? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we did that 13 already. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, half of an ambulance. 15 What if we buy the other half? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it should be 17 explored again. 18 MR. HARTZELL: Doesn't hurt to ask. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I think it's a -- 21 that's -- you know, you're talking about 80 homes at $500 a 22 pop; that's 4,000 -- $40,000. 23 MS. LENEHAN: Forty. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can mitigate the rest of the 25 septics and clean up Camp Meeting Creek, which is a city 10-10-06 38 1 problem. It just doesn't make sense to me that the City 2 doesn't cooperate with that. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I look at things very 5 simplistically. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree, Commissioner Letz. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me inquire, if I might. We're 8 looking and making an application for a new grant for Phase 9 IV, which is going to get you into Precinct 1. In order to do 10 that, is it not true that we've got to proceed to close out 11 these phase -- the Phases II and III that are still open? 12 MS. LENEHAN: Yes. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'm given to understand 14 there's a deadline on making application for Phase IV. 15 MS. LENEHAN: Yes. 16 MR. HARTZELL: December 1st. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: December 1, okay. Are we going to be 18 in a position where we can close out II and III so that 19 appropriate application can be made for Phase IV and keep this 20 ball rolling? 21 MR. HARTZELL: Yeah. 22 MS. LENEHAN: Yes. 23 MR. HARTZELL: That's our goal. 24 MS. LENEHAN: That's our goal. 25 MR. HARTZELL: It's going to happen. 10-10-06 39 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I like the "yes" better than, "That's 2 our goal." Didn't you? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I did. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to take the "yes." 5 MR. HARTZELL: Yes. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And one other question about 8 the match, that you talk about a match in funds can be in cash 9 or in-kind. Road rehabilitation on the part of the County 10 could qualify for in-kind, could it not? 11 MR. HARTZELL: Certainly. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 13 MR. HARTZELL: Certainly. I don't think the 14 County's ever put any match into these yet. But the match on 15 this new grant will be $25,000 for the $500,000 grant, and we 16 will ask, I guess, U.G.R.A. -- and, actually, the City, if 17 they were to waive their tap fees or their -- I'm sorry, 18 impact fee, that actually can count toward the match. That 19 can be the match. We do that in other communities and 20 counties all the time with Colonia grants. The City of 21 Aransas Pass, for example, waived its tap fee and its impact 22 fee for San Patricio County, and that was the match, so we 23 don't have to worry about cash coming in from a third source 24 or another source. So, we definitely will approach the City 25 about this again. I think -- 10-10-06 40 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So will Commissioner Letz 2 and I. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Eric, let me ask you. You say the 4 City of Aransas Pass found it to be lawful to waive those 5 impact fees? 6 MR. HARTZELL: Well, Aransas Pass' fees were 7 actually called tap fees. There was a tap fee and a -- they 8 have a different term for it. 9 MS. LENEHAN: Capital recovery? 10 MR. HARTZELL: They don't call it capital recovery, 11 either. It's not technically an impact fee. It's a capacity 12 buy-in fee or something like that. So, I don't want to -- I 13 don't want to step on any lawyers' toes. So -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We might be talking about an issue of 15 semantics here. 16 MR. HARTZELL: May be. 17 MS. LENEHAN: It may be. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, there -- if I understand 20 this, summarizing it, there's not any issue that we need to 21 deal with with respect to the current one; we just need to 22 have an action authorizing you to proceed with an application 23 for a $500,000 grant, Colonias grant. CDB block grant, right? 24 MR. HARTZELL: That's right. 25 MS. LENEHAN: That's right. 10-10-06 41 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would probably include 2 part of Precinct 1? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second your motion. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is a motion, and thank 8 you for the second. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're welcome. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second on the 11 agenda item to proceed with authorizing the Grantworks people, 12 on behalf of Kerr County, to make application for the Phase IV 13 $500,000 grant. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on the 16 motion? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have a question. Is 18 someone going to go back and revisit this $500 impact fee 19 issue? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. I'll take my airport 21 buddy down there, and he and I can talk with a couple 22 Councilmen. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to take a 24 constable with you? Is that what you said? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I said my airport buddy. 10-10-06 42 1 We'll talk to a couple Councilmen. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, council. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we need a constable, 4 we'll take them too. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just my recommendation. 6 That's -- hinting at it. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would have one comment, 8 Judge, before we call a vote, though. Mr. Arreola, if you 9 would, in addition to the 43 some-odd that we've identified on 10 Loyal Valley, if you could take a cursory inspection and give 11 us any sense of what others to get us to 60 might be in 12 priority list number one? Okay, appreciate that. 13 MR. ARREOLA: Okay. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All 15 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Thank you for 20 being here with us. 21 MS. LENEHAN: Thank you. 22 MR. HARTZELL: Good to see y'all again. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm remembering the "yes" answer. 24 MR. HARTZELL: Yes. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10-10-06 43 1 MR. HARTZELL: We'll get it done. 2 MS. LENEHAN: We'll get it done. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 5; consider, 4 discuss, and take appropriate action to software problems 5 causing delays in payroll tax submissions. Commissioner Letz? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda. This 7 is based on a memo, if I -- the memo is not in my packet. I 8 don't know if y'all got it in your packet or not, but a memo 9 we all received from the Treasurer related to a -- a problem 10 with the payroll being submitted timely -- payroll tax being 11 submitted timely. And I put it on the agenda 'cause if we 12 have a computer problem, it needs to be worked on. So, Mr. 13 Trolinger or Ms. Nemec, whoever wants to answer -- you know, 14 address it. Because, I mean, this is one of those things that 15 I think is pretty critical. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, and I guess -- 18 MS. NEMEC: Can I see the memo? I don't -- 19 (Discussion off the record.) 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's got it. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First sentence, second 22 paragraph. 23 MS. NEMEC: This was with the -- the bank. This was 24 through the banking part; this was not with Incode. This was 25 with the submission through the internet banking, cash 10-10-06 44 1 management part. It wasn't with -- with our software. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just a bank problem? 3 MS. NEMEC: Well, with the banking part of it. It 4 wasn't through the software program. It was through -- 5 through Security State Bank and the banking part of it. 6 But -- and so we no longer submit it that way. We don't -- 7 but also, because we found that there is no checks and balance 8 system by us doing it through the internet, and so we went 9 back to the old way of doing it through faxing it, because 10 this way it requires two signatures, if we do it by fax, and 11 this way there's a checks and balances system between the 12 Auditor and the Treasurer, because it requires two signatures. 13 And this way, when we submit it, the Auditor's office is -- it 14 requires their signature, and they check right at that time if 15 that is the correct amount, so there's a checks and balance 16 system put back into place by doing it that way. And we just 17 feel more comfortable that they're checking the amounts. And 18 so it was something that happened one time, and then since we 19 went back to doing it the old way and found that, well, that's 20 probably better anyway, because now there's that checks and 21 balance system put back into place, and right there and then 22 they can check and make sure that that is the correct amount. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's -- that's good. I 24 think it's good to have a checks and balance thing. I like to 25 have the signatures, 'cause it resolves all that and the 10-10-06 45 1 thing's done timely and all that. But going back to the 2 backup, so Security State couldn't do it right? I guess I 3 have a real problem with a depository bank not being able to 4 work with deposit -- or transferring and depositing funds 5 electronically. And -- 6 MS. NEMEC: I can't remember the details of that, 7 and when I saw this on the agenda, I went -- tried to go back 8 to my files, but we have so much stuff in boxes still, and I 9 couldn't find where all that was. And I called my former 10 part-timer who transmitted all that, and she couldn't remember 11 the details of it either, so I don't really know the details. 12 Tommy, do you remember what happened back then? On that one 13 incident where it was the 22nd -- 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Something about their approval of it 15 from -- from the bank. The bank was sending back to us a 16 communication to approve the transfer. I think that's what it 17 was. I'm not sure, either. I just -- I just knew that -- 18 that through the bank reconciliation, how we knew, because the 19 debit never hit our account, so that's when that alerted us to 20 know that -- that the transfer had not happened. 21 MS. NEMEC: And that was, like, on the 22nd that 22 they sent that approval back, and that's how we knew, yeah. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: When did we put in the new electronic 24 system? When was that established? Do you remember? 25 Approximately. Ballpark. 10-10-06 46 1 MS. NEMEC: I don't remember. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: First of the year? Middle of the 3 year? 4 MS. NEMEC: No, it must have been in May, I think. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: March? 6 MS. NEMEC: Well -- 7 MR. TROLINGER: March 15th was the first payroll. 8 MS. NEMEC: Yeah, but I don't think we went on the 9 941 in March. 10 MR. TROLINGER: Are you talking about Security State 11 Bank's 941 filing? 12 MS. NEMEC: Yeah. I don't think we did that right 13 away. And what happened was, when we found this out, that 14 this happened, I called I.R.S. right away and said, "This is 15 what happened," and so, you know, "Is there going to be a 16 penalty?" And they said, "Well, we won't know that till -- we 17 can't tell you that until you submit your 941, and at that 18 time, ask for it then." And then they sent me a letter, when 19 I asked for that, and they said, "Until we figure out your 20 taxes and stuff, then we won't know at that time." So, they 21 said there might not even be one, so I just tried to get a 22 step ahead when I sent that letter to them. So, at this 23 point, we don't even know if there is going to be one or not. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: On the electronic -- the electronic 25 methodology, walk me through step-by-step how that occurred or 10-10-06 47 1 how that was intended to work. 2 MS. NEMEC: When we submit electronically? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah. That came in, I guess, 4 in March, is what I've heard. How -- how were the steps to 5 occur on that to make that happen? 6 MS. NEMEC: Well, what happened in March, we went 7 electronically as far as direct deposit for the employees. 8 So, we submit that direct deposit through Security State Bank, 9 okay? I want to say that the 941 -- and maybe it did happen 10 in March. I want to say we started that a month later. I 11 really can't remember. I do the direct deposits and submit 12 them through Security State Bank internet cash management 13 system. The 941's were also being transmitted through the 14 cash management system, internet banking. So, there's one 15 process; one is direct deposit and the other one is the 941 16 submissions. I want to say this one was -- what, June or 17 July? This particular one that -- that didn't go through? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: May? 19 MS. NEMEC: And it had something to do with, like 20 Tommy said, the approval. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your letter says that on 22 June 22nd, -- 23 MS. NEMEC: Yeah, it was June 22nd. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- three weeks afterwards, 25 you found out that the May 30 taxes had not been successfully 10-10-06 48 1 transmitted. 2 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a three-week lapse. 4 MS. NEMEC: Okay. So, it was the May taxes. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- the internet banking 6 management or whatever you just said, is that something that 7 Security State Bank has? Or -- 8 MS. NEMEC: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's their -- they have set 10 the contract up or set up that system? 11 MS. NEMEC: Right. Right. It has nothing to do 12 with Incode. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I -- to me, we 14 need to get into an electronic as much as possible, because I 15 think it's more efficient time-wise. So, I mean, I like the 16 fact -- and I think I totally agree, you need to have a checks 17 and balance. I think it takes two signatures, but that can be 18 done internally. I really would like to find out why that 19 system isn't working at Security State Bank, because I think 20 that's their problem. I mean, if they can't -- and, you know, 21 I cannot imagine they don't have the system that they can 22 transfer and do this electronically, because I would almost -- 23 whoever some of the other larger employers in the county are, 24 whether -- you know -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're the depository for 10-10-06 49 1 others besides us. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, whoever handles 3 them, those payrolls are much larger than ours, and probably 4 are certainly done with a frequency -- if not a greater 5 frequency than ours, I can't imagine those are being done 6 manually. Just because -- anyway, so I think we need to 7 figure out how to make it work electronically. But I do like 8 the two signatures, you know, out of your office and Auditor's 9 office. That way, I think it avoids future confusion. 10 MR. TROLINGER: And, Commissioner Letz, the only 11 thing I was able to find on Incode was -- and this -- it's 12 exactly as described on the bank web site, by the way. But on 13 the Incode payroll side, we've reviewed with the Incode 14 trainer, and there is some setup that still needs to be done 15 to make that work correctly, and I'm hoping that while the 16 trainer's here on site, you can work with them to make sure 17 that initial setup that should have been done gets completed, 18 so H.R. doesn't have to do quite so much work on startup. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But, you know, whoever -- 20 Tommy, you tend to work probably with our depositor more than 21 the Treasurer does. I mean -- 22 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: No. We just -- we reconcile the 25 bank statements, and we -- we're -- we have online capability 10-10-06 50 1 with the bank and are able to look at all the transactions. 2 And that's basically why we -- I mean, I have -- my signature 3 is required, but as far as making deposits and those kinds of 4 things, we're really not involved in it. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question was as to if the 6 problem's at Security State Bank and their software, that 7 needs to be fixed at Security State Bank, and not at our cost. 8 'Cause, I mean, if a problem was truly at Security State Bank, 9 I think they should pay any penalty we get, not us. I mean -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That raises a question. 11 Again, I don't understand why it would take a month for us to 12 know that we had a problem. What would cause that kind of 13 delay, from the bank or wherever? And I'm reading from your 14 note. 15 MS. NEMEC: I want to say that that's when you 16 reconciled the bank statement and found it. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we found it. 18 MS. NEMEC: That it hadn't been -- it hadn't been 19 done yet. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 21 MS. NEMEC: And I want to say that -- you know, I 22 don't have it in front of me and I couldn't -- I couldn't find 23 it. And I want to say that there was a problem with the 24 approval, and I think what happened is that my former 25 part-timer, when it was submitted, the approval -- the 10-10-06 51 1 approval button didn't get hit? Didn't get -- 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. I would -- I'd have 3 to get the bank to explain that issue, but I don't know enough 4 about of that process to -- 5 MS. NEMEC: There's a -- there's submit, submit 6 without list, submit -- and, you know, and you can hit 7 "Submit," "Submit Pending Approval," and it could have been 8 that -- that "Submit Pending Approval" was hit. There's just 9 all these different options. I don't know. And, like I said, 10 I called her last week, and she couldn't remember. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to figure out 12 how to do it electronically. I think it's more efficient 13 long-term, but I do like the fact that you've implemented both 14 the -- both -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Checks and balances. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Checks and balance system. I 17 think that needs to be in place as well. But faxing, I think, 18 is -- is not efficient and, you know, is going to be become 19 less and less used. So, I'm just -- with the way I see 20 everything going. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Could you provide us with a 22 step-by-step, and in sequential order, how the electronic 23 submission works for the deposit of 941 payroll taxes? 24 MS. NEMEC: What I can do this next payroll, while 25 I'm -- if you want me to submit it electronically this next 10-10-06 52 1 payroll, I can provide -- I can write down those steps for 2 you. And what I'll do is I'll have the Assistant Auditor come 3 and kind of do a checks and balance system. She'll see the 4 amount that I'm transmitting. Is that okay, Tommy? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we have -- we now have three 6 departments involved in the process. And once our thought 7 process -- we haven't decided, but the thought process is 8 to allow the H.R. people to generate the numbers, and upon -- 9 upon that, they will notify us and the -- and the Treasurer 10 that -- that amounts are sitting out there. And then we -- 11 then we will do -- my office will actually post the -- the 12 amounts to the general ledger. Then we -- then we know by -- 13 by posting those numbers what the numbers are supposed to be. 14 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: And so then we can communicate to 16 the Treasurer that these -- these are, in fact, the amounts 17 that need to be transmitted. And so -- 18 MS. NEMEC: So there's your checks and balance. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: So, there -- by three departments 20 being involved in the process, then we have -- we have checks 21 in three different -- from three different people. So, I 22 think that's the way -- that's our plan. I do not know how 23 the bank system works, but I -- I think it's -- I don't think 24 it's -- that we should judge whether or not it's -- it's the 25 bank's issue until we hear from the bank. 10-10-06 53 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 2 MS. NEMEC: Well, I submit the direct deposits for 3 the employees, and it's basically the same thing, so I feel 4 real comfortable submitting the 941's. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 MS. NEMEC: So that's not a problem. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I just think 8 electronically is the way to go for the future, once we get 9 the bugs worked out. 10 MS. NEMEC: I wouldn't have a problem doing that at 11 all, so I'll just start doing it this next payroll. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. Thank you. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else -- 14 MR. TOMLINSON: I just want to reemphasize that -- 15 that I don't -- I don't think anyone should get the idea, in 16 the press or anyone, that -- that the bank could be -- the 17 bank could be the issue without the bank having an opportunity 18 to say whether or not they are. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I agree. And I think 20 the -- 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, we don't know. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, from what I heard Barbara 23 saying, I mean, it's an issue between the way that it possibly 24 could have been sent from her office to how it's received at 25 the bank. And it was the first time using the system, so, I 10-10-06 54 1 mean, I think it was -- there was a mistake somewhere. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one other quick 3 question for you before you leave this topic. Mr. Trolinger? 4 MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Currently, the system that 6 you're responsible for is working correctly? 7 MR. TROLINGER: The payroll system portion? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 9 MR. TROLINGER: No. It was not initially set up 10 after the March go-live, and the work to do that is underway 11 right now. It is not a hundred percent. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Work to do that is underway 13 now in what department? 14 MR. TROLINGER: H.R. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there anything remaining 16 to be done in the Treasurer's department? 17 MR. TROLINGER: It would be nice if, while the 18 trainers were here, that the new employee came and learned the 19 system. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think it would be 21 nice; I think it's absolutely mandatory. 22 MS. NEMEC: She's going down there. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 MS. NEMEC: Then I think they're going to be here 25 next Monday too, so she'll be down there. 10-10-06 55 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Is it next Monday that they're going 3 to be here, Mr. Trolinger? 4 MR. TROLINGER: It was Monday, all day yesterday, 5 all day today, and Monday of next week. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have we had -- nevermind. 8 Different topic. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else from anybody else on 10 the Court with regard to that particular agenda item? Okay, 11 let's move to our 10 o'clock item. I will recess the 12 Commissioners Court hearing, and at this time I will open a 13 public hearing concerning the revision of plat for Lots 13A 14 and 13B of Riverside Park, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 251, 15 Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4. 16 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:11 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open 17 court, as follows:) 18 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public 20 that wishes to be heard with regard to the revision of plat 21 for Lots 13A and 13B of Riverside Park, as set forth in Volume 22 7, Page 251, Plat Records? Any member of the public wishing 23 to be heard on that? Seeing no one coming forward, I will 24 close that particular public hearing, and I will open a public 25 hearing concerning the vacating, abandoning, and discontinuing 10-10-06 56 1 of Live Springs Ranch, as set forth in Volume 7, Pages 190 and 2 191 of the Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4. 3 (The first public hearing was closed at 10:12 a.m., and a second public hearing was held in open court, 4 as follows:) 5 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public 7 that wishes to be heard concerning the vacating, abandoning, 8 and discontinuing of Live Springs Ranch, as set forth in 9 Volume 7, Pages 190 and 191 of the Plat Records? Any member 10 of the public wishing to be heard on that item? That was a 11 timed item for 10:05; it's past that now. Seeing no one 12 coming forward, I will close that particular public hearing, 13 and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting. 14 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:13 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 15 reopened.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 JUDGE TINLEY: And I will take up Item 6; consider, 18 discuss, and approve a new cellar phone service contract for 19 department vehicles -- I assume this is for the Environmental 20 Health Department -- the existing rate being 99.85 per month, 21 and the new contract proposal is for 79.89 per month for the 22 same 800 minutes with same provider, that being Five Star 23 Wireless. 24 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. Good morning. I brought 25 this to your attention, seeking approval. Basically, we're 10-10-06 57 1 looking at a cheaper rate for the same service. It does 2 require a two-year contract, according to the -- the company. 3 I did forward the contract to the County Attorney's office for 4 them to look at it, and I think they're still working in 5 there. 6 MR. EMERSON: There's an issue on the contract as to 7 indemnification. They have a standard indemnification clause 8 in the contract. I informed Miguel that we could only agree 9 to the extent allowed by law. My understanding is he 10 contacted Five Star and talked to Mr. Reno. Mr. Reno said we 11 can't change the contracts. Well, I can't approve the 12 contract with a clause in there that's unenforceable. So... 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't we have multiple contracts 14 with Five Star? Didn't the Sheriff just redo one? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Ours -- and that clause may 16 very well be in there. Our original contract was done back 17 under the former County Attorney, and then it's just been 18 renewed each time, so that it's very likely that it is in that 19 -- in that contract as their standard. But I know there's 20 been numerous discussions over the years, whether it's with 21 those or whether it's with our radio towers, you know, or 22 everything else, about the indemnification can only be to the 23 extent allowed by law. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's your new cell phone rate? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe -- I'd have to look 10-10-06 58 1 at it. It might be that 79. But we also have about 30 add-on 2 phones, and I've got over 4,000 minutes on mine. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I guess, going back to 4 the -- I think the same thing that Rusty had to endure for 5 several weeks, that we need to be under one contract 6 county-wide. And I think we ought to get a better rate. We 7 need to have -- it needs to be a form that the County Attorney 8 approves. And until Five Star -- if they're not willing to do 9 it, I'm sure some other provider will. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing I would put into 11 that, under county-wide, I agree. I think you still need to 12 separate out our department, just because of the number of 13 minutes we have to use and that we go through. The rest of 14 the county could probably do it. Otherwise, I would use up 15 everybody's minutes and have everybody hollering at me. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I think -- but I think 17 they're -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They've got to have some 20 mechanism to do one county-wide plan. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one master contract. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One contract. You could have 23 each sub -- Miguel have his own minutes and all that. And 24 when's your contract up? 25 MR. ARREOLA: Well, we don't got a contract right 10-10-06 59 1 now. We're going on a month-by-month basically, and we're 2 spending those $99. We can continue on those. We thought it 3 was better to go cheaper, plus that will give us new phones 4 that we -- we really need. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think I definitely want 6 to go cheaper, but didn't Mr. Trolinger -- wasn't he the 7 person in charge of this? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. He was -- we've got two 9 different telephone issues. One is we're trying to put 10 together a new master contract for equipment and expanded line 11 availability and -- and telephone stations, because we're 12 actually exceeding our capacity, and that's one contract. And 13 then, in addition, we've got the cell -- cellular contract 14 that I think -- with the possible exception of the Sheriff's 15 Department, we need to get everybody else under one agreement 16 so that we can consolidate things. And I think we're going to 17 get the best deal going that route, once we look at all these 18 various contracts that these various people have. I -- the 19 other difficulty I see that we're going to have is, I think 20 we've got some users that -- that are working with different 21 carriers. We may have some using Sprint, we have some using 22 Five Star, we may have some using Verizon, and that's going to 23 be a little chore trying to put those together. I suggest 24 that -- that if we give all of the current users an 25 opportunity to -- to submit a proposal -- submit proposals 10-10-06 60 1 with the understanding that whoever is successful, the other 2 providers will have to waive their -- their early termination, 3 that may be a way to -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or even if they don't. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: They don't have to agree to it, but I 6 think that may be some incentive for them trying to get a 7 master contract for a larger deal. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if they don't -- even if 9 they don't waive it, we can roll them as the contracts roll 10 out. They could roll out every -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got all sorts of 12 outstanding contracts. J.P.'s have them, constables. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, they're all over the place. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, I appreciate you 15 trying to save the money. Put it on your file to come back in 16 a month if we haven't moved forward on a county-wide contract. 17 MR. ARREOLA: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to try to establish, 19 Commissioner, where we are in that effort. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And that's why 21 Mr. Trolinger -- Mr. Trolinger needs to do that and assess, I 22 think with the help of the Auditor's office. I think they can 23 probably fairly easily come up with what contracts and 24 providers we have based on our billings. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With the leverage the 10-10-06 61 1 Sheriff has, my goodness. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: He packs a pistol, too. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm still waiting for the phone 5 company to give me the newest addition on the hard line 6 situation I have after the lightning strike. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's another story. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Arreola. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So my leverage isn't too good, 11 Commissioner. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me recess the Commissioners Court 13 meeting at this time and call a public hearing for the 14 revision of Lot 5 of Creekwood, Section IV, as set forth in 15 Volume 6, Page 290 of the Plat Records, and located in 16 Precinct 2. 17 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:18 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open 18 court, as follows:) 19 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public 21 that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of Lot 5 of 22 Creekwood, Section IV, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 290 of 23 the Plat Records? Anybody wish to be heard on that? Seeing 24 no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing. 25 \ 10-10-06 62 1 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:19 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 2 reopened.) 3 - - - - - - - - - - 4 JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the 5 Commissioners Court meeting, and we will go to Item 8, which 6 is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve 7 revision of plat for Lots 13A and 13B of Riverside Park, as 8 set forth in Volume 7, Page 251 of the Plat Records, and 9 located in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom? 10 MR. ODOM: Yes. Thank you, Judge. Thursday we had 11 a call from Miguel, and talking to Lee Voelkel, they would 12 like to pass on 1.8 because there's a question on the O.S.S.F. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is that question? 14 MR. ODOM: Miguel? Is he still here? 15 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Go ahead. 16 MR. ARREOLA: There's a little conflict there on 17 Lots 13B -- I don't have the plat in front of me -- 13B and C. 18 There's a septic line crossing from one lot to the other, so 19 we need to get that cleared before we can move on. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you -- what do you do 22 to clear it? 23 MR. ARREOLA: They're going to have to have separate 24 septics on each lot, and that's what we need to get it to. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 10-10-06 63 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you saying cap one line and 2 move it and abandon the other one? 3 MR. ARREOLA: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The line or the drainfield? 5 MR. ARREOLA: The drainfield in this case, 'cause 6 the tanks are closer to the -- where the home is, and have to 7 look at a new drainfield. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The location of the 9 drainfield? 10 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that 12 particular agenda item? Let's move to Item 10; consider, 13 discuss, and take appropriate action to abandon, vacate, and 14 discontinue the old plat of Live Springs Ranch, as set forth 15 in Volume 7, Pages 190 and 191 of the Plat Records, and in 16 preparation to accept a new plat with the same name, and being 17 located in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom? 18 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Attached, you will find a 19 letter from the owner of Live Springs Ranch and his surveyor 20 requesting Live Springs Ranch, Volume 7, Pages 190 through 21 191, be vacated in preparation for the approval of the new 22 plat by the same name. At this time, we'd request the Court 23 abandon, vacate, and discontinue Live Springs Ranch, Volume 7, 24 Page 190 through 191. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How does the old one vary 10-10-06 64 1 compared to the new one? 2 MR. ODOM: Pardon me? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Geographically, what's the 4 difference between the old plat and the new plat? Where is 5 the old plat versus where the new one is? The same exact 6 area? 7 MR. ODOM: Same area. Am I right, Don? 8 MR. DON VOELKEL: Live Springs Ranch, the original 9 plat was just about 300 acres. The new Live Springs that 10 we're using the same name is 2,300 acres. And this -- the 11 part that we're vacating is the southerly 300 acres. There's 12 an existing road that we're not vacating. In the new plat, 13 it's just widening the old road. Stays totally within the 14 right-of-way of the new road for this new plat. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why you have a state 16 right-of-way on the new plat. 17 MR. DON VOELKEL: Right. And the old -- I think 18 there was nine lots before. Now there are going to be seven 19 lots, so fewer lots. 20 MR. ODOM: Fewer lots. 21 MR. DON VOELKEL: Larger lots in this development 22 than there was originally in Live Springs Ranch. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was just easier to go this 24 way rather than try to revise the plat? 25 MR. DON VOELKEL: Right. 10-10-06 65 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 5 of the agenda item. Any question or discussion on the motion? 6 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 7 hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Item 11; 12 consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for approval of 13 final plat of Live Springs Ranch being located in Precinct 4. 14 Mr. Odom? 15 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Mr. Wells' letter and bill is 16 enclosed in your packet. He reviewed the drainage study and 17 plat and found everything to be acceptable. The new rules 18 require the letter of credit to be for two years. The letter 19 of credit covers the roads and any further expenses for 20 engineering, as we've done previously. I recommend that you 21 accept the plat as presented. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I agree with you. 24 Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 10-10-06 66 1 of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick comment. Leonard, do we 3 normally require this -- the first page that shows the -- kind 4 of the whole subdivision on one page, then the little -- 5 MR. ODOM: Let me see what you're talking about. 6 MR. DON VOELKEL: The index page? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Do we always require 8 that? If not, we should. It's -- I like it. 9 MR. DON VOELKEL: I think it's required in the 10 rules, Jonathan. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it? 12 MR. DON VOELKEL: If it's more than one page with 13 the plat, have an index page showing what pages are on -- 14 which lots are on which pages. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I never had noticed it before, 16 and it was helpful once I figured out what I had. 17 MR. ODOM: Well, there is a master plan, too, 18 instead of just having something. But -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just write on it. 20 MR. ODOM: -- you've got another county involved in 21 this. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments on the 23 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 24 right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10-10-06 67 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move, 4 if we could, to Item Number 13. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, could I -- before we do 6 that, I want to go back to that a second, because there is 7 something -- just so we can make the record clear, is that 8 there was a couple of items that -- this subdivision came to 9 the Court initially when we were in flux in our rules. They 10 were kind of after our first public hearing, but before final 11 adoption, and there's a little bit of latitude that was given 12 that Len looked at and Mr. Wells looked at. So, they're not 13 in compliance. Like, I think the base is only 6 foot -- 14 6 inches deep as opposed to -- or thickness, as opposed to 8. 15 There's a few things like that, and this is not a variance 16 situation. It is that this was done during that period, and 17 that was the agreed upon requirements for that subdivision, 18 which is kind of in between our old rules and our new rules. 19 MR. ODOM: And part of those rules changed at the 20 very last meeting there, which it was already done by 21 engineering and everything else had already been put together, 22 so we didn't know those changes until that last -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's why I wanted to make 24 that part of the record, in case there's a question as to 25 that. These are not variances; this was the agreed upon... 10-10-06 68 1 MR. ODOM: This was agreed on. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was the right thing to do. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I wanted to bring up a 5 budget issue. I think that we need to triple the salary for 6 the County Surveyor. 7 MR. LEE VOELKEL: I'll second that. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- okay, we got a second 9 out in the audience. Hey, I'm trying to take care of you, 10 buddy. 11 MR. LEE VOELKEL: I appreciate it. 12 MR. ODOM: Let's see, three times zero is? 13 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Good at math? 14 MR. ODOM: Make sure it doesn't come out of Road and 15 Bridge funds. I'm just terrified of that. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we ready to move on to 18 Item 13? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Item 13, consider, discuss, 21 and take appropriate action for revision of Lot 5 of Creekwood 22 IV, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 290 of the Plat Records and 23 located in Precinct 2. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Odom? 25 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The owners on either side of 10-10-06 69 1 this lot have purchased it and divided it under the alternate 2 plat process. Division meets all the requirements of Kerr 3 County Subdivision Rules; therefore, we ask that you approve 4 revision of plat for Lot 5, Creekwood IV, as presented. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This amounts to two owners 6 acquiring this one particular tract and splitting it; is that 7 correct? 8 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 12 of the agenda item. Any question or discussion on the motion? 13 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 14 hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move 19 to Item 14; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for 20 road name changes and regulatory signs in various locations, 21 and set a public hearing for the same. Mr. Odom? 22 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. It is the intention of the 23 Commissioners Court to consider road changes in various 24 locations throughout the county. A public hearing will be 25 held November the 13th, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. in Commissioners 10-10-06 70 1 Courtroom of the Kerr County Courthouse concerning the 2 following proposed road name changes and speed limits. And 3 I'm open for any questions or -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. This Bear Creek Road 5 issue, Leonard, thank you for putting this back on here. I 6 know that recently -- it's fairly recently, and I'm sorry, I 7 can't remember what we had set. 8 MR. ODOM: 45. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 45 -- 40. 10 MR. ODOM: No, I'm sorry, 35. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 35 on there. And I've had 12 some calls from citizens out there that basically told me I 13 was crazy, trying to drive 35 miles an hour on a long stretch. 14 And, actually, I tend to agree with them. And -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That you were crazy? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Oh, yeah, I'm 17 certified, man. The -- you obviously agree? 18 MR. ODOM: I agree. I went back out and took a 19 look. We did a study on that with -- with our tubes and all, 20 and we had 44 running in that area. But remember that Bear 21 Creek starts from Gabe -- from Sheppard Rees right there at 22 that intersection and goes all the way to Arcadia Loop, so 23 when you look at it, predominance -- probably at least half of 24 that is in the 35 mile-an-hour range; 30, 35. And so when it 25 was done before, when it was asked, when we looked at it and 10-10-06 71 1 did the -- the count, it was basically 35. The average was 2 running around 35 when you put it all together. If you break 3 it out like we have, from essentially Freedom Trail back to 4 Arcadia Loop, then you start to get in this straightaway. Of 5 course, you have this here. But we drove it; we took a look 6 at it, and I would agree. At this point, we do not have that 7 much development, but some of that is starting, so it may end 8 up Bear Creek, if we ever get it across, maybe -- you know, 9 we'll need to look at that road itself and right-of-way. But 10 at this point, we felt like 45 was probably right. I drove 11 the 35 and I looked at the other one, and running at 44, at 12 85 percentile, the 45 is justifiable from Freedom Trail, 13 essentially, on. And we'll have to adjust that as you get to 14 Arcadia Loop, coming down in there, so we'll put some signage 15 there to advise them they're going to a 30 mile-an-hour. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like the way you broke it 17 down into three different segments. 18 MR. ODOM: We think that will facilitate. But, you 19 know, will 45 -- will they complain about 45? But we believe 20 that 45 -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They will. 22 MR. ODOM: -- is 85 percentile, and that's low 23 enough. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They will. Okay. Thank you 25 very much. 10-10-06 72 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the speed 2 limits and road name changes as presented. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We're here to set a public hearing? 5 Is that the primary purpose, is to get this -- 6 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, set a public hearing. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 MR. ODOM: November 13 at 10:30. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. That was my second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's -- we didn't give Jon an 11 opportunity to finish his motion. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, you cut me off. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: This is at 10 a.m? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10:30. 15 MR. ODOM: 10:30. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: 10:30? Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the date? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: November 13, '06. We have a motion 19 and second to set a public hearing on road name changes, 20 regulatory signs in various locations for November 13, '06, at 21 10:30 a.m. Any question or discussion on the motion? 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.) 10-10-06 73 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to 2 Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for 3 concept of an alternate revision of plat for Cypress Springs 4 Estates, Phase I, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 12 of the 5 Plat Records, and set a public hearing for same, that property 6 being located in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom? 7 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. What you have is -- is 8 essentially what I've given. Before you is a concept plan for 9 this revision. It's taking two lots into one by property 10 owner, and also to set a public hearing for this revision of 11 plat for November the 13th, 2006, at 10:15 a.m. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second to set a 15 public hearing for the concept of an alternate revision of 16 plat for Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I, as set forth in 17 Volume 7, Page 12 of the Plat Records, for November 13, '06, 18 at 10:15 a.m. Is there any question or discussion on the 19 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 20 right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move 25 to Item 17; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for 10-10-06 74 1 concept of alternate revision of plat for Wood Trails Ranch, 2 as set forth in Volume 4, Page 98, Plat Records, and Volume 5, 3 Page 140, Plat Records, and set a public hearing for the same, 4 the property being located in Precinct 4. 5 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is -- what I have before 6 you is also a concept plan to let you see it, and also to set 7 a public hearing. This alternate plat will take 2 acres and 8 .45 acres of -- of land from 25.596 acres outside the 9 subdivision there at Wood Trails, to enlarge Lot 46 and 43 of 10 Wood Trails Ranch, making 43R 1.46 acres and Lot 46R 10.35 11 acres. This meets all the requirements of Kerr County 12 Subdivision Rules. At this time, we ask that you set a public 13 hearing for the revision of plat for November 13th, 2006, at 14 10:20 a.m. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to 18 approve the concept of -- set a public hearing on the concept 19 of alternate revision of plat for Wood Trails Ranch, as set 20 forth in Volume 4, Page 98, Plat Records, and Volume 5, Page 21 140 of Plat Records, such public hearing to be set for 22 11/13/06 at 10:20 a.m. Any question or discussion on the 23 motion? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick question. The -- the 25 large tract, I guess Mr. Calvin's tract, that's out of the 10-10-06 75 1 subdivision? 2 MR. ODOM: That 25 acres is out of the Wood Trails. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's just providing an acreage 4 on the north and south? 5 MR. ODOM: That's right, north and south side. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the property owner? 7 MR. ODOM: That's it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All 10 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Why don't we 15 go ahead and take us about a 15-minute break here, and we'll 16 come back and get the rest of these items finished. 17 (Recess taken from 10:34 a.m. to 10:53 a.m.) 18 - - - - - - - - - - 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we 20 might. We were in recess. We had a timed item for 10:45 that 21 we've gone by that I'd like to get to now. 22 MR. ODOM: Oh, a timed item? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. You've been bumped, Leonard. 24 We'll get back to you. Once you see what happens here, you'll 25 understand. We've got Mr. Victor Uvalle with the Texas 10-10-06 76 1 Association of Counties who's here with us today for a 2 presentation on behalf of the Texas Association of Counties 3 Risk Management program dealing with our liability insurance, 4 and I'm going to turn it over to you, Victor, at this point. 5 Good to have you with us here. Did I understand you're taking 6 credit for the rain, too? 7 MR. UVALLE: No. No, I can't do that. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: You can't? 9 MR. UVALLE: But I do come to give credit for the 10 County saving the taxpayers money through our insurance 11 renewal program on the risk management pool. The County was 12 able to save 52,000, approximately -- $52,726 -- because under 13 the board -- in April, the Risk Management Board approved some 14 credits to counties that had been a member of the risk 15 management pool for several years, and also had been able to 16 keep their claims down -- their liability claims down, and 17 they added those two factors into the rating program in order 18 to save counties money. But, like I say, this was earned 19 because the claims are down, and you have been a long-term 20 member of the pool. And let me see if I missed anything here. 21 And I do want to tell you the risk management pool -- this 22 comes through your liability coverage. This is the auto 23 liability, general liability, public officials' liability, and 24 law enforcement liability. The pool is doing good, and we 25 were able to keep claims down for the last few years, so 10-10-06 77 1 that's why TAC was able to introduce this renewal program. 2 It's not every year that this happens. This has to be 3 approved every year. This year they approved it, and the pool 4 actually is -- 'cause this is me saying this; it was looking 5 good again. We're hoping to continue, though. But as you -- 6 as you know, we do have to work on our loss control side -- 7 area, and we're here to help in that area also. And I just 8 wanted to congratulate y'all for saving them money and the 9 taxpayers money on your insurance through your insurance 10 program. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: We thank you. It's my understanding 13 that these credits were issued to, one, longtime members of -- 14 of the pool coverage, and secondly, only those counties who, 15 in addition to being longtime members, kept their loss ratios 16 below a certain level and, in essence, earned that -- that 17 credit. 18 MR. UVALLE: That is correct, and it was. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: So this goes to all of the employees 20 of this county for handling our liability issues and reducing 21 liability to the County by virtue of their driving the 22 automobiles, the premises conditions, law enforcement 23 liability, our handling of those matters. So, this -- this is 24 due to every employee of this county doing their part. 25 MR. UVALLE: It is, Judge. It sure is, and we can't 10-10-06 78 1 do it alone. Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that comes back to us in 3 the form of a credit against our next year's premium? 4 MR. UVALLE: This year's premium. This year's 5 premium. And when you get your billing -- and I think you 6 might have already received it -- it will show a credit for 7 each line of coverage. It will show a credit; how much credit 8 for auto, how much credit for the general liability, how much 9 credit for the public officials. It's broken down. The 10 formula I used on the certain premiums, you know, goes a 11 little further for these credits, but like I said, it's for 12 long-term members and keeping your loss ratios down. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Great. 14 MR. UVALLE: So -- and congratulations again. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Victor. 17 MR. UVALLE: I'll put this up here. Do you want me 18 to put it out here? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I want to put it where lots of folks 20 can see it, wherever they can see it. 21 MR. UVALLE: That's what we were hoping. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Get Buster to hold it for the rest of 23 the meeting. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 25 MR. UVALLE: And, Judge, if you like, I do have a 10-10-06 79 1 sample media release, if you wanted to -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I would love to have that. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is wonderful. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: That's 52,000-plus of real money. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 6 MR. UVALLE: And thank you for having me. 7 Appreciate it. See y'all next time. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for braving the 9 rain. 10 MR. UVALLE: You're welcome. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 18, if we 12 might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for 13 revision of Lots 16, 17, and 18 of Riverside Park, as set 14 forth in Volume 1, Page 70, Plat Records, and located in 15 Precinct 4. Mr. Odom? 16 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You understand why you got bumped 18 now? 19 MR. ODOM: I understand. I -- that's well worth it. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 21 MR. ODOM: That's a lot of money. That's good. 22 What I have is Mr. Manning has his house and barn on Lots 17 23 and 18. They're very close to the property line, so he 24 adjusted the lot line to sell Lot 16. What he's done is add 25 acreage to 17 and 18, and reduced 16 down to 2.9. The public 10-10-06 80 1 hearing was for September the 25th, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. At 2 this time, we ask you to approve the revision of plat as 3 presented today. Prior to that, the surveyor had not got this 4 ready, so I'd ask the Court to approve this revision of plat 5 of these three lots. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 9 of the agenda item. Any question or discussion on the motion? 10 All in favor of the motion, please signify by raising your 11 right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to 16 Item 19; consider, discuss, and take -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick question for Rex. It 18 won't take long. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex, on these issues -- there is 21 another one that it's a revision that doesn't meet our rules 22 from the standpoint of they're over the average and all that 23 stuff, but we generally do these because it's not changing the 24 number of homes on the old subdivisions. Do we need to put 25 anything in the court order to that effect, or are we safe 10-10-06 81 1 just going ahead and approving them as they we do them? What 2 circumstances -- I mean, it's -- we're just changing lot 3 lines. It's three lots before and three lots afterwards, but 4 they don't meet our current rules. And our rules say that if 5 you revise a plat, you have to go under our new rules. It's 6 kind of -- it's consistent with what we've done in the past, 7 but it's not by the letter of our current rules. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I ask a question before 9 you do that -- before you answer it, please? What will it 10 look like 20 years down the road when you have a Commissioners 11 Court sitting here trying to figure this thing out? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm asking. I mean, 13 and maybe it's something we need to look at, really, this 14 afternoon, that we can put a blanket sentence in our 15 Subdivision Rules to cover these situations. I just don't 16 want to get in a situation where people 20 years from now are 17 saying, "Well, they were breaking the rules, breaking their 18 own rules every time they did one of these." 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Technically. 21 MR. EMERSON: I think that would clean it up. But 22 we've had several discussions about the fact that minor lot 23 line moves technically don't violate the Subdivision Rules, 24 except for the fact of the mandate to have current plats. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay. 10-10-06 82 1 MR. EMERSON: And that's why we're doing it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right, that's good. 3 Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably in 20 years, I'll be 5 the only one still here. I'll try to remember all these. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sure you will. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: You'll be the chronicler and 8 historian? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 10 MR. ODOM: Historian. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 19; consider, 12 discuss, and take appropriate action to name a private road in 13 Precinct 4. 14 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is Mr. Haynie, and I 15 believe that this is the old -- if you're familiar with 16 Mountain Home right there, and where Haynie Road comes down 17 off 27 down past our yard, just the other side of that is a 18 private road, and apparently it -- my understanding is the old 19 Haynie place right there. And they just want to name that 20 road -- rename that road to Contrary Creek Road West. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 24 of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor 25 of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 10-10-06 83 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to 5 Item 21. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 6 approve resolution to participate in the Indigent Defense 7 Formula Grant Program. I put this on the agenda. This is the 8 first step in us getting our share, as it were, of state 9 funding under the Indigent Defense Program. The allocations 10 have already been made; it's some 26,873 as currently 11 estimated. I don't see the Auditor here. He's the one that 12 rides herd on it, but this is something that we do every year 13 in order to obtain those funds. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Motion to approve. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 17 of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? 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: That motion does carry. We have a 23 timed item for 11 o'clock dealing with some personnel matters, 24 so at this time, we will -- we will go out of open or public 25 session, and it is now 11:03. 10-10-06 84 1 (The open session was closed at 11:03 a.m., and an executive session was held, the transcript of which 2 is contained in a separate document.) 3 - - - - - - - - - - 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, it is now 12:52, and we're back 5 in open or public session, and we'll stand in recess for lunch 6 until 1:30 or shortly thereafter. 7 (Recess taken from 12:52 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 8 - - - - - - - - - - 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we 10 might. Let's move to Item 22. We've got some reports. How 11 about Environmental Health? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess he's here, ready to 13 go. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we're going to do that one 15 first. 16 MR. ARREOLA: All right. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So he can go out to Loyal 18 Valley and check out the -- 19 MR. ARREOLA: So I can check out some more 20 violations. Okay, I got my report here. And one for 21 Commissioner Baldwin also, then one for the clerk. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We get one, and him. All right. 23 This is year-end, right? 24 MR. ARREOLA: Year-end. Yes, sir, this is it. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10-10-06 85 1 MR. ARREOLA: We did -- revenue-wise, we did better 2 than last year. We did more applications also. If you go to 3 the first chart -- I don't know if you have any questions on 4 the first page, though. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, activity was slightly up, 6 but not -- 7 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir, slightly up. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, total activity, though, looks 9 like -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Down. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, no -- yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, total new systems is 13 slightly -- is up four. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 15 MR. ARREOLA: Uh-huh. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: From 236 to 240. 17 MR. ARREOLA: That's correct. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. Way up there, 19 yeah, I see it. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, good. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Income's up slightly. Total 23 fees -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's your total budget? 25 MR. ARREOLA: This year was 198. 10-10-06 86 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much? 2 MR. ARREOLA: 198, I think. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Boy, you got one way to go 4 to break even, don't you? 5 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir, we sure do. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know -- 7 MR. ARREOLA: If we can get the exception rule out, 8 it'll help us. 1975 going into this year. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's about a 60 percent 10 subsidy, probably. Okay. 11 MR. ARREOLA: All right. The first graphic in there 12 is pretty clear. It tells us where we are in regards to last 13 year and what the objective was for the year. We're higher 14 than last year on applications for permits. We didn't get to 15 what we thought we were going to get, but we got pretty close 16 to it. In revenue, we exceeded last year and we end about the 17 projected. And complaints investigated, which is a positive, 18 we didn't do as many as last year, that it's failing septics 19 that we have to investigate and -- and bring that into 20 compliance. That means less failing septics in the county. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're showing an increase 22 projected for this year. Is that because you think last year 23 was just an anomaly? Or is there -- 24 MR. ARREOLA: It was right at normal. The year 25 before, '04 was about normal. We did a lot more activity last 10-10-06 87 1 year, and this year we're pretty close. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You probably -- and I'm just 3 guessing on this, but I would suspect that you get fewer 4 complaints in dry years because it's harder to find a problem. 5 MR. ARREOLA: That is correct. And it's less 6 hydraulic load to the system, yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, in a wet year it's much more 8 obvious if you have a problem. Okay, that makes sense. Okay. 9 MR. ARREOLA: The next chart is how we're doing in 10 response time. State law requires us to come up with a 11 permit, review all the planning materials and everything 12 within 30 days, 30 days or less. And the numbers you have 13 there is since January of '04. We went up the last three 14 years and checked them all, and we got 95 percent of them went 15 in from 1 to 15 days, 4.4 percent from 16 to 30, and only .6 a 16 percent over 30 days. That's a good response time. The next 17 one there is the aerobic program. That's very important to 18 us. That is septic systems that dispose on top of the ground. 19 If they're not properly maintained, they might discharge raw 20 sewage, and that's very, very important to us. The total 21 number we have in the county is 1,397. That's to the end of 22 September of this year. The maintenance contract, the ones 23 without it are only 68, but they're all in process, either in 24 enforcement or with the process of notification for them to 25 get a new contract. Of the total of 1,397, only four are 10-10-06 88 1 pending to do some type of action. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's "no action" mean? No 3 action required? 4 MR. ARREOLA: No, no action done. Basically, that 5 they're -- we have either mailed them the notice; they haven't 6 bring us the maintenance contract that is pending. There's no 7 action done to them. Just a pretty good number around the 8 state; it's one of the most difficult programs in the O.S.S.F. 9 division to do, and we're doing pretty good on that one. The 10 next chart is Solid Waste. Those are just the numbers from 11 last year, and then for this year. We did better last year. 12 There's plenty of cases. These are just the cases we were 13 able to do. There's more that we can open. We got to look at 14 them all. They all got investigated, but we wish we could do 15 more than that. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 MR. ARREOLA: And the last one is just information 18 of the cleanup campaign that we did for -- on Solid Waste, 19 Kerrville South and Center Point. Those are the numbers. 314 20 properties in Kerrville South, and four citations. 54 21 properties in Center Point, and four citations also. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What did Center Point include? 23 MR. ARREOLA: That was three streets. It's actually 24 south of Highway 27. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Harless, Bowlin, all in 10-10-06 89 1 there behind Butch's -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Behind Lackey's? 3 MR. ARREOLA: In between the river and Highway 27. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four streets that run 5 vertical, north-south. 54 properties notified and inspected. 6 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And 12 found in violation. 8 MR. ARREOLA: Correct. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That tells me that 42 10 properties were in good shape? 11 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. But six properties of 13 the 12 have been cleaned up, right? 14 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two are granted extensions. 16 MR. ARREOLA: They were partially cleaned up and 17 they were working on it, we so we decided to give them another 18 two weeks to finish it instead of giving the citation. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And four citations have been 20 issued? 21 MR. ARREOLA: Have been issued. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they will have to appear 23 in Justice of the Peace court? 24 MR. ARREOLA: Correct. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like this program -- that 10-10-06 90 1 program of doing that. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty successful. I know 4 there's another one in Commissioner 2's precinct at the end 5 of -- 6 MR. ARREOLA: Skyview. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, Hill River Estates? 8 MR. ARREOLA: That's a major one. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He knows about that. 10 MR. ARREOLA: That's a major one. We need to get to 11 it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't understand how it's even 13 there, really. But -- 14 MR. ARREOLA: That's what I have. You have any 15 questions? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it. 19 MR. ARREOLA: Thank you. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me see. Animal Control 21 and Extension appear to be to be noticeably absent. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kathy said Animal Control 23 called and they're having plumbing problems out there. She 24 will not be able to attend the meeting. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10-10-06 91 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if my memory serves me, 2 this is third in a row for that department not to show. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson had been 4 giving us written reports, is what's been happening. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Extension? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see them. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't either. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't answer that one. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: I think they're having a meeting 12 today. I called out there and Roy was in a meeting. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, why don't we get to -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bills. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the bills? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we pay the bills. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Got a motion and second to pay the 19 bills. Any questions, comments, et cetera? All in favor of 20 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: Motion does carry. I assume at this 25 juncture, we don't have any budget amendments? 10-10-06 92 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I have one. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: You do have one? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh-uh. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: This is interesting. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: I think you have a copy of this, a 6 letter from -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: This is from Linda Uecker. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Yeah, I've got a copy of that, 10 as do the Commissioners. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Well, that -- I told her that 12 I would bring it to the Court. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: And the total amount is $1,055 with 15 salaries, plus the FICA and her time. Apparently, she had 16 asked for a merit increase for two people, and was under the 17 impression that it was approved, and did not come to the last 18 meeting. And she got her budget, and it was not included, 19 so -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't recall that ever 21 being discussed in Commissioners Court. But, I mean, I could 22 have slept through that portion very easily. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know, Commissioner. I just 24 -- I vaguely remember it, but not in detail. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember it being discussed. 10-10-06 93 1 I don't remember the resolution of the discussion, if it was 2 in there or not in there. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't remember. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, Judge, cough it up. 5 What's the truth? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: My memory's not just real crystal 7 clear on it. I remember the increase. I don't recall that 8 there was -- one way or the other, whether there was a, "Yeah, 9 okay," or, "No, not okay." The statement that she makes about 10 whether or not she needs to appear, based upon what had 11 already been done, we don't have anything else involving your 12 budget, and we didn't, because at that point in time, 13 apparently it was not included. Now, if she's going to use 14 that as an approval, I'll take the heat for it, because I'm 15 the one that said no, we don't have anything additional with 16 your budget. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, how can you go -- after 18 the budget year started, how can you go back? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we would just have to do a 20 budget amendment from some line -- some other line item. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In her department? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, not necessarily in her 23 department, but wherever we agreed to take it from. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These are for people other 25 than the ones that we addressed when she wanted to raise the 10-10-06 94 1 13 to 14? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm like you; I don't 4 remember it, Judge. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I remember she -- she made some 6 requests, but I don't recall that there was any general 7 consensus that I perceived one way or the other. I know that 8 there was a request, but beyond that, I don't know that there 9 was any -- you know, my -- in fact, I called and left a 10 message on her voicemail earlier today, and said, "I don't 11 have a real good recollection on this, and I'd like to sit 12 down and talk to you about it." And that's what I think I'd 13 still like to do. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, why don't we pass it? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Unless you prompt my recollection. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pass on it till next period. 17 And the only reason is, Commissioner Nicholson kept some good 18 notes of a lot of those budget-type discussions on this, and 19 he may have something in his notes. I mean, I clearly 20 remember talking about it, but I just don't remember what was 21 said, and a lot of times we don't give a definitive answer at 22 those workshops. I mean, it's kind of -- it's almost 23 everything's under consideration, and we take it in, and we 24 rarely say, "Yes, we're approving that," or, "No, we're not." 25 So... 10-10-06 95 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else? Any late 3 bills? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I have two. One is to the Texas 5 Association of Counties for $5,127.05 for unemployment 6 premium. They wanted their payment before the 22nd, I believe 7 it says. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second. Any 13 question or discussion on that particular item, $5,127.05 to 14 Texas Association of Counties, unemployment insurance premium? 15 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 16 hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Second one? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: The second one is to Cypress Creek 22 Construction for $7,068. It's for the sidewalk at the animal 23 shelter. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: $7,068. 10-10-06 96 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 7,068 -- 5 approval of a $7,068 late bill to -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cypress. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Cypress Creek Construction. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Cypress Creek Construction for 9 sidewalk at the Animal Control facility. Any question or 10 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify 11 by raising your right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: I have a request, that you consider 17 having a special meeting on, like, the 29th or the 30th, just 18 to pay bills. The -- the second court date is the 23rd, which 19 is really pretty early -- fairly early, and we would like to 20 get as many bills in this -- in this payment for the sake of 21 the Court as we could, if there's any way we can -- the Court 22 would do that. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, the 29th is a Sunday. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I'm just guessing here, I 25 mean, at dates. Whatever -- 10-10-06 97 1 JUDGE TINLEY: 27th? Friday? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Friday is the 27th. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Or Monday would be -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 30th. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: The 30th. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I prefer Monday. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: That's fine. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, if those mighty Tivy 10 Antlers are on a trip, I've got to be gone. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Duty calls. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Duty calls. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 30th is good. Let's do it the 14 30th. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: That's fine. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: You jogged my memory about that. Is 17 morning or afternoon better? Probably morning? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get it over with. Let's meet in 19 the morning. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, thanks. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That's it for you? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: That's it. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What time? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have presented to me monthly 10-10-06 98 1 reports from Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; County Clerk, 2 General Fund for August '06; County Clerk, Trust Fund, August 3 '06; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3; and Road and Bridge. 4 Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as 5 presented? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 9 of the reports as presented. Any question or discussion? All 10 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we have 15 any reports, gentlemen? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing here. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Nothing? Nothing? Okay. I guess at 20 this time, we will go out of executive or closed session -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not in that. We're not in 22 closed session. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. Go out of public or open 24 session, so that we might go into executive or closed session. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we going to do the workshop? 10-10-06 99 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what these two 2 high-priced guys are here for. 3 MR. DON VOELKEL: Three. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Scratch that last comment about 5 executive session. We are in open or public session. We got 6 a 2 o'clock timed item here, and it's 5 minutes afterwards, 7 and, goodness -- mercy me, you got a workshop to review minor 8 modifications to the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 9 Regulations. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. I put this on the 13 agenda, after we've had our new rules in place for several 14 months, to go through. I knew there would be some 15 corrections. Some of them have been brought to us already, 16 and just to make some minor changes. We'll do a new public 17 hearing and then do another adoption. The reason for the new 18 public hearing is that we've made quite a few changes since 19 the original public hearing, and I think Rex would feel a 20 little more comfortable if someone challenges something, that 21 we have the actual rules that we're going to go under for 22 hopefully quite a while. Rather than have a public hearing on 23 a non -- a version that's been revised quite a bit. Let me go 24 through the first of the areas that I've noted on my copy of 25 where I've change -- I have changes, and then open it up and 10-10-06 100 1 let -- if I've missed any, and get comment from those in 2 attendance. The first area is on Page 14 of our Subdivision 3 Rules. Do y'all want to get your copy of your rules? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might be better. You'll 6 understand what we're talking about. There are not very many; 7 should be able to do it real quick. 8 (Discussion off the record.) 9 MR. ODOM: Page 14. What section? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll wait for the rest of them 11 to get in here. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got them. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sunshine. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: You're speaking of Commissioner 15 Baldwin? "Sunshine"? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sunshine. All right, Page 14. 17 Under Section 5, number of lots permitted in subdivision. 18 Paragraph B and C refers to subdivisions that allow or that 19 use community, public, or shared water systems as a source of 20 potable water. This has become a loophole for people using 21 a -- kind of a forced shared-well situation. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Take me to it again, now that 23 I think I've got the right document. Five what? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5.B, the second line, and 5.C, 25 the second line, where it says, "Community, public, or shared 10-10-06 101 1 water system." 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5.B, as in boy, right? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I'm looking at the 4 puzzled look on Commissioner Baldwin's face. Are you on Page 5 14? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm on Page 14, and I'm at 7 5.B. The total number of lots -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Permitted in any subdivision 9 that uses a community, public, or shared water system. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That language is being construed 12 by people that want to do it that they can say they have a 13 community water system, or basically saying they have a shared 14 well, and by using that to allow them to get a higher density 15 to a 3-acre average, as opposed to a 5-acre average. It's 16 being used as a loophole right now. We've had two come before 17 us, and actually two I know that have come to me. One, I 18 think we approved after the third time it came to the court. 19 The other one was -- I think some of the pitfalls of what they 20 were trying to do was brought out to them, and they finally 21 withdrew it. The intent here is to have a real community 22 water system, not a bunch of shared wells that people are 23 trying to get smaller lot sizes. And I don't -- my 24 recommendation would be to go to the point and say you have to 25 have a TCEQ-approved community water system. That's a more 10-10-06 102 1 definable term, gets rid of these -- any kind of gentlemen's 2 agreement handshakes where I go up to Buster and say, "Here we 3 have a shared well; now we want to have a different smaller 4 lot size than we would have normally." 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you distinguish 6 between community and what you just said, a T.C.E.Q. -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: T.C.E.Q. is, by law, over 15 8 connections. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the community system, 10 under 15? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. There are some systems 12 that exist, and the intent was if it's a real water system, 13 but it's not over 15. But what's happening is, people are 14 using that to be a handshake agreement with your neighbor. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you'd want to change it 16 to uses a community or T.C.E.Q. -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, just say a community water 18 system as defined by T.C.E.Q. 19 MR. ODOM: Or licensed. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or licensed, we can add. 21 MR. ODOM: Licensed by T.C.E.Q. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct. 23 MR. LEE VOELKEL: T.C.E.Q. allows for less than 15 24 connections? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, they only license them if 10-10-06 103 1 they're over 15 connections. 2 MR. ODOM: So -- 3 MR. LEE VOELKEL: So if you want to have a community 4 water system with five connections, that's not going to be 5 acceptable? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could have it. You're just 7 not going to get the exemption on your -- you're not going to 8 be able to go to a 3-acre average; it's going to be a 5-acre. 9 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Going to be at 5. You can do 10 that, but -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's a public safety 12 reason. The bigger systems that T.C.E.Q. licenses, there's a 13 lot of water quality issues that go into it, and monitoring, 14 and that's what -- not monitoring the well, but checking the 15 system to make sure it's adequate and protecting the aquifers, 16 that are not going into these private systems. I think we -- 17 you know. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: So you want that to read, "that uses 19 a community water system licensed by T.C.E.Q. as the source of 20 potable water"? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it would be that same 24 language under C, would be inserted. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 10-10-06 104 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then I want the same thing 2 under Paragraph 6.B and C, the same language again. And then 3 the last spot, the same inserted in 5.01.E. Page 15, the next 4 page, it's the same language, "use community, public, or 5 shared well." All five of those would be changed. 6 MR. DIGGES: So, Jonathan, you're still allowing for 7 shared wells; it's just that it has to be the larger lot size? 8 MR. ODOM: 5 acres or more. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 MR. ODOM: So, if it calls for -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can do shared wells, but 12 they're -- but they're using it right now as a way to get 13 smaller lots. Its amazing how people come up with these. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They figure it out. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is that 5-acre rule 16 written in here, then? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the -- 5.a, "The total 18 number of lots permitted in any subdivision that uses 19 individual water wells as the source of potable water shall 20 not exceed total acreage... 5 acres." 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably need to actually modify 23 that, especially relative -- to add community, public, or 24 shared wells that are not licensed. 25 MR. DIGGES: Yeah. 10-10-06 105 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The flip side of it. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Where it says uses individual water 3 wells or -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: -- community or shared wells, not 6 licensed. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, correct. I think that 8 cleans up that unintended consequence. 9 MR. EMERSON: What page is that? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 14, 5.a. So, that first 11 sentence will read, Total number of lots permitted in any 12 subdivision that uses individual wells or community, public, 13 or shared wells -- shared water systems not licensed by 14 T.C.E.Q. as a source of potable water. And that gets -- I 15 think that gets it. The next change is on Page 19. And this 16 is a very minor one; these are really just for Truby. 5.05, 17 we need to put a space so that Drainage -- there's a break at 18 Drainage, where it says -- very bottom of the page, 5.06, 19 Drainage. Need to have a space right above that so it will 20 kick it onto the next page. Just a formatting issue. The 21 next one is on Page 25. And, actually, we probably -- it's 22 really a question; it goes hand-in-hand with Page 28. The new 23 imaging system that we're getting for the Clerk for all these 24 plats, I need to make sure that what we're requiring in 25 here -- preliminary plat, I don't -- probably isn't a change, 10-10-06 106 1 but on Page 28, we're very specific on the size that plat has 2 to be, and there's been some -- you know, and that was all 3 driven by the cabinets that she uses. Well, we're no longer 4 using those cabinets, so, therefore, we shouldn't have this 5 requirement. To me, that -- you know, that's very -- you 6 know, it's unnecessary. If we're going to put all these on -- 7 digitally in the computer, and we're no longer going to have 8 file cabinets of plats, we need to -- I don't know whether we 9 need to have a size stipulation here. It just needs to be on 10 the DW -- I guess -- and I need to make sure that DWG format 11 is what we need so they can do that electronically. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about 13 6.02.C.1? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 15 MR. DON VOELKEL: What's going to happen to the 16 mylars that we're submitting now? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's another question. I -- I 18 mean, this is really something that the Clerk has done. We've 19 approved a new system that she wants that we'll no longer have 20 plat cabinets, period. 21 MR. LEE VOELKEL: How do you get somebody to sign a 22 plat? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. 24 MR. LEE VOELKEL: How about -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got to have a mylar, right? 10-10-06 107 1 MR. DON VOELKEL: Well, the reason we had the mylar 2 before is because the old blueprint machines had to have a 3 mylar. Now, with the Xerox type of machines she has, you 4 don't really need the mylar. I think it's a little more 5 permanent than the paper copies, but if we're going digitally, 6 I don't know why we need to put mylars in. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- that was my -- one 8 of my issues. 9 MR. EMERSON: Do you want me to go get her? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, if you would. 11 MR. DON VOELKEL: And there's a lot of difference 12 for plats. There's a TIF image, a JPG image. There's DWG 13 files. A DWG file specifically has to have, like, an AutoCAD. 14 A TIF and a JPG can be opened with other -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I wanted you here, 16 Don, 'cause I have no idea. We just need to make sure the 17 rules say what -- 18 MR. DON VOELKEL: Right. Say "DWG" or -- 19 MR. LEE VOELKEL: A DWG can be altered, whereas a 20 TIF or another type file is basically permanent; you can't 21 make changes on it. Which would be something that you'd 22 probably want to use, as it's something that can't be changed. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other issue here is that 24 we -- I tried to bring it up when we did this in the budget 25 issue, is that what's Road and Bridge going to do? I mean, 10-10-06 108 1 how are they going to access these plats without having to 2 print it? 3 MR. DON VOELKEL: Maybe you could turn them all in 4 to the County Surveyor and he keep them. 5 MR. ODOM: He does it for a bargain, doesn't he? 6 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Sure. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That salary just came down 8 again, troublemaker. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's going to earn his 10 salary now. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My point on this one is, we need 12 to make sure that our rules reflect exactly what we're going 13 to require. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 15 MR. DON VOELKEL: You got to turn in something, 16 media that y'all can review. 17 MR. ODOM: How do you do this if you don't have -- 18 MS. HARDIN: What they're doing is scanning them 19 after the fact. After y'all have completed the mylar and they 20 come in, then she scans it. 21 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Okay. So she just needs a mylar, 22 then. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The issue is, our rules are 24 predicated on the final plat, on the size being to fit the 25 plat cabinets. We're not going to have plat cabinets any 10-10-06 109 1 more, so -- and we also referred to a DWG format. I need to 2 make sure that what our rules say we need, we actually need. 3 And I think it was one of the other meetings that someone in 4 here said, Why do we -- if we're going to -- why scan it? Why 5 do a mylar and scan it if you're going to -- why not just get 6 it digital to start with? From the surveyors, as opposed -- 7 MS. PIEPER: The reason we're not getting digital to 8 start with, they have to take it to all the different entities 9 for signatures, so by the time it gets to us, it's a finished 10 product, other than y'all's approval and the stuff we have to 11 put on it at that point. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, you still want the 13 mylars to come in as they do? 14 MR. DON VOELKEL: But you're not restricted to 21 by 15 26 any more. 16 MS. PIEPER: I think it will be, like, 36 by 17 whatever. 18 MR. DON VOELKEL: 24 to 36 is what a normal plat's 19 at. 20 MS. PIEPER: Right. I think the -- as far as the 21 length, I don't think it matters. But as far as the -- I 22 think standard is 36. 23 MR. DON VOELKEL: Sheet sizes are 24 by 36 that we 24 could probably utilize. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Jannett, prior to -- if 10-10-06 110 1 you can look up and see whatever size you need to fit, if 2 there is a limitation on the length or anything like that, so 3 we can put it in the rules when we're putting these out for -- 4 they'll be back on our agenda next meeting to set a public 5 hearing date. Just so we can get it by then, so we can make 6 sure that we're not -- we're requiring what we need to 7 facilitate the change you're making. 8 MS. PIEPER: Well, even if the different surveying 9 companies have a different -- have different sizes -- 10 MR. DON VOELKEL: Long as it's no more than 11 36 inches. 12 MS. PIEPER: Right, as long as it's no wider than 13 36, then that'll be fine. That way they don't have to change 14 their system. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Well, right now we're 16 restrictive on some, and some have complained about the fact 17 that we don't allow larger -- 18 MS. PIEPER: And the only reason is because they 19 won't fit in the plat cabinet. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But there won't be an 21 issue any more. 22 MS. PIEPER: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- is DWG the electronic 24 version that we need to get? Do we care if we get an 25 electronic version? Do we want an electronic version? We 10-10-06 111 1 don't want it? We don't need it? 2 MS. PIEPER: We don't need it. 3 MR. DON VOELKEL: No, if she's scanning them -- and 4 she's got a point. That way, when all the signatures get on 5 there, your-all's signatures and ours, and she gets the final 6 copy, instead of just sticking it in the drawer, you're just 7 going to scan it. And do we get that back? What happens to 8 it? 9 MS. PIEPER: You get yours back. 10 MR. DON VOELKEL: So we -- so then we'll have the 11 copy for our files and she'll have the -- 12 MR. ODOM: Copy for the County. We're going to 13 continue doing the same thing as we are, the same amount of 14 copies for y'all's review. 15 MR. DON VOELKEL: Right, it will be the same. 16 MR. ODOM: Okay. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question? 18 MR. DIGGES: What if we were to just use prints, if 19 we're going to scan it anyway? 'Cause I don't know about 20 y'all, but I have trouble with the mylar just accepting my 21 seal, and the ink takes so long to dry. 22 MR. DON VOELKEL: Our seals are no problem. Just 23 kidding. 24 MR. DIGGES: But, anyway, when you view a mylar, 25 it's a more expensive medium and it takes longer for the ink 10-10-06 112 1 to dry where you sign your name or you affix a seal. 2 MR. DON VOELKEL: Or a notary seal. Notary seals 3 are even worse. 4 MS. PIEPER: That would be a call for Commissioners, 5 because with me scanning it in, it wouldn't matter. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What would be the -- the 7 opposite of that? I mean -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paper? 9 MR. DON VOELKEL: Yeah. The reason we had mylar to 10 begin with is everybody had blueprint machines, and it had to 11 be -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 13 MR. DON VOELKEL: -- transparent, and it was more 14 permanent. But if she's not even going to put anything in her 15 file that y'all just -- Charlie's right; we can just submit 16 paper copies that are signed, and once she scans them, her 17 image doesn't care what the material is. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And not even to mention the 19 cost of a mylar to you. 20 MR. DON VOELKEL: Or to our clients. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, your client, of course. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right, we'll make that 23 change. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what did we do? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paper copies. 10-10-06 113 1 MS. HARDIN: Are we still going to continue to get a 2 finished copy after it's filed? 3 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does -- what does this 5 paper look like? 6 MR. DON VOELKEL: It's just bond paper, like 7 20-pound bond paper. 8 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Like the plats you had this 9 morning in Commissioners Court. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And is that what Road and 11 Bridge is going to get? 12 MR. DON VOELKEL: Yes. 13 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that'll work. 15 MR. DON VOELKEL: Now, did you say we can go with 24 16 by 36, then, automatically, so that it fits with Jannett's 17 thing and we get more on a page? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 24 by 36 is fine with me. I 19 just need to make sure if it's -- may even be larger than 20 that. 21 MR. DON VOELKEL: I think there's pros for that, 22 because the more you put on it, the less pages she has to 23 submit through there. And, you know, if we'll -- as long as 24 we work with Len and the scale is all right, if we get more on 25 one page, that's less pages she has to file in her -- 10-10-06 114 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can your scanner handle a 2 24/36? 3 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- and, Charlie, are you 5 cool with that particular size? 6 MR. DIGGES: That's a standard size that all 7 surveyors and engineers are going to work with. It's called a 8 Size D drawing. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 24/36. 10 MR. DIGGES: Most people order that. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Or smaller. I guess it 12 could be smaller. 13 MR. DON VOELKEL: Yeah, if someone wants to. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Up to. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. The next thing I 16 have is on Page 30, 6.03.C.17. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 30? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thanks, Jannett. 30, C.17. Do 19 we want the -- on the final plat, do we want the floodplain 20 outlined? There's been -- 21 MR. DON VOELKEL: I took the liberty of making some 22 copies. We came across an old subdivision that was over on 23 Lemos Street; it's called the Seeker Addition. It's right 24 next to where Hill Country Federal Credit Union building -- 25 their building. And back in the '70's, we platted that, and 10-10-06 115 1 they at that time, just like y'all now, required the base 2 flood elevation, the B.F.E., to be shown. And if you look on 3 there, it says 1,620 is the base flood elevation. Well, now 4 the maps have -- that was in the 1970's or '80's. Now, in 5 '97, the base flood elevations changed; the maps changed. In 6 2000, they changed again. If you look at this map -- this is 7 the most current map that came out in 2000 -- the elevation is 8 1,625. So, if someone built on that property and came out 9 there and looked at this subdivision plat that's in the 10 records, and they said, "It's 1,620; let's build it at 1,621," 11 they go in there and build it, then they find out, wait a 12 minute, we're 4 feet in the floodplain. Well, what we 13 suggested -- and we talked with Charlie Hastings and Paul 14 Menzies before Paul left. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You should have stopped before 16 you brought that up. 17 MR. DON VOELKEL: Charlie Hastings, who is the City 18 Engineer and the City Public Works guy there, we showed him 19 this same situation, and he said, Well, let's leave -- what we 20 came up with was leaving the shaded area on there, and put a 21 note, "Not a base flood elevation." Because that's the 22 problem that arises when the floodplain changes. Just put a 23 note on the plat saying -- and you can even specifically say 24 Lots 13 and 15 have areas as of this date, and referencing 25 this map, show areas in the 100-year floodplain. Before any 10-10-06 116 1 construction is done on those lots, you should get with the 2 Floodplain Administrator, either the City or County, if it's 3 in the ETJ, and determine the elevation to build so that, you 4 know, you're not -- which they have to do anyway. If they're 5 building in the floodplain, they have to do it. The problem 6 about putting an elevation is, if the floodplain changes, like 7 it has twice in the last six years, then that is -- it's 8 misleading the public. Because that right there, the only way 9 to get that off is to file a replat. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are you going to put in 11 your note on the plats? 12 MR. DON VOELKEL: We would come up with a note that 13 we can work with -- with y'all and Len, something to the 14 effect that these lots that show the shaded area -- not turn a 15 deaf ear. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just give me the words. 17 MR. DON VOELKEL: Put a shaded area and say, These 18 lots that show the shaded area have areas within the 100-year 19 floodplain, and before any construction is built on any of 20 these lots that show the shaded area, you must get with the 21 Floodplain Administrator to come up with an acceptable 22 elevation for your -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To -- to establish the 24 current B.F.E. 25 MR. DON VOELKEL: Right, at the time that the 10-10-06 117 1 building is done. Even though the floodplain may have 2 changed. That way you're tied to wherever the floodplain is. 3 There's some areas out in Alpine Drive that dropped 4 feet 4 because the flows were different, lower. But that way, you 5 show them that there's floodplain, but you don't nail them 6 down to something that might change. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree with you. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Makes sense. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 MR. DON VOELKEL: In other words, still protect the 11 public by showing them without hindering them. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just add the current B.F.E. 13 MR. DON VOELKEL: In the meantime, between now -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Between now and 15 construction. 16 MR. DON VOELKEL: We could come up with a statement 17 that Len and Truby are happy with and y'all are happy with, 18 and all the engineers and surveyors can live with so that they 19 don't handcuff themselves. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you have that by tomorrow? 21 MR. DON VOELKEL: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, is everybody that's 23 writing this statement -- is everybody Aggies? Or can we get 24 a Baylor Bear in this thing? 25 MR. DON VOELKEL: No problem. We'll write it real 10-10-06 118 1 slow. (Laughter.) 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Write it so I can understand 3 it, will you? 4 MR. ODOM: Well, I don't know -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Crayolas. 6 MR. ODOM: I would have to go back. I want to 7 review 44 C.F.R. 34. I don't think there's any federal 8 statute that says you have to have -- you have to delineate 9 the flood hazard area. I don't know if it says finished floor 10 or not; I can't recall, so I got to go back and read that 11 thing again. But if there's a federal mandate, we need to do 12 it. If there's not a federal mandate, that's all right. I 13 think the wording should be -- and certainly in the -- into 14 the general notes, that we would specify these shaded areas, 15 but I would like to think that we would identify Lot 3, Lot 5 16 or 6 -- 17 MR. DON VOELKEL: Right. 18 MR. ODOM: -- has to go to the Floodplain 19 Administrator for the county for development permit, something 20 in that neighborhood. 21 MR. DON VOELKEL: Prior to any construction. 22 MR. ODOM: That could go along with that, and it 23 will change. Yes, it does change, but these people also are 24 not exempt from that. But the problem is, I may not know 25 until they get finished slab and then they go for O.S.S.F. 10-10-06 119 1 So -- 2 MR. DON VOELKEL: That's why we need to say prior to 3 any construction. 4 MR. ODOM: Prior to any construction. 5 MR. DON VOELKEL: That lets them know they don't do 6 anything until they get to you. 7 MR. ODOM: I don't really have a problem with that, 8 other than if 44 C.F.R. says it has to be done, then that's 9 federal mandate. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, we can check on that. 11 Even if it did -- if it does mandate it, you can do it with 12 the plat note and designate -- say, put a note that, hey, 13 these -- the B.F.E. may change. 14 MR. ODOM: Yeah, but we need to designate the flood 15 hazard areas, and some kind of note to alert them to get a 16 development permit so we can talk to them and explain the 17 hazards and the problems when they get into the "X" area. 18 MR. DIGGES: Can we also say the B.F.E. could 19 possibly change, but also the shaded area? Because sometimes 20 the shaded area changes with the B.F.E., and sometimes they're 21 looking at that drawing and they're seeing where that shaded 22 area is relative to the lot, and it's shifting, sometimes 50, 23 100 feet. 24 MR. DON VOELKEL: But that's why we're going to put 25 on the note saying that the shaded area shown as of this date 10-10-06 120 1 by this map, that's the location of the floodplain. 2 MR. ODOM: Off the 19 July 2000, is what you're 3 basing it on. 4 MR. DON VOELKEL: Reference that map, and say prior 5 to any construction, you should get with the Floodplain 6 Administrator and verify that, you know, the actual 7 elevations. So that if it's changed, great. If it hasn't, 8 then we're all right. 9 MR. DIGGES: I'd like -- I put a footnote on there 10 that the shaded area changes, because it does. And you -- as 11 long as that's okay. 12 MR. ODOM: That's okay. You can delineate even more 13 on there. The more you put, the more -- 14 MR. DON VOELKEL: As long as you put the minimum. 15 MR. ODOM: The minimum that's required. We have a 16 minimum that we have to do. We have to show that area. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. We'll get something, 18 and then we can get it on the -- out to the public to look at. 19 Page 40, Paragraph (b) at the top. That first sentence reads 20 right now, "Base on all streets and roads shall have a 21 compacted base depth of not less than 6 inches and shall be 22 constructed..." It needs to say "6 or 8, as applicable." 23 'Cause some roads require 8 inches now, so we need to have -- 24 it needs to be 6 or 8, as applicable. And then the last one 25 that I had is under -- on Page 44. In the chart, we need to 10-10-06 121 1 put a -- a footnote below the chart for both the minimum 2 compacted depth of base and the minimum base material. Need 3 to add a footnote that says "or equivalent, as approved by the 4 County Flood" -- County -- what are you called? Whatever his 5 title -- 6 MR. ODOM: Floodplain Administrator is what y'all 7 have been calling me. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, Subdivision Administrator. 9 By the County Subdivision -- 10 MR. DON VOELKEL: Development? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, say County Subdivision 12 Administrator. And the reason is, on both the minimum 13 compacted depth and the material, lots of times we have 14 existing roads that are taken into subdivisions, and it's not 15 reasonable to go back and tear up a road because you don't 16 have 8 inches of depth. But the material there is thick 17 enough and good enough that Len's comfortable. And we just 18 did one recently the other day, and this just gives him the 19 flexibility to say -- it may not be -- this way he's not 20 accused of being -- showing favoritism, giving him a little 21 bit of flexibility. "Okay, there may not be 8 inches of 22 compacted base here of Grade 2 -- Type C, Grade 2, but it's 23 equivalent, and therefore I'm going to approve it." This just 24 gives him the authority to expand that a little bit. That was 25 all that I had that I've noted we need to make corrections to. 10-10-06 122 1 MS. HARDIN: One on Page 33. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 33? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page? 4 MS. HARDIN: 6.05.A, the very last sentence doesn't 5 have -- it's not complete. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Notice shall be paid for by..." 7 By somebody, evidently. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By who? Developer? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unfortunately, by law, it's by 10 Kerr County. We need to add, "cost of such notice shall be 11 paid for by Kerr County." 12 MR. DON VOELKEL: Yours doesn't have that last 13 sentence where it says "developer"? 14 MR. ODOM: Can we not have a higher standard that 15 would be the -- not the taxpayers, but the person that's 16 developing it? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the -- but the statute's 18 real clear on that, as I recall, and it says the county shall 19 do it. Yours says "developer"? 20 MR. DON VOELKEL: Ours says -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me see your book. 22 MR. LEE VOELKEL: I thought a cancellation was by 23 the developer. 24 MR. DON VOELKEL: See there? "Developer." 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's different in my book. 10-10-06 123 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is talking about 2 cancellation. 3 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Right, which is paid for by the 4 developer, I thought. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I would too. 6 MS. HARDIN: Cancellation of a subdivision? All 7 those have always been paid for by the Court. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we prohibited from requiring 9 them -- if we're required to pay it, from requiring them to 10 reimburse us for it, for the cost? 11 MR. DON VOELKEL: We just paid that for -- 12 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Yeah, Jannett had us pay it. 13 MR. DON VOELKEL: We've been paying it. Like the 14 one we just did today, we paid the notice in the paper. 15 That's what this says. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On a revision, we have to pay 17 for it. 18 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Correct, on notice for revision. 19 MR. ODOM: This is cancellation. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So cancellation -- 21 MR. DON VOELKEL: This came off y'all's web site, I 22 think. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sometimes we get our copies -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Mine is zero. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The version here says, "shall be 10-10-06 124 1 paid for by developer and shall be included in subdivision 2 permitting fee; see Appendix F." 3 MR. DON VOELKEL: Do you want to make a copy of 4 that? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make a copy of that before you 6 leave. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're going from Kerr 8 County to the developer, huh? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's the developer. 10 MR. DON VOELKEL: Wait a minute. You may have 11 e-mailed us this, Jonathan. 12 MS. HARDIN: It's not on the web site. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We got a copy somewhere. 14 MR. DIGGES: Gillespie County makes you pay for the 15 disk. I don't know if it's legal or not, but if you want to 16 get your plat approved -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can -- I think you can 18 increase your fees to cover it through a back-door way, but 19 it's pretty explicit. It says "County shall pay it." 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember about a hundred 21 years ago, when we were building these things, our legal 22 advice was to put the words in, "the County shall cause" the 23 developer to pay for it. That would mean they could pay for 24 it up front -- County pay for it and be reimbursed. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can look at it, but it was -- 10-10-06 125 1 one of our legal rulings was -- it says the County was paying 2 for it. Now, it didn't say that -- it didn't say that we 3 couldn't -- our fees should be -- can't be set in a manner 4 that it covers that, but -- well, this one in this case, the 5 developer can pay for it. So -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good. 7 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Cancellation, developer pays. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 9 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Good. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Any other? Mr. Wells, 11 welcome. 12 MR. WELLS: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Councilman Meek, welcome. 14 MR. DON VOELKEL: I had a situation in a neighboring 15 county to the east in a big -- large 12,000-acre development 16 we had done, and a neighbor -- there was a cul-de-sac and a 17 line went off at an angle when they platted it, and then the 18 neighbors got together and said, "That's not right; let's 19 straighten it out." So, the -- the development officer of 20 that county said, "Well, this is not a replat; this is an 21 amending plat," and they let me do an amending plat process 22 the way we -- Rex and we talked about. Remember, we talked 23 about all that? Verbatim, the way we had tried to get it 24 done. They said we do not have to have notice. When you come 25 in with an amending plat, you don't have to do all that other 10-10-06 126 1 rigmarole. And I just don't know why some counties can view 2 the law one way, and our -- I don't know. I mean, that's my 3 question to y'all, is, is that a dead horse; we shouldn't be 4 kicking on it? Or is it something we can -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All we can do in Kerr County is, 6 we read the rules and rely on our County Attorney to interpret 7 the state law, and we follow that law. Other counties can do 8 as they choose. 9 MR. DON VOELKEL: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was it again? Tell me 11 what it was again. 12 MR. DON VOELKEL: It was in Champee Springs, and two 13 neighbors -- these weren't half-acre tracts where we were 14 moving a line. It was several hundred-acre tracts, and they 15 were just amending the location of their boundary line. And 16 they weren't creating any new lots; they weren't creating any 17 new building lots or any more septic tanks or wells, so the 18 development officer said, "This is not a replat," and no -- 19 all the notice and all the -- you had to get all the adjoining 20 landowners notified by certified mail and all. He said, "This 21 is just amending that plat; we're not building..." -- he said, 22 "Let's do it that way," and that's the way we did that process 23 that we had talked about several months ago. About -- and 24 we're not saying everybody in the county should get an 25 amending plat. On specific situations like relocation of a 10-10-06 127 1 boundary line between two lots or combining -- my big thing is 2 combining lots. I was trying to make it easy for somebody to 3 come in with two 5-acre tracts to combine them into one, and 4 an amending plat allows for that. But that's what the -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But amending the plat isn't in 6 Section 232. 7 MR. ODOM: That's right. 8 MR. DON VOELKEL: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You mean, Don, doing those 10 things without coming through the Commissioners Court? 11 MR. DON VOELKEL: No. No, it went through 12 Commissioners Court as an amending plat. Not a replat. And 13 the difference is, a replat requires notice of -- like, if 14 you're taking a 10-acre tract, cutting it into two, you're 15 resubdividing that land, and that's a replat. There has to be 16 notification to everybody. But if you read the articles in 17 the -- the amending plat is where you're tweaking a line, like 18 moving it over 10 feet because of a house problem or 19 something. Or -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And your only issue is the 21 notification part of it? 22 MR. DON VOELKEL: Right. You don't have to do the 23 notification, and you just come in with an amending plat and 24 you don't have to notify -- we didn't have to notify everybody 25 in that 12,000-acre development. We just came in -- now, 10-10-06 128 1 other developments we have where we've done two or three lots 2 and made five out of them, we did that replat procedure. But 3 the amending plat, if you look at that language -- and it -- 4 the one word in there that kicked it is the word that said 5 "and." And it was -- it was this situation of over 5 million 6 people or something, and if you read it saying you got to have 7 both, then it -- it doesn't do it. I think that's the way we 8 were reading it. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the same thing -- let's 10 say you had a 100-acre lot with a line down the middle; you 11 had two 50's, and you want to move that line to where you're 12 creating a 20-acre lot. I mean, that's a pretty substantial 13 move over there. Even then? 14 MR. DON VOELKEL: I don't think it differentiates, 15 as long as you're not creating a new building -- a new lot or 16 a new, you know, reason for a septic and a well, though. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what Don's talking about is 18 a special provision allotted to counties that neighbor Bexar 19 County. We don't qualify. We can't, by law. I mean, just -- 20 it doesn't exist. It does exist for Kendall County, Bandera, 21 Comal, Hays. 22 MR. EMERSON: Kendall -- counties that adjoin a 23 county with a net population of -- I forget what the base is. 24 MR. ODOM: 100,000. 25 MR. EMERSON: Have special powers that we don't 10-10-06 129 1 have. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hey, Don? Don? Shut up. 3 MR. DON VOELKEL: I'm not talking any more. I just 4 need that check. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It ain't going to work. 6 MR. ODOM: But -- yeah. But we did, in court -- I 7 don't think you were here, but if you have metes and bounds, 8 then you could still do that without -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're not in a subdivision, 10 you can do it. 11 MR. DON VOELKEL: That's right. 12 MR. ODOM: But if it's a platted subdivision, you're 13 going to go through revision of plat. 14 MR. DON VOELKEL: Revision of plat. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lee? 16 MR. LEE VOELKEL: On Page 30, Jonathan, we talked 17 about revising that from a 100-year floodplain. That's the 18 B.F.E. issue again. I was just going to make a note, if that 19 does change, in the final plat, if you'll flip back over to 20 Page 26 and make the same change on the preliminary plat, 21 'cause it's always been a requirement on the preliminary plat 22 also. 6.02.C.13. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 6.02? 24 MR. LEE VOELKEL: C.13. If it's going to be removed 25 on the final, it needs to be removed there in the preliminary 10-10-06 130 1 also. And then, along those same lines -- this is food for 2 thought. If you'll go back to Page 19, at the bottom of the 3 page in Section 5.05, it talks about concrete monuments. I 4 don't know that there would be a need for a certified -- a 5 certified benchmark elevation on a concrete monument if we're 6 not showing the B.F.E.'s. And -- and believe it or not, the 7 -- the certified benchmark elevations are difficult for 8 surveyors, because we're basically -- in the county or in 9 rural areas, the nearest benchmark may be 5, 6 miles away, and 10 if you have to carry an elevation from that point to your 11 subdivision, it gets quite difficult. 12 MR. ODOM: Using a FEMA benchmark is what you're 13 supposed to do, so maybe we could reference the reference 14 mark. 15 MR. LEE VOELKEL: The nearest FEMA benchmark? 16 MR. ODOM: Nearest mark. And then you'd have to 17 pick it up from there. But, technically, you're supposed to 18 be off of FEMA. The nearest FEMA benchmark, and that may be 19 miles. 20 MR. DON VOELKEL: Most of the FEMA benchmarks are on 21 the river. And a few studied creeks, but mainly along the 22 river. 23 MR. LEE VOELKEL: In other words, Len, you're 24 thinking if we have a benchmark at a sub, we really shouldn't 25 be using that one anyway, because -- 10-10-06 131 1 MR. ODOM: Well, we've come off a reference mark 2 from a highway department or something else, off the top of a 3 structure, you know. Don't make a liar out of me right now. 4 MR. LEE VOELKEL: I like the way you're thinking. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So where's the concrete 6 monument? What -- 7 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Page 19 at the bottom, 5.05. 8 MR. DON VOELKEL: Y'all may have gotten that 9 deleted. 10 MR. ODOM: We probably should reference the nearest 11 FEMA -- 12 MR. LEE VOELKEL: I think that would be appropriate. 13 Put the benchmark RM number on there. 14 MR. ODOM: RM number on there. 15 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Reference where it is. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you're saying that 17 concrete monuments are going the way of trains and libraries? 18 MR. DON VOELKEL: And mylars. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And mylars. 20 MR. LEE VOELKEL: That's right. That's right, if 21 that's okay. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wish Number 4 was here to 23 hear that. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about nails in the -- 25 through bottlecaps, like you got a notation on one of the 10-10-06 132 1 plats this morning? 2 MR. LEE VOELKEL: That was a new one to me. Did you 3 do that? 4 MR. DON VOELKEL: No, wasn't me. 5 MR. LEE VOELKEL: That's a new one to me. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was on one of the plats; 7 showed a particular marker, a nail through a bottlecap. 8 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Okay. Not a benchmark, maybe just 9 a regular -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do that all the time. 11 MR. LEE VOELKEL: They're a lot easier to get in the 12 ground. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, we'll look at that one. 14 Anything else? 15 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Only other thing I had, Jon, I 16 think it's kind of picky, but let's look at it on Page 31. It 17 talks about the process of submitting the final plat and 18 filing the final plat. And, to me, when you -- when it talks 19 about, in 6.03.E, submitting a final plat, that's when you 20 hand it out for review, take your routing slip and get 21 everything, and at that time we're paying fees for final plat. 22 So, my thought would be that we jump down to 6.03.F.2, and 23 instead of paying that when you file the plat, you pay that 24 when you submit the plat. Which is what we're doing right 25 now. Does that make sense? When you take a copy to the 10-10-06 133 1 County Clerk, she signs a routing slip, we normally take her a 2 check for the fee for recording the plat, and that's done when 3 the plat is submitted. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we move F.2 up to D? 5 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Up to E. Does that make sense? 6 MR. ODOM: Yeah, that makes sense. 7 MR. DON VOELKEL: That's the way we're doing it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And tax certificates say -- 9 MR. LEE VOELKEL: And the tax certificates we're 10 really not doing when it's submitted; we're doing as they file 11 -- or before they file the plat. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 MR. LEE VOELKEL: There might be something you want 14 to change, but right now, that's kind of the process on the 15 certificates. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do what's working, okay. 17 MR. ODOM: May I? We had a reference here -- Wayne 18 is here. May I ask him what they do in Gillespie County for 19 benchmark for monument and all? 20 MR. WELLS: Oh, gosh. I just know they require a 21 concrete monument, 'cause I don't get into that. Dwayn takes 22 care of all floodplain stuff. 23 MR. ODOM: The Commissioner does. That sounds like 24 a good idea. 25 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Dwayn Boos. 10-10-06 134 1 MR. ODOM: Dwayn Boos or the County Judge, either 2 one. Sounds good to me. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anything else? 4 MR. LEE VOELKEL: That's it for me. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Pretty minor stuff for 6 the most part, so we'll try to get -- Carl, we mentioned 7 previously, there -- or I mentioned to the Court, while you're 8 here, that we need to take -- the County take a long, hard 9 look at the City's new rules. 10 MR. MEEK: Good. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll be doing that. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: ETJ. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: ETJ rules. 14 MR. MEEK: So, they have furnished you with a copy? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I got a copy. The rest of the 16 Court did not, but I'll give them the copy that I had. 17 MR. MEEK: Are there any comments you'd like me to 18 carry to our meeting tonight? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The comment that I have is that 20 the -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I don't think you were 23 present. The meeting Commissioner Baldwin and I had with Paul 24 Hofmann was -- 25 MR. MEEK: Today? Or when was that? 10-10-06 135 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that was a year ago, almost. 2 MR. MEEK: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last December. And that the -- 4 this whole process was supposed to have very minor changes, 5 and we expect the City to be living up to that; very minor 6 changes in the ETJ, and that they should be basically in 7 conformity with the county rules with some minor changes to 8 that. 9 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Have they not done that, in your 10 opinion? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not the draft that I've 12 seen. The City has not acted on anything at this time. 13 They've just -- the draft they furnished us came out of P & Z, 14 and the rules are substantially different and much more 15 onerous than ETJ -- than the County's current rules are, and 16 that was not the intent of the meeting we had with 17 Mr. Hofmann. 18 MR. MEEK: You might be curious to know, in P & Z 19 last week, P & Z was not ready to recommend them to City 20 Council either. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 MR. MEEK: Is it -- am I correct, for this to go 23 forward, the County needs to agree to these amended changes? 24 Is that correct? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to agree to the rules in 10-10-06 136 1 the ETJ, yes. 2 MR. MEEK: Because it's the City Manager's opinion 3 that you do not, so I would like -- I'd like to carry 4 something back to that meeting. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a time frame that the 6 City and the County needed to get together to agree one way or 7 the other, and if that couldn't happen, then the State was 8 going to -- there was -- the State was going to make the 9 decision for us. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which we went over there in 12 good faith and sat down and agreed. I mean, it was great. I 13 liked what they were saying. But now it's a totally -- 14 completely, totally different. I'd really like to tell you 15 what I really feel, but there's ladies in the room. 16 MR. LEE VOELKEL: I can leave. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Carl, I think -- as I understand 18 it, the process is, yes, there is -- we don't have any 19 authority to approve the City's rules for the ETJ; the City 20 can do what they want. City Council can do what they want 21 there. However, the law says we have to have one set of rules 22 there. If the County doesn't agree with those rules, we'll 23 just opt out of the agreement, and then we're back to where we 24 were a year ago, having two separate rules, and we're out of 25 compliance with state law. And if we -- my understanding is 10-10-06 137 1 that at some point, it goes to a third party to come up with a 2 new set of rules. 3 MR. MOTHERAL: May I make a suggestion? If you 4 and/or whomever else on the Court would like, please come and 5 attend the next P & Z meeting, because that's supposed to come 6 up again, and there are a number of things that will affect 7 you that are not in your current rules the way it is currently 8 written. I have not seen the revision that we told them to 9 make -- or revisions, and it's important that we have your 10 input. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. When's the next P & Z -- 12 MR. MOTHERAL: A week from next Thursday. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Send me an e-mail, Bruce. 14 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. 15 MR. MEEK: And should anyone wish to attend -- any 16 of you gentlemen wish to attend this evening's Council 17 meeting, it would be appreciated. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a headache. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a headache, too. 20 (Laughter.) 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We may not get out of here 22 in time. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 24 MR. MEEK: It's asked to be adopted on first reading 25 tonight. It's posted for that. 10-10-06 138 1 MR. LEE VOELKEL: And yet the P & Z didn't push it 2 on the -- 3 MR. MEEK: P and Z did not recommend it. 4 MR. MOTHERAL: We recommended that it not be. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're getting astray, I think, a 6 little bit from our workshop, but it's good information. 7 Mr. Wells? 8 MR. WELLS: I've got one problem, and I don't know 9 how to address it, really. But it's required that you give a 10 detailed drainage plan with your preliminary plats, and 11 normally engineers don't go into a detailed drainage study on 12 a preliminary plat. They're back into the final plat. It's 13 subject to being changed by not only the developer or the 14 engineer and Commissioners Court, but everybody else. So -- 15 and their input. But then, if you say, well, we'll go with 16 the final plat, I don't know whether Kerr County has 17 experienced it or not, but Gillespie County has, where the 18 developer didn't file the final plat until he was finished 19 with construction. So -- 20 MR. MOTHERAL: In Gillespie County, do you require 21 construction drawings before they can begin construction? 22 MR. WELLS: Yes. See, and that's the plan profile 23 drawings. 24 MR. MOTHERAL: That drainage should be -- the 25 drainage plan should be filed with the construction plans. 10-10-06 139 1 MR. WELLS: Plan profiles. 2 MR. ODOM: With the plan profiles, is the way it 3 should come under. 4 MR. WELLS: I think we've got language in there that 5 they can't start substantial construction until they have plan 6 and profile and drainage studies approved. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So what you're saying, I 8 think -- I need to go back and find it. We need to look at 9 when the requirement is for the drainage. 10 MR. WELLS: And what we've done, though, with Falls 11 Ranch is they gave a -- an overall drainage study with Falls 12 Ranch on preliminary, where it says, okay, here we don't have 13 the required -- you know, we're not going to be required to 14 have detention on a project. And it was just -- that's great, 15 but you didn't provide all the detailed information that's 16 required by the regs. And so, you know, I told them, you 17 know, since this is a preliminary plat, you know, y'all can go 18 ahead, but when you provide the plan profiles, I want to see a 19 detailed drainage plan. And have we gotten one, Len? Did 20 they bring one over? 21 MR. ODOM: I don't think so. 22 MR. WELLS: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, we'll look at that. We'll 24 probably try to to give as much flexibility to you and to Len 25 as to -- I mean, the idea is that we need to have the 10-10-06 140 1 subdivision engineer working with you and Len during that 2 whole process. And we'll figure out how we can maybe make it 3 a little bit clearer. Okay. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Okay. Let's fold up 5 that portion of it, then, and I think we've -- now we need to 6 go into executive. Is that correct, gentlemen? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have fun tonight, Carl. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: It is 2:53, and we will go out of 9 public or open session. 10 (The open session was closed at 2:53 p.m., and an executive session was held, the transcript of which 11 is contained in a separate document.) 12 - - - - - - - - - - 13 JUDGE TINLEY: It's 3:08, and we're back in open or 14 public session, and we will be in recess, subject to the call 15 of the Chair, but not later than -- than 3 p.m. tomorrow. 16 But, obviously, that could be much, much sooner, depending 17 upon developments. 18 (Recess taken from 3:08 p.m. to 3:31 p.m.) 19 - - - - - - - - - - 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll come back to order in 21 Kerr County Commissioners Court. We were in recess. It 22 appears that developments are not going to permit us to make 23 any final decisions on matters this afternoon, so we will be 24 in recess until -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2:00. About 2:00. 10-10-06 141 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want afternoon? Is that what 2 you prefer? Till 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon, and we will 3 reconvene at that time. The notice that we have posted now is 4 sufficient for us to carry forward, inasmuch as that's within 5 24 hours, so we'll stand in recess till 2 p.m. tomorrow 6 afternoon, the 11th of October. 7 (Commissioners Court was recessed at 3:22 p.m.) 8 - - - - - - - - - 9 10 11 STATE OF TEXAS | 12 COUNTY OF KERR | 13 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 14 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my 15 capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court 16 of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place 17 heretofore set forth. 18 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 16th day of 19 October, 2006. 20 21 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 22 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 25 10-10-06